Ferris and Davies cited

crashplan

Wales lock Bradley Davies and Ireland flanker Stephen Ferris have both been cited for foul play during Sunday’s RBS 6 Nations game between the countries in Dublin.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/rugby/ferris-and-davies-cited-538889.html#ixzz1lh3DkXR3

So will it be Ryan or O'Mahoney if Ferris gets banned?

phog

crashplan wrote: »

Wales lock Bradley Davies and Ireland flanker Stephen Ferris have both been cited for foul play during Sunday’s RBS 6 Nations game between the countries in Dublin.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/rugby/ferris-and-davies-cited-538889.html#ixzz1lh3DkXR3

So will it be Ryan or O'Mahoney if Ferris gets banned?

He wont be banned

Fishooks12

Why was he cited, if presuming anyone has any sense people know his offence(if it even was one) was the lower scale, surely a yellow would suffice?

d-gal

crashplan wrote: »

Wales lock Bradley Davies and Ireland flanker Stephen Ferris have both been cited for foul play during Sunday’s RBS 6 Nations game between the countries in Dublin.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/rugby/ferris-and-davies-cited-538889.html#ixzz1lh3DkXR3

So will it be Ryan or O'Mahoney if Ferris gets banned?

Crazy citing Ferris, no way should he be banned. On the highly unlikely chance he gets banned I hope POM gets in but I would be afraid it would be DOC in the 2nd row and Ryan 6

molloyjh

d-gal wrote: »

Crazy citing Ferris, no way should he be banned. On the highly unlikely chance he gets banned I hope POM gets in but I would be afraid it would be DOC in the 2nd row and Ryan 6

Most likely...

marco_polo

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Why was he cited, if presuming anyone has any sense people know his offence(if it even was one) was the lower scale, surely a yellow would suffice?

He can only be cited if the citing commisioner deems it was a red card worthy offense. Which is crazy interpretation of the law.

corny

Didn't even occur to me Ferris might be cited. Won't be banned.

Davies should get 12 weeks at least.

xikusionER

There's no way they can site ferris, his tackle was grand. Davies was off the ball and dangerous, he has to be banned.
If he does get banned, i can see Ryan coming in at 6 cus Kidney is too loyal and afraid of change

I think he will be banned tbh.

This is a part of the game that they're really trying to steer clear of. He'll receive a ban at the lower end of the scale, but a ban nonetheless.

The directive is surely to ensure that tacklers realise that the tackled player's safety is in their hands (literally). Players not taking due care and consideration of this fact in a tackle are liable to be punished for it.

phog

I'd reckon that he was cited simply because he was carded for the tip tackle and more so becuase there was a similar card for another tip tackle which most of us would agree was far more dangerous.

MungBean

Whats the max Davies can get ? Considering it wasnt a tackle it was an off the ball incident of a pretty dangerous nature.

The citing of Ferris is a joke, I'd argue it wasnt a penalty. Most people would see yellow as harsh. And now they are trying to say it should have been red ?

MrDerp

What I said on the 'Changes for France' thread:

MrDerp wrote: »

I'm not surprised to be honest. In the context of how ridiculous the Davies tackle was, I think the commissioner has no choice. They can't very well come out with the no tolerance line and then say that Ferris has no case to answer.

I reckon Ferris will get 2-4 weeks for not taking care. By the letter of the law he put his waist above his head. He never had a good hold of him, and should have taken more care.

He might have been ok, had the week that's in it not required a strong message on tip tackles from the governing body. Davies should have the book thrown at him. It was an off-the-ball incident because he didn't like the competition at the break down from Ryan.

They have to stamp this out. It is still a very serious issue. They can't throw the book at Davies and then determine the Ferris tackle wasn't dangerous.

Ferris may not have dropped his man, but he still tipped him. Given they will need to send a message about the Davies incident, I think Ferris is likely to also pick up a ban. It's a bit unlucky, due to the Davies citing - he's gonna suffer due to the timing.

totallegend

Look at it this way:

Wayne Barnes called it as a tip tackle during the game. If the citing commisioner doesn't cite Ferris, it's as good as saying that Barnes got it wrong with the penalty, then there'd be uproar with everyone saying we wuz robbed etc etc.

This way, the disciplinary committee looks at it, decides that it's a low-end offence, the yellow card was sufficient, Ferris' excellent disciplinary record etc etc, no further punishment warranted but there's no implied criticism of Barnes' decision.

Fishooks12

If that tackle is seen as a red card offence by the citing commissioner I'm really not sure if I want to watch thee game anymore. Might sound crazy but that's literally the most baffling thing I've ever seen, wasn't even a penalty

And I agreed with the Waburton sending off but this is just crazy.

rrpc

d-gal wrote: »

Crazy citing Ferris, no way should he be banned. On the highly unlikely chance he gets banned I hope POM gets in but I would be afraid it would be DOC in the 2nd row and Ryan 6

Steven Shingler got 4 weeks for something similar. He actually followed the tackled player to the ground and looked more like he overbalanced than tip tackled.

He got a red card on the spot and 4 weeks.

rrpc

Fishooks12 wrote: »

If that tackle is seen as a red card offence by the citing commissioner I'm really not sure if I want to watch thee game anymore. Might sound crazy but that's literally the most baffling thing I've ever seen, wasn't even a penalty

And I agreed with the Waburton sending off but this is just crazy.

It was Bradley Davies, not Warburton.

And Davies will get a longer ban than Ferris. But both will get a ban.

MrDerp

Fishooks12 wrote: »

If that tackle is seen as a red card offence by the citing commissioner I'm really not sure if I want to watch thee game anymore. Might sound crazy but that's literally the most baffling thing I've ever seen, wasn't even a penalty

And I agreed with the Waburton sending off but this is just crazy.

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059102.html

"For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient"

They may well deem that the yellow card was sufficient. All the citing commissioner has decided is that Ferris' tackle is in the category above. It's for the panel to decide whether a ban is appropriate.

Personally, I think the yellow card was the right call, and was sufficient. However, given its a thorny sensitive issue right now, I think Ferris is going to get a short ban.

phog

totallegend wrote: »

Look at it this way:

Wayne Barnes called it as a tip tackle during the game. If the citing commisioner doesn't cite Ferris, it's as good as saying that Barnes got it wrong with the penalty, then there'd be uproar with everyone saying we wuz robbed etc etc.

This way, the disciplinary committee looks at it, decides that it's a low-end offence, the yellow card was sufficient, Ferris' excellent disciplinary record etc etc, no further punishment warranted but there's no implied criticism of Barnes' decision.

I serioulsy doubt that kind of thought goes into it. The ref has a split second to see the incident and a few seconds to make the decision. The citing commissioner has a few days to review and make his decision.

A couple of weeks back there was guy on Marian Finucane's radio programme, a recently retired Navy Officer (I think) as it happended he was also a citing commissioner and he gave an insight into how they make their decisions.

Fishooks12

rrpc wrote: »

It was Bradley Davies, not Warburton.

And Davies will get a longer ban than Ferris. But both will get a ban.

I'm well aware of that but the Warburton WC incident got the ball rolling on a huge debate regarding lifting players in the tackle

What Davis did was disgraceful and I hope he gets 8+

MungBean

MrDerp wrote: »

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059102.html

"For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient"

They may well deem that the yellow card was sufficient. All the citing commissioner has decided is that Ferris' tackle is in the category above. It's for the panel to decide whether a ban is appropriate.

Personally, I think the yellow card was the right call, and was sufficient. However, given its a thorny sensitive issue right now, I think Ferris is going to get a short ban.

I dont think it was dangerous in any way, its a matter of measuring mm's on a freeze frame to find the point of tipping, the angle of which is very minimal and as such Ferris and Ireland will contest it vehemently.

The whole thing is about whether its illegal to lift someones leg because thats all he did. He didnt lift the player, tip him and drive/drop him on his head/upper body. Its not a tip tackle let alone a dangerous one.

Chucky the tree

MungBean wrote: »

I dont think it was dangerous in any way, its a matter of measuring mm's on a freeze frame to find the point of tipping, the angle of which is very minimal and as such Ferris and Ireland will contest it vehemently.

The whole thing is about whether its illegal to lift someones leg because thats all he did. He didnt lift the player, tip him and drive/drop him on his head/upper body. Its not a tip tackle let alone a dangerous one.

How do you lift someone's leg over his head and not tip him into the ground? It's not possible, it was a clear tip tackle from Ferris and a blatant penalty.

irishbucsfan

The implication that Ferris should have got a red card is ridiculous. The citing of Davies is spot on

Webbs

As it was a retaliation off the ball incident from Davies then it will surely be dealt with more severely than even a 'normal' tip tackle so I think 8 -10 weeks for Davies.

corny

I know Warburton got 3 weeks and there are instances of shorter bans for extenuating circumstances and what not but i thought 6 weeks was minimum tip tackles?

totallegend

corny wrote: »

I know Warburton got 3 weeks and there are instances of shorter bans for extenuating circumstances and what not but i thought 6 weeks was minimum tip tackles?

No, 3 weeks for low-end offences, 10 weeks for top-end. That doesn't bode well for Ferris, but the IRB issued this statement after the Warburton incident:

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

So hopefully Ferris will be alright and no further punishment is coming; he didn't force him into the ground and he didn't drop him from a height, so the yellow should be enough.

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059102.html

MrDerp

MungBean wrote: »

I dont think it was dangerous in any way, its a matter of measuring mm's on a freeze frame to find the point of tipping, the angle of which is very minimal and as such Ferris and Ireland will contest it vehemently.

The whole thing is about whether its illegal to lift someones leg because thats all he did. He didnt lift the player, tip him and drive/drop him on his head/upper body. Its not a tip tackle let alone a dangerous one.

I've only been able to view it second by second, don't have the benefit of freeze frame. There appears to be a second effort by Ferris where he then lifts the leg. Now, I can see that Evans' other foot is still planted on the ground at this point - so this is where you could dispute the lift. However Evans' own momentum seems to conspire with the leg lift to begin the tip immediately after. In realtime this would certainly appeared as a lift and tip so it was probably a good (if not 100%) call on the day by the ref.

The reason I stand over the dangerous tackle call is that the second grunt by Ferris to lift Evans' leg, while not intentionally dangerous, lacked due care for the player. However it may have started, the net result appears to be Ferris pushing and the players shoulders below his waist. I think Ferris was trying to complete a normal tackle, but having hold of only one leg resulted in a dangerous tackle.

MungBean

Chucky the tree wrote: »

How do you lift someone's leg over his head and not tip him into the ground? It's not possible, it was a clear tip tackle from Ferris and a blatant penalty.

When the other leg remains on the ground and the player isnt tipped. Evans body wasnt lifted off the ground, he wasnt tipped and he wasnt driven or dropped so his head/upper body made contact.

He was tackled and driven back, yes there was questionable lifting of the leg but it didnt invert his body and make the tackle dangerous.

Chucky the tree

MungBean wrote: »

When the other leg remains on the ground and the player isnt tipped. Evans body wasnt lifted off the ground, he wasnt tipped and he wasnt driven or dropped so his head/upper body made contact.

He was tackled and driven back, yes there was questionable lifting of the leg but it didnt invert his body and make the tackle dangerous.

Both of his legs were taken of the ground because of the tackle and thus he was tipped. It's really very clear from this picture.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/508518/191758.jpg

MungBean

MrDerp wrote: »

I've only been able to view it second by second, don't have the benefit of freeze frame. There appears to be a second effort by Ferris where he then lifts the leg. Now, I can see that Evans' other foot is still planted on the ground at this point - so this is where you could dispute the lift. However Evans' own momentum seems to conspire with the leg lift to begin the tip immediately after. In realtime this would certainly appeared as a lift and tip so it was probably a good (if not 100%) call on the day by the ref.

At the point his other leg lifted he was pretty much already back on the ground. There is no way you can describe the point of the second leg lifting as Ferris lifting him off the ground as Ferris and the rest of Evans body were coming back towards the ground. He was never tipped.

The reason I stand over the dangerous tackle call is that the second grunt by Ferris to lift Evans' leg, while not intentionally dangerous, lacked due care for the player. However it may have started, the net result appears to be Ferris pushing and the players shoulders below his waist. I think Ferris was trying to complete a normal tackle, but having hold of only one leg resulted in a dangerous tackle.

I seen nothing dangerous about it. His head didnt come close to hitting the ground, he was never tipped at a discernible angle and his other foot was planted through the entire time Ferris was in a position to "lift".

MungBean

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Both of his legs were taken of the ground because of the tackle and thus he was tipped. It's really very clear from this picture.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/508518/191758.jpg

Its not clear from that picture and the definition of "tipped" is not both legs taken off the ground either.

Chucky the tree

MungBean wrote: »

Its not clear from that picture and the definition of "tipped" is not both legs taken off the ground either.

You said his other leg remained on the ground, which leg are you referring to?

MrDerp

MungBean wrote: »

At the point his other leg lifted he was pretty much already back on the ground. There is no way you can describe the point of the second leg lifting as Ferris lifting him off the ground as Ferris and the rest of Evans body were coming back towards the ground. He was never tipped.

I seen nothing dangerous about it. His head didnt come close to hitting the ground, he was never tipped at a discernible angle and his other foot was planted through the entire time Ferris was in a position to "lift".

I understand that his head never hit the ground, but the risk was there. Evans got his arm underneath him.

The result of the tackle was this:

http://sharepic.me/?v=LNpd7.jpg

Ferris wasn't driving him into the ground, but the momentum of the two players, in conjunction with the body position of Evans due to Ferris' leg lift, created danger for Evans that wouldn't otherwise have existed.

MungBean

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You said his other leg remained on the ground, which leg are you referring to?

The one that was never lifted off the ground. Screenshot taken at the point it leaves the ground. Both Ferris and Evans comings down so how can Ferris be lifting Evans at this point ?

the juice

Both legs off the ground and head driven into the ground; his legs are off the ground but his head is not going into the ground; his shoulder is though; yellow card but not dangerous; But i am not a citing commish.

MungBean

MrDerp wrote: »

I understand that his head never hit the ground, but the risk was there. Evans got his arm underneath him.

The result of the tackle was this:

http://sharepic.me/?v=LNpd7.jpg

Ferris wasn't driving him into the ground, but the momentum of the two players, in conjunction with the body position of Evans due to Ferris' leg lift, created danger for Evans that wouldn't otherwise have existed.

What your describing isnt a penalty. He has to be lifted, tipped and driven into his upper body.

Chucky the tree

MungBean wrote: »

The one that was never lifted off the ground. Screenshot taken at the point it leaves the ground. Both Ferris and Evans comings down so how can Ferris be lifting Evans at this point ?

Because he lifted his other left up so far that his second was always going to leave the ground because kept lifting up the first leg. As you can see he's not making sure he lands safely either.

Here's the law

*Law 10.4 (j) states: “Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play”.

The play was lifted from the ground. He was driven/dropped while both feet were off the ground and his upper body came into contact with the ground.

MungBean

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUm9Whlaydc

Ferris tackle at 3.08.

He never lifted him, he never tipped him and it was never dangerous, all he did was grab a leg and drive him back. Remember people this is a contact sport. Bad call for a penalty, complete mess up to give a yellow and utterly ridiculous for it to be cited.

MungBean

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The play was lifted from the ground. He was driven/dropped while both feet were off the ground and his upper body came into contact with the ground.

None of which is true.

molloyjh

MungBean wrote: »

The one that was never lifted off the ground. Screenshot taken at the point it leaves the ground. Both Ferris and Evans comings down so how can Ferris be lifting Evans at this point ?

I'm still not seeing a leg on the ground there. Ferris may not have his hands on the other leg but by virtue of the second leg being attached to the same body as the first Ferris is lifting both legs. In the picture you've linked it's quite clear that at that point none of his body was touching the ground due to Ferris' tackle. It's also quite clear that the waist is above the head and that the upper body will come into contact with the ground first.

The law requires the following 2 things to be true for it to be a dangerous tackle:

IRB Law 10.4(j) wrote:

Lifting a player from the ground

Check.

IRB Law 10.4(j) wrote:

and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground

Check.

It then goes on to say:

IRB Law 10.4(j) wrote:

The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

This was not the case.

IRB Law 10.4(j) wrote:

The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)

This was not the case.

IRB Law 10.4(j) wrote:

For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

So for me it was a penalty and a yellow. I don't see a need for the citing, but with all the bru-ha-ha over the SF the IRB probably aren't willing to risk cries of favouritism. I'd imagine Fez get away with no ban, but Davies should be out for 8 weeks minimum given the nature of the offence and the fact that it was off the ball too.

Chucky the tree

MungBean wrote: »

None of which is true.

You need some glasses I think. How does his upper body not make contact with the ground? Not only that but he clearly lifts his leg.

MungBean

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You need some glasses I think. How does his upper body not make contact with the ground? Not only that but he clearly lifts his leg.

Because it doesnt and for it to be illegal it has to made contact as a result of lifting and tipping of the player, none of which happened.

Chucky the tree

MungBean wrote: »

Because it doesnt and for it to be illegal it has to made contact as a result of lifting and tipping of the player, none of which happened.

It does. He clearly lifts his leg, how does he leg end up at that angle? Magic?

yeraulone

He should have just ploughed into him, rather than tackle like he did. It was way too risky at that position and time of the game.

leeroybrown

If you look closely at the Ferris tackle you'll see that it's the tackled player who lifts the second leg off the ground as he falls to the side. The player's toe is in contact with the ground until he starts to move his body to break his own fall. Personally, I think it was borderline but it just looks a lot worse than it is. That said Ferris should have shown better tackle technique and the problem would never have arisen.

MungBean

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm still not seeing a leg on the ground there. Ferris may not have his hands on the other leg but by virtue of the second leg being attached to the same body as the first Ferris is lifting both legs. In the picture you've linked it's quite clear that at that point none of his body was touching the ground due to Ferris' tackle. It's also quite clear that the waist is above the head and that the upper body will come into contact with the ground first.

Every tackle will have a players feet off the ground and the degree to which his waist is above his head is minimal. Its also quite clear that his upper body doesnt come into contact with the ground.

The law requires the following 2 things to be true for it to be a dangerous tackle:

Lifting a player from the ground

Check.

Wrong. He wasnt lifted, he was driven back.

and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground

Check.

It then goes on to say:

He was neither dropped nor driven such that his upper body came into contact with the ground. Ferris held on for the duration of the tackle. The players upper body not only didnt contact the ground but he wasnt driven whilst both feet were in the air. His other leg lifted as both fell.



I think I've stated my position at this stage and I'm just repeating myself so I'm gonna leave it at that for the time being. The replay should be clear enough proof he didnt lift the player, tip him and drive him towards the ground.

wicklowdub

Elbow & arse seem to hit the ground first

Webbs

If a player lifts another leg so that the tackled players foot/feet go above head height then he is going to have a penalty called against him.

Mung bean you are being subjective in choosing to look at the clip at 3.08 if you look at the reverse angle at approx 3.20 then Ferris body angle is all wrong and he is definitely lifting and twisting, a line from Evans right leg to head is almost vertical its only as Evans is about 6'10 that he is able to get his elbow down in time. Yellow card probably not, no malice just a poor tackle so penalty yes

Reloc8

MrDerp wrote: »

I understand that his head never hit the ground, but the risk was there. Evans got his arm underneath him.

The result of the tackle was this:

http://sharepic.me/?v=LNpd7.jpg

Ferris wasn't driving him into the ground, but the momentum of the two players, in conjunction with the body position of Evans due to Ferris' leg lift, created danger for Evans that wouldn't otherwise have existed.

To be honest, a freeze frame of many tackle incidents which correctly go unpunished would show players in those body positions, but thanks for the pic which is useful in assessing this tackle.

For reference, relevant law :-

Law 10(4)(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that players feet are off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play. Sanction : Penalty Kick.

There are three necessary components for a Law 10(4(j) penalty :-

1. The tackled player must be lifted by the tackler so that his feet come off the ground, both of them.

2. While both his feet are off the ground the tackler must drop or drive him into the ground.

3. When he is dropped or while he is being driven into the ground, his head and/or upper body must come into contact with the ground.

This is then deemed to be dangerous play, irrespective of outcome (beyond the outcome required for the offence) or intent on the tacklers part.

Its clear that Davies has both feet off the ground and its clear from the video footage that Ferris lifted him.

Its equally clear from this picture that Davies' upper body or head have come into contact with the ground, while both his feet are off the ground, in other words when he has been dropped, or while he is being driven (I agree Ferris probably did not drive him into the ground but that doesn't matter if he dropped him).

Further, it doesn't matter whether as a matter of physics or whatever Ferris puts him over a horizontal tipping point at any stage once the other criteria are met (although most 10(4)(j) tackles probably do involve someone being tipped over in the classic sense).

On the letter of the law, this is a valid penalty. The wriggle room might be that the point of his elbow comes into contact with the ground first. I wouldn't accept however that none of his upper body/head came down while his feet were off the ground and the law in question can't be ignores just because a player happens to get an elbow underneath himself on the way down.

There is another penalty offence of tackling dangerously :

Law 10(4)(e) A player must not tackle an opponent early, late, or dangerously. Sanction Penalty Kick.

Ironically, I am not convinced that in the absence of the specific wording of Law 10(4)(j) this tackle would have been viewed as a dangerous tackle. That and my view doesn't matter however as 10(4)(j) operates to deem Ferris' tackle as dangerous, and a penalty offence, irrespective as I said of intent/outcome.

As regards Ferris' liability to be suspended I believe there is room in the interpretation of the relevant IRB guidance/directive to deem that the yellow card was sufficient punishment and I would expect that he won't be suspended.

Davies of course committed an offence well within the high end of offences contrary to 10(4)(j) and indeed 10(4)(e) and can expect a few weeks to concentrate on his golf or whatever.

Full disclosure - when I saw the Ferris tackle in real time I thought the penalty was a nonsense call. Looking closely at 10(4)(j), the footage and the stills, it is difficult to argue with the penalty.

MungBean

There are three necessary components for a Law 10(4(j) penalty :-

1. The tackled player must be lifted by the tackler so that his feet come off the ground, both of them.

2. While both his feet are off the ground the tackler must drop or drive him into the ground.

3. When he is dropped or while he is being driven into the ground, his head and/or upper body must come into contact with the ground.

1. He wasnt lifted by the tackler as is clear in the replay. His leg was lifted and he was driven backwards. This is clear by the fact his left leg did not leave the ground until he was all but touching back down. If you watch his torso his never gains height, he is only forced backwards off balance.

2. If you look at the point his left leg leaving the ground the tackler is not driving the player towards the ground nor does he release him so as to be dropped. So he doesnt drive or drop him while both feet are in the air.

3. Even if he was dropped or driven it must be done so as the players head or upperbody make contact with the ground. This didnt happen. Its clear by the reply that the tackled player did not land on his head or upper body.


Not one of those 3 aspects shows that tackle was dangerous let alone all three.

kevwotton

One thing that definitely stands against Ferris is that the secondary motion of the tackle lifts Evans upwards. In saying that I think the sole intent was to complete the tackle by bringing him to ground and preventing an offload.

Evans does change his body position at the time the secondary drive comes in, maybe trying to get his hands free or trying to get into a better body position for when he is on the deck. In doing so he shifts his center of mass much further forward and past the point of contact. Simple physics dictates that there is going to be a resulting twisting motion. [Physics is fun]

Unfortunately for Ferris this meant that from the ref's point of view there is an initial tackle, followed by a secondary drive which results in the players legs going up and his head going down. Barnes can only ref what he sees.

Tox56

MungBean wrote: »

1. He wasnt lifted by the tackler as is clear in the replay. His leg was lifted and he was driven backwards. This is clear by the fact his left leg did not leave the ground until he was all but touching back down. If you watch his torso his never gains height, he is only forced backwards off balance.

2. If you look at the point his left leg leaving the ground the tackler is not driving the player towards the ground nor does he release him so as to be dropped. So he doesnt drive or drop him while both feet are in the air.

3. Even if he was dropped or driven it must be done so as the players head or upperbody make contact with the ground. This didnt happen. Its clear by the reply that the tackled player did not land on his head or upper body.


Not one of those 3 aspects shows that tackle was dangerous let alone all three.

This is crucial. But when both legs were in the air, all of him was off the ground.


The picture shows when his 2nd leg leaves the ground, he is a long way from touching down again.

In terms of the upper body, we have been through this before, but from this picture, I believe it is clear his Upper-Body hits the ground. Also from this picture, you can see (as he hits the ground), Ferris lets go, dropping him. He is definitely not horizontal.



It shouldn't be cited, and shouldn't be a yellow, but a penalty is fair enough.