22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Locked
Hot_Charlie
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4036
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:30 pm
Location: Lincoln

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by Hot_Charlie »

chris111 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:48 pm
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.
wigworth
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1231
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by wigworth »

Hot_Charlie wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:09 pm
chris111 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:48 pm
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.
johnthegriff
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2002
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:37 am

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by johnthegriff »

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.
GB72
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:44 pm

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by GB72 »

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.
sam16111986
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7024
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm
Location: Shepshed

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by sam16111986 »

GB72 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:54 pm
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.
GB72
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:44 pm

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by GB72 »

sam16111986 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:48 pm
GB72 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:54 pm
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.
TigerXV
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:38 pm

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by TigerXV »

wigworth
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1231
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by wigworth »

TigerXV wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:43 am sounds like FS's red is rescinded

https://twitter.com/willgkelleher/statu ... 91264?s=20
It has been confirmed that it has been rescinded.
TigerFeetSteve
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7355
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by TigerFeetSteve »

Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
Darc Tiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7274
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:53 pm

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by Darc Tiger »

The panel has got the judgement right, imho.
TigerFeetSteve
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7355
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by TigerFeetSteve »

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.
parvacat
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 12:22 pm
Location: Lost in Space

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by parvacat »

(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.
Pellsey
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2138
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by Pellsey »

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...
Pellsey
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2138
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by Pellsey »

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!
loretta
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:31 pm
Location: With the PFJ

Re: 22/23 Injury & Suspension list

Post by loretta »

And a clean player doesn’t get red ink on his ledger.
In my defence, I was left unsupervised….
Locked