Ireland

crunchfit says...

@editor

I wasn't aware there was one. In the future, I'll take it there, if at all, but seeing as this debate is just about over could it be finished here? I would be grateful.

Perhaps you could offer a verdict on the outcome, now that it's boiled down to the bare bones. It would shut us both up.

@TG

That is only one sentence in that paragraph...

They did not state the referee was right. They do not comment on the correctness. They only said that it was not a red card, which is true, and beside the point as the citing as about whether or not it was a dangerous dropping / driving tackle:

"The citing report of the Citing Commissioner Achile Reali (FIR) in respect of an act of foul play under Law 10(4)(j), namely dangerous play by lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the groundwhilst that player's feet are still off the ground, in the International match between Ireland and Wales, played on 5th February 2012 at the Aviva Stadium, Dublin".

The purpose of the report is clear and is set out at the very beginning of the citing. Not to mention the entire citing is determining whether Ferris actually lifted and dropped the player and committed the dangerous tackle for which Barnes had sanctioned him. There are many more references to support this e.g. the "Citing Officer's Complaint and the Player's Plea" section.

This is really it in a nutshell:

Barnes: Awarded a penalty and yellow card to Ferris for making a dangerous tackle.

Panel (in the findings section): It was not a dangerous tackle.

The offense for which a penalty and yellow card were awarded was actually not an offense...

If Ferris was penalised and carded for making a dangerous tackle by Barnes and the panel explicitly say (more than once) that it was not a dangerous tackle, then there is nothing more I think I can add. It's black and white.

Posted 14:17 23rd April 2012

crunchfit says...

Part 2 / 2

Summation of my argument:

1) The panel did feel that the decision to award the penalty was incorrect. They may not have stated outright that Barnes was wrong, they indicate so in their findings, and reference it throughout the citing (e.g. "[if he had time to replay, review, analyse, etc.] he may well have come to a different conclusion..."). Perhaps if Kearney had made a claim saying that the panel stated outright that the decision was wrong then that would may been a bit of an inaccuracy, but he did not. Kearney stated that they felt it was incorrect - this was not a lie or a mistake.

2) Barnes claims Ferris made a dangerous tackle. The panel found that Ferris did not make a dangerous tackle. Barnes' decision was wrong and whether they outright state this, they agree, hence the findings. This had a direct impact on the result of the game and Wales' Grand Slam, and possibly the result of the tournament.

3) Kearney's statement which was too close to the truth and the press release was really just a bit of PR by the IRB / 6N in response so it looks like Barnes' decision did not impact the result of the game.

Posted 18:59 22nd April 2012

crunchfit says...

1 - 3: I'm not sure what your point is. This has been explained. If they think the reasons are wrong, they can also make a finding directly opposing the referee's decision. I don't understand the complication. Dismissing a citing is easier than saying their referee made an incorrect call which had a direct bearing on the result of that game and the tournament. It's pretty obvious that they are trying to avoid any indication that Barnes was wrong. That press release was BS. They're trying to cover their asses because their referee's decision directly changed the result of the game and tournament.

4 - 5: Earlier in the debate you questioned my sources and mentioned how direct quotation. If you are going to make a point of it for my responses, try and do the same for yours. That sources has no quotations. If you had referred to others, you would see that the line you quoted is not part of the release. Saying they understand how he came to his decision has gives no indication of the accuracy of the decision. It's just PR by the iRB / 6N and it's irrelevant.

6. For definitions, I refer to a number of dictionaries where possible, not a Wikipedia article.

I'll take a look at those two citing reports now. They are different cases though and citings are done on a case by case basis.

Posted 17:36 22nd April 2012

ThinkingGame says...

"32. In light of those findings and taking into account the June 2009 Memorandum, and submissions made, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the decision to award a penalty was wrong. This was not a tackle which fell into the third category of the June 2009 Memorandum but rather the second...I therefore uphold the citing complaint."

110920 RWC 2011 JO Decision ¿ Dominiko Waqaniburotu (Fiji)

I wonder if you've read this. The JO clearly says there his finding is that the decision to award a penalty was wrong. Except it wasn't, since the Sanction required under Law for a breach of 10.4. (j) is a Penalty Kick, with option of further sanctions. In the Decision of the Judicial Officer at the start of the document, it's much clearer:

"(ii) Further to Tournament Disciplinary Programme (¿TDP¿), Clause 8.4(a) the referee having made a decision on the field of play in relation to the said act of foul play, the Judicial Officer was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the referee¿s REASONS for his decision were wrong."

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/tournament/mediazone/02/05/69/51/111003jodecisionfabriceestebanez(france).pdf

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/tournament/mediazone/02/05/12/01/110920jodecision-dominikowaqaniburotu(fiji)10.4(j).pdf

The difference is simple. Numerous times in the second one the JO makes clear the Clause 8.4a requirement that only the reasons for the decision may be considered, and that the referee's decision must be upheld unless the JO is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the reason for the decision is incorrect. He then concludes the decision itself was incorrect, even though it wasn't. The regulations are applied correctly in the top one, where the mention throughout is of the reasons, and only the reasons for the decision, despite Steve Walsh's reason making no sense under Law.

cont.

Posted 14:12 22nd April 2012

crunchfit says...

[b]All of your first point seems to be based on the citing panel not being allowed to oppose the decision, but they are. We've already been through this. You can't just ignore this.[/b] According to 17.11.1, they are allowed to question the reasoning, but not the decision itself. If the reasoning is wrong in accordance with 17.11.1, they are allowed to make a decision which opposes that of the referee's according to 17.11.4a. He did not have to mention reasoning as the panel [b]can[/b] oppose the referee's decision. I've mentioned the law numerous times and even quoted it. You can't simply refer to one law which may support you and then completely ignore the one which directly opposes you. There is no indication that he was not wrong, he lied or made a mistake.

"The International Rugby Board and Six Nations have backed referee Wayne Barnes over the penalty decision..." This sentence was not part of the press release. Aside from that, the actual press release specifically said that the panel did not uphold the citing.

I'm not sure where you got that definition, but it doesn't really make sense and I think it is just incorrect, judging by the ones I just looked up. Anyway, Kearney never even comments on the decision, let alone criticises it. He first comment is on how the panel felt. This is stating how they felt. He does not criticise the decision. Even what the panel felt was not a criticism. A decision is right or wrong, stating which is not a criticism. His second comments are stating his and other members of Ireland's coaching staff's opinion on the tackle. This is not a criticism.

So

1) The panel [b]are[/b] allowed to rule on the decision, as well as the reasoning.

2) The joint statement not only makes no indication that Kearney lied or made a mistake, but supports what he said.

Posted 17:35 20th April 2012

crunchfit says...

Well, the press release as a whole is not saying that Barnes was correct. The line which you left out says that the panel did not support Barnes and in the next line, but that the performance review did. They are not criticising the referee in doing so and Kearney was not criticising in stating how the panel felt.

If they found the reasons for the decision incorrect, then what Kearney said would be true and both previously mentioned regulations would be abided by. If someone simply said that, then what Kearney said would be true and both regulations would be abided by. That quote does not change this.

It is about interpretation. More than I would like it to be. You've shown this in this response and most of your other ones. The first two quoted sections in this response you appear to have misinterpreted in saying the press release was saying Barnes was correct. It was saying he was supported by the review performance despite not being supported by the commission. They've covered themselves from both sides. Your whole point was based on your interpretation of the quote. The second quote was also misinterpreted. The first sentence does not mean that what Kearney said is not true. Your last paragraph, including the questions raised, is based on the same misinterpretation. There's not much point responding when the entire premise is wrong.

Why have you ignored all the points I made / all the responses to your points? You post some useless quotes and base your response on those. You've said how I don't argue using the "evidence", well, I do and have but you ignore it. You discussed the reasons for the decision vs. judging the decision itself and I responded. This area is pretty much what the argument is based on and so why would you just ignore it. Earlier you were declaring that I was wrong. If I am wrong then show it.

Posted 23:12 10th April 2012

crunchfit says...

Continuation of response to previous two comments (posted 29th February 2012):

I could also make the claim that you are wrong. To me, that is clear and obvious. But obviously, you completely disagree which is why we must let the argument do the talking. Regarding evidence, well, you have provided a regulation which does not contain anything prohibiting what was said and a quote which I supplied you with two weeks ago. I might have forgotten a piece of "evidence", but this argument comes down to interpretation rather than evidence. Regarding writing off conclusions, there is only really one conclusion and all the points you make are supporting that conclusion, so naturally I would not agree. Again, I could say the same thing about you. Also, many of these points you drop after a single response so how concrete are they in the first place? As for brining thought and understanding to the issue, I do. It is simply different to your thinking and understanding. And again, I could say something similar about all this to you, but then the debate degenerates as is happening. It is not all black and white. We should avoid that and let our arguments do the talking instead of proclaiming each other right or wrong or slinging insults. Besides, if your argument is as strong as you think it is, such proclamations and insults are not needed.

Apologies for the long delay. For some reason, all of my comments were being rejected as spam until now or were just never put up.

the end