kermischocolate wrote:Peg Leg wrote:backrower8 wrote:
Because not all situations are black and white and people who are well sensitised to the environments they are adjudicating on will make most likely better decisons.
The referees may not have played but they are highly sensitised to the sport and in my opinion would make great disciplinary panelists when they finish refereeing. The central issue for me is having people on these panels who are very well versed in the sport so they can judge the grey areas. No doubt it is not easy to find people with the relevant experience willing to do such a thankless task.
But when we see professionals like Cian Healy busting a gut and then being busted for what all of us think was an inocuous looking incident and missing a Europen semi-final as a result it does make you wonder about the whole panel's qualifications and relevant experience. Frankly, two of them being women is indicative to me that
AT LEAST two of the panel were probably not versed in clearing out rucks.
Cue the PC brigade.
Put it this way, if I was told those women were Fiona Coughlan and Fiona Steed I would have no problem whatsoever....then again come to think of it... I would probably have an issue with the likes of Rob Andrew or Jonathan Davies as they never cleared out a ruck either!
The grey area is the problem for me. There shouldn't be any
Exactly. Apply the laws of the game- a player that has been cited has either done what (s)he's been cited for or not.
This is half the problem with refereeing in the first place- picking and choosing which laws to focus on, which to let slide to "manage the spectacle" etc etc. The referees job is hard enough- just apply the laws of the game then there would be some consistency.
I do think there should be referees on the disciplinary panel but lets face it the citing and disciplinary process is a total shambles- especially within the Pro12. Has anyone ever seen the detail of any hearing- what conclusions they have come to and why?
In this case the fact Leinster haven't appealed it speaks volumes.
Well Kermis- it may speak volumes, but it's not at all clear what it's saying! Are we:
A- refusing to participate in contempt at the process and decision,
B- convinced Cian is innocent but deciding not to endure the distraction of an appeal, or
C- realise that the evidence- the much speculated "unseen video footage" , clearly condemned him and it's not worth the candle.
The problem with jumping to option C is that there is no indication of there actually being these mysterious footage- and all the angles us mere mortals get to see are not pointing to any breach of the laws. Posters assume they must exist- because.. why?
If they exist, why in the interests of transparency aren't they made available so we can all judge.
BTW- there are huge grey areas in the laws and in the interpretations. That's the curse and glory of human involvement in the pitch... and the hearing room apparently.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk