6N Ireland v England
-
@pakman said in 6N Ireland v England:
Panel has rescinded Steward's Red card.
I’m feeling as smug as a bug in a rug.
-
@pakman said in 6N Ireland v England:
Panel has rescinded Steward's Red card.
I’m feeling as smug as a bug in a rug.
@Billy-Tell said in 6N Ireland v England:
@pakman said in 6N Ireland v England:
Panel has rescinded Steward's Red card.
I’m feeling as smug as a bug in a rug.
It's up there with the Benjamin Fall red card against BB that got overturned. WR are not providing any sort of useful guidance to drive consistent decisionmaking. It's a damn lottery, it's wrong, it sucks, and it's throwing refs under the bus.
Personally, I think there has to be responsibility for carriers to stay high - dropping into contact must reduce the onus on the tackler; not completely, but has to count for something.
Bloody full game reds being dished out like candy as well. IF you are seroius about them, stay with 20 min reds assessed by TMO off the field. Super leading the way with sensible laws at last.
-
Further to my rant, if players can't agree, refs can't agree with judiciaries, punters on here can't agree, commentators can't agree on what is a 'play on' or 'red card', it tells you the decision making framework is completely borked. Someone made the point above and it's a good one - the arguments should be penalty/YC, or YC/RC, but not 'play on'/Red Card.
World Rugby can piss off, I'm really unhappy with them. Refs are not getting anything meaningful to support them, no portfolio of decisions with proper examples to help. It's all vague, meaningless corporate waffling bullshit
-
Further to my rant, if players can't agree, refs can't agree with judiciaries, punters on here can't agree, commentators can't agree on what is a 'play on' or 'red card', it tells you the decision making framework is completely borked. Someone made the point above and it's a good one - the arguments should be penalty/YC, or YC/RC, but not 'play on'/Red Card.
World Rugby can piss off, I'm really unhappy with them. Refs are not getting anything meaningful to support them, no portfolio of decisions with proper examples to help. It's all vague, meaningless corporate waffling bullshit
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
Further to my rant, if players can't agree, refs can't agree with judiciaries, punters on here can't agree, commentators can't agree on what is a 'play on' or 'red card', it tells you the decision making framework is completely borked. Someone made the point above and it's a good one - the arguments should be penalty/YC, or YC/RC, but not 'play on'/Red Card.
World Rugby can piss off, I'm really unhappy with them. Refs are not getting anything meaningful to support them, no portfolio of decisions with proper examples to help. It's all vague, meaningless corporate waffling bullshit
A game has been potentially wrecked, a Ref hung out to dry, head contact rules thrown into confusion, players being told cards are a lottery and spectators confused.
What a bloody mess.
-
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
Further to my rant, if players can't agree, refs can't agree with judiciaries, punters on here can't agree, commentators can't agree on what is a 'play on' or 'red card', it tells you the decision making framework is completely borked. Someone made the point above and it's a good one - the arguments should be penalty/YC, or YC/RC, but not 'play on'/Red Card.
World Rugby can piss off, I'm really unhappy with them. Refs are not getting anything meaningful to support them, no portfolio of decisions with proper examples to help. It's all vague, meaningless corporate waffling bullshit
A game has been potentially wrecked, a Ref hung out to dry, head contact rules thrown into confusion, players being told cards are a lottery and spectators confused.
What a bloody mess.
@Victor-Meldrew said in 6N Ireland v England:
players being told cards are a lottery
if it's a lottery, people will roll the dice.
IF there are clear, achievable frameworks about what people need to do, wiht consistent enforcement, behaviour changes quickly. The randomness is super frustrating.
-
Take away the over analysis and ideas of what should have been done in Matrix style slow downs and what you have is an accident. Poor split second decisions that wouldn't have happened had there not been a munted pass.
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step to the protocol was the key. Like some posters here he decided that Steward didn't 'take care' (ie Careless, therefore foul play). Once he started down that road the only way out of a red was mitigation. The fact that Keenean was nearly doubled over and out of control should have provided that but to me Peyper made his mind up first then went through the protocol to justify rather than the other way around. Peyper's whole demeanour and body language was very defensive. He put up walls to reasonable thought and leaned on the protocols as an excuse for his decision. -
Take away the over analysis and ideas of what should have been done in Matrix style slow downs and what you have is an accident. Poor split second decisions that wouldn't have happened had there not been a munted pass.
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step to the protocol was the key. Like some posters here he decided that Steward didn't 'take care' (ie Careless, therefore foul play). Once he started down that road the only way out of a red was mitigation. The fact that Keenean was nearly doubled over and out of control should have provided that but to me Peyper made his mind up first then went through the protocol to justify rather than the other way around. Peyper's whole demeanour and body language was very defensive. He put up walls to reasonable thought and leaned on the protocols as an excuse for his decision.@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
-
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
Maybe if they really want to drive behaviour/coaching changes then all head contact should be identified post match and dealt with. They say that the citing commissioner does that but we have seen plenty of examples where nothing happens so you really wonder (Aki clear shoulder to the head at a ruck with a tucked arm and enough force to smash a front rower back - zero, zilch, nothing). We all noticed it in real time. I can understand the ref not seeing it in the moment but the reviewing official post game?
-
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
Maybe if they really want to drive behaviour/coaching changes then all head contact should be identified post match and dealt with. They say that the citing commissioner does that but we have seen plenty of examples where nothing happens so you really wonder (Aki clear shoulder to the head at a ruck with a tucked arm and enough force to smash a front rower back - zero, zilch, nothing). We all noticed it in real time. I can understand the ref not seeing it in the moment but the reviewing official post game?
-
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
And the effects of those decisions can’t be understated. The Ta’avao/Porter inequity could have lead to a series reversal . That could have given Fozzie a decent start to 2022. Instead he was on the back foot from the get go and the year unravelled from there. It also lead us to the current situation of him being reticent to reapply for his own job and having razor hanging over him like a spectre for the World Cup year.
Similarly , when Steward got sent off it was a 4 point game and Ireland were not their normal efficient machine. It was cagey.
Long story short they easily could have failed in NZ and “bottled” the grand slam. That changes the narrative massively in a World Cup year . Butterfly effect of these cards etc.
We need consistency in these refereeing decisions. It bloody matters.
-
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
Maybe if they really want to drive behaviour/coaching changes then all head contact should be identified post match and dealt with. They say that the citing commissioner does that but we have seen plenty of examples where nothing happens so you really wonder (Aki clear shoulder to the head at a ruck with a tucked arm and enough force to smash a front rower back - zero, zilch, nothing). We all noticed it in real time. I can understand the ref not seeing it in the moment but the reviewing official post game?
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
Maybe if they really want to drive behaviour/coaching changes then all head contact should be identified post match and dealt with. They say that the citing commissioner does that but we have seen plenty of examples where nothing happens so you really wonder (Aki clear shoulder to the head at a ruck with a tucked arm and enough force to smash a front rower back - zero, zilch, nothing). We all noticed it in real time. I can understand the ref not seeing it in the moment but the reviewing official post game?
Jordie Barrett was absolutely mullered in the face against the force two weeks ago. A lock came over a ruck like a missile while he was defending his own try line. So you’re sitting there going to yourself . “well that try will be disallowed and they will be down a man for the rest of the game”.
Not a sausage from the ref or his colleagues.
We can’t have a sport that’s a lottery like this . It’s terrible fare being served up.
-
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
-
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
@MajorRage said in 6N Ireland v England:
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
Isn't that why there is a judiciary though? If they weren't there to correct a decision made in the heat of a game then they just become an expensive way to dish out the prescribed punishment by formula.
-
@MajorRage said in 6N Ireland v England:
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
Isn't that why there is a judiciary though? If they weren't there to correct a decision made in the heat of a game then they just become an expensive way to dish out the prescribed punishment by formula.
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
@MajorRage said in 6N Ireland v England:
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
Isn't that why there is a judiciary though? If they weren't there to correct a decision made in the heat of a game then they just become an expensive way to dish out the prescribed punishment by formula.
You can’t correct the decison.
England played with 14 men for most of the match.
-
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
Fern Rule #6 - Posters retain the right to be proven wrong and not know shit.
-
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
if you knew what the judiciary would do, you should be buying lotto tickets. There was zero consensus on whether that was the right decision or not.
-
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
Sounds like you have a bones to pick…
-
Colour me surprised.
