I realise that this isn't a court of law so you can spoof as you wish. But, unless you can upload "attached screen shots" that show the incident from Poite's perspective, then you're showing me nothing that's germane to this debate.Originally Posted by Thomond78
So, there was somehow a magical screen, invisible to anyone else, that popped up between Poite and the incident so that he didn't see it (except that, oddly, he could still see 100+kg of Dutchman diving elbow-first into McCaw well enough to award a yellow)?Funny how the said screen keeps on following Romain around the place any time he bottles a red, isn't it?
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
So, my reasonable request that you provide a shot that shows the incident from Poite's perspective in order to support your unsubstantiated claim that he bottled out of recommending a red card, is responded to with a predictable combination of blather and bombast. You can't put up, yet you refuse to shut up!
You're good at the straw man argument, I'll grant you that. They may impress the gullible, but I've dealt with spoofers like you throughout my career and know all their tricks. I've already dealt with the issue that you regurgitated above and have nothing to add to what I wrote before.
Now, why not just run along and write a 'scholarly' article on your blog about the whole affair? I'm sure that all of your 10 followers are awaiting your views with bated breath.
I have now jumped the shark. Farewell.
Right, then, let's run that the other way.You've claimed Poite would have needed x-ray specs to have seen Greyling diving over, elbow-first, to hit McCaw in the fact as he was sitting up.I've shown that the dive was clear, the leading arm clear, and the contact clear.So, who or what do you say was in the way of Poite seeing that? Put up pictures, if you have them.And explain why, if he could see it for a yellow, he couldn't see it for a red.In the meantime, if you want to make this a dick-measuring contest on published articles, the same bet as I made with Jackie Brown stands, with the Mod of your choice as stakeholder.
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
1 query!: I think Green 8 came through the gate, but (Edit, Vermeulen) then makes a beeline for Richies head. If you've entered the ruck legally are you allowed to do as you please at any angle from there on? He was off his feet as much as anything.
Last edited by Cowboy; 17th-September-2012 at 15:22.
I am the million man.
Repeating bluster doesn't stop it being bluster. It may make you feel warm inside but it doesn't actually add anything substantive to the discussion.
The inescapable fact is that you cannot prove what Poite did or didn't see and neither can I. Hence, all that we can do is speculate; you from a position of strongly disliking Poite and I from a position of believing him to be a decent individual, trying to do a difficult job to the best of his ability. And there the matter must remain, unless pictures emerge that show the incident from close to his position on the touchline.
It is a matter of genuine regret to me that I am not in a position to accept your dick-measuring challenge. Suffice to say that some of my finest work can be found slumbering in the dusty pages of long-forgotten Dáil reports.
Greyling was charged under 10.4(a) for punching/striking. Under 10.5 the referee has the discretion to show yellow or red for the offence 10.4(a). Thomond78, your main thrust makes the yellow card redundant if you contend that anything that is yellow is also red. The referee has discretion so that he can apply the penalty on a sliding scale of severity. If your contention is true then what use is the yellow card? All offences go straight to red.
Now your point has merit if there is a directive for 10.4(a) offences similar to the one POB put out for 10.4(j) where a dump tackle will be shown straight red, but without such a directive the law stands that the referee has discretion to show yellow or red for 10.4(a). (Correct me if I am wrong on the lack of a directive)
The upshot of it all is that even if Poite saw exactly what you say he did, he still has the discretion to recommend yellow. Now if he had recommended a penalty only, THEN you have a point, but he did not so I feel the logic of your argument is off track.
Could the All Blacks kill rugby?
South Africa and Australia dropping to northern hemisphere standards will severely damage the game here.There will have to be some competitiveness or the ABs will look for something else, and so will the public.Argentina, while they will improve, are never going to be decent opposition for the All Blacks in the next few years.Maybe we will have to disband the All Blacks and limit them to Barbarian-style invitation matches?New Zealand could enter two rugby teams into the international game: the North and South.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/...g-run/7694833/
Wow!
“You don’t have to be a structural engineer to know that if you load the top and weaken the bottom, even the mightiest of towers can fall with a crash.”- Eddie Butler
There is a directive from August 2011 that high tackles, short arms and stiff arms are to be punished severely. And the threshold for a citing being upheld is: this was a sending off offence for which he was not sent off. Anything less, and the citing MUST be dismissed. They upheld the citing; therefore, they found Poite wrong.
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
DATE: 4 August 2011
SUBJECT:
(i) DANGEROUS TACKLES (HIGH TACKLES) and
(ii) DANGEROUS GRASPING OF NECK AND/OR HEAD AREA OF PLAYER NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE BALL
__________________________________________________ _________________
NOTE: THIS MEMORANDUM REPLACES THE MEMORANDUM OF
21 JANUARY 2011 RELATING TO DANGEROUS TACKLES (HIGH TACKLES)
__________________________________________________ _________________
This is a further memorandum in relation to Dangerous Tackles and the illegal taking out of players who are not in possession of the ball.
Law 10.4(e) in relation to Dangerous Tackles provides as follows:
A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
A stiff-arm tackle is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
High Tackles:
At an IRB Medical Seminar held in November 2010 at Lensbury the results of studies by the Rugby Football Union and New Zealand Rugby Football Union concluded that most injuries in Rugby in the elite Game are now occurring as a result of high tackles. The participants generally recognised that tackles above the line of the shoulders have the potential to cause serious injury and noted that a
trend had emerged whereby players responsible for such tackles were not being
adequately sanctioned.
Dangerous Grasping:
A further trend has recently emerged in the Game whereby players not in possession of the ball are being grasped and/or grabbed by an opponent in and
around the neck and/or head area, principally in an effort to clear out players from the breakdown. While such behaviour does not come under the definition of a tackle, as no ball carrier is involved nevertheless, it is dangerous play under Law 10.4(e) and/or Law 10.4(f) (playing an opponent without the ball).
The purpose of this revised Memorandum is to emphasise that as with tip tackles, (see Memorandum of 8 June 2009) this type of dangerous play must be dealt with severely by Referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process. As with other types of Illegal and/or Foul Play, depending on the circumstances of the high tackle or the illegal and dangerous taking out of players not in possession of the ball, the range of sanctions can extend from a penalty kick to the player receiving a red card.
An illegal high tackle to the head and/or neck area of the opponent (in particular involving a ‘stiff arm’ or swinging arm), bears all the hallmarks of an action which should result in a yellow card or a red card being seriously considered.
The grasping and twisting of the neck and/or head area of a player to effect either a tackle or to clear out a player not in possession of the ball should also be regarded as constituting serious Illegal and/or Foul Play and Match Officials and Judicial Personnel have a responsibility to ensure that the appropriate action is taken by them.
Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e) and Law 10.4(f)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle or the clear out.
Paddy O’Brien
Tim Gresson
This does not mention 10.4(a) at all. Not only that but it clearly reinforces my point that a referee should 'seriously consider a yellowOR red card'. The referee has discretion for 10.4(e) and 10.4(f), therefore he clearly would have discretion for 10.4(a) even without the clear words of 10.5.
The judicial officer's decision has no bearing on whether the referee used his discretion correctly. It may be that a red card offence is required for a suspension(I believe you, but can you show me the authority for this so I can read it myself?), but your point is about discretion of the referee, which is irrelevant to the judicial result. They are two very different decisions made under incredibly different conditions.
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsr...on17a4_874.pdf[quote]In the case of a citing, the function of the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall be to review the case and determine whether on the balance of probabilities the Player concerned committed the act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play that are the subject of the citing complaint, provided thata) In any case where a Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer is required to consider a citing complaint in respect of an incident where the referee has made a decision on the field of play in relation to that incident, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer may review the referee’s reasons for the decision and the circumstances surrounding it.
And, since they can't impose a suspension where it was a YC offense and must dismiss if a YC was given, a successful citing means a red card offense. In fact, that's the standard:In any such case, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall not make a finding contrary to the referee’s decision unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the referee’s reasons for his decision are wrong.[/b]17.6.2 When a Citing Commissioner is appointed, the following policy shall apply
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
That's fine and all, but like I said it's completely irrelevant to your point that Poite MUST recommend red. The fact that a judicial hearing which has the benefit of multiple camera angles and slow-mo came to a different conclusion than Poite is a completely separate point from the one you are making that, if Poite has seen a yellow offence then he must show red. That contradicts the laws of the game which gives referee's discretion in choosing yellow or red. Whatever happens afterwards at the judiciary is irrelevant in regards to use of that discretion.
You're playing handball against a haystack, old man. A complete waste of time. He will never admit that he may be wrong. His mind simply refuses to countenance the existence of such a possibility.
Oh dear, 1 million posts coming up. OD, I thought you had T78 on ignore you big spoofer. You definitely mentioned it a while back.
When things go wrong, blame McGahan
Good gad! - wash your mind out with carbolic soap, you bounder!
Why in the name of Saint Reginald of Perrier would I have ever contemplated putting this forum's most prolific, intelligent, balanced, knowledgeable and articulate poster on 'ignore'? When to have done so would have meant depriving myself of access to some of the most profound, well-argued and rigorous pieces of rugby analysis that I've ever read, during my long and happy life.
There's a far greater chance of me getting a multicoloured tattoo declaring that "I love Munshter Rugby" inscribed on my right buttock than there is of of me depriving myself of the opportunity to peruse the thoughts of Munsterfans' very own George Hook.
Read what I said. I never said "must": that's your addition. I said: He saw it for the yellow: and if he saw it for the yellow, he saw it for the red it should have been. The Judicial Officer upheld the Citing: in other words, held Poite was wrong to recommend a yellow, and held he should have recommended a red.
Also, what happens in the Citing isn't irrelevant to the use of a discretion when it's telling them they used that discretion wrongly.
Last edited by Thomond78; 20th-September-2012 at 12:50.
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
Had a signature line to that effect, in fact.
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
Just think about the logic of that statement, then tell me how you can square that with law 10.5(a).
The logic is, he was wrong to say it was yellow, and the citing so found.
Diving across a ruck elbow-first at a player on the ground is a red card. Any competent ref knows that. Poite saw it, and decided it was a yellow. The citing told him he was wrong.
Just because a discretion not to order off does not mean you shouldn't order off. Schalk Burger on Fitzgerald being a perfect example. The citing result makes it clear: like that, this was a red card offence, committed in plain view, not punished appropriately.
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
What a load of crap posted here, thanks guys, there was a clear cheap shot by a dumbass during a hectic game and the officials made the right call, cant you bitches just stop?
Well, Sewa, the problem is the officials didn't make the right call, because the right call was a straight red for the cheap shot.
If you contrast this with the red Poite recommended for POC, it becomes even more bizarre. A flying elbow to the head of a player on the ground is a sending off, end of.
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
Get over it ffs
David Wallace, James Coughlan - Heroes, Jonathan Davies
Yeah, why bother sending anyone off for cowardly cheap shots, eh?
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
Considering that you are refusing to acknowledge the obvious I'll explain it one last time then disengage. You seem to be confusing the issues either intentionally so as to hide the weakness of your argument or logic is a foreign concept to you.
The first issue which may have merit on your part is whether or not Poite made an incorrect decision. This is a matter of opinion and I have never tried to engage you on this point.
The second and more substantive issue is whether he was allowed to make the decision he made. In summary, was this a decision that Poite could make in those circumstances and was the sanction he recommended outside his discretion.
Now, it is your contention that because he saw the offence of 10.4(a) striking/hitting that he had no choice but to show only red, or in your words 'if he saw it for yellow, then he saw it for red'. Now compare that with the law:
10.5(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law(which includes law 10.4(a)) must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.
Clearly your claim that 'if he saw it for yellow, he saw it for red' is inconsistent with the law. The disjunctive 'OR' provides the referee with his discretion or choice. If he saw it for yellow, he saw it for yellow and he is well within his rights to recommend a yellow. Either your contention is correct and law 10.5(a) is false or you are incorrect and law 10.5(a) is true. Seeing as the source of laws 10.4(a) and 10.5 is the IRB, the conclusion is obvious.
Finally, this may all seem academic and of no value but I do have a valid interest in this matter. I have been very disheartened by the current trend in rugby to make the yellow card redundant. Calls from all quarters to dish out the harshest of penalties for all sundry of offences that once would have only garnered a penalty. POB made it worse with his, IMO ill advised directive that all dump tackles should be shown red. My interest is that I wish to put the brakes on this 'rush to red' or 'red card creep' which I feel is ruining the game. Warburton's dump and red card(which was correct by law but wrong in terms of fairness) being the most recent and memorable example. By having his discretion removed Rolland was put in a horrible position. Unfairly despised in Wales when it was not his fault. Red cards should be the final and rarest of sanctions. If the game of rugby is becoming unruly and too many red cards are being shown then the laws must be tightened and suspensions and fines increased so that less reds are needed. Red cards should not be the default.
Last edited by cptcrowbar; 21st-September-2012 at 06:22. Reason: Formatting
Sigh.
The only person claiming anyone said there is no discretion is you. Repeating a strawman doesn't make it true. I note you dropped the bit "it should have been" from "the red it should have been" to avoid dealing with that.
There is a discretion.
That does not mean all exercises of the discretion are correct. Some are wrong. If the discretion is used, that does not make the decision correct.
Here, the Citing Commissioner said: that use of the discretion was wrong. The Panel agreed. It was wrong.
This one was wrong, so found. It should have been a red, so found. He saw it well enough on an uninstructed view to give an incorrect yellow: therefore, he saw it well enough to give the red it should have been.
The yellow card was introduced for persistent and/or cynical offending. It was not meant to be a cop-out for referees from giving a red, but that is what it's become. The worst example of late was Blind Dave against Wales copping out of a straight red for Bradley Davies because he didn't want to make the hard call and preferred to leave it to be cited. And that is gutless, and cost Blind Dave his whistle. So far from the yellow being redundant, it's been used to make the red redundant and avoid hard calls. Every citing of a yellow card is saying; this should have been a red card, which the ref didn't give. One team that should have been playing with fourteen got away with a lesser punishment - they got away with dirty play, just like SA against the Lions in 2009 with Burger. And the thuggishness like Calum Clarke or Lawes or Hartley spreads because they know they'll not be sent off as they should, and will go out to maim and take out better players. THAT'S what ruins the game, not refs sending off cheap-shotters.
Vorsprung durch Pfennig.
http://www.espnscrum.com/australia/r...?cid=co3878854
quade singing britney.
"Lads, your not to miss practice unless your parents died or you died" Frank Leahy
Adam Ash Cooper knocked out cold against the Meat Eaters. Looked horrible. Hope he's OK.
To The Brave and the Faithful, Nothing is Unpublishable.
Saffies destroying the aussies. 31-8 & the aussies are down to 14 due to injurys & all substitutions used.
25-8 to NZ .A few minutes to half time.
Otaga Daily Times 2/5/2012
Taz-Where did you get that information as I have seen nowhere that he(Penney) was ruled out?
Editor - The writer stands by the Penney information.
Otaga Daily Times 3/5/2012
Editor-- This article originally said Rob Penney had missed out on the Munster coaching job. That information was incorrect.
4th try for the AB's. Savea with his 2nd.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote