Refereeing and Disciplinary

by Slow and Sedate Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:17 am

Is there an issue with how the referees and the disciplinary officers have treated the tier 2 nations? In some matches they do not seem to be getting a fair crack of the whip. Last weekend I felt Tonga were denied a penalty try against New Zealand, and one of the NZ props should have been yellow carded. Against Scotland Samoa had a try disallowed when viewed on TMO that Laidlaw had been held back. That looked as though it was 1/2 of one and 6 of the other.

With citings, Alesana Tuilagi was banned for 5 weeks initially for using his knee, yet Pocock was let of with a warning - effectively a yellow card. A Canadian is banned for 5 weeks for a high tackle Burgess gets off with a warning. Hooper gets a week for the clearing out with a shoulder.

It will be interesting to see the outcomes for Ryan Grant - should have been a red at the time, Sean O'Brien and Ross Ford and Johnny Gray. I didn't see the Ford/Gray incident, but if the hearings treat the other two as they should both are likely to miss the rest of the World Cup. However I imagine that both will get low end sanctions. If they were from second tier nations they would probably miss several weeks.

There must be a level playing field for all sides, especially as we want the game to grow. This on top of the shorter rest periods does not help the perception that the IRB are only interested in maintaining the old guard.

by **Biltong** Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:22 am

Yep, I have noticed a few discrepancies in how the smaller nations have been dealt with.

Namibia copped two yellow cards in their last match vs Argentina, in particular the first card no sane man should have given, George Ayoob (spelling?) confirmed that JC Greyling committed a high tackle when slo mo showed the Argetinian player slipped and slid towards Greyling at the time of contact the Argentinia player's head was about 3 feet off the ground.

The ban of Tuilagi compared to others have been ridiculous.

It is no wonder these teams complain they are being unfairly treated.

by R!skysports Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:23 am

Slow and Sedate wrote:Is there an issue with how the referees and the disciplinary officers have treated the tier 2 nations? In some matches they do not seem to be getting a fair crack of the whip. Last weekend I felt Tonga were denied a penalty try against New Zealand, and one of the NZ props should have been yellow carded. Against Scotland Samoa had a try disallowed when viewed on TMO that Laidlaw had been held back. That looked as though it was 1/2 of one and 6 of the other.

With citings, Alesana Tuilagi was banned for 5 weeks initially for using his knee, yet Pocock was let of with a warning - effectively a yellow card. A Canadian is banned for 5 weeks for a high tackle Burgess gets off with a warning. Hooper gets a week for the clearing out with a shoulder.

It will be interesting to see the outcomes for Ryan ~~Grant~~ Wison- should have been a red at the time, Sean O'Brien and Ross Ford and Johnny Gray. I didn't see the Ford/Gray incident, but if the hearings treat the other two as they should both are likely to miss the rest of the World Cup. However I imagine that both will get low end sanctions. If they were from second tier nations they would probably miss several weeks.

There must be a level playing field for all sides, especially as we want the game to grow. This on top of the shorter rest periods does not help the perception that the IRB are only interested in maintaining the old guard.

by R!skysports Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:29 am

On your comments I tend to agree that there seems to be some inconsitancy - but not always sure about conspiricies

On the ones close to my heart

Laidlaw -WAS puller back - clear as day (hooked his arm and pulled) - right decision - and stupid from them, as I would have felt Laidlaw being quite small would have struggled to stop the player anyway

Ryan Wilson - Correct decision (just) - if he had contacted with head or neck - then red - however - if it was given a red - I would not have complained

" I didn't see the Ford/Gray incident, but if the hearings treat the other two as they should both are likely to miss the rest of the World Cup. " - How the heck can you say that they should miss the rest when you have not seen it -

by fa0019 Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:29 am

Is the citing panel who judge all of these the same individuals for all.... if not they should be for a world cup to keep things consistent.

by R!skysports Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:32 am

here must be a level playing field for all sides, especially as we want the game to grow. This on top of the shorter rest periods does not help the perception that the IRB are only interested in maintaining the old guard.

And that is also just ill informed media spin

Scotland had one of the worst scheduling, with a 4 day and then a 6 day turn around - very few teams had to do 3 games in 10 days

Not a peep though from the media - as it did not meet their conspiracy arguments

by R!skysports Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:33 am

here must be a level playing field for all sides, especially as we want the game to grow. This on top of the shorter rest periods does not help the perception that the IRB are only interested in maintaining the old guard.

And that is also just ill informed media spin

Scotland had one of the worst scheduling, with a 4 day and then a 6 day turn around - very few teams had to do 3 games in 10 days

Not a peep though from the media - as it did not meet their conspiracy arguments

by Slow and Sedate Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:50 am

Risky

I'm not picking on Scotland and was unaware of their turnarounds so apologies for that.

However, the Samoa player released Laidlaw and for about the only time in the match he didn't appeal to the ref. Grant's stamp was off the ball. Yes the Samoan had hold of his foot, but he had let go and then stamped. Ford and Gray were highlighted because the citing officer believes they have a case to answer. Others have been through the process for the same alleged offence and banned. That is what I mean.

The whole process should be fair to all, without any perceived bias against tier 2 sides.

I picked a few recent incidents

by R!skysports Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:00 am

I agree, and maybe came on strong - just had 2 weeks of the media saying Japan deserved to go through and we only did because of the turnaround - really belittles the achievement (and for us it is an achievement)

The Laidlaw one for me is 100% correct - he pulled him t the side - and away from the player

Wilson - he was given a yellow - as it connected with the arm - which is standard - although I would not have argued with a red

I will await the outcome of the Ford and Gray - as I have seen it - and I think (My opinion) Gray may get a ban, but ford should not -as it was an unlucky outcome of 2 doing a standard clear out - (Timing and both clearing out from anotehr side) - But I will await

I agree the Pockcock one is unbelievable and interested to see the Irish punch outcome

by fa0019 Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:03 am

Slow and Sedate wrote:Is there an issue with how the referees and the disciplinary officers have treated the tier 2 nations? In some matches they do not seem to be getting a fair crack of the whip. Last weekend I felt Tonga were denied a penalty try against New Zealand, and one of the NZ props should have been yellow carded. Against Scotland Samoa had a try disallowed when viewed on TMO that Laidlaw had been held back. That looked as though it was 1/2 of one and 6 of the other.

With citings, Alesana Tuilagi was banned for 5 weeks initially for using his knee, yet Pocock was let of with a warning - effectively a yellow card. A Canadian is banned for 5 weeks for a high tackle Burgess gets off with a warning. Hooper gets a week for the clearing out with a shoulder.

It will be interesting to see the outcomes for Ryan Grant - should have been a red at the time, Sean O'Brien and Ross Ford and Johnny Gray. I didn't see the Ford/Gray incident, but if the hearings treat the other two as they should both are likely to miss the rest of the World Cup. However I imagine that both will get low end sanctions. If they were from second tier nations they would probably miss several weeks.

There must be a level playing field for all sides, especially as we want the game to grow. This on top of the shorter rest periods does not help the perception that the IRB are only interested in maintaining the old guard.

Does anyone have the video for Blevin's neck roll.. thats not a high tackle... that is literally a rugby version of a DDT. Its much more severe. Similar to Ross Ford so it will be interesting to see how he fairs.

Tuilagi got 5 weeks. That was loco but his disciplinary record is perhaps the worst in rugby.. and not because he's from a tier 2 nation. Its because he has a tendency to be super violent and put in crazy dangerous high tackles. I recall times vs. England in 2005 and vs. South Africa in 2013 as examples.

Perhaps tier 1 nations get better sentencing because they bring proper legal representation with them? South Africa certainly does.

by TJ Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:03 am

I do not think there is any issue. I think Tuilagis was correct - he clearly deliberatly led with the knee

Grant also correct - a provoked stamp on the shoulder - yellow card. It was not with a huge amount of pressure, it was not on the head and neck

How about the number of samoan high tackles on Scots that went unpunished?

Laidlaw was clearly pulled out of the defensive line by a player who was offside. Pen correct decision

I actually think the quality of reffing and the interaction between the 4 officials has been great after the first nervy game

I think a lot of the perceived bias is simply because people do not understand the correct application of the laws. tuilagi plead innocent so gets a higher tarrif than someone who pleads guilty.

by thebandwagonsociety Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:59 am

Very true TJ. Tuilagi also has a good bit of previous form at both club and Test level so the standard 'halve the ban for good behaviour' isn't available to the citing panel any longer. His bans will always look severe when compared to first timers in front of a citing panel. That said, the incident with leading with the knee has been treated quite harshly.

I don't like the continuous use of TMO for every 3 out of 4 tries. But I do like in the past week and a half how the TMO just calls into the ref during play where something has happened (just a shout of 'blue blue blue' or 'green green green') and that way the ref can decide to come back for the incident to review or else pick up on things.

Some of the TMOs are really good (not a popular thing to saw). Maybe 1 game a day so far seemed to have a real direct and helpful TMO. Would love to know who they are to start rating them more publicly.

by Calder106 Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:01 am

Slow and Sedate wrote:Risky

I'm not picking on Scotland and was unaware of their turnarounds so apologies for that.

However, the Samoa player released Laidlaw and for about the only time in the match he didn't appeal to the ref. Grant's stamp was off the ball. Yes the Samoan had hold of his foot, but he had let go and then stamped. Ford and Gray were highlighted because the citing officer believes they have a case to answer. Others have been through the process for the same alleged offence and banned. That is what I mean.

The whole process should be fair to all, without any perceived bias against tier 2 sides.

I picked a few recent incidents

Think you are wrong here. http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/video/109811. At 1:30 onwards you see the incident. Samoan player is behind Laidlaw and not part of the ruck. He pulls on his arm. Therefore surely he is interfering with play. Laidlaw does look as if he protests to the referee but camera switches to the crowd so can't see how far that went. Like others I think that Samoa would have scored anyway but that is not guaranteed.

If the clip shown on other thread is why Ford and Gray are cited. I think Gray will get a ban but find it hard to see that Ford did anything wrong.

by R!skysports Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:11 am

Ford and Gray - 3 weeks

My god - this is becoming the most rediculous world Cup

Punching off the ball - 1 week

Kneeing into someone chest - zero ban

Rolling someone - 3 weeks

Discrace

by RubyGuby Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:35 am

Riskysports wrote:Ford and Gray - 3 weeks

My god - this is becoming the most rediculous world Cup

Punching off the ball - 1 week

Kneeing into someone chest - zero ban

Rolling someone - 3 weeks

Discrace

I just read this on the BBC website and it seems a bit inconsistent to say the least, particularly the punching and the intentional knee to the chest. Still seems a little inappropriate that an Australian citing commissioner has banned 2 Scots a few days before Australia play them in the 1/4s - he shouldn't be put in that position. Lots of inconsistencies in this RWC and for me it risks leaving a bitter taste in the mouth. If you watch the full 80 mins over and over of any game you could probably cite about 10 players.

thumbsup

by Seagultaf Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:23 am

This has been a theme throughout this tournament, highlighted by the apparently different standards applied to Pokcocks knee into an opponents midriff and O'Brien's open handed punch to his opponents midriff. Both victims appeared equally hurt by the offence and I expected (following Tuilagi's ban for use of the knee) that Pockock would have received the harsher sentence.

Add to this the fact that Hooper got banned for his no arms charge but Farrell did not and the fact that Wood's kick to Liam Williams head was deemed to require no punishment.

Is this down to the quality of legal representation provided by the richer unions or just double standards. Either way this needs to be addressed as it is sending a very confused message about the IRB stance of foul play particularly with regards to head injuries.

by TJ Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:27 am

Hitting the abdomen is right rated less of an offense than hitting the head or risking somones neck

Farrel was dealt with on the pitch, Hooper did not IIRC

by Seagultaf Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:50 am

Farrell was dealt with on the pitch with a yellow, Hooper was dealt with by the citing comissioner with a red. Both incidents looked equally serious to me but Farrell injured his opponent, Hooper did not.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:53 am

And Lydiate was let off completely.

by Seagultaf Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:32 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:And Lydiate was let off completely.

Unlike the others mentioned Lydiate has not been cited for any foul play. If we start red carding players for chop tackles we will end up with 7 a side!

by No 7&1/2 Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:37 am

You're still supposed to use your arms though.

by Seagultaf Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:25 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're still supposed to use your arms though.

Clearly the officials were happy that he did, as the ref and 4th official looked at it during the game and also after the game he was not cited.

Besides a poorly timed tackle around the ankles cannot be compared to an illegal hit to the head. I would be the first to say that if Lydiate had kicked an English player in the head that he should have been red carded and banned for 12 weeks, Wood however got off Scot free add what happened with Tuilagi getting 5 weeks for catching a tackler with his knee, how can this be described as consistent application of the Laws?

by No 7&1/2 Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:37 pm

Bad tackle by Lydiate, lucky to get away with it.

by Seagultaf Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:52 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bad tackle by Lydiate, lucky to get away with it.

Can't agree with you there and in the context of the other incidents these posts refer to, which largely relate to incidents which were deemed foul play by the officials and related to head injuries I am struggling to see where you are going with this thread?

by No 7&1/2 Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:55 pm

Just pointing out another example where someone should have got punished and didn't. If you think no arm tackles are ok we do differ on our thoughts.

by lostinwales Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:11 pm

Re Lydiate. Its about consistency (and I have posted this before). The ref looked in detail at the tackle and decided it was OK. All well and good.

Then the next day or so (can't remember when) A Samoan got a yellow card for a 'no arms' tackle. Wasn't a 'chop tackle' but led with the shoulder with the arm coming slowly around, exactly the same as with Lydiate. The correct situation should be that either both are yellow cards or neither, but that wasn't the case.

by milkyboy Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:11 pm

Seagultaf wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:You're still supposed to use your arms though.

Clearly the officials were happy that he did, as the ref and 4th official looked at it during the game and also after the game he was not cited.

Besides a poorly timed tackle around the ankles cannot be compared to an illegal hit to the head. I would be the first to say that if Lydiate had kicked an English player in the head that he should have been red carded and banned for 12 weeks, Wood however got off Scot free add what happened with Tuilagi getting 5 weeks for catching a tackler with his knee, how can this be described as consistent application of the Laws?

Some others might find your endless anti-english wumming a bit tiresome, but some of you welsh boys on here are comedy gold. Keep up the good work.

by RubyGuby Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:28 pm

I think a knock on Wood is very different to a pre-meditated Bosch

thumbsup

by Seagultaf Wed Oct 14, 2015 4:28 pm

milkyboy wrote:
Seagultaf wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:You're still supposed to use your arms though.

Clearly the officials were happy that he did, as the ref and 4th official looked at it during the game and also after the game he was not cited.

Besides a poorly timed tackle around the ankles cannot be compared to an illegal hit to the head. I would be the first to say that if Lydiate had kicked an English player in the head that he should have been red carded and banned for 12 weeks, Wood however got off Scot free add what happened with Tuilagi getting 5 weeks for catching a tackler with his knee, how can this be described as consistent application of the Laws?

Some others might find your endless anti-english wumming a bit tiresome, but some of you welsh boys on here are comedy gold. Keep up the good work.

If you read my post you will see that this is not an anti English post but an anti foul play post. I have clearly stated that if a Welsh player had done what Wood did, I would expect them to be red carded and banned. How can this possibly be described as anti English.

As for Lydiate his tackle was looked at by the ref, third official and citing official and they found nothing wrong. The only think I could see that could provoke any discussion was that his shoulder came into contact with his opponents ankle before his arms, the same can be said for about 50% of tackles in any match.

by milkyboy Wed Oct 14, 2015 4:48 pm

Seagultaf wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
Seagultaf wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:You're still supposed to use your arms though.

Clearly the officials were happy that he did, as the ref and 4th official looked at it during the game and also after the game he was not cited.

Besides a poorly timed tackle around the ankles cannot be compared to an illegal hit to the head. I would be the first to say that if Lydiate had kicked an English player in the head that he should have been red carded and banned for 12 weeks, Wood however got off Scot free add what happened with Tuilagi getting 5 weeks for catching a tackler with his knee, how can this be described as consistent application of the Laws?

Some others might find your endless anti-english wumming a bit tiresome, but some of you welsh boys on here are comedy gold. Keep up the good work.

If you read my post you will see that this is not an anti English post but an anti foul play post. I have clearly stated that if a Welsh player had done what Wood did, I would expect them to be red carded and banned. How can this possibly be described as anti English.

As for Lydiate his tackle was looked at by the ref, third official and citing official and they found nothing wrong. The only think I could see that could provoke any discussion was that his shoulder came into contact with his opponents ankle before his arms, the same can be said for about 50% of tackles in any match.

That was the bit i highlighted to laugh at. If it were the other way round you would be claiming that williams deliberately headbutted woods foot in an attempt to get him sent off.

Re the lydiate tackle... so the refs and the citing official are ok when they decide a welshman has done nothing wrong, but completely wrong when they decide an englishman hasn't. lydiate's arm was no nearer making contact with wood than farrell's was with giteau. That's the inconsistent application. Hooper's was worse than both, because he lined him up brown and deliberately dropped his shoulder on him.

by Seagultaf Wed Oct 14, 2015 5:01 pm

milkyboy wrote:
Seagultaf wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
Seagultaf wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:You're still supposed to use your arms though.

Clearly the officials were happy that he did, as the ref and 4th official looked at it during the game and also after the game he was not cited.

Besides a poorly timed tackle around the ankles cannot be compared to an illegal hit to the head. I would be the first to say that if Lydiate had kicked an English player in the head that he should have been red carded and banned for 12 weeks, Wood however got off Scot free add what happened with Tuilagi getting 5 weeks for catching a tackler with his knee, how can this be described as consistent application of the Laws?

Some others might find your endless anti-english wumming a bit tiresome, but some of you welsh boys on here are comedy gold. Keep up the good work.

If you read my post you will see that this is not an anti English post but an anti foul play post. I have clearly stated that if a Welsh player had done what Wood did, I would expect them to be red carded and banned. How can this possibly be described as anti English.

As for Lydiate his tackle was looked at by the ref, third official and citing official and they found nothing wrong. The only think I could see that could provoke any discussion was that his shoulder came into contact with his opponents ankle before his arms, the same can be said for about 50% of tackles in any match.

That was the bit i highlighted to laugh at. If it were the other way round you would be claiming that williams deliberately headbutted woods foot in an attempt to get him sent off.

Re the lydiate tackle... so the refs and the citing official are ok when they decide a welshman has done nothing wrong, but completely wrong when they decide an englishman hasn't. lydiate's arm was no nearer making contact with wood than farrell's was with giteau. That's the inconsistent application. Hooper's was worse than both, because he lined him up brown and deliberately dropped his shoulder on him.

I can appreciate that England getting knocked out by losing a gave they should have won to a patched up Welsh side is still difficult to take. But this is not about England v Wales it's about preventing foul play, particularly head injuries which the IRB have claimed they are clamping down on.

Unless they tell refs and citing Comissioners that an illegal hit to the head is a red card and a significant ban, nothing will get done and one day soon a young rugby player will get a severe, life changing head injury and the game we all love will be in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

by milkyboy Wed Oct 14, 2015 5:49 pm

...and when you manage to write a post that doesn't highlight the welsh as the injured party and the english as the guilty we might believe you!

I like the welsh as it goes. I offered my congrats on here when they beat england fairly and squarely. Rugby's is steeped in the culture like no other country bar new zealand. I'd be happy if they won the world cup and think it's a shame there's been so many injuries that have reduced their chances.

So, I'm happy to overlook the myopic views of some of their fans and just put it down to national pride and a love of wumming the English.

Of course it's important to safeguard against head injuries but an accident is an accident.

by Seagultaf Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:39 am

milkyboy wrote:...and when you manage to write a post that doesn't highlight the welsh as the injured party and the english as the guilty we might believe you!

I like the welsh as it goes. I offered my congrats on here when they beat england fairly and squarely. Rugby's is steeped in the culture like no other country bar new zealand. I'd be happy if they won the world cup and think it's a shame there's been so many injuries that have reduced their chances.

So, I'm happy to overlook the myopic views of some of their fans and just put it down to national pride and a love of wumming the English.

Of course it's important to safeguard against head injuries but an accident is an accident.

I am pleased that you agree that it's important to safeguard against head injuries but I am amused by your comment "An accident is just an accident!" Why not try that excuse in your next insurance claim form?

Under employment and health and safety law (which as employees of their Unions, players are covered by) an accident has two components: effect and cause. And whilst it can possibly be argued that the effect (head injury) was accidental, the cause was clearly not (Recless play). This is why Wood was cited, unfortunately as with a multitude of other citing cases in this World Cup, the punishment did not fit the crime.

by Sponsored content

Refereeing and Disciplinary

Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary

Re: Refereeing and Disciplinary