Henderson's red card overturned - those damned TMOs.

First topic message reminder :

Basically creating this thread for Chunky so he can lay into TMOs when they make dodgy calls.....
Don't pull your punches this time Chunky!


On a more serious note though, like I've always asked - what happens in these cases behind the scenes???

Effectively - the panel has come out and said 'Errrr that was a wrong call'.

So, how many folks on here work in jobs where they do something wrong and the bosses shrug and say 'meh!'.

Not many I imagine.

Are refs and officials held to a high enough standard, that makes the tradition of respecting the ref easy to maintain?

If I sound like I have an agenda - it's probably because I do.

Do Nigel Owens or Kevin Beggs get penalised anyway for their incorrect call, do they at least get a 'refresher course' on this area of play. Or does nobody say anything, and allow them to continue earning a salary without question??

Hold on...

An all Welsh disciplinary committee found Iain Henderson innocent of any crime.

Surely they were lizard men from the new world order who had kidnapped the real officials and tied them up in the car park.

They were acting on behalf of the Irish Pro12 conspiracy.

I would class this action as disgraceful, shameless, and most likely disgusting and pathetic also.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:

The panel state they were able to look at the incident in "close-up". That is not something the TMO can do. You can interpret the quote that way if you want, but when you're relying on twisting words to make a tenuous case it's probably time to step back and reflect.

They say "close up" which was something the match referee was not able to do.

It s totally clear what that means. Using phrases like "extreme close ups" and saying that they saw footage the TMO didn't see is 100% inaccurate.

The outcome is absolutely bullsh1t as the footage clearly shows that his head connects first.

Its obviously not clear that it shows that as most on here see it otherwise and an independent panel too so saying that is 100% inaccurate

rodders wrote:Were 3 of them Alan Quinlan?

Quinny rarely got caught

Notch wrote:

BBC wrote:However, the committee concluded that Henderson's initial contact with his opponent "had not in fact been with his head but with his arm".

Who do they mean by "his". Are they saying that Henderson is ok because he made contact to the Munsters guy arm, or that he is OK because the contact was from Henderson's arm to the Munster player?

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:

BBC wrote:However, the committee concluded that Henderson's initial contact with his opponent "had not in fact been with his head but with his arm".

Who do they mean by "his". Are they saying that Henderson is ok because he made contact to the Munsters guy arm, or that he is OK because the contact was from Henderson's arm to the Munster player?

The second one

Chunky, watch it again it's clearly the forearm that connect with the player 1st.

That said i would still have given a 1 week ban for reckless play.

VinceWLB wrote:Chunky, watch it again it's clearly the forearm that connect with the player 1st.

That said i would still have given a 1 week ban for reckless play.

Vince don't try using reason logic and clear evidence with Chunky it doesn't work

It's hilarious watching Chunky trying to defend the TMO.

Only in Chunky's world

Notch - I don't agree that the same outcome occurred as if the card had been a yellow on the pitch. Yes the time sanction was the same but the preparation for this weekend has been severely affected.

While it is obvious from the footage (and at the time) that Henderson made no contact with his head, there was still a real chance the Citing panel could have imposed a sanction for reckless play, and Ulster were probably expecting to be without him and have been training accordingly.

There was really very little difference between the Henderson and Williams incidents, neither had malicious intent, but both were reckless going into rucks and a forearm made contact with an opponent's head. The main difference being that Patchell was stretchered off and ROM wasn't. While I'm delighted that Hendo is available for Ulster, it has to be said that the Citing panel has not been consistent in this case.

I wish people would realise that Chunky is getting the exact reaction he wants here.

The Great Aukster wrote:While it is obvious from the footage (and at the time) that Henderson made no contact with his head, there was still a real chance the Citing panel could have imposed a sanction for reckless play, and Ulster were probably expecting to be without him and have been training accordingly.

There was really very little difference between the Henderson and Williams incidents, neither had malicious intent, but both were reckless going into rucks and a forearm made contact with an opponent's head. The main difference being that Patchell was stretchered off and ROM wasn't. While I'm delighted that Hendo is available for Ulster, it has to be said that the Citing panel has not been consistent in this case.

Yeah, I agree, I think that is once again down to disciplinary panels judging outcomes not actions, which is ridiculous for me. The only way we can change outcomes is by changing actions! If it's not a problem until someone gets hurt, we're failing.

I think that Henderson was acquitted on a technicality more than anything else. He was sent off for leading with the head and they have determined that he made contact with his arm first. Therefore the red card was not upheld.

Ironically I think if he had not been sent off he may have been cited and banned under a different category of offence!

The Great Aukster wrote:Notch - I don't agree that the same outcome occurred as if the card had been a yellow on the pitch. Yes the time sanction was the same but the preparation for this weekend has been severely affected.

While it is obvious from the footage (and at the time) that Henderson made no contact with his head, there was still a real chance the Citing panel could have imposed a sanction for reckless play, and Ulster were probably expecting to be without him and have been training accordingly.

There was really very little difference between the Henderson and Williams incidents, neither had malicious intent, but both were reckless going into rucks and a forearm made contact with an opponent's head. The main difference being that Patchell was stretchered off and ROM wasn't. While I'm delighted that Hendo is available for Ulster, it has to be said that the Citing panel has not been consistent in this case.

Williams didnt hit a ruck though, it was a maul, Williams escaped a few instances were he went flying into rucks with little regard to the consequences and many on here saw his citing coming

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I wish people would realise that Chunky is getting the exact reaction he wants here.

Yep... Also if it wasnt for Ref/TMOs dodgy decisions I have a feeling that half of the posts on these boards would be wiped out.

Notch wrote:I disagree based only on that footage, which shows nothing of the sort, and am very amused at how much you want to believe the opposite. No doubt this further display of shamelessness will prompt a pithy one-word putdown

As I said, if his arm connects first, we would be able to see it on the video footage. But we can't.

The nationality of the citing panel is neither her nor there. They got it wrong.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:I disagree based only on that footage, which shows nothing of the sort, and am very amused at how much you want to believe the opposite. No doubt this further display of shamelessness will prompt a pithy one-word putdown

As I said, if his arm connects first, we would be able to see it on the video footage. But we can't.

But you see I can see that and have seen it, based on the clip you provided, based on my view of the big screen at the time... and I'm far from the only one. Hence my amusement.

whocares wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I wish people would realise that Chunky is getting the exact reaction he wants here.

Yep... Also if it wasnt for Ref/TMOs dodgy decisions I have a feeling that half of the posts on these boards would be wiped out.

True but lets face it there is no consistency at the minute and probably never has been.

The ultra sanitizing of the game is the issue. I understand that safety is the primary concern but its a contact sport and red cards should only be shown in the most extreme case of deliberate dangerous play.

The IRB have made a total mess with a lot of these directives by saying start at a red and work backwards, when it should be a case of starting with a penalty and go up. Referees are under too much pressure to show cards.

A yellow card should only be for a serious offence. or deliberate cynical play and reds should be very rare - the SH seem to be showing a bit more common sense but the game is being ruined by overzealous refereeing and citing panels.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:I disagree based only on that footage, which shows nothing of the sort, and am very amused at how much you want to believe the opposite. No doubt this further display of shamelessness will prompt a pithy one-word putdown

As I said, if his arm connects first, we would be able to see it on the video footage. But we can't.

The nationality of the citing panel is neither her nor there. They got it wrong.

A few suggested sites for you Chunky

http://www.specsavers.co.uk/

http://store.apple.com/uk

As you've either bad eye sight or bad resolution on your laptop/tv/monitor as us mere mortals can see it and you're not saying the panel got it wrong you're saying they are lying because if they used close ups they would have had more time than the ref/TMO to view and assess it

marty2086 wrote: us mere mortals can see it

Yet nobody can show me a still or tell em a time on the video where his arm is clearly hitting the Munster player before his head does.

Strange that.

and you're not saying the panel got it wrong you're saying they are lying because if they used close ups they would have had more time than the ref/TMO to view and assess it

They didn't use close ups. The statement is worded very cleverly to try and make you think they used footage that the TMO didn't use. Which is where Notch got very confused.

They basically sat nearer the screen than Nigel Owens did. They're not lying they just got it wrong.

I honestly thought it was an honest red when I looked at the footage.  I guess 'intent' does come into the minds of the citing guys.
Let's just all say it was a bit of an awkward clear-out attempt from Henderson.  It didn't do what it intended to do cleanly if it was an intention to do it cleanly.  It was mistimed and looked dangerous.  However unfortunate it was that players moved this way or that way in a millisecond, he was still the player doing the awkward stuff.  

I guess most players would be free from intentional guilt when they get reds (most - not all).  Rugby is an imperfect science.  Tip tackles for example - how many of us say the guy who did the tip didn't probably actually mean to do it and that the victim's legs unfortunately just rose too high in the encounter.  But then we say "but that's the rules.  He has to live with it.  The victim's legs went above the parallel.  It's unfortunate but that's the rules."

Rugby is dangerous yes - legal hits are legal yes - but awkward stuff that looks potentially quite dangerous needs some reference point to isolate it and at least let the younger rugby players watching realise that you gotta be more exacting in these hard-edged areas of contact.

So Henderson was judged to be innocent. I wouldn't say that devalues the process used (red and citing) to reach that conclusion.  The game does need to prove it's going through processes with a serious eye on safety.  I wouldn't like to think it was ever a 'Carry On playing' moment.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

marty2086 wrote: us mere mortals can see it

Yet nobody can show me a still or tell em a time on the video where his arm is clearly hitting the Munster player before his head does.

Strange that.

and you're not saying the panel got it wrong you're saying they are lying because if they used close ups they would have had more time than the ref/TMO to view and assess it

They didn't use close ups. The statement is worded very cleverly to try and make you think they used footage that the TMO didn't use. Which is where Notch got very confused.

They basically sat nearer the screen than Nigel Owens did. They're not lying they just got it wrong.

'It said it viewed the incident in close-up, adding that referee Nigel Owens had not been able to do this at the time.'

The key word here is 'in'. This means the viewed the incident with a close up view rather than close to the screen. If you want help with English in the future just shout.

I don't think he was judged to be innocent Fly- nor do I think he was innocent. He was judged to have not merited a straight red card but what he did was foul play. I wouldn't contest that, though I agree red was over the top.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

'It said it viewed the incident in close-up, adding that referee Nigel Owens had not been able to do this at the time.'

The key word here is 'in'. This means the viewed the incident with a close up view rather than close to the screen.

On what planet does "in" mean that they had magnified a sequence of footage? You're just guessing. The fact that they distinctly mention Nigel Owens, when they could have purposely stated that they used other technology (but didn't) speaks volumes.

Still not seen any picture / footage of Henderson's arm hitting first. Once I see this, I will be more than happy to admit I am wrong.

If you want help with English in the future just shout.

[hug]

Chunky Norwich wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

'It said it viewed the incident in close-up, adding that referee Nigel Owens had not been able to do this at the time.'

The key word here is 'in'. This means the viewed the incident with a close up view rather than close to the screen.

On what planet does "in" mean that they had magnified a sequence of footage? You're just guessing. The fact that they distinctly mention Nigel Owens, when they could have purposely stated that they used other technology (but didn't) speaks volumes.

Still not seen any picture / footage of Henderson's arm hitting first. Once I see this, I will be more than happy to admit I am wrong.

If you want help with English in the future just shout.

[hug]

No that's what it means. English can be tricky Chunky. Keep at it you'll get it in the end!

Any pics of the arm hitting first?

Or do I need an extreme close up to see it?

Don't you ever do your own research Chunky?

You ask for TV schedules, and now asking for close-ups. Don't be lazy, now. Go find the footage if it exists that will as much prove your point as disprove the point others make when they say arm came first.

You prove Your theory don't be always waiting for others to prove theirs.

SecretFly wrote:Don't you ever do your own research Chunky?

You ask for TV schedules, and now asking for close-ups.  Don't be lazy, now.  Go find the footage if it exists that will as much prove your point as disprove the point others make when they say arm came first.

You prove Your theory don't be always waiting for others to prove theirs.

Hlarious

Chunky Norwich wrote:Any pics of the arm hitting first?

Or do I need an extreme close up to see it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpMicKneOx0

No photo Im afraid Chunky but if you go to 1:41:11 the TMO has a freeze frame with Hendersons arm hitting the chest and his head still to make contact

So why do you think the panel has said Henderson made contact with his arm first? I've viewed the incident on youtube and it's certainly very close, one of those incidents that could go either way.

Well I think its a nonsense and what part made contact first s a bit of a red herring.

The way I see it, it was either a deliberate head butt and therefore red, or it was a reckless/late clear out and a penalty/yellow max, otherwise it's play on.

You can't have a situation where a player is carded or penalized for making accidental contact with another players head, whilst performing a legitimate action.

If a player gets involved in a ruck or tackle then head on head collisions are a risk. Compare Basteraud collision with Sexton to this, which wasn't even a penalty, and ask which was more dangerous?

Should players stop crouching over the ruck? Do we need to have the player entering the ruck, do a crouch, pause, engage first?

The IRB cannot eliminate all risk of head/neck injuries, which seems to be the aim - the only way this can go is moving to tag rugby and adding weight categories into the sport like boxing and combat sports.

What a joke rugby is becoming.

rodders wrote:The way I see it, it was either a deliberate head butt and therefore red, or it was a reckless/late clear out and a penalty/yellow max, otherwise it's play on.

It was a completely illegal clear out, though until the last fortnight refs have been letting them go. Leading with the fore-arm means that he should have been penalised and then sanctioned for deliberate foul play. For me appropriate sanction would have been a YC. If the Disciplinary Panel are suggesting that no offence was committed - then that makes a mockery of the instructions given to refs at the start of the month.

Clear outs are currently a joke rodders, the amount of people flying in is getting silly but they're trying to clear people out who are clearly kneeling half the time.

Owen's question was "head made contact didn't it?"

He didn't ask what the order of events were. Which suggests he didn't think it mattered, which is where he was wrong according to the panel.

The panel accepts that heads clash accidentally, and the only thing that mattered was deciding if it was a 'leading with the head' incident. Which it was not.

clivemcl wrote:Owen's question was "head made contact didn't it?"

He didn't ask what the order of events were. Which suggests he didn't think it mattered, which is where he was wrong according to the panel.

The panel accepts that heads clash accidentally, and the only thing that mattered was deciding if it was a 'leading with the head' incident. Which it was not.

So you can put your hand in front of your face, do a flying headbutt and escape a red card?

marty2086 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:Any pics of the arm hitting first?

Or do I need an extreme close up to see it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpMicKneOx0

No photo Im afraid Chunky but if you go to 1:41:11 the TMO has a freeze frame with Hendersons arm hitting the chest and his head still to make contact

I've freezed it 15 times. There is absolutely no way you can see his arm hitting first. If anything it his is head.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clear outs are currently a joke rodders, the amount of people flying in is getting silly but they're trying to clear people out who are clearly kneeling half the time.

A very valid point. Truth is, a heck of a lot of reactionary fouls would be cut out if officiating was stricter in general. The amount of times players try to play the ball when they are not supporting their own weight is a joke.

Obviously opposition team players will react badly to these elements of foul play, especially in instances like this when when they have the upper hand.

In the last minute of this game, when we were under the posts, Owens had to speek to Munster players twice. Their foul play in this instance saved Munster valuable seconds to scramble their defence.

Thankfully we scored anyway, but in certain circumstances, there should be zero tolerance - not first and second warnings - because all rugby players will push their luck and do all they can to buy their team seconds to get organised.

Officiating needs to be stricter in every aspect of the game. Sure, it will add loads of stoppages, but only for a short period of time until players stop acting up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So why do you think the panel has said Henderson made contact with his arm first?

They saw it as 50/50 and gave him the benefit of the doubt. I believe this is the wrong call.

I've viewed the incident on youtube and it's certainly very close, one of those incidents that could go either way.

Absolutely! It is too close to call. Which for me means he is not safely leading with the arm, he's recklessly putting his head in the mix and its a red.

clivemcl wrote:Owen's question was "head made contact didn't it?"

He didn't ask what the order of events were. Which suggests he didn't think it mattered, which is where he was wrong according to the panel.

The panel accepts that heads clash accidentally, and the only thing that mattered was deciding if it was a 'leading with the head' incident. Which it was not.

clive did he not tell Best and Henderson though he led with the head

Overall Henderson was lucky to escape from a ban as he did fly off his feet and took a risk and hopefully Schmidt with his attention to detail doesn't question his mentality in big games and pressure situations as there was no need for the clear out as the ball was coming back and play wasn't being slowed down, he took himself away as an option in the next phase

My 2 cents having watched the incident numerous times in minute detail and read much on the subject:

Henderson 'makes contact' first with his arm but it is quite marginal and while he is making contact with his arm he's not 'hitting' with it.

Then a few micro seconds later he makes contact with ROM's head with his head and this time there's no doubt but that it is forceful contact as born out by the fact that when ROM hits the ground he immediately reaches for where Henderson made contact with his head and not his arm.

I think as said above Henderson got off on the technicality that he was sent off for making contact with his head first which was incorrect but there's no doubt in my mind the red was warranted for clearly striking ROM head with his which was highly dangerous and reckless.

He's a very lucky boy.

LondonTiger wrote:

rodders wrote:The way I see it, it was either a deliberate head butt and therefore red, or it was a reckless/late clear out and a penalty/yellow max, otherwise it's play on.

It was a completely illegal clear out, though until the last fortnight refs have been letting them go. Leading with the fore-arm means that he should have been penalised and then sanctioned for deliberate foul play. For me appropriate sanction would have been a YC. If the Disciplinary Panel are suggesting that no offence was committed - then that makes a mockery of the instructions given to refs at the start of the month.

It was - I believe it was a (harshish) yellow, for late and illegal entry. But that's it - if O'Mahoney sticks his head on the wrong place then that's unfortunate for him but it doesn't make it a red.

The breakdown is what it is - you have plenty of sealing off too on the other side and guys getting in stupid positions to prevent the contest - if you get involved you are fair game for the clear-out, provided it's legal, and if you get hurt in the process then tough luck.

MunsterMac wrote:My 2 cents having watched the incident numerous times in minute detail and read much on the subject:

Henderson 'makes contact' first with his arm but it is quite marginal and while he is making contact with his arm he's not 'hitting' with it.

Then a few micro seconds later he makes contact with ROM's head with his head and this time there's no doubt but that it is forceful contact as born out by the fact that when ROM hits the ground he immediately reaches for where Henderson made contact with his head and not his arm.

I think as said above Henderson got off on the technicality that he was sent off for making contact with his head first which was incorrect but there's no doubt in my mind the red was warranted for clearly striking ROM head with his which was highly dangerous and reckless.

He's a very lucky boy.

Rubbish - if O'Mahoney doesn't understand how to ruck then he should stay on the wing.

I don't think the citing panel is suggesting that no foul play has taken place, merely that it didn't warrant a red. I pretty much agree entirely with your analysis LT- such clear outs should be punished, but appropriately.

Can you tell I've work I'm avoiding??

If that clear out doesn't warrant a red, then we would see alot more of them. I look forward to when it happens the next time and everybody shouting "yellow".

clivemcl wrote:Can you tell I've work I'm avoiding??


https://i.servimg.com/u/f19/17/56/29/63/hendo10.jpg

Thanks for the effort. How am I to tell that Henderson's arm is making contact? From the angle of his arm?

clivemcl wrote:Can you tell I've work I'm avoiding??

Good work Clive -actually looking at that its not even a penalty at all as O'Mahoney is still contesting the ball with his foot and therefore the clear out totally legitimate as Hendo joins through the gate and makes contact with his own player (Henry) first.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

clivemcl wrote:Can you tell I've work I'm avoiding??


https://i.servimg.com/u/f19/17/56/29/63/hendo10.jpg

Thanks for the effort. How am I to tell that Henderson's arm is making contact? From the angle of his arm?

Well that was predictable

marty2086 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

clivemcl wrote:Can you tell I've work I'm avoiding??


https://i.servimg.com/u/f19/17/56/29/63/hendo10.jpg

Thanks for the effort. How am I to tell that Henderson's arm is making contact? From the angle of his arm?

Well that was predictable

No seriously, it's a really good piece of evidence. Clive's done a good job there and I think that shows perhaps what could stick a bit of doubt in the mind of the panel. I concede that it could look like his arm struck first on this evidence.

I do however, think it was still reckless enough for a red card. Leading with your arm, binding properly, all good, but a follow up with a head on head collision too? That's still reckless and dangerous.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

clivemcl wrote:Can you tell I've work I'm avoiding??


https://i.servimg.com/u/f19/17/56/29/63/hendo10.jpg

Thanks for the effort. How am I to tell that Henderson's arm is making contact? From the angle of his arm?

Well that was predictable

No seriously, it's a really good piece of evidence. Clive's done a good job there and I think that shows perhaps what could stick a bit of doubt in the mind of the panel. I concede that it could look like his arm struck first on this evidence.

I do however, think it was still reckless enough for a red card. Leading with your arm, binding properly, all good, but a follow up with a head on head collision too? That's still reckless and dangerous.

Every action on the field has an element of recklessness about it, how many players do you see going high and clashing heads? The end result does not mean its a punishable level

I agree there was enough to warrant a slap on the wrist for Henderson but maybe the problem is more what was asked of the panel, were they asked to assess if a red was the correct action or if foul play was committed?

Thank you to whoever amended the post.