Six nations 2012

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

... i am always surprised to hear Rule Britannia as the English anthem ....

[Anna]

Well, Wales won. But could the Refs agree, so Sam Warburton was a red card, but Bradley Davies only a yellow card for the same tip-top tackle? actually, I am thinking of transferring allegiance to Ireland.

[Norfolk Born]

That's a grand idea, if for no other reason than that you get an extra anthem. I'm roughly 12.5% Irish ('tho I'm not sure which bit or bits is or are involved) so, as you can imagine, I was a bit miffed at the outcome this afternoon.

[amateur51]

Well, Wales won. But could the Refs agree, so Sam Warburton was a red card, but Bradley Davies only a yellow card for the same tip-top tackle? actually, I am thinking of transferring allegiance to Ireland.

Good game!

I agree with you about the refs Anna

And I've always said that the sin-bin was a very good idea - Soccer would do well to follow suit

[anotherbob]

And I've always said that the sin-bin was a very good idea - Soccer would do well to follow suit

Based on what one knows of soccer the problem would be that by half-time the referee would be alone.

[Anna]

I was so ashamed of Wales, it was a great game, but the tip tackle by Bradley Davies was a disgrace, he's been carded before in their last match and is now to be cited and possibly disqualified, which he should be, even Warren Gatland says a ban on him is needed, as that tackle showed intent to harm. Not on.

[anotherbob]

I was so ashamed of Wales.

Don't be ashamed of Wales!
Be angry with the player.
Gatland has said the right thing and I hope that the player is banned for the duration of the tournament.

[amateur51]

Based on what one knows of soccer the problem would be that by half-time the referee would be alone.

not such an exaggeration!

Mind, it would mean that the fans would start asking for their money back - that'd soon sort out the miscreants

[amateur51]

Don't be ashamed of Wales!
Be angry with the player.
Gatland has said the right thing and I hope that the player is banned for the duration of the tournament.

Well said, anotherbob!

Tho' I understand your despair, Anna

[aeolium]

I was so ashamed of Wales, it was a great game, but the tip tackle by Bradley Davies was a disgrace, he's been carded before in their last match and is now to be cited and possibly disqualified, which he should be, even Warren Gatland says a ban on him is needed, as that tackle showed intent to harm. Not on.

Yes, and that's now two tip tackles in successive games for Wales against northern hemisphere opposition. Gatland really should preempt the citing process and say he will not pick the player for the rest of the championship. It was such a shame as it was a superb game up to that point. In some ways Wales were worthy winners as their attacking play was so exciting (George North - take a bow), but the result left a bit of a sour taste.

[aeolium]

No surprise that Bradley Davies has been banned for the rest of the Six Nations games, but no action taken against Stephen Ferris (rightly imo). The citing committee obviously did not think much of the referee's decision to give equal punishment to those players for supposedly similar tackles.

[LHC]

No surprise that Bradley Davies has been banned for the rest of the Six Nations games, but no action taken against Stephen Ferris (rightly imo). The citing committee obviously did not think much of the referee's decision to give equal punishment to those players for supposedly similar tackles.

I think it is worth remembering that it was not Wayne Barnes' decision to give equal punishment in these separate incidents. Wayne Barnes did not see the Bradley Davies incident, but relied on the report and recommendation of his touch judge, Dave Pearson. Although Pearson described the incident correctly, when asked for his recommendation, he said 'yellow card'. It would have been difficult for Barnes to overrule this recommendation, not having seen the incident himself.

Barnes has not been afraid to make difficult calls in the past, and I have little doubt that, had he seen the Davies incident, he would have (correctly) issued him with a red card.

It is also worth remembering that the Ferris tackle happened very soon after the Davies incident. Having just issued a yellow card for a tip tackle (on the recommendation of the touch judge), it is possible that he felt that, for consistency, he had to be just as strict on the tip tackle from Ferris. As he hadn't himself seen the Davies incident, he wasn't able to assess the relative demerits of both incidents.

One final point, the citing commissioner - another neutral referee - also thought that the Ferris tackle was sufficiently serious to warrant referral to the citing board. In other words, he thought the yellow card issued by Barnes might not have been sufficient punishment. This hardly suggests that Barnes got this one wrong.

Now that the dust has settled, I think most people agree that the Davies tackle warranted a red card and a ban, while the Ferris tackle was a penalty, and possibly a yellow card. The citing board certainly agree with this, hence the ban on Davies, but no further action on Ferris.

It's just a shame that Barnes didn't see the Davies incident himself.

[aeolium]

One final point, the citing commissioner - another neutral referee - also thought that the Ferris tackle was sufficiently serious to warrant referral to the citing board. In other words, he thought the yellow card issued by Barnes might not have been sufficient punishment. This hardly suggests that Barnes got this one wrong.
Now that the dust has settled, I think most people agree that the Davies tackle warranted a red card and a ban, while the Ferris tackle was a penalty, and possibly a yellow card. The citing board certainly agree with this, hence the ban on Davies, but no further action on Ferris.

This account paints a different picture, LHC - the disciplinary panel did not even think the Ferris tackle merited a penalty let alone a yellow card, so they clearly thought Barnes did get that decision wrong, on both counts. Also, if the touch judge had advised Wayne Barnes that Bradley Davies dropped Ryan after tipping him over the horizontal (as the article indicates he did), then Barnes should not have needed to ask the touch judge for a recommendation - that information alone would have been sufficient for Barnes to issue a red card.

I think the disciplinary panel have come to the right decision, but it is a pity that a wonderful game was slightly spoilt by those incorrect decisions by the referee which almost certainly affected the final result (and I am a supporter of Wales )

[LHC]

This account paints a different picture, LHC

I am aware that the Ireland management are claiming that Ferris was innocent, but I have yet to see any independent corroboration of Kearney's statement. There was certainly nothing in the statement issued by the disciplinary panel that would support Kearney's interpretation.

It is, of course, possible that Kearney is using the ambiguity of no further action taken against Ferris (which usually means that the panel was content with the on-field punishment) to push his own agenda, which was that Ireland were somehow cheated out of their rightful victory.

Disciplinary panels have rescinded yellow cards in the past when they determined that the referee had got a decision wrong. They didn't do so on this occasion, so I remain dubious about Kearney's statement and his motives in trying to blame Barnes for Ireland's loss.

[aeolium]

You mean that when Kearney made this statement: “While we understand and fully support the stance to stamp out dangerous tackles in the game to make it safe at all levels, the disciplinary panel itself felt that the decision to award a penalty was incorrect and we also felt that it was a fair and legitimate tackle by Stephen” he was not telling the truth, or had no basis for the statement? Surely the player, and perhaps his manager as well, would have been present at the disciplinary panel hearing so would have had first-hand information. Why on earth would Kearney make a statement like that if he had not good grounds for it (and if it could be refuted by one or more members of the panel)?