citing officer

[wycombewasp]

how long does the citing officer have to act on grunge, according  to my paper the time has passed, if this is so is the citing officer fit for purpose, considering umunga (sorry if the spelling is incorrect) got 3 weeks for a nothing tackle and grunge gets off for an eye gouge, dont forget the 6 nations
















 

[matelot22]

He has not been cited, Marley Wasp posted a link earlier on another thread, Post Match Thoughts, I think....

Correction, it was on the match thread.

[Peej]

How is that not a citing? Umaga was bang to rights and deserved his ban, but how this escapes even a hearing beggars belief?

[RogerE]

How is that not a citing? Umaga was bang to rights and deserved his ban, but how this escapes even a hearing beggars belief?

The words England and Six Nations spring to mind.

[RogerE]

Also - can accept that the threshold for dangerous play might not have been met with "the hands moving towards the face", but have seen citings before for "bringing the game into disrepute" for hair pulling (ok usually when the player who has the hair pulled is moving forward)

[NellyWellyWaspy]

How is that not a citing? Umaga was bang to rights and deserved his ban, but how this escapes even a hearing beggars belief?

The issue is that the Citing Officer does not wish to do anything that would bring the officials in to disrepute. As with much of modern life, the roots of the problem is the old boys/public schools network set up in the 1930s to 1970s, and has changed little since.

The RFU controls all aspects of the process, but it should not. The citing officer should be totally independent of the referees and the RFU. Then, the tribunals should not be run by the RFU either. The post game review panel (of the match day referee performance) should also be independent. It won't happen though, as the current system is not fit for purpose. There is a lack of transparency and clear evidence of inconsistency. Where this happens, there is mistrust and players and clubs will feel cheated.

[wycombewasp]

+1

[InBetweenWasp]

It also wasn’t a gouge…

[wycombewasp]

maybe not but it looked pretty much an attempted gouge 

[InBetweenWasp]

No I didn’t. It looked more like Ellis saw red and wanted to lamp him, but knew he couldn’t and in the end went for an indecisive, half-hearted open-palmed push/slap that caught Francois in the eye.

Contact with the eye and a deliberate gouge or intention to gouge are two very different things.

[Neils]

No I didn’t. It looked more like Ellis saw red and wanted to lamp him, but knew he couldn’t and in the end went for an indecisive, half-hearted open-palmed push/slap that caught Francois in the eye.

Contact with the eye and a deliberate gouge or intention to gouge are two very different things.

Plus pulling FHs hair. That alone should have got him off.

[MarleyWasp]

Contact with the eye and a deliberate gouge or intention to gouge are two very different things.

There are three gouging offences:
Deliberate contact with the eye.
Reckless contact with the eye.
Contact with the eye area.

All three are red card offences. I fail to see how Genge didn't fulfil the last of the three based on the video evidence and the stills I posted in the match thread yesterday (top of page 7)

[Vespula Vulgaris]

There's only one person who knows if it was a hit that was pulled and looked like a gouge, or a gouge deliberately designed to look like a hit and that is Genge himself.

He made contact with the eye area with a deliberate action. Red card and ban is the only possible action.

[Neils]

Do we now call him " Ellis Gouge".

Walks quietly away.

[InBetweenWasp]

Contact with the eye and a deliberate gouge or intention to gouge are two very different things.

There are three gouging offences:
Deliberate contact with the eye.
Reckless contact with the eye.
Contact with the eye area.

All three are red card offences. I fail to see how Genge didn't fulfil the last of the three based on the video evidence and the stills I posted in the match thread yesterday (top of page 7)

Totally agree.  Just feel that this talk of gouging is unfair.  It’s hardly like the Basset incident at Newcastle which was a clear, intentional gouge.  There wasnt any intent or attempt to strike basset, it was straight to the eye-area.