Discussion
PhilboSE said:
Whereas other refs have asked the TMO for their opinion first and then entered into a discussion. The way Peyper went about it required the TMO to tell him he was wrong with a live audio feed.
Quite. There’s a difference of approach when the TMO is used that ranges from “this is my decision and if you fancy it you can tell me I’m wrong” to “I need help with this - what happened”. Evanivitch said:
C70R said:
Not understanding the laws of rugby is fine.
Continuing to argue when you don't understand them is a bit silly.
Are you still crawling back from your "passive" comment? Continuing to argue when you don't understand them is a bit silly.
PhilboSE said:
Megaflow said:
That.
For me the difference between yellow and red is intent. He clearly tried as best he could to bail out of it. The officials need to learn these are big lads running at speed, if the situation in front of them changes they can’t stop instantly
“Intent” isn’t in the guidelines/flowchart.For me the difference between yellow and red is intent. He clearly tried as best he could to bail out of it. The officials need to learn these are big lads running at speed, if the situation in front of them changes they can’t stop instantly
Once the ref has decided there’s been foul play and it’s not reckless or dangerous then it’s a red IF:
- it’s a HIGH level of danger
- there are NO mitigating circumstances
If the ref thinks it’s low or medium danger, or relevant mitigating circumstances, then it’s a yellow or a penalty.
Peyper obviously decided it was high level of danger and no mitigation (and he kind of imposed that opinion on the TMO and dared him to challenge it). Given Steward was trying to back out of contact, and all that led up to the contact, I think that position is shaky.
I expect the review panel to back Peyper 100% and give Steward the lowest possible consequential punishment.
He drops significantly less than half a second before contact. That's listed as mitigation, in the head contact framework, to reduce a red to yellow.
Why are you so wilfully ignoring the laws to make your point?
BlackWidow13 said:
PhilboSE said:
Whereas other refs have asked the TMO for their opinion first and then entered into a discussion. The way Peyper went about it required the TMO to tell him he was wrong with a live audio feed.
Quite. There’s a difference of approach when the TMO is used that ranges from “this is my decision and if you fancy it you can tell me I’m wrong” to “I need help with this - what happened”. Luckily I've never suffered them changing the outcome of a game my team were involved with, but their track record is pretty dire.
I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this. (without resorting to your dismissive, condescending style)
Your argument based on your interpretation of the Law and it's guidelines is incorrect imo.
Steward had plenty of time to anticipate that Keenan would be bending to collect the ball and adjust accordingly.There was no significant change in height between collecting the ball and contact. WR refer to this as the player's "power of choice". Steward made the wrong choice.
I;m sorry that my subjective opinion is different to your subjective opinion, and I recognise that I am being as stubborn as you, so I'll drop this discussion now.
Your argument based on your interpretation of the Law and it's guidelines is incorrect imo.
Steward had plenty of time to anticipate that Keenan would be bending to collect the ball and adjust accordingly.There was no significant change in height between collecting the ball and contact. WR refer to this as the player's "power of choice". Steward made the wrong choice.
I;m sorry that my subjective opinion is different to your subjective opinion, and I recognise that I am being as stubborn as you, so I'll drop this discussion now.
C70R said:
PhilboSE said:
Megaflow said:
That.
For me the difference between yellow and red is intent. He clearly tried as best he could to bail out of it. The officials need to learn these are big lads running at speed, if the situation in front of them changes they can’t stop instantly
“Intent” isn’t in the guidelines/flowchart.For me the difference between yellow and red is intent. He clearly tried as best he could to bail out of it. The officials need to learn these are big lads running at speed, if the situation in front of them changes they can’t stop instantly
Once the ref has decided there’s been foul play and it’s not reckless or dangerous then it’s a red IF:
- it’s a HIGH level of danger
- there are NO mitigating circumstances
If the ref thinks it’s low or medium danger, or relevant mitigating circumstances, then it’s a yellow or a penalty.
Peyper obviously decided it was high level of danger and no mitigation (and he kind of imposed that opinion on the TMO and dared him to challenge it). Given Steward was trying to back out of contact, and all that led up to the contact, I think that position is shaky.
I expect the review panel to back Peyper 100% and give Steward the lowest possible consequential punishment.
He drops significantly less than half a second before contact. That's listed as mitigation, in the head contact framework, to reduce a red to yellow.
Why are you so wilfully ignoring the laws to make your point?
“Intent” isn’t in the flowchart so the ref can’t take that into account. But to say there was no mitigation is to ignore the situation IMO. The guidelines only say “mitigation includes…” and gives some examples but it does not mean that the list is restricted to those. He could have taken anything into account that reduced the level of blame on Steward.
He could have even used the “unintentional” or “no foul play” in the first stage of the flowchart to bail and wave play on. That was certainly the immediate reaction of the commentators.
That incident could justifiably have had any outcome: play on, penalty, yellow, red. Peyper chose to put it in the same bracket as Houas’s premeditated head on head clearout against an opponent who was out of the game. As you say, he does have form against England.
DocJock said:
I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this. (without resorting to your dismissive, condescending style)
Your argument based on your interpretation of the Law and it's guidelines is incorrect imo.
Steward had plenty of time to anticipate that Keenan would be bending to collect the ball and adjust accordingly.There was no significant change in height between collecting the ball and contact. WR refer to this as the player's "power of choice". Steward made the wrong choice.
I;m sorry that my subjective opinion is different to your subjective opinion, and I recognise that I am being as stubborn as you, so I'll drop this discussion now.
I cannot see a world where the player dipping to waist high less than half a second before contact had no material impact on the outcome.Your argument based on your interpretation of the Law and it's guidelines is incorrect imo.
Steward had plenty of time to anticipate that Keenan would be bending to collect the ball and adjust accordingly.There was no significant change in height between collecting the ball and contact. WR refer to this as the player's "power of choice". Steward made the wrong choice.
I;m sorry that my subjective opinion is different to your subjective opinion, and I recognise that I am being as stubborn as you, so I'll drop this discussion now.
I'm not expecting miracles from the citing team, for what it's worth. I fully expect them to back the referee and hand out a small ban, because they'll never concede that such a big decision in such a big game could have been wrong.
Marking their own homework, if you will.
PhilboSE said:
C70R said:
PhilboSE said:
Megaflow said:
That.
For me the difference between yellow and red is intent. He clearly tried as best he could to bail out of it. The officials need to learn these are big lads running at speed, if the situation in front of them changes they can’t stop instantly
“Intent” isn’t in the guidelines/flowchart.For me the difference between yellow and red is intent. He clearly tried as best he could to bail out of it. The officials need to learn these are big lads running at speed, if the situation in front of them changes they can’t stop instantly
Once the ref has decided there’s been foul play and it’s not reckless or dangerous then it’s a red IF:
- it’s a HIGH level of danger
- there are NO mitigating circumstances
If the ref thinks it’s low or medium danger, or relevant mitigating circumstances, then it’s a yellow or a penalty.
Peyper obviously decided it was high level of danger and no mitigation (and he kind of imposed that opinion on the TMO and dared him to challenge it). Given Steward was trying to back out of contact, and all that led up to the contact, I think that position is shaky.
I expect the review panel to back Peyper 100% and give Steward the lowest possible consequential punishment.
He drops significantly less than half a second before contact. That's listed as mitigation, in the head contact framework, to reduce a red to yellow.
Why are you so wilfully ignoring the laws to make your point?
“Intent” isn’t in the flowchart so the ref can’t take that into account. But to say there was no mitigation is to ignore the situation IMO. The guidelines only say “mitigation includes…” and gives some examples but it does not mean that the list is restricted to those. He could have taken anything into account that reduced the level of blame on Steward.
He could have even used the “unintentional” or “no foul play” in the first stage of the flowchart to bail and wave play on. That was certainly the immediate reaction of the commentators.
That incident could justifiably have had any outcome: play on, penalty, yellow, red. Peyper chose to put it in the same bracket as Houas’s premeditated head on head clearout against an opponent who was out of the game. As you say, he does have form against England.
I think the fact that the refereeing team, who have form for making poor decision, didn't even discuss any mitigation is telling of the fact they'd decided the outcome before the review.
I had no dog in this particular fight, and am just frustrated that we were robbed of 15 v 15 unnecessarily.
When you take into account the additional yellow, for something that was almost not a penalty in the Wales game, and the complete failure to review the shoulder charge on Ludlam, it's easy to see why fans get frustrated with inconsistent/incompetent refereeing.
The bitter pill is the fact that these referees, who are making such obviously poor calls, keep getting given big games.
Ross Tucker on Twitter. He helped design the flowchart to help referees make an appropriate decision, so presumably knows what they were trying to achieve:
“Personally, I think you could arrive at red initially and mitigate for a late change in the situation and go yellow. Or you could say that there’s no fault.
These brace situations are complex even when it’s a typical tackle. The picture in front of him changed rapidly and I can see how his decision making would be affected by it, and then he made a call that led to a poor situation.”
“Personally, I think you could arrive at red initially and mitigate for a late change in the situation and go yellow. Or you could say that there’s no fault.
These brace situations are complex even when it’s a typical tackle. The picture in front of him changed rapidly and I can see how his decision making would be affected by it, and then he made a call that led to a poor situation.”
C70R said:
Evanivitch said:
C70R said:
Not understanding the laws of rugby is fine.
Continuing to argue when you don't understand them is a bit silly.
Are you still crawling back from your "passive" comment? Continuing to argue when you don't understand them is a bit silly.
So you're disregarding the World Rugby Head Contact Process for a discussion on head contact?
Madness60 said:
Rockettvr said:
Just watched it in real time replay
Quite telling was the views of the commentary team - “ rugby incident “ “unfortunate collision” etc immediately after the event
To my eyes :-
Steward rushing in to fill gap Keenan is running through
Forward pass thrown
Keenan continues momentarily shaping to kick
Steward begins to pull out of tackle expecting the kick
Keenan regathers rather than kick
Steward realises they are going to collide and pulls himself in tighter trying to protect himself
Keenan’s stooped position and forward momentum carries him into steward
I can’t hear a whistle being blown at any point during the above??
The ref on his review follows the protocol correctly, in my view , regarding Contact Stewards position etc but then goes on to say “no mitigation” which is clearly incorrect when it’s clear that the speed at which the incident happens gives steward no time to change his course or body position, and in addition Keenan is coming in stooped bent at both the knees and waist.
Let alone the fact that steward is trying to avoid contact altogether
As I posted earlier the fact that head contact had occurred means someone is leaving the field either for a 10 min breather or an early shower.
A head contact occurred and if there is to be a concerted effort to try and eradicate this then there HAS to be a sanction of some sort
Given the above a yellow and a penalty to Ireland would have been the correct outcome
Unfortunately Mr Peyper didn’t see it that way
( hasn’t he got previous regarding his officiating of England ?? )
I think the slow motion replays , which made it look horrible and subsequent crowd reaction didn’t help with the Referee trying to come to a decision
it remains to be seen if the disciplinary committee see it differently when reviewing it later this week (Tuesday ?? )
Edited to add
I think it had no impact on the outcome of the match. Ireland would still have won and are fully deserving of being Six Nations Grand Slam winners
Great, sensible post, ignoring some of the other extremes here is some added infoQuite telling was the views of the commentary team - “ rugby incident “ “unfortunate collision” etc immediately after the event
To my eyes :-
Steward rushing in to fill gap Keenan is running through
Forward pass thrown
Keenan continues momentarily shaping to kick
Steward begins to pull out of tackle expecting the kick
Keenan regathers rather than kick
Steward realises they are going to collide and pulls himself in tighter trying to protect himself
Keenan’s stooped position and forward momentum carries him into steward
I can’t hear a whistle being blown at any point during the above??
The ref on his review follows the protocol correctly, in my view , regarding Contact Stewards position etc but then goes on to say “no mitigation” which is clearly incorrect when it’s clear that the speed at which the incident happens gives steward no time to change his course or body position, and in addition Keenan is coming in stooped bent at both the knees and waist.
Let alone the fact that steward is trying to avoid contact altogether
As I posted earlier the fact that head contact had occurred means someone is leaving the field either for a 10 min breather or an early shower.
A head contact occurred and if there is to be a concerted effort to try and eradicate this then there HAS to be a sanction of some sort
Given the above a yellow and a penalty to Ireland would have been the correct outcome
Unfortunately Mr Peyper didn’t see it that way
( hasn’t he got previous regarding his officiating of England ?? )
I think the slow motion replays , which made it look horrible and subsequent crowd reaction didn’t help with the Referee trying to come to a decision
it remains to be seen if the disciplinary committee see it differently when reviewing it later this week (Tuesday ?? )
Edited to add
I think it had no impact on the outcome of the match. Ireland would still have won and are fully deserving of being Six Nations Grand Slam winners
Edited by Rockettvr on Sunday 19th March 15:43
Edited by Rockettvr on Sunday 19th March 15:44
This is the current World Rugby Law application guidelines, my route through the protocol as a current low level ref is different to Peyper and theres lots of routes that are plausible.
Process questions and considerations
1. Has head contact occurred?
Head contact includes neck and throat area
2. Was there foul play?
Considerations:
Intentional
Reckless
Avoidable
3. What was the degree of danger?
Considerations include:
Direct vs indirect contact
High force vs low force
4. Is there any mitigation?
Considerations include:
Line of sight
Sudden and significant drop or movement
Clear attempt to change height
Level of control
Upright - passive vs dynamic
Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play
Trigger words for match officials
Match officials may wish to use the non-exhaustive list of trigger words below to help them identify whether a player is at fault, the degree of danger involved and whether any mitigation should be applied.
PLAY ON
No fault
Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier
Player had no time to readjust
Passive action
Involuntary collision
No leading arm when close to the body
PK YC
Low danger
Indirect contact
Low force
Low speed
Passive
No leading head / shoulder / forearm
RC
High danger
Direct contact
Lack of control
High speed
Upright and dynamic
Leading head / shoulder / elbow / forearm
Swinging arm
No mitigation for intentional or highly reckless act of foul play
Mitigation
Sudden / significant drop in height or change in direction from ball carrier
A late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact
An effort to wrap / bind and having no time to adjust
I think and from the audio Peyper went - yes to head contact, yes to foul play, direct contact with high force, no mitigation = red card
Me as a ref - yes to head contact, yes to foul play (sort of if you think that the bracing is foul play, tricky argument as in real time its so quick), but passive and not out of control, red mitigated to yellow.
Entirely plausible to go for yes to head contact, no to foul play (player had to time to adjust, brace vs height drop is again tricky, passive action, involuntary collision) so play on!
Steward will be cited but get min ban in my mind. There were some other poor decisions from the ref team but its really hard to ref a game, try it and see.
Link to image of the guidance - https://twitter.com/neilfissler/status/16374403783...
The shoulder into the face of of Ludlam needs some explaining away from those that think Peyper was having a good game though - it's about as text book an offence as you get
https://twitter.com/i/status/1637156876201734144
As does the Sexton high tackle and Hansen driving Watson into the goal area by the neck.
I would also question the Genge "late hit" on the Ireland 9, when the replay shows the 9 passing and then running into a stationary Genge.. this setup Irelands position for the first try.
Edited by jimKRFC on Monday 20th March 09:50
PhilboSE said:
Ross Tucker on Twitter. He helped design the flowchart to help referees make an appropriate decision, so presumably knows what they were trying to achieve:
“Personally, I think you could arrive at red initially and mitigate for a late change in the situation and go yellow. Or you could say that there’s no fault.
These brace situations are complex even when it’s a typical tackle. The picture in front of him changed rapidly and I can see how his decision making would be affected by it, and then he made a call that led to a poor situation.”
It doesn't matter that the bloke who actually designed the decision-making framework for World Rugby thinks it's either a yellow card or play on. Some folks in this thread are clearly dug in so deep that they can't back down and admit they were wrong. “Personally, I think you could arrive at red initially and mitigate for a late change in the situation and go yellow. Or you could say that there’s no fault.
These brace situations are complex even when it’s a typical tackle. The picture in front of him changed rapidly and I can see how his decision making would be affected by it, and then he made a call that led to a poor situation.”
epom said:
U20 Grand Slam for Ireland too if that helps distract from the red card discussion.
Ireland are really building something quite special at the moment, and I'm really pleased for them. Time will tell if this batch of U20s who've won B2B Grand Slams will be able to make the transition to senior rugby, but of all the rugby nations the Irish system gives them the best chance.jimKRFC said:
I would also question the Genge "late hit" on the Ireland 9, when the replay shows the 9 passing and then running into a stationary Genge.. this setup Irelands position for the first try.
I called that one straight away - the 9 draws the tackler (as they have been doing since forever) and then runs into Genge as he is pulling out of the tackleEdited by jimKRFC on Monday 20th March 09:50
The red card for me was harsh. There was no leading arm, shoulder or head - Kermit is leaning heavily on the "shoulder charge" element but there is no shoulder charge, he doesn't lead with anything as he is attempting to brace and turn away. There's also the change in height mitigation
The analysis team at half time were talking about the duty of care on the defender. There's also an argument for the attacking player to have a duty of care for his own protection - putting yourself in that position off the back of a forward pass/knock on is also a poor decision
Well, not a classic 6 nations but Ireland clearly the best team and rightly took GS. France also right up there and vastly improved Scotland which is good to see. Italy finally showing spirit and ability. England and Wales reflect their club base, on life support.
Sadly another issue is laws of the game and refereeing of them. Steward red card, possibly maybe. It is what it was.
But. The problem is not about that red it is about the wider game.
1. I am not prepared to pay good money to watch a referee pondering, consulting and whatever. I pay to watch a game of rugby not 20 minutes of rugby and 40 mins of the ref and all his mates obfuscating and 20 minutes of scrums.
2. Red cards used to be a rarity, now they happen in nearly every game and largely spoil the game as a contest. I am not prepared to pay good money to watch a contest spoiled by a red card for either side.
3. More laws create more refereeing so surely rugby has to adapt to retain its following. It is now getting to look like a hybrid of american football and rugby league.
Luckily France especially, showed rugby is in there somewhere but we are really close to losing all that is good about it and driving people away. Until it improves I won't pay to go to a live match any longer.
Sadly another issue is laws of the game and refereeing of them. Steward red card, possibly maybe. It is what it was.
But. The problem is not about that red it is about the wider game.
1. I am not prepared to pay good money to watch a referee pondering, consulting and whatever. I pay to watch a game of rugby not 20 minutes of rugby and 40 mins of the ref and all his mates obfuscating and 20 minutes of scrums.
2. Red cards used to be a rarity, now they happen in nearly every game and largely spoil the game as a contest. I am not prepared to pay good money to watch a contest spoiled by a red card for either side.
3. More laws create more refereeing so surely rugby has to adapt to retain its following. It is now getting to look like a hybrid of american football and rugby league.
Luckily France especially, showed rugby is in there somewhere but we are really close to losing all that is good about it and driving people away. Until it improves I won't pay to go to a live match any longer.
Alickadoo said:
Tom8 said:
1. I am not prepared to pay good money
2. .... I am not prepared to pay good money
So what are you going to do?2. .... I am not prepared to pay good money
1. Not go to the games in person?
2. Watch the games on TV at your rugby club? (Which is what I do.)
3. Watch the games on TV at home?
4. Not watch the games?
Pieman68 said:
There's also an argument for the attacking player to have a duty of care for his own protection - putting yourself in that position off the back of a forward pass/knock on is also a poor decision
With the incoming proposal for the change of tackle height (Must be below the sternum) there is reference to the attacking player not leading with the head. So the head down charge should be cut back.Red card was disappointing & ruined the game.
My view is that the rules need tweaking for intended/unintended. Like bumping into someone in a busy street, it happens but there is no malice intended.
I actually think in this example, if Steward had tried to dip for a tackle then there would have been two injured players. Also the ball was forward, so in Stewards mind the play had stopped.
My view is that the rules need tweaking for intended/unintended. Like bumping into someone in a busy street, it happens but there is no malice intended.
I actually think in this example, if Steward had tried to dip for a tackle then there would have been two injured players. Also the ball was forward, so in Stewards mind the play had stopped.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff