England hard done by - law clarification incoming

[GogLais]

Or bring in the 20 min bin thing.

Would still have been harsh on Steward but not so harsh on England.

Lifted off rugbyrefs forum (on the steward thread) which I thought was very sensible

This is something for which I have advocated for a long time...

Law 9 needs to be divided into sections that reflect three different types of foul play...
Cynical;
Careless/Reckless;
Intentionally Dangerous.

Yellow Card for acts of foul play that are Cynical... intentional technical infringements such as deliberate knock-ons, repeated offsides on defence etc... player comes back on after 10 minutes

Red Card for acts of foul play that are Careless or Reckless cause or are likely to cause injury to an opponent (late and early tackles, tackles without the ball etc)... player is dismissed for the rest of the match, but can be replaced after 20 minutes.

Black Card for acts of foul play that are Intentionally Dangerous such as punching, stamping, eye-gouging, bag-snatching, biting etc (i.e. what sendings-off used to be for).... player is dismissed for the rest of the match and is not replaced.

Can’t a late tackle be intentionally dangerous?

[Ymx]

Yeah, I think the specifics weren’t quite right but I liked the general 3 tier framework

Yellow - Cynical/accidental (10 mins)
Red - Dangerous/wreckless (20 mins, replaced, cited)
Black - thuggery (whole game, cited, jailed)

[JM2K6]

Taking the view that Keenan suddenly changed the picture by stooping for the ball is a weird one. It wasn't unexpected, and the change in height isn't what changed it from legal to illegal.

[GogLais]

Yeah, I think the specifics weren’t quite right but I liked the general 3 tier framework

Yellow - Cynical/accidental (10 mins)
Red - Dangerous/wreckless (20 mins, replaced, cited)
Black - thuggery (whole game, cited, jailed)

Thing is there are offences like late tackles that can be more dangerous than an ineffective punch so the type of offence can’t be the deciding factor.
From memory when yellow cards were brought in they were meant to be a punishment for persistent offences like offside, not as a reduced punishment for foul play. Not sure what conclusion I draw from that.

[Enzedder]

Can we get that committee to review the Ta'avao decision last year?

Takes a Kiwi to bring sanity to the mess that are the rugby tackle laws this year

[Ymx]

Yeah, I think the specifics weren’t quite right but I liked the general 3 tier framework

Yellow - Cynical/accidental (10 mins)
Red - Dangerous/wreckless (20 mins, replaced, cited)
Black - thuggery (whole game, cited, jailed)

Thing is there are offences like late tackles that can be more dangerous than an ineffective punch so the type of offence can’t be the deciding factor.
From memory when yellow cards were brought in they were meant to be a punishment for persistent offences like offside, not as a reduced punishment for foul play. Not sure what conclusion I draw from that.

Yep, and think that is a factor. Hence a deliberate late maiming tackle could well be a black card.

I think in general he proposed

Black = the old days red (sending off)
Red = what it is now (but 20 mins replacement rule)
Yellow = what it is now

I think it would work as the team punishment is not huge between yellow and red where there are clearly small margins.

And the black card which would stop the fear of deliberate sacrificial maiming of the best oppo player. I would also suggest this could come with criminal action too.

[Guy Smiley]

Nigel Owens points out an uncomfortable truth

My understanding was, and is, that if you have foul play and a reckless action, then the mitigation doesn't play a part in the process. Which is why the outcome of the hearing is a surprise. They haven't decided it was an accident or just a rugby collision, they have said that Steward was reckless and there was foul play. I am not sure, therefore, how they can apply mitigation.

People in here are saying other people are wrong because the outcome of the hearing vindicates their opinion. We are through the looking glass here, people.

[Ymx]

Christ, what a mess !

Nige needs to take over managing the laws at WR

[topofthemoon]

Nigel Owens points out an uncomfortable truth

My understanding was, and is, that if you have foul play and a reckless action, then the mitigation doesn't play a part in the process. Which is why the outcome of the hearing is a surprise. They haven't decided it was an accident or just a rugby collision, they have said that Steward was reckless and there was foul play. I am not sure, therefore, how they can apply mitigation.

People in here are saying other people are wrong because the outcome of the hearing vindicates their opinion. We are through the looking glass here, people.

The HCP specifically states that "Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play"

However previous disciplinary committees have identified where actions are always illegal (ie there was no attempt to make a legal tackle) then mitigation will not apply ie these types of actions are considered highly reckless. Wayne Barnes has stated this when making red card decisions ('always illegal therefore no mitigation').

Ultimately the difference in decisions between the ref and the panel has come down to the differentiation between 'highly reckless' per the ref where no mitigation can apply and 'reckless' per the panel where mitigation can apply.

[sefton]

That’s a poor decision for me, the panel should only overturn a referee’s judgement if it is a clear and obvious error, which this wasn’t.

[Guy Smiley]

That’s a poor decision for me, the panel should only overturn a referee’s judgement if it is a clear and obvious error, which this wasn’t.

Yeah, I agree. Jaco made a decent call on the day... now he's been compromised.

[topofthemoon]

That’s a poor decision for me, the panel should only overturn a referee’s judgement if it is a clear and obvious error, which this wasn’t.

The regulations only require the Committee to be satisfied the referee's decision was wrong "on the balance of probabilities".

[Guy Smiley]

That’s a poor decision for me, the panel should only overturn a referee’s judgement if it is a clear and obvious error, which this wasn’t.

The regulations only require the Committee to be satisfied the referee's decision was wrong "on the balance of probabilities".

The Committee found the player to have been reckless and to have committed foul play. That would suggest they agree with the referee. They have then introduced mitigation and down graded the sanction to a YC, in direct contradiction of their own finding of reckless and foul play.

The referee in this instance is not the problem.

[topofthemoon]

That’s a poor decision for me, the panel should only overturn a referee’s judgement if it is a clear and obvious error, which this wasn’t.

The regulations only require the Committee to be satisfied the referee's decision was wrong "on the balance of probabilities".

The Committee found the player to have been reckless and to have committed foul play. That would suggest they agree with the referee. They have then introduced mitigation and down graded the sanction to a YC, in direct contradiction of their own finding of reckless and foul play.

The referee in this instance is not the problem.

I'd agree the Committee's decision is problematic as it seems like a fudge. Either Steward's actions are illegal and therefore illegal throughout so mitigation cannot apply in line with how refs have been treating this since the HCP came in or his actions are not illegal, it's just an accidental collision and he should face no sanction.

[Kawazaki]

How about a process based on another review process that already exists. How about this;

1. Much like the pilot system currently running in NZ, a player is sent off the pitch with a yellow card which is then reviewed during the 10 minute period to decide if it needs upgrading to a permanent red.

2. The difference being that the referee will make their on-field decision known much like they do with a try referral. So, a player could get a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a YC - this would be for things like deliberate knock-ons, pulling down a maul, persistent offside etc. For more serious offences, the referee would issue a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a RC and here the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation that it isn't a full RC for the player to return.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

That’s a poor decision for me, the panel should only overturn a referee’s judgement if it is a clear and obvious error, which this wasn’t.

The regulations only require the Committee to be satisfied the referee's decision was wrong "on the balance of probabilities".

The Committee found the player to have been reckless and to have committed foul play. That would suggest they agree with the referee. They have then introduced mitigation and down graded the sanction to a YC, in direct contradiction of their own finding of reckless and foul play.

The referee in this instance is not the problem.

Mitigation is available for reckless acts, it's only not available for high reckless acts.

I'd have kept it as red, but they haven't deviated from their protocols

[Ymx]

How about a process based on another review process that already exists. How about this;

1. Much like the pilot system currently running in NZ, a player is sent off the pitch with a yellow card which is then reviewed during the 10 minute period to decide if it needs upgrading to a permanent red.

2. The difference being that the referee will make their on-field decision known much like they do with a try referral. So, a player could get a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a YC - this would be for things like deliberate knock-ons, pulling down a maul, persistent offside etc. For more serious offences, the referee would issue a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a RC and here the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation that it isn't a full RC for the player to return.

If we are buying some time, it would be good also to see how the result is arrived at on screen.

Classed as a tackle (cross)
Head contact (tick)
With force (tick)
Is highly reckless (cross)
Was there mitigation (tick)
Yellow card

Kind of like cricket LBW’s

[Guy Smiley]

The regulations only require the Committee to be satisfied the referee's decision was wrong "on the balance of probabilities".

The Committee found the player to have been reckless and to have committed foul play. That would suggest they agree with the referee. They have then introduced mitigation and down graded the sanction to a YC, in direct contradiction of their own finding of reckless and foul play.

The referee in this instance is not the problem.

Mitigation is available for reckless acts, it's only not available for high reckless acts.

I'd have kept it as red, but they haven't deviated from their protocols

What's the mitigation for foul play?

[Guy Smiley]

How about a process based on another review process that already exists. How about this;

1. Much like the pilot system currently running in NZ, a player is sent off the pitch with a yellow card which is then reviewed during the 10 minute period to decide if it needs upgrading to a permanent red.

2. The difference being that the referee will make their on-field decision known much like they do with a try referral. So, a player could get a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a YC - this would be for things like deliberate knock-ons, pulling down a maul, persistent offside etc. For more serious offences, the referee would issue a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a RC and here the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation that it isn't a full RC for the player to return.

Not quite accurate... the system being trialled allows the TMO to review a YC to see if it should be escalated to RC.The referee can still make an on field decision and issue a RC and that's the end of it during the game. the TMO can't then review that down to YC.

What you seem to be implying here is removing the capacity of the ref to make a call on field and issue a RC.

[Kawazaki]

What you seem to be implying here is removing the capacity of the ref to make a call on field and issue a RC.

On the contrary, the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation to overturn the on-field recommendation.

For more serious offences, the referee would issue a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a RC and here the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation that it isn't a full RC for the player to return.

[Guy Smiley]

What you seem to be implying here is removing the capacity of the ref to make a call on field and issue a RC.

On the contrary, the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation to overturn the on-field recommendation.

For more serious offences, the referee would issue a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a RC and here the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation that it isn't a full RC for the player to return.

I think you just proved my point.

[Kawazaki]

What you seem to be implying here is removing the capacity of the ref to make a call on field and issue a RC.

On the contrary, the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation to overturn the on-field recommendation.

For more serious offences, the referee would issue a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a RC and here the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation that it isn't a full RC for the player to return.

I think you just proved my point.

You made a point?

[CM11]

How about a process based on another review process that already exists. How about this;

1. Much like the pilot system currently running in NZ, a player is sent off the pitch with a yellow card which is then reviewed during the 10 minute period to decide if it needs upgrading to a permanent red.

2. The difference being that the referee will make their on-field decision known much like they do with a try referral. So, a player could get a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a YC - this would be for things like deliberate knock-ons, pulling down a maul, persistent offside etc. For more serious offences, the referee would issue a YC with an on-field recommendation that it is a RC and here the TMO would have to find sufficient mitigation that it isn't a full RC for the player to return.

If we are buying some time, it would be good also to see how the result is arrived at on screen.

Classed as a tackle (cross)
Head contact (tick)
With force (tick)
Is highly reckless (cross)
Was there mitigation (tick)
Yellow card

Kind of like cricket LBW’s

Why wouldn't it be classed as a tackle?

[Ymx]

Christ, it was an example. It might be a ruck entry, or lack of arms (wrap) used.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The Committee found the player to have been reckless and to have committed foul play. That would suggest they agree with the referee. They have then introduced mitigation and down graded the sanction to a YC, in direct contradiction of their own finding of reckless and foul play.

The referee in this instance is not the problem.

Mitigation is available for reckless acts, it's only not available for high reckless acts.

I'd have kept it as red, but they haven't deviated from their protocols

What's the mitigation for foul play?

Errm

Passive vs dynamic
Quick and/or significant changes in height
Being able to see
If the defender is clearly attempting a change in their height

probably one of two more

Steward would be eligible for the sudden change in height, apparently. I wondered if that might not be like F1 where instead they'd say a player is always going to close into that space akin to car taking an apex, but that Keenan stoops for the ball is seemingly enough

[Kawazaki]

Steward shat the bed and then as noted by another poster did that cat thing when they see their reflection in a cd. The fact he is being defended by all and sundry for a panic attack is a real indictment on the game

You can reclassify it any way you like, it still wasn't a red card.

[Grandpa]

Steward shat the bed and then as noted by another poster did that cat thing when they see their reflection in a cd. The fact he is being defended by all and sundry for a panic attack is a real indictment on the game

tut tut, mental health is important. How dare you demean his insecurities... having a panic attack is bad enough in itself, without being punished further...

[CM11]

Christ, it was an example. It might be a ruck entry, or lack of arms (wrap) used.

I presumed you were using the Steward 'tackle' as an example.

[tc27]

Is this thread still going?

TLDR but I assume its people easting humble pie for insisting it was the clearest red they had ever seen and that Stewart is literally worse than Hitler?

[JM2K6]

Weirdly, people arguing why they thought it was a red haven't changed their mind in light of a very strangely argued decision that didn't add any new evidence to the mix. No one was using the fact that Peyper had given the red as the basis of their argument why it was a red.

[CM11]

Nor have I seen anyone argue it's at the high end of being the most obvious red ever.

[Ymx]

So is this enacted in this years supe??



Ideal

[Guy Smiley]

Yeah, that's being used. If a player is sent off under YC but the ref wants it reviewed, he informs the captains of that and once the decision comes down or the time limit expires, the captains are again informed and the player either returns or a further 10 minutes is sat out before the replacement can enter the field.

[Grandpa]

So is this enacted in this years supe??



Ideal

Are you not watching Super Rugby this year? As Guy says, it is being used and makes sense.

[fishfoodie]

So is this enacted in this years supe??



Ideal

Where's the option for the TMO to decide that the YC was an insufficient penalty, & it was actually worth a full Red card ?

It's almost as if the emphasis was on having the TMO downgrade the impact of the decision, & not use the time to come to the most appropriate decision, inline with the overall drive to reduce dangerous head contact ?

[CM11]

So is this enacted in this years supe??



Ideal

Where's the option for the TMO to decide that the YC was an insufficient penalty, & it was actually worth a full Red card ?

It's almost as if the emphasis was on having the TMO downgrade the impact of the decision, & not use the time to come to the most appropriate decision, inline with the overall drive to reduce dangerous head contact ?

If I'm reading it right, there's clear red, dubious red and yellow. Dubious red might subsequently be upgraded to red red but after the fact.

They're basically saying accidental but reckless head contact is not clear red. Clear red is for malicious acts of foul play. In other words, what red used to be for.

[Guy Smiley]

If I'm reading it right, there's clear red, dubious red and yellow. Dubious red might subsequently be upgraded to red red but after the fact.

They're basically saying accidental but reckless head contact is not clear red. Clear red is for malicious acts of foul play. In other words, what red used to be for.

That's basically it. What they're doing is allowing time for the TMO to review on the referee's recommendation to see if an escalation to RC is warranted from the initial YC.

It allows the ref to take action immediately and get the game moving again without putting everyone through the live review and replay ordeal while ensuring that a serious offence can be adequately sanctioned.

[Enzedder]

Weirdly, people arguing why they thought it was a red haven't changed their mind in light of a very strangely argued decision that didn't add any new evidence to the mix. No one was using the fact that Peyper had given the red as the basis of their argument why it was a red.

Based on case law m'lud