WestDr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 12:58 pm
Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:41 pm
Am pretty sure this is an answer, rather than speculation, but citing, I believe is simply for anything which the citing official believes deserved a red card but didn't get one.
If only worthy of yellow, irrespective of intent, then the citing officer ain't interested.
And of course, just because someone gets cited, doesn't mean they're guilty - that's for the hearing to determine.
Thanks for the insight. It does sound much like what happens. Although it does again beg the questions of how does a citing official come to a conclusion around what they '
believe deserves a red card that didn't get one' and is the '
if only worthy of a yellow, irrespective of intent, then not interested' related solely to yellows that are given or does it include those offences that are bad but nothing was done on the pitch ?
If either of these, then it would seem that the process goes something like:
- the CO looks at the whole match
- firstly decides on anything that didn't get anything but should have done, whether yellow or red. If yellow (and not given as yellow), ignore. If red go to citing process
- secondly, looks at yellows given and if that isn't harsh enough, then go to citing process and adjust upwards
- thirdly, looks at reds given, and if for Munster, (a) chalks it off and (b) does not return to first point to include others who might equally have done something worthy of a card.
I put the second point in as it seems to me that's the only way Craig Gilroy's yellow could have got into the citing process. Point 3 is, honestly, probably just plain anti-turnipism.
The citing officer will have watched the match in real time, and will watch again after.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't specifically look to upgrade yellows, unless he thought
at the time the ref was wrong to only give yellow. Unlike football (soccer) where if the ref says he saw the incident and decided the offence deserved only yellow, or perhaps even only a foul, the incident cannot be judged again by someone else. If the ref in football says he didn't see the incident, or he missed part of the incident that is subsequently drawn to his attention, that can be looked at again.
In rugby, any incident can be looked at again whether the ref saw it and dealt with it at the time or not.
Teams can also draw the citing officer's attention to perceived acts of foul play which they deemed worthy of a red card, but it is the citing officer who decides whether to proceed.
If you are referring to the Zebo red card being dismissed, that had nothing to do with the citing officer.
All red cards will result in a disciplinary hearing, and it was that hearing that chose to dismiss the red card.
Citing Officers play no part in anything where the ref has already shown the red card. They merely reconsider possible breaches after the game and if they think any were worthy of a red card, they will cite the player/incident and that will also be dealt with by a disciplinary panel.
It is unusual for a citing to be dismissed by a disciplinary panel, but it does happen sometimes, so they are not considered to be infallible.