RugbyRebels

well this has gotten nasty hasn't it. Both Brown and Wilson going for the eyes there.

Which Tyler wrote:Have to say, the red was harsh but technically correct. Ashton didn't change his line, he was always on a blocking line, he also didn't push Watson, but the collision was so close to Goode he was straight in with no ability to change his own line and get out of it. Unsympathetic, but correct under the current laws.

Yellow seems absolutely correct and just a hot head under huge pressure. Hips above shoulders =yellow. (Cook also cost us the first try, with a pass to no-pne costing us 40m, and then the kick to Ashton in space)

The Goode penalty was also harsh IMO, I initially thought he'd dropped his shoulder, but the reverse angle showed that to be wrong.

I'm not enjoying this match.

The initial infringement is Ashton running a blocking line. Anything that happens after that is wholly dependant on Ashton's action. Technically, it's a red but technically there have been three or four not straight throw ins.

Also, Goode's block wasn't a block.

The ref hasn't got the major decisions correct. His 30min wait to talk to Thomas and M Rolipola is another example.

Bath just aren't savvy. The most success they've had, other than Roko's handoff on Farrell, is to pick and go in tight. Going wide is just food and drink to Sarries' line speed. The old saying of 'you have to earn the right to go wide' has never been so true.

Bath were holding on there, but how the hell has the ref missed Barritt standing on the Bath side of the ruck holding on to Ford?

Peej wrote:Bath are falling apart.

Yes his legs go above the horizontal but that's physics. I don't want to see tackles that bring guys down on their backs or sides punished - I do want to see those that turn guys as they lift and drink email them down onto their heads. Like the spear tackles used to be officiated

I didn't see the game or the incident but this is one of my favourite sentences ever.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Peej wrote:Bath are falling apart.

Yes his legs go above the horizontal but that's physics. I don't want to see tackles that bring guys down on their backs or sides punished - I do want to see those that turn guys as they lift and drink email them down onto their heads. Like the spear tackles used to be officiated

I didn't see the game or the incident but this is one of my favourite sentences ever.

It's a classic

Which Tyler wrote:Have to say, the red was harsh but technically correct. Ashton didn't change his line, he was always on a blocking line, he also didn't push Watson, but the collision was so close to Goode he was straight in with no ability to change his own line and get out of it. Unsympathetic, but correct under the current laws.

Yellow seems absolutely correct and just a hot head under huge pressure. Hips above shoulders =yellow. (Cook also cost us the first try, with a pass to no-pne costing us 40m, and then the kick to Ashton in space)

The Goode penalty was also harsh IMO, I initially thought he'd dropped his shoulder, but the reverse angle showed that to be wrong.

I'm not enjoying this match.

I'm not sure about the Watson card. I've no problem with Ashton's line, but I'm not sure when Watson then stumbles from contact with Ashton that we're arriving at the correct decision. I'd be inclined to think it accidental and let it go, that would be a fair red card had Watson run into Goode without any contact just prior, as is I feel uncomfortable with the decision. However the decision is made on the outcome which is then odd as for the Cook yellow I think the player comes down flat, yes the leg has been lifted but for me the player comes down in a safe enough position. Okay Cook is a very lucky boy that Houston gets in there to stop a player coming down on his shoulder, else Cook could easily have seen red, but the Cook one seems a red card for process and he ends up with a yellow when it's a safe outcome, whereas the Watson I'm not sure is an anything for the process but ends with a red for the outcome.

Some other thoughts, Wilson will now have a long rest, what an idiot, Attwood was mightily impressive doing that first game back, Bath deserved to be punished for their stupid 6:2 bench split, and they got what they deserved. And Sarries were very good, again, their ability to back up quick plays with high quality presentation, clearout and passing leaves them clear of the field, so much so refs may want to actually ref them at the lineout and offside line as they'll do just fine without the assistance

Remember Finn Russell's red card for obeying the laws of physics whilst Biggar jumps on him?
These days, safe landings are dictated by outcome, not intent, and it feels wrong every time. Basically, the laws is an ass, but it's still the law.
I guess it got this bad as the previous incarnation wasn't preventing incidents, not that the new one is either.

Which Tyler wrote:Remember Finn Russell's red card for obeying the laws of physics whilst Biggar jumps on him?
These days, safe landings are dictated by outcome, not intent, and it feels wrong every time. Basically, the laws is an ass, but it's still the law.
I guess it got this bad as the previous incarnation wasn't preventing incidents, not that the new one is either.

Finn Russell took a final hesitant step, which whilst I feel too harsh a margin to be judging someone by for a red card was a final step into the space Biggar was closing on. If they want to go on outcome for the Goode incident today they should for me issue a red card to Ashton as well as Watson, both were culpable for what happened to Goode though neither intended it, and it'd have the added benefit of not unbalancing the game by referee

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Remember Finn Russell's red card for obeying the laws of physics whilst Biggar jumps on him?
These days, safe landings are dictated by outcome, not intent, and it feels wrong every time. Basically, the laws is an ass, but it's still the law.
I guess it got this bad as the previous incarnation wasn't preventing incidents, not that the new one is either.

Finn Russell took a final hesitant step, which whilst I feel too harsh a margin to be judging someone by for a red card was a final step into the space Biggar was closing on. If they want to go on outcome for the Goode incident today they should for me issue a red card to Ashton as well as Watson, both were culpable for what happened to Goode though neither intended it, and it'd have the added benefit of not unbalancing the game by referee

I don't see how you can blame Ashton for it. Yes, he ran across Watson, but Watson was charging through no matter what - Ashton didn't add any momentum to Watson (heck, he even took some away). It wasn't a case of Goode jumping into Watson or Ashton forcing Watson to engage early - Watson mistimed his contest and, while Ashton may have unbalanced him, he was always going to end up under Goode regardless.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Remember Finn Russell's red card for obeying the laws of physics whilst Biggar jumps on him?
These days, safe landings are dictated by outcome, not intent, and it feels wrong every time. Basically, the laws is an ass, but it's still the law.
I guess it got this bad as the previous incarnation wasn't preventing incidents, not that the new one is either.

Finn Russell took a final hesitant step, which whilst I feel too harsh a margin to be judging someone by for a red card was a final step into the space Biggar was closing on. If they want to go on outcome for the Goode incident today they should for me issue a red card to Ashton as well as Watson, both were culpable for what happened to Goode though neither intended it, and it'd have the added benefit of not unbalancing the game by referee

I don't see how you can blame Ashton for it. Yes, he ran across Watson, but Watson was charging through no matter what - Ashton didn't add any momentum to Watson (heck, he even took some away). It wasn't a case of Goode jumping into Watson or Ashton forcing Watson to engage early - Watson mistimed his contest and, while Ashton may have unbalanced him, he was always going to end up under Goode regardless.

Puja

I don't blame Ashton, then again I don't blame Watson for it given he was stumbling after contact with Ashton. I think it was unfortunate but accidental, but if we're going to give red cards for bad outcomes that are accidental then everyone involved should be treated equally.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
Finn Russell took a final hesitant step, which whilst I feel too harsh a margin to be judging someone by for a red card was a final step into the space Biggar was closing on. If they want to go on outcome for the Goode incident today they should for me issue a red card to Ashton as well as Watson, both were culpable for what happened to Goode though neither intended it, and it'd have the added benefit of not unbalancing the game by referee

I don't see how you can blame Ashton for it. Yes, he ran across Watson, but Watson was charging through no matter what - Ashton didn't add any momentum to Watson (heck, he even took some away). It wasn't a case of Goode jumping into Watson or Ashton forcing Watson to engage early - Watson mistimed his contest and, while Ashton may have unbalanced him, he was always going to end up under Goode regardless.

Puja

I don't blame Ashton, then again I don't blame Watson for it given he was stumbling after contact with Ashton. I think it was unfortunate but accidental, but if we're going to give red cards for bad outcomes that are accidental then everyone involved should be treated equally.

For me Watson stumbled in to Goode in an uncontrolled manner due to his collision with Ashton. Whether or not you think Ashton is running a blocking line - and I seem to be in a minority of one that he did - the clash causes Watson to stumble into Goode. By the letter of the law it's a red for Watson but the law is wrong to noy differentiate between intentional and unintentional acts.

Mellsblue wrote:
For me Watson stumbled in to Goode in an uncontrolled manner due to his collision with Ashton. Whether or not you think Ashton is running a blocking line - and I seem to be in a minority of one that he did - the clash causes Watson to stumble into Goode. By the letter of the law it's a red for Watson but the law is wrong to noy differentiate between intentional and unintentional acts.

I'd guess most would think Ashton is running a blocking line, what else would he be doing, but he didn't seem to move off his line so he's fine. I'd prefer they look at intentional and/or reckless Vs accidental acts allied to outcomes though I can see why it's easier for refs to judge on outcome, but I don't then see if we're judging on outcome why Cook gets a yellow, the tackled player came down heavily but for me safely enough in what is a heavy contact sport

p/d wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Peej wrote:Bath are falling apart.

Yes his legs go above the horizontal but that's physics. I don't want to see tackles that bring guys down on their backs or sides punished - I do want to see those that turn guys as they lift and drink email them down onto their heads. Like the spear tackles used to be officiated

I didn't see the game or the incident but this is one of my favourite sentences ever.

It's a classic

Apologies, auto correct has ruined me here!

What I meant to say is that: spear tackles, i.e when a guy is lifted and driven/dropped onto his neck or head, should still be punished.

But if a guy's legs go beyond the horizontal in a tackle and he lands on his back or side, there shouldn't be a sanction. I just don't like how the laws are currently applied on this, even if Cook's was a textbook case under the current interpretations.

The Watson red, whilst unfortunate made absolutely no difference to the outcome of the match. Watson has no disciplinary history and I don't believe any further action will be taken against him. The Citing Commissioner might have a bit of fun with both packs though it was Dooley apparently, so he won't have seen anything untoward!

Fan allegedly got into refs changing room and verbally abused Greg Garner, tweeted by Flats but I cant find it. Also Flats, Nick Mullens not at all happy with the Bath fans after the game and the verbal abuse of the officials. This reported on various boards. What disciplinary action might there be if found to be true?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:
For me Watson stumbled in to Goode in an uncontrolled manner due to his collision with Ashton. Whether or not you think Ashton is running a blocking line - and I seem to be in a minority of one that he did - the clash causes Watson to stumble into Goode. By the letter of the law it's a red for Watson but the law is wrong to noy differentiate between intentional and unintentional acts.

I'd guess most would think Ashton is running a blocking line, what else would he be doing, but he didn't seem to move off his line so he's fine. I'd prefer they look at intentional and/or reckless Vs accidental acts allied to outcomes though I can see why it's easier for refs to judge on outcome, but I don't then see if we're judging on outcome why Cook gets a yellow, the tackled player came down heavily but for me safely enough in what is a heavy contact sport

You can run a blocking line without moving off said line. You see it in midfield all the time with players pinged for running into defenders without deviating.

Wholly agree with the second bit. WR seem to have fads and go over the top with them. Currently, it's dump tackles, aerial challenges and hands around the eye. In these areas there is absolutely no discretion or room for common sense. I find it so strange that officials are in such a straight jacket in these areas and are free to interpret and flat out ignore laws in other areas.

Mellsblue wrote:I find it so strange that officials are in such a straight jacket in these areas and are free to interpret and flat out ignore laws in other areas.

Especially having promised us straight feeds in the scrum. Left to me the entire board of World Rugby would be fired with no compensation for such dereliction of duty, which might actually focus their minds to do what they said they'd do, as is there seems too little accountability for refs taking it on themselves to ignore huge chunks of the laws

WiganShark wrote:Fan allegedly got into refs changing room and verbally abused Greg Garner, tweeted by Flats but I cant find it. Also Flats, Nick Mullens not at all happy with the Bath fans after the game and the verbal abuse of the officials. This reported on various boards. What disciplinary action might there be if found to be true?

Watching on TV you could tell the crowd were getting wound up. It was quite good fun and seemed quite good natured for the most part.

What you report is a disgrace and the perpetrator should be banned from rugby grounds for life. Those abusing the officials should be banned for the rest of the season and told a further offence will result in a life ban. This is obviously difficult unless caught on camera.

Just from watching on TV you can tell the Bath crowd have grown more restless as the season has gone on. I think the officials took the brunt of what is a frustration with performances on the pitch. Though, I thought the ref was poor on some major decisions.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I find it so strange that officials are in such a straight jacket in these areas and are free to interpret and flat out ignore laws in other areas.

Especially having promised us straight feeds in the scrum. Left to me the entire board of World Rugby would be fired with no compensation for such dereliction of duty, which might actually focus their minds to do what they said they'd do, as is there seems too little accountability for refs taking it on themselves to ignore huge chunks of the laws

Agreed. I said during the game that non-straight lineouts were ignored whilst being pedantic over other areas.

I can't imagine bath fans getting wound up. Were they throwing their monocles?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I find it so strange that officials are in such a straight jacket in these areas and are free to interpret and flat out ignore laws in other areas.

Especially having promised us straight feeds in the scrum. Left to me the entire board of World Rugby would be fired with no compensation for such dereliction of duty, which might actually focus their minds to do what they said they'd do, as is there seems too little accountability for refs taking it on themselves to ignore huge chunks of the laws

What is the makeup of the panel that (mis)manage the laws and their application?

People mayn't like a crowd booing a ref, but I'm not sure we should be looking to punish such actions. We can try and create a community that's more respectful, but once you've sold a ticket the person buying it can boo what they like to me.

Going after the ref by coming onto the pitch, and trying to get up the tunnel to get into the changing room is wholly unacceptable. I'd say you can't direct verbal abuse at the match officials either, but we see in practice you can call them cunts, just don't call them gypsies.

I thought Watson was bang to rights. He was a tad unlucky, but by both the letter and the spirit of the law that's a clear red.

Mellsblue wrote: What is the makeup of the panel that (mis)manage the laws and their application?

50% port abusers, 50% gin abusers?