Wallabies v France 3
-
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial that's a lot of words to say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for being so sanctimonious"
I guess you're in the hard-man camp then?
-
@crucial said in Wallabies v France 3:
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial that's a lot of words to say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for being so sanctimonious"
I guess you're in the hard-man camp then?
Yeah good one mate. Thumbs up.
-
I'd like to see some clarification from World Rugby about what happened on the field, and in the judiciary.
I don't fully understand the statement. Under the process that Crucial posted earlier in the thread, there was at least a case to be made that it was a red card.
Did this just come down to the first point of contact being the shoulder and not the head/neck?
I don't want BOK to be hauled over the coals, I just want some clarity.
-
-
“The player Marika Koroibete admitted to technically committing an act of foul play worthy of a red card. Having reviewed all the evidence, the committee deemed that Marika Koroibete’s tackle on French loose-forward Anthony Jelonch initially made shoulder to shoulder contact," the statement read.
“Subsequently, through the impact, any contact to the chest and neck was incidental by Koroibete.
"Therefore, World Rugby’s Head Contact Process was not met due to mitigating factors, and the act of the foul play was secondary.
"On that basis, the committee did not uphold the red card and the player is free to play again immediately."
Cam anyone make sense of this? He appealed his red card, he admitted he committed a red card offence, they overturned the red card. WTF?
-
So you think they concluded that
1 - there was head contact
2 - there was foul play
3 - the degree of danger was high (because MK admitted a technical red card offence?)
4 - there was mitigation (first contact was shoulder to shoulder?) so it should have been reduced to yellow? -
@bones
I'm also confused.
Any head contact was "incidental"? What's that mean? It was negligible / irrelevant from a disciplinary point of view? Or a player safety point of view?[Edit: just realised that the quote above says "any chest / neck contact was incidental". Which frankly makes even less sense. ]
Also curious about how they reached that conclusion. None of the replays on the night were conclusive.
Maybe a good lawyer trumps clear video evidence.
-
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
So you think they concluded that
1 - there was head contact
2 - there was foul play
3 - the degree of danger was high (because MK admitted a technical red card offence?)
4 - there was mitigation (first contact was shoulder to shoulder?) so it should have been reduced to yellow?Yeah that's my reading of it. Essentially shoulder to shoulder first which mitigates the red to a yellow.
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies v France 3:
Cully's tweets don't make sense. It doesn't clear up if the judiciary agreed there was head contact or not. If it was "incidental" then that would be the only mitigation available to reduce the card to yellow.
-
I wonder if "chest and neck" in that statement was an error, and it should have said "head and neck"?
Still wildly confusing. They really need to clarify how they worked through the process, what the correct outcome should have been, an what evidence they used to get there. Right now we're not sure if that kind of tackle is perfectly legal, or a yellow card offence.
-
There is a delay of a few days between the decision and the media releases being sent to media, and the decision being published on World Rugby's website. It will be there in the next few days.
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@bones
I'm also confused.
Any head contact was "incidental"? What's that mean? It was negligible / irrelevant from a disciplinary point of view? Or a player safety point of view?[Edit: just realised that the quote above says "any chest / neck contact was incidental". Which frankly makes even less sense. ]
Also curious about how they reached that conclusion. None of the replays on the night were conclusive.
Maybe a good lawyer trumps clear video evidence.
That's because the TMO, citing commissioner, judiciary and the lawyers have access to many more camera angles than are shown on tv. The difference between the TMO and the rest is time to have a close look at all the footage, so that's where some of the differences in outcome already come from. Obviously, it's possible that camera angles are not 100% clear, and then having a good lawyer will definitely make a big difference.
-
And here you go, right on cue it's Fox Sport putting outrage ahead of reality:
Koroibete free! Wallabies star cleared by panel after ‘embarrassing’ red card drama
Koroibete free! Wallabies star cleared by panel after ‘embarrassing’ red card farce
"Wallabies winger Marika Koroibete is free to play in Bledisloe I after he was cleared of any wrongdoing"
Except he wasn't. We need to wait for the full ruling to be sure, but it seems they decided he committed a foul worthy of a yellow card.
Unfortunately most people reading this won't have the necesary bullshit detection skills, and will come away thinking the ref was drunk.
-
-
@steven-harris where did you find that?
Sadly that statement doesn't clarify the decision at all. I'd like to watch that video to see if that helps (fully expecting that it won't though).
