• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Andrea Piardi

If you slow it down frame by frame, Tizzano didn't have his hands on the ball before contact was made. Is that relevant? Is it a criterion for safety/contest? Is it in any practical way useful?

Watching it in real time, I was unsure, but if I'd had to put money on I'd have said penalty. Either way, as the last call of the game, one team was going to be outraged and the other feel vindicated. I don't envy Piardi and his team one bit.
 
Rich_NL said:
If you slow it down frame by frame, Tizzano didn't have his hands on the ball before contact was made. Is that relevant? Is it a criterion for safety/contest? Is it in any practical way useful?
Click to expand...
Surely not. Dangerous play transcends any other consideration
 
Rich_NL said:
Sure, but the question is whether it's reckless (by TV rugby ruck standards), or a rugby incident.
Click to expand...
I'm still on the side of post #99.
If both players had arrived simultaneously then I'd go with "rugby incident". But they clearly didn't.

The Gold player had eyes on the ball, the Red player had eyes on the Gold player.

And for the officials to base their decision on the "arrived at the same time" fallacy, raises some uncomfortable questions.
 
Marc Wakeham said:
And the week before a different AR gave the opposite call to the referee on that day.
Click to expand...

Which is what makes this comment from the World Rugby CEO (regarding Joe Schmidt's complaints aabout the final clearout call, but equally applicable here) so bemusing:

Joe’s got a view about what was wrong with that decision and there’ll be a debate about that, so that Joe and his players can go into the next Test understanding how that game’s going to be officiated.
Click to expand...

Regardless of 'debate', understanding how the next game is going to be officiated in such key areas is a lottery.
 
That was an interesting game, for sure.

I don't think the To4 collectively had a great game; my impression from fairly early on was that Jonker was leading the team. Almost as though Piardi had abrogated knock on and forward poasses to the TMO.

A couple of bad ones: the non tip tackle, that the TMO said did not go past horizontal. That one alone should see some kind of significant down marking. And the 'collapsed' maul that wasn't actually collapsed. That one led to a score.

But as I said, it wasn't just the man in the middle - that was a collective bad night out.
 
I doubt any such action will prove to be anything other than the usual banality of post match interviews.
 
Dickie E said:
www.facebook.com

524K views · 9.1K reactions | Hoops wants to see the referees' boss come out after a game and defend the officials, like a coach does with players 👀 #StanSportAU #BetweenTwoPosts | Stan Sport Rugby

Hoops wants to see the referees' boss come out after a game and defend the officials, like a coach does with players 👀 #StanSportAU #BetweenTwoPosts
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com

Yep
Click to expand...
Annesley tried that with the NRL for a while. I'd say futile at best, counterproductive at worst.
 
It was put to me once that if YOU, at YOUR level, want to criticise an international referee who is brutally assessed every time they perform AND have a personal coach AND they are still appointed to games at this level then you need to be very sure of your arguments.

Refs don't criticise players or coaches -I see no benefit here. Those that know, know; Those that don't know, don't know.
 
tim White said:
It was put to me once that if YOU, at YOUR level, want to criticise an international referee who is brutally assessed every time they perform AND have a personal coach AND they are still appointed to games at this level then you need to be very sure of your arguments.

Refs don't criticise players or coaches -I see no benefit here. Those that know, know; Those that don't know, don't know.
Click to expand...
I think that if there are game changing decisions that were wrong in fact, then it's OK to air that conversation. The two decisions I raised weren't opinions but statements of fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top