This week we will look at the Owen Farrell red card.
Rio Dyer’s yellow card and penalty try
and also the Italian maul collapse and yellow card.
Let's get into Whistle Watch.
Right.
I'm sure a lot of you tuned in last week to hear what the view on the Farrell
red card was. Because of the judicial process,
we don't explain our views on it here, to be fair to everybody involved.
But let us cover exactly what had happened and what I want you to do.
I want you to take away all the emotion and the things we need to look at.
Is there foul play?
Yes, we have foul play.
And the foul play is leading with the shoulder. So the arm is down
by the side.
The arm is now not here ready to make that legal tackle, that wrap.
So if the arm is here, ready to make a wrap and the shoulder
makes contact first and we have a legal tackle,
then we only
look at the height of the tackle and then we bring in the mitigation to it.
But we have an illegal action, so the shoulder is leading,
the arm is down here.
So we have foul play. We have contact direct to the head.
So we have a high degree of danger.
Do we then have any mitigation?
I’ve explained to you, no we don't because the action is always illegal.
So mitigation then does not play a part in the referee's process and decision making.
And then what the referee looks at here, as you saw in the game,
he decided to switch the yellow card threshold.
He's probably thinking this could be more,
so it goes to the bunker, the bunker reviews it.
And because of, yes, we have foul play.
Yes, we have direct contact to the head.
Yes, we have a degree of danger.
We have no mitigation and therefore it's upgraded to a red card.
Let's go to Cardiff, Rio Dyer yellow card..
Now this has got everybody pretty much talking about this decision.
So let me explain, first of all,
why a referee would give a penalty try.
The referee will give a penalty try if he or she thinks that the try
probably would have been scored.
And that is the key word I want you to remember - probably.
This is what the referee and the TMO would have looked at here.
Do we have an illegal action
by the defender, which would have probably prevented a try?
So what they saw was the hand of Rio Dyer
either knocking the ball forward, which means it’s become deliberate.
Hence they have a foul play action.
Then we have actions that the referee would take into account
as being illegal or wilful,
and then we move on to the next stage of would a try probably have been scored.
Now what happens here. South African player, he's
going for the ball, but he misses it.
He can't gather the ball.
So the ball is now behind him, which means even though Rio Dyer’s actions
contributed to what happened next,
the South African player was never going to get that ball to score a try.
So we now have a try probably wouldn't have been scored
that rules out the penalty try.
The key thing here is this the South African player
actually touches the ball first, which means the ball has been knocked on.
So the actions of Dyer afterwards do not count.
It shouldn't be a penalty try.
And because the ball was touched by the South African player,
it shouldn't be a yellow card and a penalty.
But the referee was playing advantage to South Africa for an offside,
which means those actions are void and then he should have gone back
and given the penalty to South Africa where the offside took place.
Damian Willemse yellow card.
Right then, again we go back to the process that the referee will look at.
Do we have
foul play?
We do because we have an upright tackle and there is contact with the head.
Do we have a high degree of danger?
Yes, we do.
We do have head contact.
We do have a high degree of danger.
Do we have mitigation?
Now this is the key here.
We do.
Although the tackle is upright and there is contact with the head,
the tackler now has to take responsibility of what happens next
because he hasn't done everything he could to avoid the head contact.
I.e he could have gone lower to avoid that.
But it's a very what we call a static tackle.
So it's, he’s absorbing the player coming with the ball rather than leading
and going into him, which then lowers that degree of danger.
Not so much maybe mitigation, but it certainly lowers
the impact and lowers the degree of danger.
So what the referee feels here and what the bunker felt here, yes,
there was foul play. Yes, there was contact with the head.
But we have a low degree of danger, which means the yellow card was then
correctly given.
Italy maul collapse, yellow card and penalty try.
Let's go back to what we talked about the penalty try earlier.
First thing the referee thinks of, would a try
probably have been scored if it wasn't for the illegal actions.
Now illegal actions here is he illegally collapses the maul.
The defending team can't deliberately collapse that maul, the attacking team
can take the maul down to the ground to recycle the ball and get it back.
But the defending team can't wilfully collapse that maul
because it becomes illegal to collapse a maul.
Which means the referee needs to decide
would Romania have probably scored if it wasn't for that illegal action?
And I would say you'd have to say yes, they probably would have scored
because the momentum of that maul going forward, which means
if it wasn't for the illegal action, a try would have probably been scored.
Now, one thing to remember here, if you can identify the individual
that has caused the offence, then under the current laws of the game
and the directive of the game, you have to issue a yellow card.
So what we have here to sum it all up for you, we do have a penalty try
because a try probably would have been scored and we have a correct yellow card.
That’s it for Whistle Watch.
Now it's time for your Emirates Fan Questions.
I have over the years.
A couple of scrum halves because they think they can do everything.
Josh van der Flier
did chuck it in during the Ireland v England game if you remember?
So yeah, I have seen it a few times over the years
and if you go back, look at the rugby back in the seventies,
you will see then quite often wingers or other people throwing the ball in.
Every referee is different, so I wouldn't look at the monitor
or look at decisions at half time. I never used to do that.
But what I would do, I’d go to the changing rooms, usually have maybe 10 / 12 minutes.
I would speak to my two assistant referees.
Sometimes the TMO would come down to the changing rooms as well.
And you just ask, how do you think it was going boys?
Anything that I'm not picking up on the field?
Is there any trends you're seeing? If there's a big decision
we sometimes we’ll tend to talk about that and say what do you think?
Some referees will not want to talk about decisions like that.
So everybody is different, but it is an opportunity
for you to have a chat about things.
But as I said, it's all different, but it's usually led, whatever way it goes.
It's usually led by the referee himself.
Some great questions there this week and thanks very much for asking them.
I'll see you next week.
Last week I mentioned to you the World Cups
I was involved in some of the games in those World Cups,
and we touched on 2007 and 2011. Now this week
let’s go to 2015 and 2019.
So 2015 obviously would have been the highlight of those four World Cups
because I was very lucky and privileged to be appointed to referee
the biggest game in world rugby, which only happens once every four years.
And that is the World Cup Final between Australia
and New Zealand in Twickenham, and it made it very, very special.
But what made it more special than that was the fact what it meant for my family
and my dad and my home village and community of Mynydd Cerrig.
It was just like a carnival week there.
There was bunting out and flags out the club was open
every night, nearly every day, and people coming from miles and miles away
just to see where Nigel Owens lived and go to the local working men's club
for a pint as well. And there on match day, the place was full, packed.
You couldn't get any more into it actually outside as well.
And a huge amount of them had my face masks on as well
now that is a thought to behold, isn't it?
Probably my favourite moment from that World Cup was when
Dan Carter swore and I told him
Oi Dan, no swearing now, you’re on telly.
So my aim in 2019 was I wanted to at least
do a semi-final because I hadn't done one.
I was appointed to referee
what actually turned out to be, I think, the best game of the tournament,
which was the semi-final between England and New Zealand.
And what I have to say,
England played brilliantly that game, they really did
the best I've seen them play and New Zealand were well beaten that day
but obviously contributing hugely as well to a very,
very enjoyable and a wonderful, great game of rugby.
But there was another game in 2019 that was a bit of a highlight as well,
which I must mention to you as well.
And that was the opening game between Russia and Japan, a great honour
to referee the opening game in the World Cup
and it was a great honour to do that game in Japan as well.
And there you are.
Those are my highlights from the World Cup’s of 2007, 11, 15 and 19.
Now, next week,
I'm going to be giving you
my team of the World Cup. People to look out for maybe
and I'll be mentioning somebody from every country, so don't expect maybe
to see your favourites from the big countries.
I am going to be picking some players who are outside
maybe the favourite teams. So that's all to come next week
on Whistle Watch.