Hot_Charlie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:27 pm
I suspect it depends if the club are willing to rest him for Bristol and Edinburgh, as they are likely the game he'd miss.
Given the commentary in the press by journos, pundits and ex-refs I suspect it'll be challenged and hopefully expunged from the record.
I think it’s unlikely to be overturned. The only grounds for overturning would be clear and obvious evidence that the referee either missed something incontrovertibly obvious in the video, or didn’t follow the protocols for foul play.
At the risk of reopening a can of worms, I don’t think either is the case. We might disagree with the referee’s interpretation of what he saw - and we might feel that the protocols in these sorts of cases are producing perverse outcomes - but I don’t see a panel getting involved in this.
He’ll get minimal ban on account of his relatively good record and we move on.
I think the fact that the time from knock-on to collision (0.6s) might be a starter for 10 - no one can react that fast. His reaction was 100% "chimp". To suggest it's not a big deal doesn't rub either - he'll be banned for 3 games unless they were willing to burn-up his coaching intervention, which he might need at a later date in the event of actual foul play. I think this will be argued strongly. IIRC he was banned in 2020 after a taking a player out in the air (yellow card, subsequently cited) against Wales in the U20 6N so he has a record too.
A panel has already overturned a referee's card decision (Wayne Barnes) in this 6N already.
Last edited by Hot_Charlie on Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hot_Charlie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:27 pm
I suspect it depends if the club are willing to rest him for Bristol and Edinburgh, as they are likely the game he'd miss.
Given the commentary in the press by journos, pundits and ex-refs I suspect it'll be challenged and hopefully expunged from the record.
I think it’s unlikely to be overturned. The only grounds for overturning would be clear and obvious evidence that the referee either missed something incontrovertibly obvious in the video, or didn’t follow the protocols for foul play.
At the risk of reopening a can of worms, I don’t think either is the case. We might disagree with the referee’s interpretation of what he saw - and we might feel that the protocols in these sorts of cases are producing perverse outcomes - but I don’t see a panel getting involved in this.
He’ll get minimal ban on account of his relatively good record and we move on.
I think the fact that the time from knock-on to collision (0.6s) might be a starter for 10.
A panel has already overturned a referee's card decision (Wayne Barnes) in this 6N already.
Slade has also had a red overturned earlier this season.
They don,t have to overturn the decision, they can decide that the ref card was sufficient punishment. No one loses face, the referees decision stands but it is recognised that Steward was unable to avoid the collision and the incident was neither intentional or careless.
johnthegriff wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:51 pm
They don,t have to overturn the decision, they can decide that the ref card was sufficient punishment. No one loses face, the referees decision stands but it is recognised that Steward was unable to avoid the collision and the incident was neither intentional or careless.
This is where I hope that we are heading. Cannot see them making a decision that throws the ref under the bus nor one that deminishes the stance on head contact but would like to see some acceptance that it was unavoidable at the very least and your suggestion seems to save face as well as avoid the player suffering and unjustfied ban.
johnthegriff wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:51 pm
They don,t have to overturn the decision, they can decide that the ref card was sufficient punishment. No one loses face, the referees decision stands but it is recognised that Steward was unable to avoid the collision and the incident was neither intentional or careless.
This is where I hope that we are heading. Cannot see them making a decision that throws the ref under the bus nor one that deminishes the stance on head contact but would like to see some acceptance that it was unavoidable at the very least and your suggestion seems to save face as well as avoid the player suffering and unjustfied ban.
There have been a few red cards over turned in recent times and some citings where head contact has occurred that have been thrown out.
I'd hope Freddie's representatives will bring to commissions attention to the area of the law that talks about involuntary collisions and has at least had some sort of expert compile a report about how his reactions are in line with someone looking to avoid contact. Should be a fairly easy argument to make and might get him down to the lowest start point if not off entirely.
There is a stocking point in that he does have a red card against his name from age grade rugby for taking a man out in the air which might impact his claim to 50% off.
johnthegriff wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:51 pm
They don,t have to overturn the decision, they can decide that the ref card was sufficient punishment. No one loses face, the referees decision stands but it is recognised that Steward was unable to avoid the collision and the incident was neither intentional or careless.
This is where I hope that we are heading. Cannot see them making a decision that throws the ref under the bus nor one that deminishes the stance on head contact but would like to see some acceptance that it was unavoidable at the very least and your suggestion seems to save face as well as avoid the player suffering and unjustfied ban.
There have been a few red cards over turned in recent times and some citings where head contact has occurred that have been thrown out.
I'd hope Freddie's representatives will bring to commissions attention to the area of the law that talks about involuntary collisions and has at least had some sort of expert compile a report about how his reactions are in line with someone looking to avoid contact. Should be a fairly easy argument to make and might get him down to the lowest start point if not off entirely.
There is a stocking point in that he does have a red card against his name from age grade rugby for taking a man out in the air which might impact his claim to 50% off.
My only concern on this one is that the extensive media coverage on this may push the committee into protecting the ref. Most overturned red cards get little or no coverage, this one would have a certain amount of back page coverage as well as social media attention.
Darc Tiger wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:05 am
The panel has got the judgement right, imho.
Yeah, personally I think pen only or play on, but the panel was never going to throw a ref that far under the bus. As it is they are saying he got the card colour wrong, not that it was a terrible decision.
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
(ii) there had been an act of foul play in breach of Law 9.11 in that the Player had been reckless in his actions and in his upright positioning as he approached
I'm delighted that the card's been rescinded but still can't understand this part of the judgement. He wasn't reckless - he tried to avoid contact. He had every right to be upright - his opponent ducked down in the process of trying to pick up the ball.
I would personally like the concepts of "rugby incedent" (how the heck could he avoid that?!) and "intention" to be (re-)introduced for more common sense refereeing. But maybe this is too much to ask.
Although I do not believe it should have even been a penalty (due to the above), a yellow card is absolute worst case for me, and like most people, I think this can be accepted and we all move on...
parvacat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:35 am
(ii) there had been an act of foul play in breach of Law 9.11 in that the Player had been reckless in his actions and in his upright positioning as he approached
I'm delighted that the card's been rescinded but still can't understand this part of the judgement. He wasn't reckless - he tried to avoid contact. He had every right to be upright - his opponent ducked down in the process of trying to pick up the ball.
Ah well, some face-saving for Peyper.
Agreed.
Had Steward not been upright, there would have been head to head contact, which would have been far worse!