The full judgement has now been released:
https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/61/61e89729-93f6-47f1-a606-feefd8c2cadc/CarrerasNewcastleFalconsJudgmentMar21(final).pdfSeveral interesting points from this:
From Josh's statement (page 2):
7. I then stated to the AR that there had be contact to my eye and that I had felt I had been gouged. He then asked me was it contact or a
gouge, I stated it was gouge which he then spoke to ref saying a player had requested to check for a gouge. The ref then replied saying we
can’t take player requests
Referees statement:
"Wasps were held up over the line, so went back for an advantage for not rolling away. After a pause as we waited for a ball as Wasps had
chosen to take a shot at goal, my AR mentioned over the comms that the Wasps 11 had said he had been gouged. I clarified whether the
incident was on the goal line and then told my AR that if anything was clear the TMO would come in knowing that the whole match official
team was listening to our conversation so was aware what we were referring to. Wasps were successful with their shot at goal and we
continued with the game. I did not have a view of the incident."
TMO:
I was the TMO at the above game and my attention was drawn to an incident following a potential grounding by Josh Bassett (Wasps #11)
when a comment was made to the AR regarding potential contact to the eye.
Under the current pandemic situation, the main EVS operators and the Director for the TV programme are in Wycombe, so, in the OB truck,
we are provided with a screen divided into 4 sections (20 cm x 10 cm) on which to view potential incidents from the EVS operators on an
informal basis.
I looked at the angles being offered for clarification of the grounding or not, as well as any images of contact with the eye, but could not
determine any specific view that showed any clear incidence of direct contact to the eye, except for one, which hinted at some contact.
However, as the referee had deemed the grounding unsuccessful and had indicated a penalty to Wasps, no formal review was requested by
the on-field officials and, as I had no clear camera view to show the incident on the screen in the ground, I didn’t request a formal review
either. I did, however, ask the assistant next to me to mark the time of the incident in case there was to be any follow-up by the Citing
Commissioner, so that we could provide the necessary angles. [This was overheard by the Director who informed the commentary team that
the player would be put “on report” after the game, which they duly relayed to the watching public, causing additional confusion!]
Sometime after play had resumed, it became apparent from other replay angles then being shown, that there was clear contact to Josh
Bassett’s eye made by Mateo Carreras (Newcastle #14), especially when this was highlighted with a zoomed-in view of the action added to
the view from behind, where a definite act of moving his arm towards the player’s face is clearly evident. However, under the current World
Rugby TMO Protocol, the time had elapsed for any formal review to take place with a view to issuing a sanction to the player involved during
the match.
From the summary of Carreras's evidence:
He did not initially set out with the intent to injure but to cause annoyance and to buy time in terms of slowing the game down. He accepted and always had done that there was eye contact and that the eye contact in the circumstances was an inevitable consequence of his deliberate act and on that basis he maintained his intent to plead guilty and had been advised that on that basis the overwhelming likelihood was that he would be deemed to be guilty in any event.
What is therefore so courageous about pleading guilty?
Apparently Carreras did ask Dean Richards to apologise on his behalf the next morning and Richards called Lee to ask him to pass it on, but at no point has anyone from Newcastle actually contacted Josh to apologise. If Carreras could ask Richards to contact Wasps on his behalf, why couldn't he do that himself?
Always a Wasp
