I might have been wrong!

[BikingBud]

Further to my previous assertion that individual referee decisions do not decide matches I feel that there were 2 this weekend in France v Ireland match that might have had a significant impact if they had gone the other way.

First off the allegation of biting, the situation is quite clearly recorded and discussed on BBC here:




I think jaws, the shark and jaws and the arch villain in Goldfinger would both be happy with that nibble. I feel that the determination of intent is supported by the action to hold the arm to get a good bite.

Given some of the relative minor points that TMOs have interjected to highlight, I felt that not even looking at this was a significant omission.

But @42 mins and with the majority of the second half without a second row would likely have been much more difficult for France.

And the second was the knock one at the final line out match clock 82:40 .




Was it deliberate? Again looking at body position and trajectory of blue player they are clearly jumping across and slap the ball.

Unusual and perhaps because of that unexpected but as a tactic to bat the ball forward at the line out that you know is the final play of the game it might be a tactic that pays dividends.

So penalty and yellow?

In line with my previously expressed thoughts I did feel Ireland didn't do enough to win but what are other's thoughts on these two?

 

[didds]

I've seen videos of the biting incident today./ I can see how a ref and two ARs could easily have missed it. But how on earth a TMO has missed it with 38 minutes still to play is frankly unbelievable.

I do see now that the French player has been cited for it after the game

As for the last lineout... Even if it was genuinely accidental I think France got away with what may well have been a YC and a PK. Particularly given if we were swap the lineout for a 2 v 1, 5m out, and the defender stretches to full arm's length and finger tips with very little chance of retrieving the passed ball and knocks on a PK at least and probably YC is probably quite likely.

 

[Rich_NL]

12 match ban for the biting

12 match ban for Axelle Berthoumieu

An Independent Foul Play Review Committee (FPRC) convened to consider citing complaints issued against Axelle Berthoumieu (Law 9.12, biting) and Man...

www.ultimaterugby.com

I'm also surprised that the TMO missed it, having apparently had attention drawn to it by the Irish captain.

As for the final lineout, the defending team has always tried to disrupt the catch, and despite having seen this sort of thing regularly I've personally *never* seen an intentional knock-on given for it. It would be a real gotcha to pull this out of ones sleeve on the last play of a World Cup knockout match.

 

[crossref]

As for the final lineout, the defending team has always tried to disrupt the catch, and despite having seen this sort of thing regularly I've personally *never* seen an intentional knock-on given for it. It would be a real gotcha to pull this out of ones sleeve on the last play of a World Cup knockout match.

i agree with that.
Should the ref play more advantage in that situation? The only way green can gain adv is by playing on

 

[didds]

As for the final lineout, the defending team has always tried to disrupt the catch, and despite having seen this sort of thing regularly I've personally *never* seen an intentional knock-on given for it. It would be a real gotcha to pull this out of ones sleeve on the last play of a World Cup knockout match.

agree with thgat synopsis indeed - though the same scenario but with a pass in a 2v1 5m out may well see a very different approach - but the scenarios are the same in effect (though less of a probably try PT etc for the l/out!)

 

[Rich_NL]

agree with thgat synopsis indeed - though the same scenario but with a pass in a 2v1 5m out may well see a very different approach - but the scenarios are the same in effect (though less of a probably try PT etc for the l/out!)

I don't agree it's the same - a pass must be backwards, and can be (is always intended to be) directly to a teammate. A lineout throw has to be contestable and can't be directly to a teammate. There's a difference in the role of the defender/the credibility of "I was contesting". This particular case is a good highlight of the grey areas and assumptions, though!

 

[Decorily]

The knock on by the Blue jumper certainly doesn't look intentional in video clips I've watched.

 

[BikingBud]

I get the aspect of a tough call in the final throes of a knock out game but bear in mind the timeline from 77 mins:

• 77:17 - France leave the line to pre-form the maul (one of my current pet hates) - line reset rather than penalised - coaching international teams in knock out games?
• 78:39 - Deliberate KO by France 22 - Yellow card and penalty > Lineout
• 79:51 - High Tackle by France - Penalty > Lineout
• 81:07 - Side entry at maul following Ireland catch and drive - Penalty > Lineout - Referee advises about wider gap for both teams but doesn't, that I can tell, warn France about repeated infringements.
• 82:39 - Final line out, KO by France, tidied by France and quickly deemed to be no advantage, ruck had not even formed, therefore NOSIDE (82:51).

It wasn't just the final line out. We do need to consider the actions of the players and the wider intent as deliberate, not to lose.

Context is everything and the final few minutes had France repeatedly infringing, was the jeopardy sufficient?

Certain teams are adept at "closing a game out" We should not be afraid to apply the Laws to the same standard that we would throughout the game.

@crossref stated the Ireland perhaps should have been allowed to compete and advantage offered. I would say that at least should have had an opportunity to counter ruck, perhaps even waiting for the ball to be made dead.

 

[Shelflife]

I thought that the biting incident was very badly handled, player gets up from a ruck and tells the ref that she has been bitten, capt of the team then goes to the ref and informs them that a player has been bitten. Ref blows them off by saying that it will be checked in the background.

Secondly the TMO does not come out of this well at all, the French player has two attempts to nibble at the Irish players arm before she grabs her arm and brings it towards her mouth, its as clear as day on the angles that we saw on the TV, how he doesn't have a formal review of the incident is unbelievable. Its such a bad look for the game that everyone can see what happened and the officials pretend it didn't happen.

Then we move on to the citing, they decided that someone who makes a clear and deliberate action on two occasions to bite followed by a premeditated action of bringing an arm of an opponent to her mouth is only mid range ?? And then they compound that by messing up the mitigation protocol and giving the French an opportunity to appeal the ban and subsequently get it reduced.

Why a deliberate premeditated bite isnt starting at the top level entry is beyond me.

No one comes out of this looking good !

 

[SimonSmith]

"I thought that the biting incident was very badly handled, player gets up from a ruck and tells the ref that she has been bitten, capt of the team then goes to the ref and informs them that a player has been bitten. Ref blows them off by saying that it will be checked in the background."

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

 

[didds]

"I thought that the biting incident was very badly handled, player gets up from a ruck and tells the ref that she has been bitten, capt of the team then goes to the ref and informs them that a player has been bitten. Ref blows them off by saying that it will be checked in the background."

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

i suspect the dissatisfaction is amplified by the fact it clearly wasnt

 

[SimonSmith]

i suspect the dissatisfaction is amplified by the fact it clearly wasnt

The TMO may have got it wrong, but the process - background referral/check by the TMO - seems right

 

[Shelflife]

"I thought that the biting incident was very badly handled, player gets up from a ruck and tells the ref that she has been bitten, capt of the team then goes to the ref and informs them that a player has been bitten. Ref blows them off by saying that it will be checked in the background."

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Hi Simon,

Imo the ref should have formally asked the TMO to check the biting allegation, the ref was in a good position to look at the Irish players arm to see if there was evidence of a bite.

If the TMO checked even the angles that we could see on the TV , there is clear evidence of the the player attempting to bite twice and then actually shoving the arm into her mouth.

If they cant make a decision based on that, then they shouldn't be a professional TMO.

The optics are poor, lots of first time viewers watching especially i would image mothers of daughters who see that and go, well you're not playing rugby if that's not a red card.

The disciplinary protocol of giving a 50% reduction automatically if there's no previous needs to be looked at. Its terrible optics when a player gets 9 weeks knocked off for deliberately biting an opponent, just because they were never caught at it before and said sorry because they were caught red handed. No problem with some mitigation for pleading guilty and speeding up the process.

Also the one week reduction for "tackle school" is laughable and should be binned.

 

[Dickie E]

Ref blows them off by saying that it will be checked in the background.

How does that work? How does the TMO review an incident while also watching the game? Is there 2 TMOs?

 

[SimonSmith]

How does that work? How does the TMO review an incident while also watching the game? Is there 2 TMOs?

There's a FPTMO - that's who does the Yellow Card review process while the TMO continues real-time processing

 

[Flish]

There's a FPTMO - that's who does the Yellow Card review process while the TMO continues real-time processing

Protocol? can the bunker review TMO come in to 'assist' outside of the Bunker Yellow protocol? We are also assuming that the TMO's had the footage to review it (We assume that because TV has it and even Stadium has it that the TMO does - I understand that often that isn't the case). I do understand the expectation though, but suspect if it wasn't immediately clear and obvious to the TMO right then they have no choice but to move on

 

[didds]

The TMO may have got it wrong, but the process - background referral/check by the TMO - seems right

I admit I was under the possible misapprehension that the TMO hadn't even reviewed it "internally" ? CF ignored it/didnt even spot it to be reviewed.

 

[shebeen]

Similar scenario here - player cited after match, but in this case there is no compelling evidence of the offence.

Jan-Hendrik Wessels latest: Springboks star learns appeal fate after 'controversial' ban over alleged grope as URC deem the 'matter closed'

🟥 The appeal committee's verdict is in and it's not good news for Jan-Hendrik Wessels.

www.planetrugby.com

It would appear that there was contact in the genital area, but is it C&O that it was intentional? The hearing docs are not made public, but can assume that J-HW denied it as it was appealed.

Anyone neutral see this is a slide down a slippery slope?
Double standard with Murphy having a red for clear punching rescinded?

 

[Dickie E]

Similar scenario here - player cited after match, but in this case there is no compelling evidence of the offence.

Jan-Hendrik Wessels latest: Springboks star learns appeal fate after 'controversial' ban over alleged grope as URC deem the 'matter closed'

🟥 The appeal committee's verdict is in and it's not good news for Jan-Hendrik Wessels.

www.planetrugby.com

It would appear that there was contact in the genital area, but is it C&O that it was intentional? The hearing docs are not made public, but can assume that J-HW denied it as it was appealed.

Anyone neutral see this is a slide down a slippery slope?
Double standard with Murphy having a red for clear punching rescinded?

This seemed to be of significance but not sure why. Its like the accused's "I didn't do it" is an admission of guilt?

"Wessels’ oral evidence was noted as “brief” in comparison to Murphy’s, which was deemed “clear and detailed by the committee.”"

 

[shebeen]

This seemed to be of significance but not sure why. Its like the accused's "I didn't do it" is an admission of guilt?

"Wessels’ oral evidence was noted as “brief” in comparison to Murphy’s, which was deemed “clear and detailed by the committee.”"

Remember it's most likely in English, so the accused is most likely speaking in his second language.

I didn't realise that PR had actually got hold of the citing docs, and paraphrased it here. https://www.planetrugby.com/news/ex...ndrik-wessels-ban-and-josh-murphys-role-in-it

I'm not going to add further comment.....