Forum menu
FTFY
That alone does not justify the theoretical cost.
[url= http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/videohub/video/clipDeportes?id=deportes:2498991&startTime=00:50 ]Bosch, just for comparison[/url]
Bosch is cited for 10.4(e) which is various types of dangerous tackle, but not the tip tackle which is specifically covered by 10.4(j), for which Gray and Ford were cited. The only way I can see that Bosch's wasn't a tip tackle as the Namibian is not the ball carrier at the time. Shirley a tip tackle is a tip tackle?
Incidentally, Bosch admitted he'd done it. Gray and Ford denied theirs.
EDIT: 10.4(j) makes no mention of tackling - just lifting the player in the air. Hmmm. Odd.
Bosch's effort is much,much worse than either of our efforts,but one week.The three weeks is irrelevant in WC terms,but that will cost both their livelihood for a couple of weeks as well. That is a harsh decision,both denied it as neither felt they had done anything. I would also have thought that there was a protocol in place to ensure the game wasn't reviewed on Sat night by somebody who by that time knew his nation would be facing Scotland. Samoa spent the game hitting guys late and high,but the only two dangerous tackles were by Scots? Aye right!
If you deny it or dont where a nice suit and say sorry you are ****ed. I dont see how Gray could deny it.
Phil Steele ?@philsteele1 20m20 minutes ago
Sepp Blatter allegedly refuses invitation to serve on RWC Disciplinary Committee - says he fears it could sully his reputation #5Weeks
Gray and Ford were cited for tip and dangerous tackles respectively. Nonsense.
Dangerous play perhaps, playing without due care and attention maybe (if it exists), but it was a ruck not a tackle so the actual citing is baloney.
tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground … must be dealt with severely by match officials and all those involved in the disciplinary process
Not a tackle and to tip the Samoan horizontally they'd have had to raise his head.
If Australia go on to win this RWC (and they should beat Scotland with or without Gray and Ford) it will be stained by the fact that their guys felt it necessary to bring this citing.
Had they brought it for bad rucking I'd have some sympathy with them.
Unbelievable.
@duckman, not sure a ban affects players livelihoods as they still get paid (based upon my understanding of their contracts, it's the club / international Union who loses out)
Seanie last night...
Scotland have been thoroughly humped there.
I would also have thought that there was a protocol in place to ensure the game wasn't reviewed on Sat night by somebody who by that time knew his nation would be facing Scotland.
Agreed. I've not seen the tackles again so can't comment on whether should have been cited, nor do I really think really it will be the difference between Scotland winning or loosing. But it just doesnt sit right. Surely there where plenty of other officials who could have done the job, he shouldnt have been given that role anyway given it was known for days before that the winner of that match might have faced aus.
What's Bosch being cited for? Not the tackle he was carded for surely. If so might as well do away with refs altogether if they can't deal with the Incident in game.
Australia have just beaten Wales and England they are certainly not afraid off full strength Scotland. It's a co-incidence the citing official is Australian and in any case it's not a decision made by a single person. The rules have worked in Scotland's favour in this RWC as Japan got only 4 days rest
Just spotted DD's edit on 10.4(j). That makes a little more sense now.
The disciplinary rules make interesting reading though (well the SRU ones, I didn't find the IRB ones). The citing commissioner has to be independent. I would have thought that excluded Scots, Samoans but also Welsh or Australians. In fact why use anyone who could be a potential opponent in the next 3 (OK 1) games?
Also citing is for ordering off (red card) offences according to the SRU. Does anyone know if a tip tackle (which I now know doesn't need to be a tackle or a tip) is a red or yellow offence? I'm sure I've seen yellows only.
Jambalya - decision to cite is a single person decision and the commissioner I think is meant to be independent. I agree the sanction is by committee. Would an independent have sent it to committee when the ref is right there? We'll never know.
As for the Japan 4 days thing, Scotland had 4 days turnaround against the USA and still beat them by s bigger margin than Japan did. Would S-J have been closer with more rest? Probably. Would Japan have won? Probably not, but Scotland would have been short of one of their bonus points so if Japan could have managed a losing bonus point it would have gotten tight - but even then without USA or Samoa bonus points Japan would still have gone out.
Ifs, buts and maybes are great though.
It's a co-incidence the citing official is Australian
I'm sure its a co-incidence, but given the requirement to be independent and the fact there are presumably a bunch of nationalities available, why assign an australian that role?
Given the public moaning about a french mother when Joubert gave Warburton that red card, you'd think they would avoid the possibility of non-independance
Having tried to find out what you can be sent off for on the IRB site, I now understand why refs just make it up
AA - Samoan is always in contact with the ground / player on ground. Not good but doesn't meet the definitions. Lots of things on a rugby field are dangerous.
AA,that isn't a tip tackle,their are enough players there to form a ruck. Not only that but they both bind,rather than doing a Hooper.
Jambalaya; you have mentioned rest days before; Scotland got 17,the least equal. England got 22.
Clearly dangerous. Daft to deny it
Don't think anyone's denying it. Just that it's seen in every game (or in the case of this game not seen until the citing commissioner wen through the whole match again).
In the SA game Nigel Owens didn't even YC Pietersen's tip tackle on Vernon because 'there was no intention'. There was no citation after the game either.
There was no intention in the Gray Ford incident either and yet it merited a five week ban.
So, not saying it's not dangerous, just that the whole situation is completely ****ed up.
AA,that isn't a tip tackle,
Thats true, but you shouldnt lift players by the legs in a ruck and dump them on their head either. It is obviously dangerous foul play. Going into the citing they should have got Gray to admit it because he's the one lifting. Then Ford could have got off and Gray got 1 week or similar. Its too obvious to deny.
I am not sure if it is because I am Scottish or if it is because I am a rugby fan (probably both) but the Ford, Gray ban is a total nonsense on many levels.
The incident was clearly not malicious and frankly there were dozens of more dangerous acts committed in pretty much every game played. Australia will beat us regardless (false optimism 10 mins before the start will still of course be present) but rugby has lost out here.
I have little doubt that the Australian official deliberately looked for something. Australia are fierce competitors at every sport. Gaining an edge in any way possible is what makes them successful. In no way shape or form should an Aussie been in the chain here but...... Ultimately common sense should have applied. Maybe it is time to move to full blown touch rugby?
@duckman the point is about Japan not Scotland or anyone else, it's my view Japan would have won that game with proper rest. Anyway it's irrelevant as Scotland are through I was only commenting as Scots here seem to think they've been hard done by "the rules"
What we don't know for sure is what the IRB has told all the nations about how the game will be reffed on the field and from the citing officials. That ruck clear out looked OK-ish to me and would not have expected to see a card on the field or a citing but that's based on my view of what's normal, is my view of past matches.
the incident was clearly not malicious
True but any lifting and driving head first into the ground is ban worthy. The whole citing process is shite though. Some accidents like that one are dealt with harshly others like kicking a player in the head because the ball is or was near him are let go. And then SOB gets a week for a punch even though the minimum ban is 2 werks because he said sorry.
What bugs me is that giving SOB a week off is nothing compared to the red he should have got. Refs and TMO's ahit out and often give yellows then the player gets a ban meaning he should have got a red
this thread is completely lost now that England have gone.
admit it, you need us.
jambalaya - Member
@duckman the point is about Japan not Scotland or anyone else, it's my view Japan would have won that game with proper rest
Of course it is,remind me of the half time score again.
brakes - Member
this thread is completely lost now that England have gone.
admit it, you need us.
Agreed. Every tournament needs some comic relief
(Normally it's us to be fair)
...because he said sorry.
The judgement is there for anyone to read. The x ½ is not [i]just[/i] because he said sorry.
Is the other half because he didnt eat the biscuits?
citing?
you put your left hand in...
To rip off someone else's comment... just imagine Tuilagi reading the decision and thinking "so it's better to punch somebody than run hard on a rugby pitch."
Regarding the time of the hearing, maybe SOB and the Irish team choke tackled the panel and held them up in a 7 hour maul? 😀
SOB has a back hand in his repertoire too but I do have more sympathy for this one
@duckman Japan went into the game very tired and even so where just 12-10 down (I recall) in the second half. As one of the newspaper pieces pointed out Scotland have won just 3 6 Nations games since the last world cup.
Good to see that chip on your shoulder hasn't gotten any smaller Jambalaya 😉
Did we do QF predictions yet?
My prediction is that there'll be 4 of them. 😛
Wales to beat SA and face France in the semi. Argentina to beat ireland and face Scotland in the semi...or maybe not!
5 points actually Jam, and I fail to see what point you are making with the 6n jibe. The groups are seeded, Scotland's standings are and always have been higher than Japan's so Scotland should start favourites. Still;my bad. I have just applied logic to a debate with a man who has suggested( refreshingly unlike anybody else on here) that the ref robbed England and who also started a thread on how Alex Salmond giving his salary to charity was further evidence of how evil he is. I think the chip on the shoulder comment above about Scots is probably more accurate.
an Japan went into the game very tired and even so
Whilst England went into their games fully rested with all the schedualing advantages as well as playing at home and still lost out to the minnows!
Be fair - I don't normally count Wales and Australia as minnows
Yes I don't count Wales as a minnow.
brakes - Member
this thread is completely lost now that England have gone.
admit it, you need us.
Agreed. Every tournament needs some comic relief
An Englishman walked into a bar. Normally there'd be a Scotsman and an Irishman too, but they're still in the World Cup.
😀
Us Scots will be there on Sunday I suspect.