Six Nations 2016

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Heard that's intentional to get more refs involved. Do wonder if owens is playing the seniority card though. 2 games I've seen him intervene in a way touch judges don't usually.
The Assistant Referees are intervening constantly throughout the game via their radio links. The game is reffed by a team of three. All that happened is Nige realised the ref could not hear his interventions over the radio so put a flag in.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
I'd be very surprised if he got cited for that. Neither intent nor malice.

Irrelevant to citing. Relevant to sentencing. For citing all that is needed is the claim that the illegal contact worthy of an RC took place and the RC wasn't issued.
 

Wafer

Veteran
The Assistant Referees are intervening constantly throughout the game via their radio links. The game is reffed by a team of three. All that happened is Nige realised the ref could not hear his interventions over the radio so put a flag in.
Yeah, but he seemed to handle it more confidently than they usually do, plus in one of the first couple of weeks he was suggesting the ref have another look at something, as he obviously disagreed with the decision.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
I'd be surprised if he wasn't cited. I enjoyed the game but England look a bit like a work in progress.
The UK press reviews I read so far don't even mention Mr Brown's temper tantrum. The Irish press reviews do
Yeah, but he seemed to handle it more confidently than they usually do, plus in one of the first couple of weeks he was suggesting the ref have another look at something, as he obviously disagreed with the decision.
For sure. Members of the team of three have been told to call something if they see it. Thud avoiding critical incidents that get missed.
 

swee'pea99

Legendary Member
Irrelevant to citing. Relevant to sentencing. For citing all that is needed is the claim that the illegal contact worthy of an RC took place and the RC wasn't issued.
But isn't some kind of intent necessary for 'illegal'? Surely you can't be found guilty of something if whatever happened was entirely inadvertent? I'm not disputing (heaven forbid!); I'm genuinely curious.
 

nickyboy

Norven Mankey
You want change but you don't know what change you want. Fair enough. I'll stop ty

You're misunderstanding me. The change I want is a to develop a set of laws that take out the interpretative element of refereeing. Within reason I don't care what the law changes are. All I want is a situation where players, referees, spectators can understand exactly what is going on and whether something is within the laws or not. At the moment, that is not the case

That's the framework. Then it's up to all the stakeholders to fill in the detail
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
You're misunderstanding me. The change I want is a to develop a set of laws that take out the interpretative element of refereeing. Within reason I don't care what the law changes are. All I want is a situation where players, referees, spectators can understand exactly what is going on and whether something is within the laws or not. At the moment, that is not the case

That's the framework. Then it's up to all the stakeholders to fill in the detail
You want the impossible or an end to the Union game.

If spectators, pundits, and players remain blissfully ignorant of both the Laws, and the ample guidance on their application and interpretation, that is not the fault of the referees nor of the Laws themselves.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
But isn't some kind of intent necessary for 'illegal'? Surely you can't be found guilty of something if whatever happened was entirely inadvertent? I'm not disputing (heaven forbid!); I'm genuinely curious.
Badly executed tackle doesn't require intent to do harm to constitute dangerous play. But you get a player beyond the horizontal it is your duty to put the player down safely.

If anything your intent has to be to make sure your boot doesn't make contact the way his did. And a fifteen's boot has no business being there in the first place.
 
Location
Midlands
Mike Brown = Red Mist = Red Card for illegal use of the boot. He HAS to exercise care and cannot make contact legally with head or face of another player. Was it accidental or not deliberate? Nothing happens by accident at that level. He had a very quiet game and let his frustration boil over. Again.

Officials got that woefully wrong imo, and I expect a citing.

Seems like citing panel has got it "wrong" as well

Coach Eddie Jones said after the win over Ireland that Brown, who scored a try in the second half, had done nothing wrong.

"The referee adjudicated on it. It was fair. If the ball is on the ground then you are allowed to kick it, aren't you?" Jones said.
 
Location
Midlands
Maybe in his/their defense "While the balance of his/their mind was disturbed" or maybe a “momentary lapse of concentration” from him/them
 

martint235

Dog on a bike
Location
Welling
I hadn't realised that the citing commissioners could rule on something the referee had specifically looked at on replay.
They changed it a few years ago. I'd always thought that if the ref had seen it and decided not to do anything you couldn't be cited as it had effectively been dealt with during the game.
 

Wafer

Veteran
Didn't have a problem with what Brown did personally. Trying to kick through and Murray got caught....

Even heard people say it served Murray right for holding on to the ball and slowing it down.
 

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
They changed it a few years ago. I'd always thought that if the ref had seen it and decided not to do anything you couldn't be cited as it had effectively been dealt with during the game.
That's wendyball innit .

The citing after the match even if the ref has dealt with one has been in for a loooong time .
 
Top Bottom