rugbyunion
Latest News:
Untitled Document
 

Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3
 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
brizzly's brothers (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 10:37
Waking up to this news was fantastic.

At the time whilst trying to evaluate the incident with an unbiased opinion it appeared that the final decision was made using the wrong camera angle which showed Wray's head whipping back from the force.

The side angle showed shoulder contact with the ball causing the whiplash affect.

A real shame as we could have left the Allianz with a point or more, but as we all know there's nothing that we can do to change the final outcome so bring on the Glaws which we will be attending sat alongside two friends who unfortunately chose to support the wrong side!!!



I would rather have a shower than a Barf!

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
EnfieldMal (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 10:41
Quote:
tbr
Quote:
youngone
"In the panel’s view, and taking into account all of its rugby experience, that glancing contact did not pass the red card threshold.”
Great news absolutely, but the panel review almost suggests it shouldn't have been a red card which is a bit frustrating considering ti absolutely ruined what was a fantastically contested game at the time and basically ensured we left there pointless.



There must have been many of course... but I can't immediately think of an ACTUAL red card being shown and the disciplinary panel a few days later dismissing the charge and indeed going further and stating that the incident didn't even warrant a red card in the first place.

Has there?

Ruchard Barrington was shown a red card, one of the first for the new regulations of high tackles. It was thrown out when it was shown it was actually Brad Barritt who did it

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Jimeno (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 10:56
No problem with Sarries at all - never thought of them as cheats.

However I have had to abandon my twitter account as it was hijacked and now contains only gay porn.(Sm56)

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
hooter (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 10:57
Why don't they just introduce the ref putting somebody on report which then doesn't relie on teams citing opponents after the match is finished.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Barty II (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 11:05
Positive words about Sarries appreciated there.

Will qualify that it tends to be the minority (and from other clubs more than Bristol) who will take to our board to post a petty comment on a topic that's fairly irrelevant - along the lines of the salary cap, thuggery, rubbish fans etc (justified or not).

Again, thank you to the Bris fans who were there on Saturday, were a credit to the team - see you again next year

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Furnessman (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 12:15
great news, it was a hard non malicious tackle , like in the old days, and lets raise a glass or two to Jackson Wray jolly good fellow, forget the idea of putting player on report, its too easy a cop out for ref as seen in my former sport rugby league

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
tbr (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 12:47
Quote:
EnfieldMal
Quote:
tbr
Quote:
youngone
"In the panel’s view, and taking into account all of its rugby experience, that glancing contact did not pass the red card threshold.”
Great news absolutely, but the panel review almost suggests it shouldn't have been a red card which is a bit frustrating considering ti absolutely ruined what was a fantastically contested game at the time and basically ensured we left there pointless.



There must have been many of course... but I can't immediately think of an ACTUAL red card being shown and the disciplinary panel a few days later dismissing the charge and indeed going further and stating that the incident didn't even warrant a red card in the first place.

Has there?

Ruchard Barrington was shown a red card, one of the first for the new regulations of high tackles. It was thrown out when it was shown it was actually Brad Barritt who did it

Thanks for that example.
Although to be pedantic, I assume it was still deemed a red card offence. That is to say it would have always resulted in someone being sent off and the team being down to 14 men and therefore at a HUGE (but warranted) disadvantage... just that the wrong man got the card.
Not quite the same. Sorry... should've been clearer with my original question.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Matt Brizz (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 13:20
Will the Officials be sanctioned in any way for a poor decision ?

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Peter D (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 13:24
Quote:
Matt Brizz
Will the Officials be sanctioned in any way for a poor decision ?

No, and neither should they be. The referee is the sole arbiter of fact on the pitch. He acts in good faith. He had a touch judge telling him that there had been a high tackle with force and judged what he saw on the screen to back that up. Quite a number on here conceded that the referee was probably right under the current regulations and interpretation of the laws of the game.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
AtyeoBrizzler (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 13:30
I can't help but feel that given the amount of time they spent reviewing the tackle during the game, they should have just determined it to not be clear and obvious and (at worst) given a yellow card and got on with the game, leaving it for citing officers to deal with after the game or during the 10 minutes spell when Smith was off the pitch.

The 5 minutes or so agonizing over various angles on a large, often low quality screen whilst the crowd call for blood (as we all would as well if we're honest!) is disruptive to the rhythm of the game and also has the potential to prejudice the outcome. Given the officials otherwise lax attitude to other high tackles (from both sides) and cynical shoulder charges (Mr Skelton...) the red for GS seems utterly bizarre.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Rich. (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 14:06
Agree with you AtyeoBrizzler. I think with these things the benefit of any doubt has to be with the tackler and if it is not clear and obvious then they get that benefit.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
samlee99 (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 14:18
Red card well deserved under current interpretations. Smith very very lucky.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
hooker 72 (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 15:45
Samlee99, yes the tackle was high and it was clumsy, but you can clearly see the shoulder makes contact with the ball first and that action causes wray’s head to whiplash back, yellow at most for high shot.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Pub Singer (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 17:53
Quote:
hooker 72
Samlee99, yes the tackle was high and it was clumsy, but you can clearly see the shoulder makes contact with the ball first and that action causes wray’s head to whiplash back, yellow at most for high shot.
The footage seems clear to me that the shoulder hit the chin with some force. I see Smith’s chest hit the ball and not his shoulder.

How does hitting the ball at Wray’s chest level cause his head to whip back?

Wray’s testimony here was probably key to Smith getting off.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Singapore Sam (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 19:48
Quote:
hooker 72
Furriner, I think one of the citing officers is ex bath prop bell, so not sure if he’s learning hence the two listed citing officers.

Dinger has been a Citing Commissioner for quite some time.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
happyH (IP Logged)
12 September, 2018 19:56
Shame that he didnnt pick up Skelton s blatant forearm to will hurrells face then. Pretty obvious on the replay for their try. Perhaps TMO and citing officer were in the toilet or just not watching at all.
With all the footage available it is beyond belief he wasn’t cited. Not only was it a card possibly red it was a low life cheap shot from a 31st bloke

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Olly (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 00:54
I don’t believe it has been missed. There is no way it hasn’t been seen by the refs the citing officer and probably hundreds more people. In fact Pat has even sent a 15 min video to the RFU. So nobody has any excuse.



Bristol, like the glass is Blue, Bristol Blue.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
hooker 72 (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 08:49
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole inconsistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Pub Singer (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 09:01
Quote:
hooker 72
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole inconsistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

Basic physics means that if the chin was not hit, the whiplash effect would move the head forward relative to the body not back.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
robtheh (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 09:44
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
hooker 72
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole inconsistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

Basic physics means that if the chin was not hit, the whiplash effect would move the head forward relative to the body not back.

I think the point that Smith made at the hearing was that the ball played the crucial part in the misunderstanding of where Wray'd been hit. I see it that there're actually two points of impact: 1: Smith hit's Wray and the ball. 2: ball hits Wray (effectively) and that's what made his head go back. If it'd just been Smith hits Wray, no ball involved, I'd be agreeing with you right now.

Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?