Now that the citing panel have seen what we all saw on the big screens and Bazzas 100th appearance was curtailed and soured, what happens to the referee?

A period of suspension and re-programming until he is deemed fit to be reintegrated to society will not put things right for one of our most popular members of the the 100s.

Can we please cheer him on again for 100a at the next home game?

Oh come on !

The ref called it as he saw it at the time and as I mentioned on another thread all of the other officials agreed with him.

With hindsight and much more time to analyse,the citing committee came to a different conclusion.

One for the learning curve - everyone learn from it and move on .

Baz is a reasonable guy and I'm sure will see it as it is and move on and undoubtedly will get a good reception at our next home game.

A fair decision from the panel.. I'm with Waldo on this one, the officials on the day called it as they saw it. They have a difficult enough role at the best of times without these new directives being dumped on them mid season.

---

SUPPORT Help for Heroes:
Help for Heroes

Come on my foot! How I love to be patronised, the referee got the wrong man. 10,000 people saw it. If you want to accept this level of oversight to rugby union then that is up to you. The game, the paying fans and the whole rugby family deserve better than this.

I believe that this is yet another example of inadequate referees and linesmen who see nothing. Player safety in paramount but so is the authority of officials which is being reduced by the whims of various individuals. TV pundits are starting to sound like those on " Match of the Day" and if standards are not raised then the criticism will infect our game eroding the primary directive.

I am not suggesting bias, on the contrary, I am stating incompetence and in some cases arrogance where a few referees appear to believe themselves to be more significant than the game.

Why else would there be so much interest in knowing who " Sir" is every week?

Quote:

Old Curmudgeon
...the referee got the wrong man. 10,000 people saw it....

....and most of the rest of sportnetwork agreed the ref got it right with Baz's red, so don't have a go at the ref. I've felt all along that I was a rare voice saying Baz couldn't have done much about it, but thought the ref probably understands the laws better then I do, so moved on

So the ref got the wrong man - according to the disciplinary committee and most of us watching on the day. Nevertheless, he made his decision with logic and in good faith in the most difficult of circumstances. If he had carded Barritt AND Barrington then I think we would have cause to be really upset. He didn't - he targeted the person (Baz) who he (and the TMO) thought had caused the more serious outcome. The new directives have been 'dumped' on them (the referees)too. He called it as he saw it and made a decision. That's the way it is.

I like most, I think, support Tempest and all the referees. I think they all do a damn fine job

Quote:

tidds
I like most, I think, support Tempest and all the referees. I think they all do a damn fine job

+1

The incident proves beyond doubt that slow motion replays should never be used in acts of foul play. It is completely obvious when viewed at full speed that Baz had only microseconds to react, and if you reacted that quickly to the starting gun in the 100m you would be disqualified.

I don't think we can blame the ref either.He did his best and I also agree that slow motion replays help nobody in a situation like this.

We now have the right outcome, but it's a shame for Brad who really isn't a dirty player.

And if I've got this right w have for front-line centres. Three have got concussion and one is banned.

Looks like me lining up with Chris Wiles then against Ma Nonu and friends!

We'll need Faz at 12 for the next couple of weeks, I suspect.

---

"My kicking coach tells me to imagine I am on the beach and that's what I did. I tried to be as relaxed as possible because we had the wind in our face and I didn't want to force it." - Marcelo Bosch, 06/04/15

What a phucqing mess!

The panel notes that Parling was falling and Barrington could do nothing about it, yet we have a law that says a ball carrier slipping into a tackle is not a valid defence for a tackler who makes contact with his head!

Who'd be a ref?!

---

£676.97 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2017.

Phew. Chris can stay on the wing then.

Quote:

TonyTaff
What a phucqing mess!
The panel notes that Parling was falling and Barrington could do nothing about it, yet we have a law that says a ball carrier slipping into a tackle is not a valid defence for a tackler who makes contact with his head!

Who'd be a ref?!

Also, it's obviously not outcome-based, as Brad's offence was worse (being an actual moving arm to face whatever the intent) but Baz's almost-stationary shoulder to moving head did far more damage.

Quote:

The Bard
The incident proves beyond doubt that slow motion replays should never be used in acts of foul play. It is completely obvious when viewed at full speed that Baz had only microseconds to react, and if you reacted that quickly to the starting gun in the 100m you would be disqualified.

I said to the guys around me on Saturday that reviewing Baz's incident frame-by-frame was not right. Almost all tackles (fair or foul) look awful when viewed frame-by-frame. At the time of the incident I could not see how it wasn't a red for Brad. I genuninely didn't feel that Baz did anything wrong. Given that was my first thoughts I can't help but feel in this incident the ref and his fellow officials should be penalised in some way. At best it showed they had no empathy with the players or how the game is played.

Even 5 days on I cannot see how the ref took no action against Brad at the time. Brad clearly tackled with a swinging arm and connected with Parlings head. At the time that was surely a minimum yellow, more likely under new directives, a red card. Purely for taking no action against Brad should wannt action. The new directives are aimed at this type of tackle.

Surely the reason for baz being cleared has just made the rule change even more confusing now? They said that parling was already out and fell into the tackle.... what if it had been a legitimate tackle from brad but Parling had fell into baz's tackle, would that therefore not be an offence as Parling was going downwards already?

This rule change needs to either be changed, clarified, or gotten rid of. Not blaming the ref, blaming the powers that be for rushing this rule through.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2017 14:23 by JManSarriesFan.

In my opinion the focus on the offence should centre around the movement that the defender makes to effect an "illegal" tackle. As I opined at the time my interpretation of the new law is that Brad should have been Yellow carded (if Parling hadn't been knocked out as a result of the over the shoulder tackle) and Red carded (because he had been) and Baz nothing. Baz didn't move (much) and Parling fell into his shoulder at speed (already concussed) . If players are to be red carded for simply standing their ground we have a serious problem. Do we really want to ask players to jump out of the way?