Print Page | Close Window

Wayne Barnes

Printed From: National League Rugby Discussion Forums
Category: League Rugby - www.leaguerugby.co.uk
Forum Name: International Rugby
Forum Description: From the Autumn Internationals via the Six Nations to the World Cup
URL: http://www.rolling-maul.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=15566
Printed Date: 23 Jul 2019 at 10:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Wayne Barnes
Posted By: Rabbie Burns
Subject: Wayne Barnes
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 17:12
Can someone explain to me what went on from minute 79 to minute 99. Have to say I thought it was farcical. Lost count of how many penalties all within 5 metres. Only thing he seemed to get correct was the front row decisions disagree with Brian Moore about the head assessment was called by doctor. Surely must spell the end for Mr Barnes only worry was Luke Pearce and Matt Carley were on TJ duty.

-------------
So many Christians not enough Lions



Replies:
Posted By: Mark W-J
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 18:45
Barnes did nothing wrong except neglecting to stop the clock while both sides were messing about with front row replacements.  Wales kept infringing, France were too stupid to take advantage.  When Barnes stuck his arm out as the French scrum nudged forward, they should have kept the ball in and drawn the penalty try.  They didn't, and they repeatedly failed to take advantage when they moved the ball wide, so back we go for the scrum penalty.  France elect for the scrum, and repeat.  Wales should have been smarter when Rob Evans left the field and pleaded for uncontested scrums, but I suppose we played within the spirit of the game and paid the penalty.

Ultimately, Wales had a really poor opening 10 minutes, then had a good hour, and had a gormless final 30 (from 70 minutes).  We deserved to lose because a) we weren't smart enough and b) we were outscored two tries to nil.

But no blame attached to Barnes, as far as I'm concerned.


Posted By: knightandday
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 19:11
Didn't think the clock had to stop after 80, basically it's the last play and as soon as it's legally over that's it.




-------------
Winning isn't everything, it just makes the beer taste better


Posted By: Mark W-J
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 19:52
I agree, but it meant that we survived a ten minute sin-binning with not much more than two minutes of actual game time!



Posted By: backrowb
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 20:54
Wonder if anyone has ever been binned after 80 mins.....and come back on again


Posted By: KnightsBoy
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 21:12
Probably not


Posted By: Westcoaster
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2017 at 22:39
Wayne Barnes reffed it correctly in my opinion, but the laws of the game need looking at.  It doesn't seem right that because a particular play has not ended, the clock keeps going.  
But what is really irritating is that the IRC will not engage with the issue of the clock NOT stopping after the whistle has gone , and before the ball is put into a scrum.  


-------------
Come on Jersey........


Posted By: Insignificant Tick
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 12:26
Does anyone know the rule regarding yellow cards and overtime ?
Should the clock have been stopped in extra time if there was no play or is it the rule whereby there is no clock after 80mins and a 10 min yellow card is allowed to run down regardless of whether the ball is in play, ? A curious one.

Or maybe Barnes simply got it wrong ?


Posted By: backrowb
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 14:20
The handling of sin bin timings etc is handled.by the 4th 0fficial.


Posted By: Redted
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 16:14
That is where the mistake was made. 
A yellow card is 10 mins of actual playing time no matter when it occurs.  Unless there is some stupid Law for after 80 mins.


Posted By: Rabbie Burns
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 16:44
Sorry guys after 80 minutes the clock does not stop and that's why you ended up with 100 minutes on the clock. Even when reviewing the North biting allegation the clock continued to run.

-------------
So many Christians not enough Lions


Posted By: isleonian
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 18:08
Great refereeing, kept cool and accurate!


Posted By: MikeGC
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2017 at 00:06
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/sport-opinion/wayne-barnes-big-decisions-right-12763778#ICID=ios_WalesOnlineNewsApp_AppShare_Click_FB

Wales on-line tame referee has his say.....


Posted By: MikeGC
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2017 at 08:49
Another balanced view

https://rugbyballs.org/2017/03/20/wayne-through-the-looking-glass/


Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2017 at 12:22
The French are forced to  put their doctor in a bad place because- unlike sensible rugby - Professional Rugby is played with a set of laws on substitutions(3.8 - 3.12 and 3.14) that are arcane. Real rugby, the sort we watch, is played under 3.15 Rolling Substitutes and RFU regulation 13  Appendix 2.

So just like harlequins 8 years ago, a doctor finds an excuse to get a player off a pitch. At least this time he only lies rather than doing active harm.

I would also say that the current HIA rules put a doctor under pressure to let a player back on - see George North at Northampton. I much prefer the rule used in National leagues. If  a player suffers  a head injury, they are not coming back on.

The Welsh played their own games. The delay in getting the replacement for Sampson Lee on - eating up time when the clock was still running. Even with the clock not stopping, Sampson Lee reenters the pitch before the 10 minutes are up. 

On the Rugbyrefs forum, some people have said that the software they use does not let the time keeper stop the clock after 80 minutes. At least this clock counted up not down. 

There will be an inquiry. Possibly several.


-------------
Blood and Sand


Posted By: RedOrDead
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2017 at 14:33
Originally posted by Camquin Camquin wrote:

The French are forced to  put their doctor in a bad place because- unlike sensible rugby - Professional Rugby is played with a set of laws on substitutions(3.8 - 3.12 and 3.14) that are arcane. Real rugby, the sort we watch, is played under 3.15 Rolling Substitutes and RFU regulation 13  Appendix 2.

So just like harlequins 8 years ago, a doctor finds an excuse to get a player off a pitch. At least this time he only lies rather than doing active harm.

For the sake of accuracy, which is important in these sort of discussions IMO, nobody has been found guilty of lying so far. Since the event, I've been pondering how this should be investigated. The best that I can come up with is that the French medical team should be asked to explain why they thought that Antonio had received a head injury. The cynic in me suspects that if this approach is taken, the medical team will cite something spotted by one of their eagle eyed staff which was inexplicably missed by the TV cameras. Hopefully he appears on one camera or another so the validity of this response can be tested. 

I've been back and watched from the scrum around 76 minutes onward. Obviously Antonio isn't in shot all the time, but the ball is. During that time, by my count, he doesn't touch the ball or make a tackle. He is involved (by my count on one viewing) in one maul and five rucks. By the time he arrives at all six breakdowns, the ball is static, he makes little impact and there is no evidence of head trauma. In pseudo-legal terms, I would assert that either there was no reasonable cause to suspect head injury during this period or that the head injury occurred before this time period. If the latter is the case, there should be a case to answer as to why he was allowed to play on for so long before ordering an assessment. Going back further into the game could make the medics look more remiss, but given iPlayer and a smartphone, as my resources, it's all I was going to do.

There is also a case for the French coaching staff to answer as to why they strayed outside their technical area and communicated with the medical team. They appear bang to rights on this one.

Originally posted by Camquin Camquin wrote:

I would also say that the current HIA rules put a doctor under pressure to let a player back on - see George North at Northampton.

If there is a lesson to be taken from the latest George North incident, it is that the current protocols encourage "flow chart style" thinking from medical personnel which means that other relevant information gets ignored and common sense / analytical thinking doesn't take place. In this case, those hearing the case agreed that the HIAs had been followed but said that the fact that he appeared unconscious on the field and his history of head injuries was ignored and should have prevented him from returning. To my mind, the robotic approach promoted by the current protocols contributed to this situation. I know that North has denied that he lost consciousness, but I don't see this as particularly relevant, as someone who had possibly just suffered a head injury at the time, medics shouldn't have attached much credence to what he said.

There was a case reported in a N1 match in which posters were exasperated that a "qualified doctor" (as opposed to what?) was overridden by a referee and a player who had passed an "HIA" was prevented from returning to the field of play. The incident and the debate surrounding it typified the lack of understanding from most involved. In this instance, a doctor had used HIA as a diagnostic tool in direct contravention of World Rugby policy and had ignored the fact that the player had been unconscious on the field of play which in World Rugby policy (and I'd assume according to medical procedure, certainly according to common sense). Luckily the assistant referee reported the fact that the player had been unconscious on the the pitch and the referee did his job.

This reinforces the fact that the fact that someone is able to pass an HIA doesn't conclusively demonstrate that they don't need to be removed from the field, which leads on to....

Originally posted by Camquin Camquin wrote:

I much prefer the rule used in National leagues. If  a player suffers  a head injury, they are not coming back on.

Obviously this more belt and braces approach would reduce the possibility of a player with a concussion playing on, but there would be howls of derision about fit players being prevented from playing on. To an extent, it only moves the problem rather than solving it. The subjective question would then become how do we decide when a player has sustained a head injury. Putting a fair protocol in place to do this strikes me as exceedingly difficult. I can also it would discourage medics from taking a safety first approach and examining players just in case as performing such an examination would acknowledge head injury and mean the end of that player's match.

Originally posted by Camquin Camquin wrote:

The Welsh played their own games. The delay in getting the replacement for Sampson Lee on - eating up time when the clock was still running. Even with the clock not stopping, Sampson Lee reenters the pitch before the 10 minutes are up. 

On the Rugbyrefs forum, some people have said that the software they use does not let the time keeper stop the clock after 80 minutes. At least this clock counted up not down. 

There will be an inquiry. Possibly several.

All of this demonstrates to me that the current laws and procedures that are in place are not sufficient to deal that every situation that can arise within the laws of the game and need to be reviewed. I would add that it highlighted to me that a fourth official who can communicate effectively with the referee needs to be appointed for matches like this and for the removal of doubt, he should be neutral. I assume he was French as Barnes resorted to his schoolboy French in order to get an answer regarding Tomas Francis. This seems strange though as presumably he'd be promoted to assistant referee if there was an injury to the team of three.

Well done to anyone who made it to the bottom without falling asleep!


Posted By: tulip
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2018 at 10:09
Thought Wayne Barnes had a brilliant game last night. Talked to the players continually and kept a terrific game flowing
without much interruption


Posted By: Bigmal
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2018 at 12:10
Pretty good at Bris last we tbh. Assistants were lacking though.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk