Sorry, this story is unavailable
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.
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
1-3: The point is that saying the reason for the decision was wrong doesn't allow any ambiguity over the referee's position as sole judge of fact and Law, for instance, letting losing team's managers imply disciplinary panels are there to re-referee matches in their favour.
"The panel states that "...we cannot say that his decision at the time and those circumstances was wrong..." because "it is not our function to re-referee the game and particularly that decision". So, they are absolving themselves of having to admit that their referee was wrong. They will not and do not comment directly on the correctness of the decision."
"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."
Those two positions cannot be rationalised. The panel expressly stated the referee was right. Their finding was that they "could not be satisfied to the necessary standard of proof that there was sufficient danger in this tackle to WARRANT A RED CARD BEING AWARDED." Which is a long way from feeling it wasn't even a penalty, and by extension, means Michael Kearney, having read the report and been present at the hearing, gave a knowingly misleading impression of the panel's opinion. Or directly lied about it to the point where the iRB and 6N issued a press release to contradict him, as you accept: "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."
Wales were in possession on Ireland's 22, underneath the posts. Let's not turn this into a guessing game about what would have happened if there had been no penalty?
See you next time...
The editor says.... Guys, this argument has nothing to do with this article. If you want to have a personal conversation, please take it to the forum.
Posted 10:12 23rd April 2012
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
Part 1 / 2
I was reading those two reports and was in the middle of writing a reponse, but I actually came across Ferris' report: http://press.rbs6nations.com/6_Nations_DC_SPEPHEN_FERRIS_8_2_12.pdf
The panel states that "...we cannot say that his decision at the time and those circumstances was wrong..." because "it is not our function to re-referee the game and particularly that decision". So, they are absolving themselves of having to admit that their referee was wrong. They will not and do not comment directly on the correctness of the decision. However, they make references and indications (usually followed by a comment saying they are not actually saying he is wrong, thereby not breaching their own protocols).
However, it is clear that Barnes was wrong and while they may not outright state that he was wrong, their findings show that he was wrong and indicate that they think that he was wrong. According to the citing report:
Barnes construed the tackle as "a dangerous tackle in which the player did not bring [Welsh no. 5] to ground safely". Barnes stated that "he was aware of the IRB Memorandum of 8th June 2009 and characterised the tackle as falling within the third category (dangerous lifting tackles)..." Barnes' assessment "at the time had been that it was a dangerous tackle¿"
Note how the panel states "at that time". Also, [Mr Spring] maintained that... DVD evidence confirmed there was no evidence of driving to the ground or dropping, which Mr. Barnes now appeared to accept. So, even Barnes knows he was wrong.
The committee states "we would not be persuaded that the lifting of a leg in a tackle was, per se, dangerous". The findings of the committee were that "the lifting of a leg in this situation, where the other leg remains on the ground, is not sufficient to make this a dangerous tackle".
Posted 18:59 22nd April 2012
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
I can't wait to see how you make this "support" what Michael Kearney said.
Posted 16:25 22nd April 2012
"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."
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.
Posted 14:12 22nd April 2012
OK. As far as possible I'm trying to avoid this being negative or personal but:
1. 17.11.1 makes clear the panel may only investigate the reason for the decision, not the decision the referee made.
2. 17.11.4a makes clear that the panel must uphold the citing, unless they are satisfied, on the balance of probability, that the REASONS for the referee's decision are wrong. Nothing else.
3. Finding the reason provided by the referee wrong does not mean that the incident in question wasn't in breach of the Laws of the Game, so at no point can dismissing a citing be construed as saying the referee was plain wrong.
4. It is the first sentence of the press release. It may be a subheader written by the editor, but it's been on the piece since the 10th of February without being rewritten at the request of the publishers. Go look: http://www.irishrugby.ie/ireland/25598.php
5. Even if it wasn't, the iRB performance review backed Wayne Barnes, and the citing panel, according to the press release, could understand how he came to his decision. Which is a long way from saying they felt it shouldn't have been a penalty, or anything close to that.
6. I don't know how reliable you think wikipedia is, but here's where the definition comes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism
Please bear in mind in your inevitable response that common English phrases like critique, critical thinking, critic etc. all take their meaning from the Greek and Latin words Kritos meaning judge, and Criticus, meaning the same. Criticism, like judgement, can be positive or negative. No criticism, means no judgement. Even in its recent etymology of meaning "negative censure" it would mean the press release says "no negative censure is to be taken or inferred." Which is also a long way from saying the panel felt no penalty should have been awarded.
Posted 13:27 22nd April 2012
[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.
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
"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..."
"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."
"A distinction is drawn between the referee's decision on the field of play
and reasons for the decision."
If the panel find the reason for the decision incorrect, it doesn't mean the decision was wrong. Example: tackle made, ref calls breach of 10. 4. (j), penalty and yellow card. Panel disagrees with referee's reason for making decision and does not uphold citing. Panel makes no comment, as not allowed to by regulations, on whether tackle breached 10. 4. (e) (dangerous tackling), 10. 2. (a) (intentional offending)or 10. 4 (m) (acts contrary to good sportsmanship).
So what Michael Kearney said, and what the panel are allowed to find, and did find, are mutually exclusive. If Kearney had said reason, he would be right. He didn't, he said decision. And was wrong.
Which means he either lied, or made a mistake.
I hope I didn't misinterpret the press release.
"The International Rugby Board and Six Nations have backed referee Wayne Barnes over the penalty decision..." So the iRB (who held the Performance Review) and the 6N (who held the Disciplinary Hearing) backed Wayne Barnes.
"In dismissing the citing no criticism of the referee's on field decision should be taken or inferred." And the panel felt that no criticism of the referee's decision should be taken or inferred. Criticism means consideration prior to judgement, positive or negative. So no criticism means not considered. And Kearney's proven wrong again.
Posted 12:43 17th April 2012
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
On first viewing the panel could understand exactly how the match referee came to his decision. In dismissing the citing no criticism of the referee's on field decision should be taken or inferred.
It was only after careful and prolonged analysis of the dynamics of the contact, including slow motion and step by step viewing, that the committee was able to see the strength of the submissions made in favour of Stephen Ferris
I copied those in just to highlight the words "in dismissing the citing." This clearly concerns the citing panel Michael Kearney was talking about, since the performance review panel cannot dismiss citings. What the iRB performance review can do is add their feelings to those of the citing panel we're discussing. That press release clearly says that, in the view of the performance review, and the citing panel, Wayne Barnes was correct.
"In dismissing the citing no criticism of the referee's on field decision should be taken or inferred." So Michael Kearney saying the "disciplinary panel felt the decision to award a penalty was incorrect," is not true.
I appreciate your full response, and the structure you've put into it. But this isn't about interpretation, it's about facts. Kearney said the panel felt the decision was wrong. The panel, through this press release, made clear they didn't. It is unusual for the governing body to put out clarifications like this. Would it be unwarranted speculation to say they did it specifically because of the inaccuracy of the press reporting of what Michael Kearney said, and the direct challenge to the Laws of the Game that Kearney's quotes present?
Posted 15:58 08th March 2012
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.
Posted 16:37 07th March 2012
Continuation of response to your most recent comment (posted 01st March 2012):
Judging by how you are making a point that I have not read all the regulations and related articles, then I assume you have. I doubt you would be implying that you are a hypocrite. Assuming you are not a hypocrite and you are not implying yourself that you are one, assuming there is evidenced which opposes my argument, you would have presented me with it the argument. You have not done that.
The referee's decision has been respected in accordance with the laws, regulations and the charters (which are actually to protect the referee from abuse from fans, players, coaches, etc. which he has not suffered). I agree that would be idiotic to say that the panel is exempt from those unless it was specifically stated in a law, regulation. We must work with what is written, not with how we feel. Anyway, I have never written anything remotely close to that.
Response to your previous two comments (posted 29th February 2012):
I have amended this response greatly by deleting most of the paragraphs that deal with points in these comments, as I have dealt with them again in responding to your most recent comment. I am trying to keep the comment count down so I am not marked as spam and prevented from posting and I want to avoid unnecessary complication. If you see that I have not addressed an issue you raised, feel free to bring it to my attention and I will respond. All that is left really of the response is the addressing the degeneration of the argument.
to be continued...
Posted 16:35 07th March 2012
In response to your most recent comment (posted 01st March 2012):
I can read it says. Don't worry.
Let's be clear about the two regulations.
17.11.1 says that they can investigate the reasons for the decision and the circumstances surrounding it. It specifically allows for this. While it does not specifically mention anything else, it does not prohibit anything else. You cannot enforce something which is not in the regulation, even if you assume it is in the regulation. This regulation deals with the investigations of the reason(s).
17.11.4a specifically deals with allowing the panel to make a finding opposing the referee's (assuming that they found that the reasoning was wrong, in accordance with 17.11.1). It is not about whether the reason(s) were correct or incorrect and is not about the investigation of the reason(s), that is what the 17.11.1 deals with.
Kearney said the panel felt the the decision was incorrect. If it was a decision that the referee's decision was incorrect, then they are allowed to make that decision based on the incorrect reasoning of the referee in accordance with 17.11.4a. If it was simply a comment, not a finding, then they are not prohibited from making that comment by 17.11.1.
to be continued...
Posted 16:35 07th March 2012
Yes, I saw that quote over 3 weeks ago. It was in the Irish Times article where I got Kearney's quote from. Not sure why you bare bringing it up though. It is still saying that the disciplinary panel did not support Barnes. The performance review might have endorsed his decision, but a performance review is the assessment referees receive after refereeing a match, it is nothing to do with the citing panel. Case proven? No. Could you please read more not only my comments but the material you are basing your comments on more carefully. You mentioned the other issue lasting 3 months and this another example of why that happened.
(not sure if this will be posted as everything else is being rejected as spam for some reason)
Posted 16:33 07th March 2012
Posted 17:13 05th March 2012
"In any such case, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall not make a finding contrary to the referee's decision unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the referee's reasons for his decision are wrong."
Exactly. If they are satisfied the REASONS for the decision are wrong, then they can find the player not guilty of the citing offense. Bit of a difference between finding the individual specific reason given by the referee as evidence to the panel incorrect, and saying that the DECISION ITSELF made by the referee was incorrect. The difference is, the first is permitted by the Regulation on the Standard of Proof, the second isn't. That being the case, at no point can a disciplinary panel find the DECISION ITSELF incorrect, without breaking the regulation. Ergo, Michael Kearney either misunderstood "the reasons given by the referee were found by this panel, on the balance of probabilities, to be wrong." to mean the decision was wrong, or no such thing was said, and he made it up.
"On this occasion, my main issue was that you claimed had proven that the manager was lying or did not understand the citing process. Obviously, this is not true and I'm still failing to see any genuine basis for making that claim, let alone proving it."
Failing to see the basis for that claim so much that you've only just started reading the evidence necessary to begin to debate it? You haven't actually read the instructions to a disciplinary panel contained in Regulation 17 yet feel already able to dismiss their requirements?
Just stop. The requirement to respect the referee's decision on the field is in the Laws, these Regulations, and all Unions' conduct charters. It applies to all coaches, players and officials. To say a citing panel is exempt from all of that because a regulation makes a distinction between the decision and the reason is idiotic.
Posted 15:46 01st March 2012
In short, I know (and am now demonstrating, again, in minute detail) that you are wrong. It seems every two or three days you write a few thousand words on why you are wrong. You ignore the evidence provided if you don't agree with it, write off conclusions you disagree with in single, unevidenced sentences, and then begin again to list exactly how little thought and understanding you are bringing to the issue. I know you are wrong. Just accept that, or at least, when you do rehash the same arguments without reference to the new information and proven points put in front of you, keep it to this one sentence:
"My position has not changed." It takes 5 words to make clear that you are not able to show the intellectual integrity to accept being proven wrong. Use them, and if the issue still bothers you, go and ask someone you wouldn't argue with to explain it to you.
Posted 23:47 29th February 2012
How can you say that? Did you read it? Of course it's a directive. It's called a Regulation. Everything it says must be complied with, when it says it applies. Here, the Regulation applies to the Standard of Proof required for a Disciplinary Panel to reach a decision, which means it applies to anything entered as evidence to a Disciplinary Panel. If it says it's essential to preserve the integrity of the Laws of the Game, that means at all times the people bound by the Regulation must try and preserve the integrity of the Laws of the Game. If it says the disciplinary panel must not investigate the decision, but the reasons for the decision, then it means they must not investigate the decision, but the reasons for the decision. Can you read? Are you aware of how important these regulations are to protect the integrity, and therefore, the reputation of the Game as a whole, and also the reputation of the individual officials involved?
"I never suggested that the disciplinary panel broke the regulation. I am still making no suggestions. Please don't claim that I did or am. That is not true. As I said before, I do not know what was said or by whom. I was not there."
I know that you're not making any suggestions. Apart from suggesting that I was "speculating" by outlining the four situations in which Michael Kearney might have had any reason to say what he did (if you accept that the regulation forbids the citing panel from saying it, which I'm sure you never will, even if an iRB Judicial Panel explained it to you). I know your argument basically boils down to "I believe Michael Kearney, and cannot understand Regulation 17, and see no reason to think through how an official Disciplinary Hearing would ever be able to directly question a referee's decision, even though players, coaches, club officials and Union members can't, at all levels of the game."
Posted 23:39 29th February 2012