Jerome Garces

[KevDP4L]

Managed to get up enough courage to watch the highlights there. For me the red card did seem a poor decision influenced more by the injury than the incident itself. Having read a bit more about Garces past this morning he strikes me as a referee who likes to be the centre of attention by making big controversial calls in high profile games. The sport of rugby doesn't need people like this and if he wants as much attention as the players he can go ref football matches as far as I'm concerned. On Twitter I came across a link to 3 other tackles in the air, arguably all worse than Payne's "tackle" and not one ref gave a red card: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYHrZIc ... KT&index=2

However the thing that sickened me almost as much as the red card decision was the finally penalty of the game. As has already been alluded to in this thread there was absolutely no attempt by the tackler to release the Ulster player on the ground and for Ulster to be penalised was a complete farce. People can debate different interpretations of the rules on tackling in the air until they're blue in the face, however the rule that a tackler must release the player before playing the ball couldn't be clearer! I've watched this incident about 5 times now and it's very obvious that the Saracens' tackler goes straight onto the ball without releasing Ferris. Now I know that referees are only human and will make some mistakes, but to make one so poor and at a stage in the game when it would have gave Ulster a kick at the posts with a chance to win the game, Garces shouldn't be giving the decision unless he is 100% sure. Absolutely sickened!

[Eggs]

Really good example there, almost identical situation.

Should Payne have gone down and required treatment would that have changed things?

[rumncoke]

As previously stated mike
Section 10 is defined as Play and as such the the word FOUL implies intent thus a referee must be aware of intent and when applying the spirit of the law with that in mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cbusbyni]

Interesting, so by outcome do you mean that if that sap of a sarrie had got back to his feet, the expectation would be that the offence would be considered less severe? Genuine question

Good question! I suppose the area that we would talk about this most is with tip tackles and so it's easier for me to talk about it in that regard but a tackle in the air I suppose would fall into the same category.

Outcome isn't the extent of the injury, but for example for a tip tackle it would be where he lands (the outcome of the tackle).

If the outcome is the player landing in their back then you'd be looking at a YC, but if the outcome was landing on their shoulder, head or neck region it would be a RC. In terms of the actions (again using the tip tackle) we are just looking at if the player was lifted above the horizontal- not if the tackler meant to lift them up etc- the players intent is irrelevant.

I do wonder if Garces is actually penalising as a dangerous tackle (using the criteria above) and that's how he reached the RC decision. I can't think of another RC given for playing the man in the air and there have been some awful examples!

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[OneMore]

As previously stated mike
Section 10 is defined as Play and as such the the word FOUL implies intent thus a referee must be aware of intent and when applying the spirit of the law with that in mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should maybe just quit while you're only a wee bit behind big lad.

[ColinM]

As previously stated mike
Section 10 is defined as Play and as such the the word FOUL implies intent thus a referee must be aware of intent and when applying the spirit of the law with that in mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only thing that FOUL implies is either the breaking of a rule or a bad smell. You can do both without intention.

[mikerob]

As previously stated mike
Section 10 is defined as Play and as such the the word FOUL implies intent thus a referee must be aware of intent and when applying the spirit of the law with that in mind.

And as I said before, that is total rubbish.

Firstly, "foul" does not imply intent, in this context the laws define it as "anything a player does.... against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game". Note the use of the word "anything".

Secondly, a ref has just posted that they are told not to referee intent, just actions and outcomes, and if you ask any qualified ref this, they will say the same.

Thirdly, the few laws that do rely on intent (such as deliberate knock on) explicitly use the words "intent". The dangerous play laws in this context do not.

The penalty + RC punishment is certainly debatable but there is really no debate that it was a penalty offence.

[Russ]

Nothing we can do now. How we finish this season is crucial.

As a side note. Now a Celrmont fan

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Cockatrice]

Really good example there, almost identical situation.

Should Payne have gone down and required treatment would that have changed things?

Had Payne gone down it would IMHO have changed the decision. WHY because I think the referee played the perceived seriousness of the injury rather than the actual incident. Having watched it a couple of times I think if you look closely and often enough from one of the angles you can see Payne does take his eyes off the ball and look forward presumably seeing the man in the air.

However rather than saying it was deliberate Payne was probably at this stage one/two steps away at full speed and could not have stopped in a month of Sundays or even tried to have jumped. At this point look at his feet they appear to either give way either just instantly before the hit or just as his head went into Goode.

It was stupid, reckless and may other things but for me the referee made the decision on the extent of injury governed in part by a seemingly endless stoppage, numerous medical staff, several stretchers and endless talk to who ever he spoke to. An instant decision in his case may have been different but he had too much time and made the call for red.

To see a player carried off with what looked like an extremely serious injury and one which looked like a season ending or even worse one was completely turned on its head when a few minutes later the same player came dancing out to high five everyone as if the game was now won. He had the sense to keep his hood up and I think I noted a few Sarries staff ensure that the cameras didn't get too close when they realised how it was looking. Well done to Goode on his speedy recovery hopefully he can get back to playing again soon.

[breakdown]

I doubt we will finish top 4, not sure how the players will come back from that

[Lurgan Lad]

Really good example there, almost identical situation.

Should Payne have gone down and required treatment would that have changed things?

This is the thing that is so annoying, I'm going to try and type this without cursing but surely to frig basing decisions on how much you 'think' a player is hurt is a road down which we don't want to go, one where players will milk situations. Indeed in my mind if Payne had have went down holding his head and got a concussion there is no way he would have got a red card. Yes we lost and we need to accept that, Saracens are in the semis and not us, but frig me it is hard to take that such a game changing decision could be so wrong.

[Snipe Watson]

How do you know Eggs?
There's no point parroting a few points from the laws. Unless you have the latest up to date set of decisions and interpretations of the rules from the international referees conference a couple of months back and any amendments that have been made since, you're in the dark.

If you play golf, you probably have a copy of the rules of the game, but the book you need is Decisions on the Rules of Golf. It's about ten times the size and is the book referees carry.

I know because every tackle in the air would otherwise be a red card! And its not!

Every tackle where a player in the air is touched by a player on the ground causing him to land on his head, neck and shoulders is a red card. So therefore you do not know, you are wrong no matter how often or how vociferously you protest or want to be right.
By the way my straw poll of branch referees saying it was red is now up to 3 with none saying anything else.

[Snipe Watson]

.....the word FOUL implies intent.....

No it doesn't. Nor can intent be assessed during a game.

[pip14]

Most similar incident you'll see anywhere, and guess what nothing comes of it

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs98Prm-JnQ

[Jackie Brown]

Garces will hopefully go the way of Pearson after that showing.