Wallabies v France 3
-
@bones said in Wallabies v France 3:
@barbarian said in Wallabies v France 3:
@bones People hate what the Frenchie did here (Oz), but I haven't spoken to anyone that thinks the RC was issued because of the play acting.
Interesting, the people I've spoken it feels like they think it influenced the decision.
I think it more influenced the decision to look at it (which I guess is the pre-cursor to the decision)
We all saw a very similar shot on DMac in that Fiji game that went unchallenged because DMac is Mataura tough. Pretty sure that if he had stayed down or grabbed at his head the protocols would have been followed and a card dished out. -
@nta I wish all referees were like Nigel.
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nta I wish all referees were like Nigel.
What, giving massive advantages to the ABs?
-
@nta said in Wallabies v France 3:
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nta I wish all referees were like Nigel.
What, giving massive advantages to the ABs?
You misspelled "understands how things should be".
-
@bones said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nta said in Wallabies v France 3:
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nta I wish all referees were like Nigel.
What, giving massive advantages to the ABs?
You misspelled "understands how things should be".
No I'm pretty sure I said the right thing -
@nta said in Wallabies v France 3:
@bones said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nta said in Wallabies v France 3:
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nta I wish all referees were like Nigel.
What, giving massive advantages to the ABs?
You misspelled "understands how things should be".
No I'm pretty sure I said the right thingYou're both right.
-
@stargazer said in Wallabies v France 3:
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@steven-harris where did you find that?
Sadly that statement doesn't clarify the decision at all. I'd like to watch that video to see if that helps (fully expecting that it won't though).
@stargazer said in Wallabies v France 3:
@gibbonrib It's only the media release. Not the decision.
Oh, shit, I forgot that if a red card is dismissed, there won't be a written decision. Just the media release.
So the media release is all we get. It has been published on the WR website now, btw.Forget getting a further clarification of the decision.
For those nerdy enough to care, WR have released a written decision:
It's a bit wordy, but I've read it so that you don't have to. Key points it makes are:
- There was no contact to the head
- Initial contact was to the shoulder
- There was contact to the neck
- This means it is technically foul play
- The degree of danger was not high, so it should not have been a red
Things it doesn't clarify are:
- Whether the degree of danger was low (starting sanction: penalty) or medium (yellow card)
- Whether there was significant mitigation (it mentions both players dipping into the tackle, but doesn't rule on whether that was relevant to the decision)
- Whether the correct decision would have been a yellow, or just a penalty
Things it doesn't say, but strongly implies:
- Jelonch is a cheating git
