RFL says no further action against Nu Brown…

[Snowys Backside]

I would expect Amones 2 match ban to be also binned as he could do nothing about the attacking player connecting with his head. 

And to think, most of us as juniors were taught to drive in ' hard with our heads down'  

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, LeeF said:

So the protocols were incorrect and needed tweaking.

The correct action taken by the RFL imo

I'm not convinced the protocols were incorrect, - if I'm honest, the way I read it is that the ref was maybe a little over-zealous with new interpretations, but they have now changed the written guidance to emphasise the secondary contact point. Secondary contact was always a mitigant anyway on the doc. I expect this was never the intended outcome, but sometimes things need to break to realise that the way something has been written, or interpreted can be challenging.

We are always loathe to put certain things in writing at work for things that involve interpretation - and I think this is a good example of why not. The problem is that people don't really like ambiguity, but it's life, there will absolutely be some.

It is a good response from the RFL, shielding the ref from it, but without looking incompetent. These things happen, and they've responded quickly.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I hope they learn from this. There's been such a dominating narrative about preventing head injury that the referee has been too afraid to use common sense.

I still fear for next year with even tighter rules. And the disparity between our rules and the international rules will seem greater.

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, Gomersall said:

What did Thewlis get?

There is a fair discussion about penalty try, but there was never a disciplinary hearing issue in that tackle in a month of Sundays, in the same way that the Hull tackler conceded a penalty try but it's not worthy of a ban.

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

Still looking for the apology.

I'm not sure we do apologies for refereeing errors in a match. Nor should we, that'd be a long list each week!

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Lisone one is really really harsh

I just don't see it. I said it from the initial viewing of the replay that it was a bad one and he'd be banned. I assume he has previous to get 3 matches?

I do think Donaldson can count himself a touch lucky based on him almost jumping into the tackle.

[LeeF]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not convinced the protocols were incorrect, - if I'm honest, the way I read it is that the ref was maybe a little over-zealous with new interpretations, but they have now changed the written guidance to emphasise the secondary contact point. Secondary contact was always a mitigant anyway on the doc. I expect this was never the intended outcome, but sometimes things need to break to realise that the way something has been written, or interpreted can be challenging.

We are always loathe to put certain things in writing at work for things that involve interpretation - and I think this is a good example of why not. The problem is that people don't really like ambiguity, but it's life, there will absolutely be some.

It is a good response from the RFL, shielding the ref from it, but without looking incompetent. These things happen, and they've responded quickly.

It was always going to be a challenge to get something that big fully correct at one go and ensure that it covered every single possibility. If this is the only genuinely major issue seen then that’s great  

Your comment about work is spot on. Life is not always black and white. 

[LeeF]

22 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I hope they learn from this. There's been such a dominating narrative about preventing head injury that the referee has been too afraid to use common sense.

I still fear for next year with even tighter rules. And the disparity between our rules and the international rules will seem greater.

I don’t think it is a case of being too afraid of using common sense. What I understand is that they have basically been given a process map and told not to deviate from it. 

[Futtocks]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

It isn’t but it was still a possibility they could have said the ref followed the guidance so tough. After the incident happened this was the only reasonable outcome really. 

Yes, but they could have invented time travel and voyaged back to undo the decision, so they're all a bunch of bast...

Edited February 26 by Futtocks

[Worzel]

Looks like they've seen what we all saw, and made the necessary adjustments or clarifications to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.

Luckily it happened in a game that didn't really matter, between a mid-table club and a very poor side who'd finish bottom of the league if we didn't have a team of part-timers in the comp this season keeping them in 11th.      

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

It was always going to be a challenge to get something that big fully correct at one go and ensure that it covered every single possibility.

And this is why, for the bigger changes, it's all trialled in academy and community game first.

[EggFace]

3 hours ago, DavidM said:

Some credit due there I think in the handling and explanation of that 

It's a bit late in a day for that...the officials ruined another game for plyers, club, coaches and fans.

[StandOffHalf]

Good statement by Hicks and the RFL.

I quite like the amendment/clarification (although I hope it doesn't give leeway to players to stick their heads into faces on the ground, etc.), and I also admire the admission that it was an uncomfortable episode for the sport.

Good on them for fronting up and seeking to put things right.

[StandOffHalf]

8 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Lisone one is really really harsh

Should have just been a penalty IMO. 3 matches is way too harsh.

Edited February 27 by StandOffHalf

[Chrispmartha]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

I just don't see it. I said it from the initial viewing of the replay that it was a bad one and he'd be banned. I assume he has previous to get 3 matches?

I do think Donaldson can count himself a touch lucky based on him almost jumping into the tackle.

I think he has a previous ban yes, still think it’s harsh, especially as it’s the same ban as Pele’s swinging arm to the head of a player on the ground, then getting up and throwing a punch.

Don't have an issue with Donnos ban but he didn’t jump into the tackle, ‘almost’ shouldn’t come into it, it was worse than Lisones though.

[Spidey]

22 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think he has a previous ban yes, still think it’s harsh, especially as it’s the same ban as Pele’s swinging arm to the head of a player on the ground, then getting up and throwing a punch.

I think the punch was aimed at Mikey Lewis so were mitigating circumstances 

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think he has a previous ban yes, still think it’s harsh, especially as it’s the same ban as Pele’s swinging arm to the head of a player on the ground, then getting up and throwing a punch.

Don't have an issue with Donnos ban but he didn’t jump into the tackle, ‘almost’ shouldn’t come into it, it was worse than Lisones though.

I do think Pele's was generous and was based on the outcome rather than intent, when it was pure thuggery and probably a bit lucky really.

Donaldson rose into his tackle, and by the time he is in contact one foot is off the ground. 2 matches is clearly on the low end of a high tackle nowadays and I think it was quite bad. 

But personally I didn't see much, if any mitigation in either tackle, I thought they were both bad and worthy of red. 

[Old Frightful]

10 hours ago, Worzel said:

Looks like they've seen what we all saw, and made the necessary adjustments or clarifications to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.

Luckily it happened in a game that didn't really matter, between a mid-table club and a very poor side who'd finish bottom of the league if we didn't have a team of part-timers in the comp this season keeping them in 11th.      

Well, well…look who’s back…

[Worzel]

56 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

Well, well…look who’s back…

You used to have a sense of humour, what happened?

[Old Frightful]

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

You used to have a sense of humour, what happened?

Perhaps it’s a case of mistaken identity…

[north yorks trinity]

14 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure we do apologies for refereeing errors in a match. Nor should we, that'd be a long list each week!

I don't think it would be classed as a refereeing error, more an iterative learning opportunity in what was always going to be a difficult transition. Hull FC were the fall guys in this and while I don't think there should be a blame game or a witch hunt, I do think an apology would be appropriate.

[meast]

On 26/02/2024 at 14:51, dkw said:

So the games dead!

Or the games dead? 

Or the games, dead?

Or the, games dead?

Not dead, just gone!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

On 26/02/2024 at 20:08, Dave T said:

I'm not sure we do apologies for refereeing errors in a match. Nor should we, that'd be a long list each week!

Not so much a referee error as a referee directive error. The referee followed protocol, but the protocol was not written correctly.

 

Starting to sound very much like the ending of Four Lions. "The report makes crystal clear, the police shot the right man, but the wrong man exploded."

[Wellsy4HullFC]

On 26/02/2024 at 20:01, Dave T said:

I'm not convinced the protocols were incorrect, - if I'm honest, the way I read it is that the ref was maybe a little over-zealous with new interpretations, but they have now changed the written guidance to emphasise the secondary contact point. Secondary contact was always a mitigant anyway on the doc. 

"This has highlighted a lack of clarity in the procedures regarding head on head contact, which left the officials at Friday’s game in an invidious position.

The section of the Framework relating to head-on-head contact will now be amended, emphasising that it applies only to initial contact. Once the mechanics of the tackle become more fluid, officials are able to use their knowledge and game-understanding to mitigate the sanction, to reflect the level of culpability of the tackler."

 

I read that as they forgot to mention what doesn't count, so the referee followed direct protocol, and now they're "debugging" their protocol.

I don't think any referee would have given that if they felt it wasn't protocol. Like I said before, I think all the talk of head injuries has created a fear of not punishing head contact, so if in doubt get a card out. I'm pretty sure that ref wouldn't have pulled a card out if he thought he could avoid it.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

On 26/02/2024 at 20:24, LeeF said:

I don’t think it is a case of being too afraid of using common sense. What I understand is that they have basically been given a process map and told not to deviate from it. 

The protocol basically forgot to mention exceptions. The RFL are taking the blame off the ref, which is fine. In all of my reactions to the red card, I was never angry at the ref, I was angry at the RFL for this poorly executed new directive (and before anyone says "it wasn't poorly executed", it's easy to say when your side hasn't been affected and screwed of a fair shot at winning when they were arguably on top, not to mention the knock on effects).

I hope this response from the RFL gives referees the confidence to include a little more common sense in their judgements.