URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       UAE Rugby Referees
  HTML https://uaerr.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: UAE Rugby Referees
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 29--------------------------------------------------
       Canterburry v Wellington
   DIR By: martyjuk
       Date: September 21, 2013, 11:51 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Stomp - red card nowhere near the ball and looking at the
       players.
       Commentator statement - he was not unlucky and I believe it was
       deliberate as he had nowhere to go having jumped onto the ruck.
       Getting in goal - went the wrong way, put lots of bodies between
       him and the ball would have been better following the ball in.
       Poor management turned his back on the players and walked away
       from leaving them to fight it out.
       #Post#: 30--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Canterburry v Wellington
   DIR By: eduard
       Date: September 22, 2013, 1:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       1) Stamping: Starting from PK (10.4.b). In real time I would
       think in yellow to orange. After the video review there is
       clearly no intention to play the ball or contest the ruck, but
       only stamping on the player on the ground. There are no
       mitigating circumstance, but on the contrary, aggravating
       factors: Atacking team, leading the score, end of the second
       half. RED CARD IS FINE.
       2) In no way the player is trying to get his position in the
       ruck, since he joined it jumping and looking for stamping, and
       never looking for the ball.
       3) I reckon he should run to the open side of the scrum (right)
       and follow the game from behind. It is highly reccomended to go
       into in-goal area and let the game come to you, but in this case
       ha run around the scrum, so there were a lot of players
       interfering his vision since the beginning of the action.
       4) Agreed with Martin. He shouldn´t turn his back on the players
       on the ground. mostly when they were hand-bagging before he left
       the area, right in fron of him.
       5) There are a lot of comments to do in this action: Scrum came
       up, ref arriving late to the in-goal area, no signal of time
       stoppage, turning his back again on the players on the ground,
       and the question rised to the TMO is not following the protocols
       of communication.
       #Post#: 32--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Canterburry v Wellington
   DIR By: uaerrs
       Date: September 23, 2013, 10:33 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Guys
       Good logic.  In the discussions last night there were a few
       points that emerged.
       1.  Red card.  This was a red card, and should have been a red
       card even if he only stomped on the first player.  The reality
       is this is top division provincial rugby in New Zealand and this
       player should have the ability to exercise caution.  As Eduard
       describes it - intent was clear and obvious.  The concern for me
       last night was tat the thinking process was that the guys
       started at no sanction and worked up.  The thinking process
       should have started with red - and then was there a reason not
       to.  Foul play.
       2. The commentator is an idiot.
       3.  The option the referee took in where he ran to was fine, it
       was probably as effective as the option of following the ball
       around.  The issue for me was that he hesitated when he had
       moved to the offside line.  In this situation he had to
       intuitively go (either way).  The hesitation meant he was
       arriving after the try was or was not scored - not as it was
       happening.  We dont have the luxury of TMO's so we need to be
       more planned in these situations as it was obvious what the
       Canterbury plan was.
       4.  The next sequence was very disturbing in the context of the
       continuum of the game.  He had a red, obviously there was some
       unfinished business from that.  He then had these players
       expressing themselves, yet he did not speak to anyone, or
       address the issue, or take time to cool the game down.  The
       question i asked myself was - what did he leave unmanaged after
       the card.
       5.  We then went on and have another no/no try situation and he
       just turned his back on players still milling around.
       In both cases he abdicated his responsibilities as a referee to
       the ARs
       Good content guys
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1