Ma cosa ha detto??!

Neil3030

Could any French speakers please translate the dialogue between Sergio and the ref? (From about 1:00 on)

I can understand Sergio pleading his case, saying "you've made a big mistake, sir", but I can't quite make out exactly what the ref says to him; does he describe the verbal offence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae25bxo_-7w

pickarooney

Parisse shouts something incomprehensible
Whistle blows
Commentator remarks that ref has heard something he didn't like
Red card
Parisse incredulous
SP:What?
Ref:I'll explain in the changing rooms
SP:You're making a big mistake, sir
Ref:I won't stand for being insulted, especially on the pitch
SP:I never insulted you
Ref:Get off
SP:I said we couldn't play [the ball]
Ref:Get off
SP:You're making a big mistake, sir, you're making a big mistake. You're going to have to take responsibility for this because it's a mess (?)
Commentator points out that Parisse is not happy
SP:What a **** decision, what a shame, that's not rugby

Heroditas

I thought I heard "puta" or "puto" in the original sentence that the ref appeared to have an issue with.

siltirocker

That is calling someone a bitch or a whore in Iberia, France and the mediterranean.

pickarooney

"Non si è perduto" maybe? (it wasn't lost)

Also sounds like 'nonce' in English

P_1

Strange red card so in that case?

No an expert in Spanish/Italian but it sounds to me like Parisse said something similar to 'the ball wasn't lost', the referee misheard Parisse and thought he called him a 'puta or poutaun' (a whore or a shít) and flashed the straight red.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out with the citing commissioner (if they have an equivalent in France).

pickarooney

Hearing is tomorrow. If he's found guilty he faces between 40 days and a year (!) out.

P_1

pickarooney wrote: »

Hearing is tomorrow. If he's found guilty he faces between 40 days and a year (!) out.

Yikes :eek: that's some punishment for calling a referee a few naughty words.

I'd imagine Stade Francais have had the sound engineers working overtime for the hearing.

duckysauce

Edwards is stirring it up


http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3820_8508795,00.html

P_1

duckysauce wrote: »

Edwards is stirring it up


http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3820_8508795,00.html

Makes sense for him to do that, no Parisse = probably an easier match for Wales in Rome.

duckysauce

P_1 wrote: »

Makes sense for him to do that, no Parisse = probably an easier match for Wales in Rome.

Yep he would be a massive loss and is playing great stuff lately.

Neil3030

duckysauce wrote: »

Yep he would be a massive loss and is playing great stuff lately.

Lately, as in, circa 2003 to date?

iroced

pickarooney wrote: »

[...]
Ref:Get off
SP:You're making a big mistake, sir, you're making a big mistake. You're going to have to take responsibility for this because it's a mess (?) big mistake (;))
[...]

Impossible to clearly hear anything from Parisse's shouting. But if one thing is sure it's that it's certainly not english language as stated by the ref.

.

duckysauce wrote: »

Edwards is stirring it up


http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3820_8508795,00.html

Hmmm.... Edwards ? Shaun Edwards ? Isn't it ironical to read "moral lessons" from a guy who managed to fight with his own team staff mate ?

19543261

It cant be the ref's word against his, surely.

I suppose if it cant be proven for definite, it'll be dropped. If it turns out the ref misheard... oh, very embarrassing.

peckerhead

The alleged insult comes before the dialogue Pickarooney translated above, around 1:14-1:16 in, and the commentator (of the replay) says "listen carefully, the words will be important". But I'm not so sure that what you hear him shouting is actually Italian, although I'll grant you the last word sounds a bit like "perduto" (lost)/"per tutto" (for everything, and also the ending of the word "dappertutto", meaning everywhere).

I checked a few French sites and they all seem to be none the wiser as to what he actually said (or what the ref thought he heard). Where did this claim come from that he insulted him in English, btw?

It wouldn't really make sense for Parissé to speak Italian to his French teammates, either. Problem is, he speaks French with a very marked Italian accent — but I can't come up with any French word that sounds like "perduto", and I'm fairly fluent. If you watch the point where the ref stops and blows the whistle, Parissé has just run past him, fairly close. I reckon maybe it was something else he muttered as he went by, not realising he was in earshot. In fact, the more I replay it, the more I wonder whether that's actually him calling out "something something perduto" — it could be another player or even a fan near the sideline who got picked up by the mic.

Silly bugger, either way. Hope the ban is towards the lower end of the scale, for Italy's sake. Forza Azzurri, Forza Italia!

P_1

'Perdu' is the french verbal equivalent of 'lost', I can see where the ref might have attributed it to mean something along the lines of 'puta', especially once you take the accent into account

peckerhead

Ah, they're pronounced very differently, though... and "puta" is Spanish, not Italian. That's "puttana", with the accent on the second syllable.

P_1

True, I still find it hard to believe that Parisse would call a referee some variant of a 'whore' during a match though, especially given his reaction in the video clip.

He could fins himself in trouble for the sideline comments though.

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

Lately, as in, circa 2003 to date?

I thought he had a really average spell for a little while tbh. He's definitely back to his best now though.

peckerhead

Imagine calling a ref a hoor! Jaysus, those foreign lads have a shockin' dirty mouth on them... you'd never get that in an Irish match.

He was inspiring in the last Italy/France match. I reckon he has something of a POC effect on his temmates, too; that's why I hope he's not ruled out for the rest of the 6N.

P_1

peckerhead wrote: »

Imagine calling a ref a hoor! Jaysus, those foreign lads have a shockin' dirty mouth on them... you'd never get that in an Irish match.

haven't got a clue what you're talking about

Beery Eyed

Honestly, it couldn't possibly be for shouting "putain" (whore) during the game. The word putain in Paris is thrown around more frequently than oh la la's! And during rugby matches you'd be struggling to keep count of the amount of times it's said.

I used to live there & played rugby with a team in Paris as well. The Parisians use it for everything in their daily life from greetings, to compliments, to insults and everything in between.

To put it another way, you can be sure we'll be hearing Jonny Sexton shouting it a few times next year when he heads to Racing!

It's more likely to be something he muttered as he ran by the ref & the mic didn't pick it up clearly, or else the ref misheard him & took insult.

pickarooney

peckerhead wrote: »

I checked a few French sites and they all seem to be none the wiser as to what he actually said (or what the ref thought he heard). Where did this claim come from that he insulted him in English, btw?

lerugbynistere.fr

Sur le coup personne ne semble comprendre les raisons de cette expulsion définitive. Monsieur Cardona avance, lui, avoir été insulté, en anglais, par le capitaine de la Squadra Azzurra.

rugbynews.fr

"Désolé à mes coéquipiers et supporters pour ce carton rouge que je trouve trop sévère ! Je n'ai jamais insulté M. Cardona", qui lui soutient avoir été la cible de mots déplacés en anglais. Au soutien du joueur, le club parisien a annoncé son intention de faire appel par l'intermédiaire de son président Tomas Savare s'exprimant au micro de Jour de Rugby : "Sergio Parisse n'a prononcé aucune insulte. Il a fait un courrier que j'ai transmis à l'arbitre, mais il conteste formellement la version de M. Cardona."

francebleu.fr

36e minute de jeu et l'exclusion du capitaine Sergio Parisse pour injure envers l'arbitre. C'est en tout ce qu'affirme aujourd'hui Laurent Cardona, il se dit avoir été insulté en anglais par le capitaine de l'équipe d'Italie. Et si les faits sont avérés ou en tout cas reconnu comme tels par la commission de discipline, la sentence pourrait être lourde, très lourde: de 40 jours à un an de suspension, voilà ce qu'encourt aujourd'hui Sergio Parisse.

postitnote

He was saying "Boo-urns".

On first listen i thought I heard putain. On the second listen I clearly heard perduto. Don't ask me why or how I heard putain the first time, thats just the way I picked it up.

I think the officials in this match have something to answer for, especially after the 'Mike Phillips' try.

razorblunt

Hardly charge him for the sideline comments with someone throwing a camera in his face.
This is rugby.
Randy Marsh Sarcastaball it ain't!

iroced

Beery Eyed wrote: »

Honestly, it couldn't possibly be for shouting "putain" (whore) during the game. The word putain in Paris is thrown around more frequently than oh la la's! And during rugby matches you'd be struggling to keep count of the amount of times it's said.

Yes. «Putain» in everyday life means «feck it», «sh*t!», «damn it» and is very
often pronounced «'tain» to sound less agressive.
The only insult there would be «fils de putain» («son of a b*tch») though we'd never say it like that («fils de pute» we'd say) and it doesn't sound like that.

razorblunt wrote: »

Hardly charge him for the sideline comments with someone throwing a camera in his face.
This is rugby.
Randy Marsh Sarcastaball it ain't!

19543261 wrote: »

It cant be the ref's word against his, surely.

I suppose if it cant be proven for definite, it'll be dropped. If it turns out the ref misheard... oh, very embarrassing.

Well I listened to former French international Vincent Moscato radio show yesterday and apparently Parisse is in big trouble.
It seems that the way the disciplinary commission works in France is the ref words against the player words and the commission will not go against the ref words. As it seems impossible to prove the insult he'll probably get the lower end penalty which is, nevertheless, 40 days.
Also Parisse sidelines comments («it's a sh*te decision, it's a shame, you should be ashamed») will go against him.

I hope he was wrong but he probably knows the system better than me...
I'd also hope the French league starts to question Mr. Cardona refereeing abilities. It's not the first time he's in the center of a controversy and he should be banned at least for several games for his unbelievable decision on the "magic ball" (Begles Bordeaux coach Vincent Etcheto own words) parisian third try.

Neoulous

iroced, Heard it too and if Moscato's right Parisse's in trouble...

Should have the decision soon now.

pickarooney

The audio track is not being used, so it's just the ref's bull**** word against his. They're saying Parisse contested and complained about every decision in the half hour he was on the pitch so a card was no harm to him but a lengthy suspension for a trumped-up charge is way out of order.

pickarooney

He's been given 40 days.
http://www.onrugby.it/2013/02/20/parisse/

thomond2006

I'd say he'll definitely appeal.

CatFromHue

That rules him out until playing until the 1st April, assuming the ban starts from today, which is the rest of the 6N and then two extra weeks.

pickarooney

18th of March (10 days reduction). No report of what the ref claims he said, if indeed he claimed anything specific.

iroced

There is something wrong with the way these disciplinary commissions work in rugby.

Laurent Cardona got suspended two games for his awful refereeing last week
And Parisse got 40 days of suspension for an insult that can't be proven. What if the ref misheard?

I know both things ain't related and I can very well understand that it is important to protect the respect each one needs to express to another in this sport but in this affair there's a smell of double standard...

P_1

That's a ridiculous decision if they only relied on the referees word.

Don't they use video evidence for regular citings? Why did they not use the audio evidence for this one?

Shelflife

pickarooney wrote: »

The audio track is not being used, so it's just the ref's bull**** word against his. They're saying Parisse contested and complained about every decision in the half hour he was on the pitch so a card was no harm to him but a lengthy suspension for a trumped-up charge is way out of order.

The ref is the sole arbitor of law during the game, this is the basic tenent of the game. If we start to doubt the refs fairness and his decisions then the whole game desends into a farce.

leaving aside his performance for a moment I would say that for a ref at any level even J1,J2 to flash a straight red to a player for comments/insults made to him would take something out of the ordinary.

To say that the refs word is bulls hite is very unfair and maybe parisse got what he deserved.

Refs rarely throw out red cards for nothing, the fact that it was red as opposed to a yellow suggests to me that Parasse stepped over the line big time.

Shelflife

P_1 wrote: »

That's a ridiculous decision if they only relied on the referees word.

Don't they use video evidence for regular citings? Why did they not use the audio evidence for this one?

It wasnt a citing, he was red carded, they would have read the refs report and heard from Parisse at the meeting and then they would have decided on the length of the ban.

P_1

Did the ref give his reason for the red in his report?

Shelflife

P_1 wrote: »

Did the ref give his reason for the red in his report?

He would have to quote the law and also give a report on the incident.

wp_rathead

was really hoping Italy would put one over on Wales.. this has become alot less possible now
shame

P_1

Shelflife wrote: »

The ref is the sole arbitor of law during the game, this is the basic tenent of the game. If we start to doubt the refs fairness and his decisions then the whole game desends into a farce.

leaving aside his performance for a moment I would say that for a ref at any level even J1,J2 to flash a straight red to a player for comments/insults made to him would take something out of the ordinary.

To say that the refs word is bulls hite is very unfair and maybe parisse got what he deserved.

Refs rarely throw out red cards for nothing, the fact that it was red as opposed to a yellow suggests to me that Parasse stepped over the line big time.

Refs are human though, and humans are prone to making errors. If the possibility was there that the referee made an error in this case and technology could prove it then there is a case for using this technology to at least verify that the referee didn't make a mistake.

For something contentious like this then all available technologies should have been used to make sure the referee made the right call

pickarooney

Shelflife wrote: »

To say that the refs word is bulls hite is very unfair and maybe parisse got what he deserved.

I'm only going on what I heard, granted, but if it's true that the ref claimed he was insulted in English but is unable or unwilling to go into detail, then it is bull****. There's no logic to what he's claimed and no evidence to back it up. A miscarriage of justice through cowardice or incompetence with a major impact not only on the player in question but on his club and country. Refs are rightfully respected in rugby, due in large part to their willingness to explain their decisions and stand by them. When you have mavericks like Cardona making hare-brained decisions and inventing reasons to send off players, without explaining himself, it does nothing for player-ref relations. He told the player he would explain his decision in the dressing room but apparently reneged on his promise.

19543261

This is a farce. I hope the media is kicking up a storm over there.

Is there room for an appeal then, if it's not a citing?

P_1

Could the head hochos in the FFR be concerned that Italy might finish ahead of them?

Suspicious that the ban is up right after the 6N is finished to say the least...

Shelflife

P_1 wrote: »

Refs are human though, and humans are prone to making errors. If the possibility was there that the referee made an error in this case and technology could prove it then there is a case for using this technology to at least verify that the referee didn't make a mistake.

For something contentious like this then all available technologies should have been used to make sure the referee made the right call

Of course this should be the case, if they can use any of the footage from the tv or ref mic then they should.

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm only going on what I heard, granted, but if it's true that the ref claimed he was insulted in English but is unable or unwilling to go into detail, then it is bull****. There's no logic to what he's claimed and no evidence to back it up. A miscarriage of justice through cowardice or incompetence with a major impact not only on the player in question but on his club and country. Refs are rightfully respected in rugby, due in large part to their willingness to explain their decisions and stand by them. When you have mavericks like Cardona making hare-brained decisions and inventing reasons to send off players, without explaining himself, it does nothing for player-ref relations. He told the player he would explain his decision in the dressing room but apparently reneged on his promise.

The ref is not going to explain himself to anyone outside of the red card hearing and its not good practise to debate the nitty gritty of a red card with a player after the match.

If as you say he is inventing reasons to send off an international player in a televised match, well then thats his career over and rightly so.

Atm I would be quicker to believe that pariesse stepped over the line with a comment rather then the ref making up a red card incident.

CatFromHue

Has Parisse come out and said what he actually shouted at the ref?

My take is that he clearly shouted something at the ref when there was no need to, he did it in an aggressive tone, and what he shouted is unclear on the video.

If you shout at a ref when there's no need, in an aggressive tone, something that's unclear but could be interpreted as an insult you've only yourself to blame if the ref sends you off for abusing him.

pickarooney

Apparently Cardona claimed Parisse said "fuсk off, ref!"

.ak

Shelflife wrote: »

Atm I would be quicker to believe that pariesse stepped over the line with a comment rather then the ref making up a red card incident.

For me it's a bit of both; I think the ref THOUGHT he heard something, and genuinely believed Parisse abused him, but going on Parisse's reactions I don't think he actually said anything, I think it's a big mix up.

If that's the case, it's a terrible shame one of the best 8's in European rugby is sitting on the sidelines for 30/40 days because of it, as seemingly there's no proof.

P_1

pickarooney wrote: »

Apparently Cardona claimed Parisse said "fuсk off, ref!"

I can't hear anything that even sounds remotely like that in the video clip. Something is very much amiss if that's what they went on to ban Parisse for so long. Even the Callum Clark ban relied heavily on video evidence if I remember rightly.

iroced

P_1 wrote: »

I can't hear anything that even sounds remotely like that in the video clip. Something is very much amiss if that's what they went on to ban Parisse for so long. Even the Callum Clark ban relied heavily on video evidence if I remember rightly.

Apparently the insult would have occured before what we can hear through the ref's microphone. At the start of the action...

What I'm very confused about is: if Parisse really said "**** off ref" it deserves more than 40 days ban with 10 as a suspended sentence. And if the ref misheard what Parisse shouted it deserves a week or so (for shouting at a ref while you should just wait the next stop and have a quiet word with him as the captain). So this "in-between 2 stools" decision is weird...

P_1

iroced wrote: »

Apparently the insult would have occured before what we can hear through the ref's microphone. At the start of the action...

What I'm very confused about is: if Parisse really said "**** off ref" it deserves more than 40 days ban with 10 as a suspended sentence. And if the ref misheard what Parisse shouted it deserves a week or so (for shouting at a ref while you should just wait the next stop and have a quiet word with him as the captain). So this "in-between 2 stools" decision is weird...

Yeah I know, the length of the ban is going to attract some attention of the tin foil hat variety too. Just a very strange incident truth be told.

Losty Dublin

Shelflife wrote: »

The ref is not going to explain himself to anyone outside of the red card hearing and its not good practise to debate the nitty gritty of a red card with a player after the match.

If as you say he is inventing reasons to send off an international player in a televised match, well then thats his career over and rightly so.

Atm I would be quicker to believe that pariesse stepped over the line with a comment rather then the ref making up a red card incident.

This part of the world, the general position from ARLB is that you only issue a red card when you are 100% off what you have seen or heard and only then when you have identified a culprit/s to disclipline. While I can't obviously speak specifics about French referee coaching and guidelines, I should imagine that the FFR would have fairly similar levels of applications.

Certainly, in high level TV games we see a lot more incidents punishable by red cards slip through the net for the lack of a guilty party being identified by match referees and assistant referees at the time of asking (Cian Healy against England springs to mind). On that basis, I'd be sceptical that the referee misheard what was said or if he carded the wrong player.

As far as a hearing goes, given the level of legal back up present on the day, any ban imposed are generally well founded and solidly based.