Send-offs on a Touchie's Report - A Matter of Principle

[skeepe]

They only call on a video referee when they themselves are unsure of what to do or what occurred. In this case, the touchie was in no doubt about what he saw, and the referee acted accordingly.

 

[nqboy]

They only call on a video referee when they themselves are unsure of what to do or what occurred. In this case, the touchie was in no doubt about what he saw, and the referee acted accordingly.

And you can't see the problem with that in this case?

 

[Danish]

I was actually sincere in my "Cheers Danish".

My apologies. I am sure you will agree that such comments on these forums are generally dripping with sarcasm, hence my reaction :lol:

I don't think I am contradicting myself. VRs should be consulted rather than relying on a touchie who saw it once at normal speed, particularly, as in this case, in cases where it is borderline. I don't have a problem with a penalty being awarded for the incident. My problem is LOD being sent off because the incident was judged deliberate when that is not cut and dried at all. I'm not sure where you're seeing a contradiction.

This is where we differ. I think LOD deliberately raised his elbow/forearm in an attempt to fend off Lewis. I am sure his thought process was not "I am going to elbow this prick in the throat", but he most definitely intended to raise his arm in an attempt to break lewis's tackle.

Given fending with the forearm or elbow is illegal in our game, LOD showed intent IMO.

This incident does, however, show a glaring problem with the rules of our game. In defence, if a player so much as touches the attacking players head/neck, there will be a penalty without question. As the rules stand now, however, an attacking player can palm a player in the face, raise an arm, and as we have seen over recent weeks with Tate and the parra bloke, raise an elbow and this will more than likely not draw the attention of the referee.

The rule needs to be changed to make it illegal either player, attacker or defender, to attack the head of the opposition. Would clear up a very grey area.

 

[nqboy]

My apologies. I am sure you will agree that such comments on these forums are generally dripping with sarcasm, hence my reaction :lol:

Completely understandable. It's pretty obvious when you think about it, I just hadn't until I read your explanation. Though there still may be room for a reckless category though it's probably covered in other charges.

This is where we differ. I think LOD deliberately raised his elbow/forearm in an attempt to fend off Lewis. I am sure his thought process was not "I am going to elbow this prick in the throat", but he most definitely intended to raise his arm in an attempt to break lewis's tackle.

Given fending with the forearm or elbow is illegal in our game, LOD showed intent IMO.

This incident does, however, show a glaring problem with the rules of our game. In defence, if a player so much as touches the attacking players head/neck, there will be a penalty without question. As the rules stand now, however, an attacking player can palm a player in the face, raise an arm, and as we have seen over recent weeks with Tate and the parra bloke, raise an elbow and this will more than likely not draw the attention of the referee.

The rule needs to be changed to make it illegal either player, attacker or defender, to attack the head of the opposition. Would clear up a very grey area.

You'd have to include throat (anywhere above the shoulders) as LOD got him in the throat and then you'd have arguments with forearms bouncing up off shoulders and such. It's not a perfect world.

I understand you're point about what makes it deliberate in your interpretation. To me, he'd need to be thinking, as you said, "I'm going to elbow this prick in the throat" for it to be deliberate. Otherwise it's just reckless.

In any case, for all but the most obvious offences, and this certainly isn't one of those, I still argue it would be better if the VR checked if it was definitely a send-off rather than relying on a touchie who saw it once at normal speed.

 

[Hammershark]

I didn't see the game or a replay of the incident was it much different to the Ben Ross incident earlier in the year?

 

[Slackboy72]

That's a whole other argument, the competence of VRs. I've been as big a critic of them as anyone. It's inconceivable to me how they can get so many decisions so wrong with all the replays and time the have to help them decide.

I think it is crucial to the argument. You are suggesting we abdicate touch judges of the responsibility of adjudicating on foul play when they see it. You are saying that they have a flawed or inferior perspective compared to a camera that may be placed some 70-100m away and whose vision as you admit has led to some wrong decisions.

But they are refs or ex-refs as well and I think they have more chance of getting it right with all the replays and time they have to decide. I wonder if the touchie had watched a few replays whether he'd still be sure it was 100% deliberate.

I'm not sure why you are obsessed with the call that it was 'intentional'. Wether it was reckless or deliberate it was dangerous and it's been considered foul play for a long time. My guess is that the touch judge used the term intentional to indicate that contact with the tacklers head wasn't accidental or incidental.

 

[ozbash]

My concern is that the ref sent him off on a touchie's report of a DELIBERATE elbow(? - not sure, can't remember what he said). In these days of VRs and big screen replays, should we still be sending off players on the report of a touch judge who saw it once from a distance at normal speed? I would submit that is a very dangerous thing to do, particularly when we have so many options for checking what actually happened and that it was worthy of a send-off.

totally agree, its the touchies job to report incidents to the ref, the ref should send any/all reports upstairs, immediately.

 

[Slackboy72]

totally agree, its the touchies job to report incidents to the ref, the ref should send any/all reports upstairs, immediately.

I don't think the touch judge needs to be second guessed with this.

 

[nqboy]

totally agree, its the touchies job to report incidents to the ref, the ref should send any/all reports upstairs, immediately.

A much better system IMO.

 

[nqboy]

I don't think the touch judge needs to be second guessed with this.

Poor example. Were you not around years ago when Craig Field beat a high tackle charge by producing a photo showing the tackle wasn't that high? The problem was that it wasn't high at that time but was earlier or later in the tackle. You submit that photo and I will say it was the result of wrestling in the tackle. If you submit the video instead, I can't argue that.