Awh ref

LeinsterDub

Thought it would be interesting to have a thread for some of the more controversial calls refs make and if we agreed or not . Think of Payne v sarries.

So opening link http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/06/3778/jebb-sinclair-controversially-red-carded-for-leading-with-the-elbow

No way this is a red in my book. What do you think?

errlloyd

Red or Yellow is really of no consequence in the last 10 minutes. I said somewhere else, I'd be interested to know what extra perspective the referee had. He seemed reasonably confident it was a big foul.

sydthebeat

i cant see how you can "lead" with an elbow if its down by your side when the tackler hits you....... bad bad call IMHO

Losty Dublin

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Thought it would be interesting to have a thread for some of the more controversial calls refs make and if we agreed or not . Think of Payne v sarries.

So opening link http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/06/3778/jebb-sinclair-controversially-red-carded-for-leading-with-the-elbow

No way this is a red in my book. What do you think?

Jebb struck the player with intent. How isn't it a red card?

LeinsterDub

errlloyd wrote: »

Red or Yellow is really of no consequence in the last 10 minutes. I said somewhere else, I'd be interested to know what extra perspective the referee had. He seemed reasonably confident it was a big foul.

I don't even think it was a yellow. He didn't lead with the elbow.

The reversing of the penalty possibly cost Canada the game

stephen_n

That's an awful decision, he didn't even drop his shoulder as the commentators were suggesting, he dipped to gather the ball and never raised his elbow at all, it was at his side. What's he supposed to do, keep his arms behind his back?

LeinsterDub

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Jebb struck the player with intent. How isn't it a red card?

My viewing of it is he attempts to use his shoulder to go through the tackle. The Scot makes an ass of the tackle attempting to tackle high

Losty Dublin

LeinsterDub wrote: »

My viewing of it is he attempts to use his shoulder to go through the tackle.

Leading with the elbow part of the shoulder?

CIARAN_BOYLE

If you look at the contact at 1.07 it looks like the elbow is being swung in an attempt to fend off the tackle.

I for one am interested in the view of the citing commisioner.

The Lost Sheep

Definite red card in my opinion. He dropped the elbow and as Ciaran says if you look at 1.05/1.06/1.07 its a red.

.ak

Tbh whilst I appreciate some of the refs opinions on the thread, I think the understanding of the game between ref and player is growing further and further apart. From day one I've always been trained when going into contact to drop the body, explode upwards using the shoulder and then pushing away with the arm. That's exactly what he did, he just happened to make contact with the players head.

If that's a red then it's bonkers. It happens all the time, just rarely does it get a look at. It's just because the guy got knocked out.

I could watch any pro test and see elbow making contact with heads or faces throughout the game.

If anything it's Jackson's fault for poor tackling technique. Where else was the Canadians arm going to go?

matthew8

If that's consistently called a red you could get any forward, or any back who explodes into contact red carded by putting your head in the wrong place.

Nialler15

Harsh enough. Think this call was wrong but there is so much leading with the elbow coming into the game. Obviously the IRB are trying to stamp it out, but got it wrong this time.

sweetthing

Every collision looks a lot worse in slow motion.

Also, this doesn´t seem like the kind of incident that´s going to endear rugby to the Canadian public. They appreciate physicality in their sports, probbaly why they´ve never made a fist at soccer. It´s unfortunate as CAnada is definitely a place where rugby could expand big-time.

padser

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Definite red card in my opinion. He dropped the elbow and as Ciaran says if you look at 1.05/1.06/1.07 its a red.

I don't know how anyone can look at this and conclude it's even a foul to be honest.

He didn't lead with the elbow or swing the elbow. Yes his elbow hits the player first but that's because the tackler is at elbow height. His elbow is bent because he is carrying the ball. Yes he does brace himself for contact but his elbow never moves more than a couple of inches from his body.

Anyone who is carrying a ball and braces themselves from contact will be "leading with their elbow" if we were to take this video as constituting leading the elbow.

Incidentally if this is a red card offence most teams better start practicing sevens style rugby fairly quickly or find a new style that doesn't involve ever taking the ball into contact....

If that constitutes a red card, SOB is going to spend most of next season in the Sin Bin.

P_1

Crikey I think we have finally found a scenario that the infamous 'tutu' interview would have been suitable for. Pretty poor decision

fitz

If Jackson had gone even lower, and gotten a knee in the head for his poor tackling technique and body positioning, would it have been a red card for leading with the knee?
Completely ridiculous decision.

razorblunt

First time, seeing this in real time, had only seen the thumbnail on my Facebook feed, no red card for me, standard trucking the ball up. It really is an awful attempted tackle by Jackson.

thomond2006

Time for Bastareaud to retire if that's suddenly a red card offence! He'd spend more time suspended than playing.

ButtersSuki

Were that interpretation to be applied consistently I'm every game you'd be looking at multiple yellows and reds per game. Poor decision IMO as the blame lies at the feet of the tackler on this one.

blackdog1

If thats a red card pom would never finish a match. Nothing wrong with it. You can push player off with the elbow. I can tell you from experience leading with the elbow is completely different or swinging at your head. This was neither.

crisco10

The way I see it, jackson got rewarded (and a concussion I reckon) for awful tackling technique; he put his head on the wrong side and straight into the Canadian's elbow.

By that ruling, Heaslip should have been sent off below. He did exactly the same thing. dropped the shoulder and pushed up with the arm.

aimee1

Crazy decision. With diving creeping in slowly too the game is inching towards soccer rules.

.ak

Yeah, basically you could throw your head against somebody's shoulder or, well, any part of their body that isn't their chest, and lay limp on the ground and it'll probably result in a red card.

irishbucsfan

For it to be worth a red card for me, there would have to either be recklessness or intent on the part of the carrier. I don't think he was reckless (pretty standard technique and his arm was at his side) and I don't think he intentionally elbowed him in the head.

For me it's not a red card because of that. The only part of it I don't like is the carrier following through with his elbow in the way he did, but I don't think that merited a red card (but it's certainly not a "tough rugby play"). I mostly disagree with it because I've seen plenty of players get away with it, Dan Tuohy is a serial striker when he's carrying the ball for example.


EDIT: I see the IRB won't be taking any further action on it. So doesn't exactly give the ref much backing for his decision.

Grimebox

Has the rules changed? I can literally think of hundreds of examples where its deemed fine, like the ROG one above, or this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBk6PjwsILA

freyners

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-WJVHsGoc

numerous numerous times in this SOB video he employs the same style when carrying

As ak. said, anyone who every played will have been taught how to carry in the same, get low, explode outward. To do that you need to have an arm bracing you for the impact. He doesn't swing the elbow out, hes trying to get his shoulder into the tacke but Sinclair gets too low. For me he trying to lead with his shoulder but Sinclair goes way too low (horrible tackling)
Pretty poor call, glad the commissioner isn;t pursuing but that is no good for canada now

freyners

that Du Plessis only got a YC for this far more obvious elbow really puts into context how poor a call that red is

prospect

Grimebox wrote: »

Has the rules changed? I can literally think of hundreds of examples where its deemed fine, like the ROG one above, or this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBk6PjwsILA

Dunno about this one, it is almost like Gear tackles Earls, in which case he should wrap his arms.

Losty Dublin

irishbucsfan wrote: »

EDIT: I see the IRB won't be taking any further action on it. So doesn't exactly give the ref much backing for his decision.

Was the red card expunged or does it still stand?

Awkward Badger

He switched the ball to his left hand after taking the pass then swung his right arm up into the tackle making contact with the defenders face, following through. That's not dropping the shoulder, bracing yourself for a tackle or fending. That's a swinging arm.

I know its a bit of a grey area but if you're going into a tackle clearly swinging an arm then if you hit someone in the face you're in trouble and rightly so. Red card was justifiable imo although it probably could have been left with a yellow given the time and let it be dealt with if needed by a citing.

.ak

freyners wrote: »

that Du Plessis only got a YC for this far more obvious elbow really puts into context how poor a call that red is

Yeah that's the first one that sprang to mind. That one is probably at the worst end of it, as he literally leads with his elbow, rather then try to push the tackler away. Although I still think Bismarck was hard done by there.

Awkward Badger

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Was the red card expunged or does it still stand?

Still stands. Just no further action taken from what I see.

.ak

Pugsly wrote: »

He switched the ball to his left hand after taking the pass then swung his right arm up into the tackle making contact with the defenders face, following through. That's not dropping the shoulder, bracing yourself for a tackle or fending. That's a swinging arm.

I know its a bit of a grey area but if you're going into a tackle clearly swinging an arm then if you hit someone in the face you're in trouble and rightly so. Red card was justifiable imo although it probably could have been left with a yellow given the time and let it be dealt with if needed by a citing.

When you go into contact you generally switch the ball onto your weaker side, so that you can drop and step up off your stronger foot. i.e; my stronger stepping side would by right foot, so going into contact I would reposition the ball into my left arm, move it back behind me to secure it, and then drop and push my shoulder upwards whilst lifting right my arm up. It's exactly what he's done here, it's just usually I would be hitting somebody's solar plexus with my arm cuz I'm a midget, where as he's caught the tackler's head because the tackler can't tackle properly and is also a midget himself.

Awkward Badger

.ak wrote: »

When you go into contact you generally switch the ball onto your weaker side, so that you can drop and step up off your stronger foot. i.e; my stronger stepping side would by right foot, so going into contact I would reposition the ball into my left arm, move it back behind me to secure it, and then drop and push my shoulder upwards whilst lifting right my arm up. It's exactly what he's done here, it's just usually I would be hitting somebody's solar plexus with my arm cuz I'm a midget, where as he's caught the tackler's head because the tackler can't tackle properly and is also a midget himself.

Well I've never played so I can't claim to know what players do in that regard, although I appreciate its probably not as straightforward as it seems when looking at a slow motion replay. I only know how it looks in comparison to what's not allowed by the laws. I see a lot of people posting other incidents but I don't see anything really comparable to this.

Looking at the replay I can understand why the ref seen it as he did. The arm swung up and into the players face. Midget or not, bad tackle or not, text book arm to the solar plexus 9 times out of 10 or not, he swung an arm into the players face going into the tackle. I'm inclined to think the ref got it right personally. Dropped shoulder, hand off etc are one thing. Swinging arm though is something else.

Losty Dublin

Pugsly wrote: »

Still stands. Just no further action taken from what I see.

In that case it's just an SOS (Sending Off Sufficient).

stephen_n

I can't see how anyone could say he switched hands, he hadn't even got hold of the ball properly, it lands and he more juggles it to gain control than anything else, his arm isn't raised it's still down by his side, if he left it any closer in, it would have been broken in the impact.

Gidea

That's a bizarre red card, all because of some awful defending. If the card still stands then surely Bastareaud should have seen a ban for this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJViqgsvXS4

accidentprone1

I don't see how that was a red card if the arm Earls received to the face from Savea in our New Zealand tour received nothing.

Thomas D

He doesn't strike with the elbow, he pushes out with it and his forearm after the tackle impacted.

.ak

Gidea wrote: »

That's a bizarre red card, all because of some awful defending. If the card still stands then surely Bastareaud should have seen a ban for this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJViqgsvXS4

Good example.

First time I've seen that in slow motion. The most impressive thing about that is Sexton completed the tackle. Good to see Basteraud ensuring he's in the recovery position too.

duckysauce

this still brings a large smile to my face

The Lost Sheep

Eastern Province Rugby have cancelled all matches scheduled for this weekend after claims of 'harassment' from the Referees Society.

Officials raised concerns over growing verbal and physical threats, including being spat on and needing to be protected by players at matches.
As a result, all fixtures have been cancelled for the upcoming weekend.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9386064,00.html

No wonder refs have had enough if they've been getting treated so poorly. Thankfully its not like that here.

LeinsterDub

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Eastern Province Rugby have cancelled all matches scheduled for this weekend after claims of 'harassment' from the Referees Society.

Officials raised concerns over growing verbal and physical threats, including being spat on and needing to be protected by players at matches.
As a result, all fixtures have been cancelled for the upcoming weekend.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9386064,00.html

No wonder refs have had enough if they've been getting treated so poorly. Thankfully its not like that here.

Surely that's what the red card is for.

Tim Robbins

Jaysus, I'd find it hard to even penalise that.
Haven't reffed in a while but here's my reason.
Ball carrier only receives the ball just before the hit. It's a pretty crap pass at his knees, therefore he has to adjust, look at the ball and make the catch. This all means space is tight and the chances of him being creamed are way higher. It is his job to win that collision and he has to shrug the player off him who makes contact in under a second after he receives the ball. Tackler position is not great and that's his problem.

If the ball carrier had about 5 seconds and was really eyeing up the opportunity to smack the tackler one in the jaw, yeah then red - defo. But there was a split second between pass and contact (looks like there is longer time in slow motion), it is a tight space and very hard to know exactly what position the tackler will hit him and he has to win the collision.

I agree with other posters here. Ref's need to understand what players are trying to do and differentiate between deliberate sinister play and physical rugby.

The Lost Sheep

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Surely that's what the red card is for.

But that's fine at times but wont stop crap from starting/continuing on occasion and spitting etc bit more than red card needed...

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Jaysus, I'd find it hard to even penalise that.
Haven't reffed in a while but here's my reason.
Ball carrier only receives the ball just before the hit. It's a pretty crap pass at his knees, therefore he has to adjust, look at the ball and make the catch. This all means space is tight and the chances of him being creamed are way higher. It is his job to win that collision and he has to shrug the player off him who makes contact in under a second after he receives the ball. Tackler position is not great and that's his problem.

If the ball carrier had about 5 seconds and was really eyeing up the opportunity to smack the tackler one in the jaw, yeah then red - defo. But there was a split second between pass and contact (looks like there is longer time in slow motion), it is a tight space and very hard to know exactly what position the tackler will hit him and he has to win the collision.

I agree with other posters here. Ref's need to understand what players are trying to do and differentiate between deliberate sinister play and physical rugby.

Refs have to understand difference between physicality and thuggery but its so hard at times to make the difference....

LeinsterDub

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But that's fine at times but wont stop crap from starting/continuing on occasion and spitting etc bit more than red card needed...

Of course it will red card as many players as you need to and let the union deal with the bans

LeinsterDub

Anyone see Eli Walker's tackle , just seen it on the highlights. Surely a red .

thebaz

my biggest gripe about international rugby , is the big calls nearly always go the way of the bigger nation - that penaltyl against Canada was more than harsh , costing them the game.
Owens is a good ref , but I think his penalty against McGrath last autumn was similarly harsh.
Like to see the underdogs getting some of the big decisions, sadly rarely seams to happen in international rugby.

sydthebeat

thebaz wrote: »

my biggest gripe about international rugby , is the big calls nearly always go the way of the bigger nation - that penaltyl against Canada was more than harsh , costing them the game.
Owens is a good ref , but I think his penalty against McGrath last autumn was similarly harsh.
Like to see the underdogs getting some of the big decisions, sadly rarely seams to happen in international rugby.

I don't agree at all, its just when there's a chance a smaller team will beat a bigger team, the decisions at the end of a game become a lot more noteworthy. I'd wager over all the games the fifty fifty calls even out.

They become memorable because of their exceptionality, not because of their commonness