Match Thread

[NellyWellyWaspy]

The refereeing performance was quite poor. He was quite lucky that both teams were, in the main, compliant with his decisions. Other teams would have walked all over him. In a class with Hamish I am sorry to say.

As to the incident, that was managed poorly all round by the officiating team, and Richards interview replies just made it worse IMHO. Gentleman isn't a word that comes anywhere near to mind when listening to him duck and dive around it.

I would be surprised if it doesn't get cited, but we will then get to see a reduction for remorse. 'I am really sorry I got caught, I am such a sweet innocent person, really.'

[RogerE]

The ref should have taken the time off to have the incident reviewed. He didn't - just told Jimmy to get on with the kick, which once taken meant no further action could be taken on-field.
In the second half he ignored the linesman's call for a penalty for throwing the ball out of play.
 Two ocassions the ref needs to be taken to account for.

However there will be a citing of the player concerned (unless they decide it was Josh's fault for raising his head into the players finger!), and assuming he gets a ban, who benefits and who doesn't.
Well Newcastle will lose his services, so will be disadvantaged.
Every team he doesn't play against will benefit.
But where does that leave Wasps? (or any team that is "sinned against"?). They were disadvantaged by his action, and him remaining on field.
In my view if a player is banned as a result of a citing in the first half of a match the "sinned against" team should be awarded four retrospective penalty tries, and if during the second half two penalty tries, possibly with the chance of the number of tries being reduced down to one in case of mitigating circumstances such as accidental (but not because they do good work for local charities).

[Horusthewasp]

It's not clear as the commentary team start talking over it. I can't say I heard Graham Hughes at all. But if the Ref force Jimmy to take the kick before the review was complete it's gross incompetence on the Ref's part.

Likewise I’ve replayed several times but the non-stop talking of Ben Kay (I think) makes it difficult to hear the communications between the officials.

What is clear though is that Bassett raises the incident and as he is being attended to by the medic he speaks with the assistant referee who can then be heard saying “Graham(?), this player is [incoherent word] check gouge”. There does seem to be a short back & forth for 12 seconds where the word gouge is used again but then you hear Woodthorpe saying something along the lines of “if it comes up” and then immediately says “all good” to a clearly anxious McGuigan and instructs Gopperth to proceed with the penalty kick. Based on that it seems clear that Woodthorpe, Hughes & the assistant referee were aware of the incident prior to Gopperth’s kick and it was decided to proceed with the game and not look at the gouging. Less than 2 minutes later Kay & Healy confirm that Graham had “marked it as a potential citing situation”. Again the communication weren’t very clear but it’s difficult to justify the referee’s decision when he was clearly made aware of the ‘allegation’.

The same thing happened with their first try which Launchbury very clearly held up. Despite the skipper’s immediate complaints Woodthorpe awarded the try without checking with the TMO.

I would be surprised if it doesn't get cited, but we will then get to see a reduction for remorse. 'I am really sorry I got caught, I am such a sweet innocent person, really.'

The entry point is a 12 week ban but as you said with some sort of bizarre  ‘mitigation’ it will get reduced ...

[Bloke in North Dorset]

On the first try the ref says says and indicates to Joe that they're having a look and does hold up the kick by standing in front of it. The TMO the says he's "..  no idea at all I can't see so ...". Its a bit muffled after that.

Maybe hey should have taken longer but as it was an on field try its hard to see it getting overturned.

As a TMO Hughes does seem to be reluctant to get involved, but on the other hand we've complained in the past about TMOs getting too involved.

[andermt]

It's not clear as the commentary team start talking over it. I can't say I heard Graham Hughes at all. But if the Ref force Jimmy to take the kick before the review was complete it's gross incompetence on the Ref's part.

Likewise I’ve replayed several times but the non-stop talking of Ben Kay (I think) makes it difficult to hear the communications between the officials.

What is clear though is that Bassett raises the incident and as he is being attended to by the medic he speaks with the assistant referee who can then be heard saying “Graham(?), this player is [incoherent word] check gouge”. There does seem to be a short back & forth for 12 seconds where the word gouge is used again but then you hear Woodthorpe saying something along the lines of “if it comes up” and then immediately says “all good” to a clearly anxious McGuigan and instructs Gopperth to proceed with the penalty kick. Based on that it seems clear that Woodthorpe, Hughes & the assistant referee were aware of the incident prior to Gopperth’s kick and it was decided to proceed with the game and not look at the gouging. Less than 2 minutes later Kay & Healy confirm that Graham had “marked it as a potential citing situation”. Again the communication weren’t very clear but it’s difficult to justify the referee’s decision when he was clearly made aware of the ‘allegation’.

The same thing happened with their first try which Launchbury very clearly held up. Despite the skipper’s immediate complaints Woodthorpe awarded the try without checking with the TMO.

I would be surprised if it doesn't get cited, but we will then get to see a reduction for remorse. 'I am really sorry I got caught, I am such a sweet innocent person, really.'

The entry point is a 12 week ban but as you said with some sort of bizarre  ‘mitigation’ it will get reduced ...

Likewise I have rewatched it a few times.

Couple of points to add, Josh raised it as soon as it happened to the AR, who looked he was telling Josh to calm down.
At this point the clock was stopped.

Also, all the replays shown later were seen real time at this point.

The clock only restarted when Jimmy was told to take the kick.

[Rossm]

The potential gouging should have been reviewed properly, with the clock stopped. I believe it was a red and so do many Falcons' fans on their board. Most were outraged and disgusted - all credit to them. It was indefensible. However, for some reason it was not really reviewed at all and the player was allowed to continue with the game and stay on the field. This could, if the game had gone differently, have resulted in a Wasps player or two 'sorting him out' later, with a card or cards being shown to us. Inept officiating of the highest order. How to get everything 100% wrong. Ref and TMO should be put on restricted duties for the remainder of the season.

[Horusthewasp]

The diplomatic response from Blackett:

Blackett had some sympathy with the officials, he said: "I believe it was looked at in the game, I don't have the ref mic on but I thought it was looked at, and I didn't see anything clear.”

"Now we're talking about trying to see something in 20 seconds and the pictures I saw, you're trying to zoom in and magnify everything and certain angles.

"Unless it's clear and obvious... I can see why the TMO might not pick it up originally and then if you've got five, six minutes later you might pick it up."

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/rugby/eye-gouging-newcastle-wasps-bassett-20219983

It’s hard to argue that it wasn’t obvious or at the very least worthy of a closer look at the time. The fact it took less than 2 minutes (not 5 or 6) for it to be ‘marked’ indicates it was pretty clear.

Given that we secured the win & that Bassett came to no harm, I accept Blackett’s measured response. Given our recent reputation, publicly ‘supporting’ the officials could be a good PR exercise.