Weekend citings

First topic message reminder :

During the Treviso-Leicester game, Alain Rolland, the ref I have frequently criticised of a showboater who makes important, controversial decisions to puff up his inflated ego, awarded a penalty try from twelve metres out.

Quite rightly too. Salvi's cynical entry was one of the most blatant pieces of cheating you could witness on a rugby pitch
However as well as a PT, Rolland should have issued Salvi a yellow card.

And in my opinion, such acts of gross cynicism should merit a ban from the citing commissioners under (in this case law 11 http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/Law_11_EN.pdf)

yappysnap wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree but from where I can see, and I have no particular dislike of SOB, Leinster or Irish rugby and no goodwill to an ASM side that scare the hell of me in case we have to play them and the standard English love of the underdog and mild dislike of the French as a generality, that early tackle is across Sivivatu's throat at the lowest if not jaw and is either a hook being thrown or a high tackle choking him. I'd think SOB should be further cited, but Barnes has a much better view than me so I suppose it comes down to trusting his judgement

+1

I have no ill will towards SOB or Ireland and a lot of respect for both, but i'm still surprised he hasn't been cited. I do also think if the players had been the other way round and it was a British Isles or Irish player then we'd be hearing a lot more about it too.

I said before that I thought it would get a citing, but this brings up a curiosity question. What has to be said/done in order for there to be a citing? Who can cite?

I've been on the presumption (which is the mother of all fv2k ups) that;
- there is an extra official in the crowd that can bring something to disciplinary boards attention [does that go straight to the disciplinary board, or does he discuss incidents with the referee? i.e. does the ref still the ultimate responsibility of and authority over the game?]
- the referee can reflect on tape and discuss with his officials after the game and if something happened that he did not spot/deal with in his best judgement at the time, he can refer it to the disciplinary boards attention
- either team playing in the game, can bring an incident to the disciplinary boards attention after the game [does that go straight to the disciplinary board, or does he discuss incidents with the referee? i.e. does the ref still the ultimate responsibility of and authority over the game?]

Plenty of presumptions here, but if Barnes writes his match report, what would he state in order for there to be no further action by a disciplinary board afterwards? Would he have had to write;
- he saw the incident from a good angle
- believed it was early and high
- believed that the award of a penalty and a yellow card was warranted
- that he did not believe there was any other view/evidence there to make him think it might have needed to be a red?

Also, if Sivi was KO'd as described above, would ASM's coach and medics not be raising the incident and reporting it for review? Or might they not wish to report it, as it would question how they left someone on the field who might have been unconscious when he should have been taken off to be assessed. Talk about a grey area.

My understanding is that a designated person attends the match and then views the tapes afterwards and refers any incidents he sees fit. The teams can ask him to look at any incident and decide whether or not to refer it.

I would imagine that the the ref is not involved in the process at that point.

Could be wrong but that is how I think it works.

From the ERC site.

"(ii) Citing commissioners are appointed by ERC for all Heineken Cup and all televised Amlin Challenge Cup matches and are entitled to make a citing complaint against a player for any act of foul play that, in the citing commissioner's opinion, warranted a red card. For such matches, clubs do not have the power to make a citing complaint against a player but may refer incidents to the citing commissioner.

The citing commissioner ordinarily has 50 hours from the start of the match to make a citing complaint and the determination of the citing commissioner is final and binding. The Disciplinary Officer may forward any citing complaint to a citing officer (or 'gatekeeper') to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for the citing complaint to proceed. If a citing complaint is to proceed, the Disciplinary Officer will then bring a complaint against the cited player before an independent judicial officer."


This applies to the HEC but I would think the rules are similar in all competitions.

MrsP wrote:

Was he unconscious?

Yes

Did he go off?

No

head injury assessment?

I assume the medical team let him carry on as he was only out cold for a few seconds.

Leinster have a history of getting away with lots of cheap shots at this level.

Didn't Cullen closed fist on a Clermont player last season - no sanction. It was a red card in the law book:

Spoiler:

= nothing

Spoiler:

= nothing

All 3 are reds in the law book. But Leinster are above the law.

Nice little gouge by Hines , that went unpunished here too:

Spoiler:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

MrsP wrote:

Was he unconscious?

Yes

Did he go off?

No

head injury assessment?

I assume the medical team let him carry on as he was only out cold for a few seconds.

Leinster have a history of getting away with lots of cheap shots at this level.

You know what happens when you assume.If he was unconcious then the medical team would have had a duty to put him in the concussion bin.

How are you so certain he was unconscious,were you talking to the player or one of the doctors?

Why have you such a hard on for Irish teams,do you truly believe that the officials treat our teams differently cos if you do there's no point debating with someone who's obviously delusional.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
You know what happens when you assume.If he was unconcious then the medical team would have had a duty to put him in the concussion bin.

How are you so certain he was unconscious,were you talking to the player or one of the doctors?

Because I watched the game. Your sidestepping of the thuggery and focus of an injury speaks volumes.

Leinster are unpunishable.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
You know what happens when you assume.If he was unconcious then the medical team would have had a duty to put him in the concussion bin.

How are you so certain he was unconscious,were you talking to the player or one of the doctors?

Because I watched the game. Your sidestepping of the thuggery and focus of an injury speaks volumes.

Leinster are unpunishable.

Lol I have already admitted he got the yellow he deserved,I'm not sidestepping anything I'm just questioning why you have to make things up to try and help your argument.

People do not go from being KO'd to being completely fit jogging back to their team in under 60 seconds.

He did not fall like someone who was unconscious and he did not behave like someone who had just been KO'd less than 60 seconds later. If a doctor allowed a player to continue playing after he had been KO'd and then assessed for less than 60 seconds, including recovery time, I would have serious concerns about their competence.

Perhaps YC for SOB and Oscar for Sivivatu would have been a fair outcome.

MrsP wrote:People do not go from being KO'd to being completely fit jogging back to their team in under 60 seconds.

Havent you ever watched soccer?

Not voluntarily PSW.

I suspect I would see the same sort of miraculous recovery in those matches that some seem to believe happened on Saturday.

Doesn't change my opinion that you quoted one iota.

If you got knocked out I doubt you would be back on your feet all guns blazing within a minute, if you were concussed, you could play on without knowing too much about it really.

The NFL has far greater instances of concussion and it seems as they are doing good things to combat players playing on with it. They do the whole independent doctor thing and if a guy is found to have it, he misses the rest of that game and usually one more at least. Of course with the helmets it's a far bigger issue in that sport.


Closer to home, the GAA are making mouth guards compulsory for all ages next year to try and improve the insntaces of it.

About 3 weeks ago I was knocked out in a match I was out for all of 5 seconds. I went off the pitch and for the next day I wasn't really with it entirely and I certainly didn't feel like going running around into Leinster players 60 seconds later. Yellow was appropriate I would say.
Also what is missed by citing commissioners or refs can hardly be blamed on the Irish I mean in the build up to Saints try at the weekend there was a fairly clear foul on an Ulster player but we move on and accept it.

Thomond wrote:

Closer to home, the GAA are making mouth guards compulsory for all ages next year to try and improve the insntaces of it.

Yeah lets not get into the "whats the actual evidence that mouthguards make any bit of difference for concussion" debate

neilthom7 wrote:About 3 weeks ago I was knocked out in a match I was out for all of 5 seconds. I went off the pitch and for the next day I wasn't really with it entirely and I certainly didn't feel like going running around into Leinster players 60 seconds later. Yellow was appropriate I would say.
Also what is missed by citing commissioners or refs can hardly be blamed on the Irish I mean in the build up to Saints try at the weekend there was a fairly clear foul on an Ulster player but we move on and accept it.

And lets not get into the "well I had norrovirus once and I couldnt play for the all blacks on the saturday" debate either

No we cant blame it on the irish, but I bet if we try hard enough we can blame it on PRL

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Thomond wrote:

Closer to home, the GAA are making mouth guards compulsory for all ages next year to try and improve the insntaces of it.

Yeah lets not get into the "whats the actual evidence that mouthguards make any bit of difference for concussion" debate

I won't proclaim to try and understand their logic was just merely pointing it out. I'm not sure if there have been studies to prove it either is or isn't effective but it is not something I have looked into in great detail.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:About 3 weeks ago I was knocked out in a match I was out for all of 5 seconds. I went off the pitch and for the next day I wasn't really with it entirely and I certainly didn't feel like going running around into Leinster players 60 seconds later. Yellow was appropriate I would say.
Also what is missed by citing commissioners or refs can hardly be blamed on the Irish I mean in the build up to Saints try at the weekend there was a fairly clear foul on an Ulster player but we move on and accept it.

And lets not get into the "well I had norrovirus once and I couldnt play for the all blacks on the saturday" debate either

No we cant blame it on the irish, but I bet if we try hard enough we can blame it on PRL

Well I am not sure what the first sentence implies but I am glad you are coming round to my way of thinking in the 2nd sentence lol It is what it is citing and refing is an inexact science.

Spoiler:

Okay finally got it,now you see the daylight between SoB's arm and Sivivatus chin.

Those videos from CN. Hines clearly puts the palm of his hand on the player on the ground. It wasnt a gouge. It wasnt a great move but it wasnt a hanging offence. The other 2 looked pretty clear though out of context its always hard to know how much the victims were milking it.

I'm pleased that examples of foul play which go unpunished are being replayed. Leinster do seem a little charmed in front (or in many cases, not) of the citings committee.

My OP however that extreme cynical play ought to be citable. Not only that routine cynical play should be worthy of a club coaching warning with referees being granted rights to penalise with cards of any appropriate colour on the basis is that such activity begins at the start of the game with an implicit warning.

greytiger wrote:I'm pleased that examples of foul play which go unpunished are being replayed. Leinster do seem a little charmed in front (or in many cases, not) of the citings committee.

My OP however that extreme cynical play ought to be citable. Not only that routine cynical play should be worthy of a club coaching warning with referees being granted rights to penalise with cards of any appropriate colour on the basis is that such activity begins at the start of the game with an implicit warning.

But then again, you could find plenty of examples of unpunished foul play by any team if you look for it. It is pretty sad that several people seem so bitter that they want to imply that this only applies to Leinster or Irish teams.

I see the Castres number 8 has been suspended for 8 weeks for stamping.

High entry point (9 weeks) with one week off for a clean record and not eating the blue Penguins.

Presumably high end because it wasnt to the head of a scotsman?

But it was.

Oh good point...obviously high end for not being an All Black then

MrsP wrote:

greytiger wrote:I'm pleased that examples of foul play which go unpunished are being replayed. Leinster do seem a little charmed in front (or in many cases, not) of the citings committee.

My OP however that extreme cynical play ought to be citable. Not only that routine cynical play should be worthy of a club coaching warning with referees being granted rights to penalise with cards of any appropriate colour on the basis is that such activity begins at the start of the game with an implicit warning.

But then again, you could find plenty of examples of unpunished foul play by any team if you look for it. It is pretty sad that several people seem so bitter that they want to imply that this only applies to Leinster or Irish teams.

That's true MrsP, loads of teams go into games with a pre-defined, pre-coached and cynical programmes of a cheating methodologies in certain phases of play. The Tigers used always to be roundly criticised for deliberate slowing of the ball at the breakdown but eventually got pinged out of it.

Currently sides with weaker scrums have their scrum-halves habitually feeding to the back row and rarely get pinged and never penalised.

Quality sides like the ABs and Leinster may go into games with cheating plans but have the nous to abandon them so far as possible once the ref susses them.

My main point is that the exceptional, egregious cynical play should be rewarded with an exemplary ban. At the weekend I was pointing to a Tigers' player being deservedly penalised for foul play and proposing a ban which under the current regulations is not possible.

So as a committed fan condemning his own side's player, an aside relating to another post about another team comes across is bit incongruous on which to be implicitly criticised.

greytiger wrote:

MrsP wrote:

greytiger wrote:I'm pleased that examples of foul play which go unpunished are being replayed. Leinster do seem a little charmed in front (or in many cases, not) of the citings committee.

My OP however that extreme cynical play ought to be citable. Not only that routine cynical play should be worthy of a club coaching warning with referees being granted rights to penalise with cards of any appropriate colour on the basis is that such activity begins at the start of the game with an implicit warning.

But then again, you could find plenty of examples of unpunished foul play by any team if you look for it. It is pretty sad that several people seem so bitter that they want to imply that this only applies to Leinster or Irish teams.

That's true MrsP, loads of teams go into games with a pre-defined, pre-coached and cynical programmes of a cheating methodologies in certain phases of play. The Tigers used always to be roundly criticised for deliberate slowing of the ball at the breakdown but eventually got pinged out of it.

Currently sides with weaker scrums have their scrum-halves habitually feeding to the back row and rarely get pinged and never penalised.

Quality sides like the ABs and Leinster may go into games with cheating plans but have the nous to abandon them so far as possible once the ref susses them.

My main point is that the exceptional, egregious cynical play should be rewarded with an exemplary ban. At the weekend I was pointing to a Tigers' player being deservedly penalised for foul play and proposing a ban which under the current regulations is not possible.

So as a committed fan condemning his own side's player, an aside relating to another post about another team comes across is bit incongruous on which to be implicitly criticised.

Ah hear now, you know full well that the purpose of 606v2 is for us all to hope on minor side comments or quips then grow them into full on arguments.

I agree with your assessment of that incident in the Tiger's game. As for a ban in those instances, I think there are plenty of easy wins that could be enforced before we get to this level of professionalism in foulplay.

MrsP wrote:

greytiger wrote:I'm pleased that examples of foul play which go unpunished are being replayed. Leinster do seem a little charmed in front (or in many cases, not) of the citings committee.

My OP however that extreme cynical play ought to be citable. Not only that routine cynical play should be worthy of a club coaching warning with referees being granted rights to penalise with cards of any appropriate colour on the basis is that such activity begins at the start of the game with an implicit warning.

But then again, you could find plenty of examples of unpunished foul play by any team if you look for it. It is pretty sad that several people seem so bitter that they want to imply that this only applies to Leinster or Irish teams.

It is interesting how we view the so-called 'cynical' play. First of all, I don't worry about Leinster or any Irish team. For me, it all starts with Leicester, aka. The Evil Empire. Why there? Because they are Leicester and I am a Saints fan.

More seriously, when I watched the recent Ulster-Saints matches, there was some 'edgy' play on both sides. But I wasn't complaining about it. Just the opposite, I was impressed how Ulster got away with something, and then 10 minutes later was saying how fortunate Saints were to get away with almost the same thing. In other words, when I saw borderline play executed well, I was thinking: "wow, that's well done". Not the opposite. I suppose pushing the envelope is all part of the game.

If you were to cite cynical foul play you would probably be better to just hold the hearing at the final whistle of every game and ban the entire squad of both teams there and then.

And GreyT, while you did indeed point to your own Tiggers as guilty of cynical play, it was Leinster who were being accused of getting away with "dirty" dangerous foul play.

There is a difference.

Yes MrsP, the difference is the Irish (and Bokke) are dirty nasty playes and the English smart.

Thats what you were saying right ?

You dropped your hat PSW!