Vickery suspended, and rightly so

[frontrow]

Vickery suspended for two matches
(Rugby News Service) Tuesday 11 September 2007

PARIS, 11 September - Following a RWC 2007 judicial hearing the Judicial Officer (JO) Professor Lorne Crerar upheld the citing complaint and confirmed that England prop Phil Vickery breached Law 10.4(d) (tripping an opponent with the foot/leg) during the England v USA match on Saturday, 8 September in Lens.

The JO deemed the trip was a deliberate act and was delivered with some force, causing the opposing player to be knocked over. The opposing player had no opportunity to take remedial action.

The JO determined the offence to be at the mid range of seriousness. There were no aggravating circumstances and the JO took into account several mitigating circumstances including the immediate admission of culpability, the player’s good character and his conduct during the hearing.

The entry point for a mid range offence is four weeks. In light of the mitigating factors the JO imposed a sanction of two matches.

The player has 48 hours in which to appeal the decision.

[JediKnight]

There can be no complaint on that decision.

[hopep]

No complaints, but if the ref on the field had been on top of it, the match result may have been different.
Thats four citations - I think, in the first 4 games.
Not a great advert for the refereeing standard.

Q? - does anyone else think that, maybe the refs are a little tentative? Its a bit like their cautious of carding anyone because it the "RWC - spectacle" and its largely an entertainment thing?

[frontrow]

That is pretty much what i was thinking hopep, no one wants to be the first to send someone off, or card someone frivilously, in case it impedes the chance of further opportunities in the big matches....So most will caution and move on....However in these particular cases, doing nothing has been seen more as a glaring error due to the status of the offending teams in my opinion...Could be seen as helping the "minnows" out perhaps, or is that being too cynical...

[Burgs]

Just clearing up a point fr, are you saying to have acted could be seen as helping out the minnows?

[frontrow]

In a cynical way yes, 15 playing 14, even though it wouldn't help them out much, but on the other hand, if a player from a "minnow" team was to commit an infringement along similar lines would they be given no card or penalised???? Is there a little bias in the reffing standards is my cynical viewpoint...

[Burgs]

Tah, personally I don't think there is.
If anything I think the Officials are more likely not wanting to rock the boat by upsetting the sharks (ok, whatever is opposite of "minnow" ) top players.
Sporting history shows that Officials don't win friends for questioning the legalities of certain "star" players, even if they are 100% correct.

[JediKnight]

I thought ALL officials were 100% impartial or is that the rose-tinted spectacles I was given in the Blues Bar in Chicago tonight?!

[shasta]

For mine, any possible carding should only be after discussion with the TMO. Not just for RWC but all professional matches, S14, ARC, Heineken Cup etc.
There have been too many "shoot from the hip cardings" in the past particularly in S14 and ARC that influenced the final score if not the result.
At least then the referees would be less likely to "wimp out" where a binning is warranted.

[Burgs]

So long as it wasn't used every five minutes and (like with awarding a try) didn't stop the Ref from giving a card without referring it to the TMO if he was confident then it may be a good idea.
Wouldn't want to end up copying American Football (especially for you Ex ) though.

[Dramoth]

Vickery suspended for two matches
(Rugby News Service) Tuesday 11 September 2007

PARIS, 11 September - Following a RWC 2007 judicial hearing the Judicial Officer (JO) Professor Lorne Crerar upheld the citing complaint and confirmed that England prop Phil Vickery breached Law 10.4(d) (tripping an opponent with the foot/leg) during the England v USA match on Saturday, 8 September in Lens.

The JO deemed the trip was a deliberate act and was delivered with some force, causing the opposing player to be knocked over. The opposing player had no opportunity to take remedial action.

The JO determined the offence to be at the mid range of seriousness. There were no aggravating circumstances and the JO took into account several mitigating circumstances including the immediate admission of culpability, the player’s good character and his conduct during the hearing.

The entry point for a mid range offence is four weeks. In light of the mitigating factors the JO imposed a sanction of two matches.

The player has 48 hours in which to appeal the decision.

I honestly think that Vickery has no complaints with the 2 weeks. If the infringment had happened within 5m of the line, would he have gotten more.

Considering that at the point where it happened (about 15-20m from the line), If he hadnt tripped the seppo, then it would have been a try to America because there was a player in support with one player behind Vickery.

The shame for the english even if they had won would have been monumental because they allowed a team made up of mostly amateurs score first