Leinster vs Northampton match thread

Tim Robbins

Faugheen wrote: »

This blaming of VDF is poisonous.

The duty of care is on Wood, not VDF, who did everything right.

For me, it's red because the contact with the head is just too dangerous and there is more onus on the arriving player to make sure the contact is safe as they are the faster moving object. Just like when someone is cycling or jogging on a footpath the onus is on them not to hit a pedestrian but the pedestrian should still put their head up and watch where they are going.

FACECUTTR

Burkie1203 wrote: »

VDF did have his head up. And people have used that as a reason why it wasn't Woods fault.

An attempt to wrap what you? His arm around VDFs head?

Exactly. Even if he tried to wrap it was high. By what we've seen the last few weeks it should have been red.

Tim Robbins

FACECUTTR wrote: »

Exactly. Even if he tried to wrap it was high. By what we've seen the last few weeks it should have been red.

I think if you ask 10 refs: 7 would say red, 3 yellow.

Faugheen

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think if you ask 10 refs: 7 would say red, 3 yellow.

I’d like to see some evidence to prove you aren’t pulling those figures out of your arse.

degsie

Faugheen wrote: »

I’d like to see some evidence to prove you aren’t pulling those figures out of your arse.

Reality has been suspended for the duration of this thread.

Burkie1203

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think if you ask 10 refs: 7 would say red, 3 yellow.

And thats not good enough.

Pundits are feeding into this too i feel. They "games gone soft" or "red cards ruin the game" narrative from far too many former players fuels anger on social media and I reckon refs are all too aware of this now and spend too much time trying to find an easy way out.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

I’d like to see some evidence to prove you aren’t pulling those figures out of your arse.

He literally says it’s just what he thinks. What do you mean pulling it out of his arse?

Tim Robbins is still an active ref afaik, btw

I really don’t see what was wrong with his post at all.

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He literally says it’s just what he thinks. What do you mean pulling it out of his arse?

Tim Robbins is still an active ref afaik, btw

I really don’t see what was wrong with his post at all.

So he can just predict what 10 refs would do?

It’s a bollocks statement with zero basis and it’s being displayed as a fact.

Unless he can back it up, then it’s a load of horse****.

EDIT: and if he’s an active ref with an attitude that blames a player who got a shoulder to the head, then he shouldn’t ref a game again.

Dog Botherer

lost in all of this was a choke tackling Rhys Ruddock taking a tucked shoulder to his exposed ribs from the Northampton winger right in front of the ref, to zero reaction.

EDIT: incident occurs at game minute 49.00, video minute 59.00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ucK5FTlyM

Clegg

Today was probably a 6/10 performance. Thought we started well, but made a lot of uncharacteristic errors which let Northampton back in. It's encouraging that we can still raise our level when needed and put trys on the board as we saw just before half time and right after.

The pre-gane withdrawals of Doris and Byrne and the early injuries to JOB and Ringrose clearly rattled us, but we did well to recuperate eventually. Concerned with Ringrose too. He passed his HIA, but looked very subdued for the rest of the game. Baird and Josh Murphy were our best performers today. S

Starting to get concerned about all these injuries. We're down to the very bare bones in the back three and 10 looks iffy at the moment as well.

Kraftwerk

Clegg wrote: »

Today was probably a 6/10 performance. Thought we started well, but made a lot of uncharacteristic errors which let Northampton back in. It's encouraging that we can still raise our level when needed and put trys on the board as we saw just before half time and right after.

The pre-gane withdrawals of Doris and Byrne and the early injuries to JOB and Ringrose clearly rattled us, but we did well to recuperate eventually. Concerned with Ringrose too. He passed his HIA, but looked very subdued for the rest of the game. Baird and Josh Murphy were our best performers today. S

Starting to get concerned about all these injuries. We're down to the very bare bones in the back three and 10 looks iffy at the moment as well.

Surprised Ringrose didn't go off for a HIA tbh. He was fairly shook after the head clash. He was on the end of a late shoulder charge at one point too that he was slow to get up from as well as a couple tackles. Rough game back for him.

Kraftwerk

Dog Botherer wrote: »

lost in all of this was a choke tackling Rhys Ruddock taking a tucked shoulder to his exposed ribs from the Northampton winger right in front of the ref, to zero reaction.

EDIT: incident occurs at game minute 49.00, video minute 59.00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ucK5FTlyM

This was clear as day during the game, happened right in front of the ref and was replayed immediately after. If there was a crowd there the ref wouldnt have been able ignore it. Rhys was clearly injured by it too. Spent the rest of the game nursing his ribs.

Dog Botherer

Kraftwerk wrote: »

This was clear as day during the game, happened right in front of the ref and was replayed immediately after. If there was a crowd there the ref wouldnt have been able ignore it. Rhys was clearly injured by it too. Spent the rest of the game nursing his ribs.

lucky it was only a winger, Ruddock could have been seriously hurt.

accensi0n

Dog Botherer wrote: »

lucky it was only a winger, Ruddock could have been seriously hurt.

A forward probably would'nt have done the same thing.

aloooof

Faugheen wrote: »

So he can just predict what 10 refs would do?

It’s a bollocks statement with zero basis and it’s being displayed as a fact.

It really isn’t being displayed as a fact. He even started the sentence with “I think”. That’s exactly what a prediction / opinion / speculation is.

Dubinusa

I thought that was a very poor Leinster performance. I thought they looked out of sorts and were well below normal standard.
The front row looked average at best imo and I think JGP was very poor. Roddock and Murphy were our best performers imo. The midfield was also poor, imo.
Maybe it's just me! Anyone else think we looked average?
Might be the international lads are knackered? Ringrose probably was not 100% and losing JOB. I don't think we scare anyone after that!

Dog Botherer

loads of injuries, internationals settling back in, a stubborn opponent that got their tails up with some fortunate tries, and Leinster still won by 3 scores with a bonus point. not every win is a pretty one, you take what you can get.

leakyboots

Dog Botherer wrote: »

loads of injuries, internationals settling back in, a stubborn oppoejt that got their tails up with some fortunate tries, and Leinster still won by 3 scores with a bonus point. not every win is a pretty one, you take what you can get.

I agree, some sloppy stuff but a good scoreline at the end of the day. It'll focus the minds.



How that ruck charge wasn't a red I'll never know. Bizarre.

VANG1

Bonus point win in every game, sure we’re ****e.

Tim Robbins

Faugheen wrote: »

I’d like to see some evidence to prove you aren’t pulling those figures out of your arse.

It's just an opinion, and an *rse we all have one

Tim Robbins

Burkie1203 wrote: »

And thats not good enough.

Pundits are feeding into this too i feel. They "games gone soft" or "red cards ruin the game" narrative from far too many former players fuels anger on social media and I reckon refs are all too aware of this now and spend too much time trying to find an easy way out.

The female commentator on C4 thought nothing of it. Heaslip said a penalty.

We can get real angry about this and throw insults at each other or else try to understanding why there is inconsistency and then hope World Rugby clarify.

Tim Robbins

Faugheen wrote: »

So he can just predict what 10 refs would do?

It’s a bollocks statement with zero basis and it’s being displayed as a fact.

Unless he can back it up, then it’s a load of horse****.

EDIT: and if he’s an active ref with an attitude that blames a player who got a shoulder to the head, then he shouldn’t ref a game again.

There some parts of the game open to interpretation as you try to use the laws and then interpret a dynamic context that made not have a black and white conclusion. The same can happen with a forward pass. Obviously, we don't want inconsistency on things and World Rugby will clarify when they need to. However, we also don't want a law book that 10,000 pages to cover every single dynamic situation. Ref's are supposed to have enough laws and enough feeling of the game to reach reasonable consistency. You'll never get 100% consistency.

And just on this line

It’s a bollocks statement with zero basis and it’s being displayed as a fact.

Any chance you could try and understand where people are coming from? Reality is if you asked 10 refs how can a restart happen, 10 would agree. When you get to more complex or dynamic parts of the game not all ref's agree or manage it the same way.

Where I think the disagreement with Ref's would be was if that was a yellow or a red. Not if it was penalty or no penalty which is how it came across on TV. Sometimes Red cards are 100% Red and no-one disagrees. Sometimes, there is disagreement. Sometimes people make genuine mistakes.

Kraftwerk

Any arguments I've heard from pundits as to why is not a card is mitigating it based on 1. "what can Wood do to avoid it ? And 2. "VDF was in a bad position and put himself in danger".

Reddan pretty quickly shut those down when Quinlan brought them up. If Wood had no way to avoid it its because he was late to the ruck and VDF was already in a position he couldn't legally be moved from which is why Wood went on recklessly. Quinlan and others seem to think that a player should attempt a clear our regardless, reckless or not. Reddan said players have a duty of care, you recklessly endanger someone by breaking the laws (even quinlan agreed technical red) you pay the price and learn from it. Maybe next time Wood would be faster to the ruck or not make the needless reckless hit.

Everything I've heard from most pundits on this is in direct contrast to all the stuff about head collisions and player welfare and protecting players. They seem to think head contact is bad but priority should be given to players trying to play rugby even if its reckless over the safety of the opposition. Which is quite frankly disgraceful.

errlloyd

Andy Nichol and Dave Flatman both called for a red for a much more vanilla High tackle in the Sale v Edinburgh game.

I was very disappointed in BOD and Hartley.

Kraftwerk

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There some parts of the game open to interpretation as you try to use the laws and then interpret a dynamic context that made not have a black and white conclusion. The same can happen with a forward pass. Obviously, we don't want inconsistency on things and World Rugby will clarify when they need to. However, we also don't want a law book that 10,000 pages to cover every single dynamic situation. Ref's are supposed to have enough laws and enough feeling of the game to reach reasonable consistency. You'll never get 100% consistency.

And just on this line

Any chance you could try and understand where people are coming from? Reality is if you asked 10 refs how can a restart happen, 10 would agree. When you get to more complex or dynamic parts of the game not all ref's agree or manage it the same way.

Where I think the disagreement with Ref's would be was if that was a yellow or a red. Not if it was penalty or no penalty which is how it came across on TV. Sometimes Red cards are 100% Red and no-one disagrees. Sometimes, there is disagreement. Sometimes people make genuine mistakes.

If any ref disagreed that a shoulder to the head in a ruck clear out is foul play they shouldn't be referees. It's not a matter of interpretation it's a matter of not understanding the laws. The laws are quite clear on it.

That ref yesterday said that a shoulder to the head in a ruck clear out is not foul play. With the benefit of a tmo who brought his attention to it and a clear replay. That's not interpretation. That's a dangerous misunderstanding of the laws.

irishbucsfan

Kraftwerk wrote: »

If any ref disagreed that a shoulder to the head in a ruck clear out is foul play they shouldn't be referees. It's not a matter of interpretation it's a matter of not understanding the laws. The laws are quite clear on it.

That ref yesterday said that a shoulder to the head in a ruck clear out is not foul play. With the benefit of a tmo who brought his attention to it and a clear replay. That's not interpretation. That's a dangerous misunderstanding of the laws.

If you actually read his posts here, he said that was a mistake. He said the disagreement is between whether its a yellow or a red and his feeling would be a big majority would go with red. I'd completely agree with that. Why people are having a fit over this is totally beyond me.

Kraftwerk

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If you actually read his posts here, he said that was a mistake. He said the disagreement is between whether its a yellow or a red and his feeling would be a big majority would go with red. I'd completely agree with that. Why people are having a fit over this is totally beyond me.

It's a mistake that a ref thought a shoulder to the head wasn't foul play? That's not a mistake, that's a ref who doesn't understand the laws. And if you don't understand the laws around player welfare you shouldn't be on the field.

And you'll excuse me if I'm struggling to understand that posters point as his proof of refs disagreeing is the opinion of random pundits on TV.

ButtersSuki

Quinlan is not the smartest tool in the box at the best of times, but he’s let himself down badly here.

irishbucsfan

Kraftwerk wrote: »

It's a mistake that a ref thought a shoulder to the head wasn't foul play? That's not a mistake, that's a ref who doesn't understand the laws. And if you don't understand the laws around player welfare you shouldn't be on the field.

And you'll excuse me if I'm struggling to understand that posters point as his proof of refs disagreeing is the opinion of random pundits on TV.

Yes, its a mistake.

I mean I'm all for criticising random pundits, but I'll also listen when a ref tells me their opinion on refereeing, especially when its entirely sensible.

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If you actually read his posts here, he said that was a mistake. He said the disagreement is between whether its a yellow or a red and his feeling would be a big majority would go with red. I'd completely agree with that. Why people are having a fit over this is totally beyond me.

He also puts blame on VDF.

Instead of trying to play devil’s advocate I’d suggest you read the posts yourself. Anyone who tries to bring that narrative should not be a referee as they are a danger to players.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

He also puts blame on VDF.

Instead of trying to play devil’s advocate I’d suggest you read the posts yourself. Anyone who tries to bring that narrative should not be a referee as they are a danger to players.

FFS he doesn't "put the blame" on VDF! :pac:

Is there some weird fetish over outrage and drama going on here or something?

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

FFS he doesn't "put the blame" on VDF! :pac:

Is there some weird fetish over outrage and drama going on here or something?

“VDF should really have his head up and his eyes focusing on what is coming at him. Everyone has a duty a care in a collision sport. To yourself and to others”

Ah sure we all partied.

razorblunt

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The female commentator on C4 thought nothing of it. Heaslip said a penalty.

We can get real angry about this and throw insults at each other or else try to understanding why there is inconsistency and then hope World Rugby clarify.

Surprised the two of them didn’t just laugh as they always do at everything.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

“VDF should really have his head up and his eyes focusing on what is coming at him. Everyone has a duty a care in a collision sport. To yourself and to others”

Ah sure we all partied.

This is when talking about POSSIBLE mitigating factors that a ref might reduce it from a yellow to a red, which hes made clear he wouldn’t have done.

No one is putting the blame on VDF. Impossible to have a conversation about something like this if people throw a complete tantrum if there’s any mention of theoretical stuff they disagree with.

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is when talking about POSSIBLE mitigating factors that a ref might reduce it from a yellow to a red, which hes made clear he wouldn’t have done.

No one is putting the blame on VDF. Impossible to have a conversation about something like this if people throw a complete tantrum if there’s any mention of theoretical stuff they disagree with.

That isn’t a ‘possible’ mitigating factor whatsoever. That puts blame on a player who did everything right.

To even suggest it as a possible mitigating factor is backwards and it sums up the attitude towards blows to the head.

It’s wrong, and there is no excuse. End of.

It’s also impossible to have a conversation when people believe there needs to be a ‘balance’ to every single argument that is ever had.

There is no balance when it comes to Wood’s attempted clear out on VDF. Zero. But sure some refs might think the duty of care is also on the player who is doing everything by the book and sure what else is the other player supposed to do?

There doesn’t have to be a ‘balance’ for ****ing everything, and to even suggest that as a mitigating factor is dangerous.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

That isn’t a ‘possible’ mitigating factor whatsoever. That puts blame on a player who did everything right.

To even suggest it as a possible mitigating factor is backwards and it sums up the attitude towards blows to the head.

It’s wrong, and there is no excuse. End of.

Oh right, so are you an assessor with the Leinster branch? Or is it elsewhere?

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh right, so are you an assessor with the Leinster branch? Or is it elsewhere?

Very good. Your defence is being shown to be dangerous and bollocks so you resort to smart-holery.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

Very good. Your defence is being shown to be dangerous and bollocks so you resort to smart-holery.

No it isn’t. Your stating things as fact when based on nothing but some inflated sense of authority about laws you’re not actually accredited over.

So what’s actually the point?

It’s outrageously childish. I’ve said nothing dangerous. I think it was likely a red. The other poster thinks it was likely a red. But because we’re entertaining a discussion about what COULD have mitigated it, with the experience to know that referees will sometimes differ, you’re freaking out and throwing a fit.

I don’t even agree 30% of refs (with the benefit of TMO) would see it as a yellow, but I could maybe see it being mitigated down to a yellow on a first viewing at lower levels where some refs are a lot more cautious.


Most of all, this is a total and utter waste of time because everyone here thinks it should be a red, and the referee let it go completely. So the argument is irrelevant to the problem, which will be sorted out between the ref and the organisers

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No it isn’t. Your stating things as fact when based on nothing but some inflated sense of authority about laws you’re not actually accredited over.

So what’s actually the point?

It’s outrageously childish. I’ve said nothing dangerous. I think it was likely a red. The other poster thinks it was likely a red. But because we’re entertaining a discussion about what COULD have mitigated it, with the experience to know that referees will sometimes differ, you’re freaking out and throwing a fit.

I don’t even agree 30% of refs (with the benefit of TMO) would see it as a yellow, but I could maybe see it being mitigated down to a yellow on a first viewing at lower levels where some refs are a lot more cautious.


Most of all, this is a total and utter waste of time because everyone here thinks it should be a red, and the referee let it go completely. So the argument is irrelevant to the problem, which will be sorted out between the ref and the organisers

So I have to be accredited to interpret the laws as they are clearly written down?

I have to be accredited to say that even suggesting VDF doing everything right could be a mitigating factor in him getting a shot to the head is a load of bollocks?

I have to be accredited to comment on anything that is said by that poster now? Because he is accredited and I’m not?

It’s the typical put down from yourself. People who are not qualified are not allowed to talk.

I’m not ‘freaking out or throwing a fit’, I’m saying that a player who gets a blow to the head should not be blamed in any f*cking way like some of the commentary around VDF has been. Quinlan, O’Driscoll and Hartley just three pundits who made those exact arguments. They’re chatting sh*t and anyone who tries to suggest it’s a mitigating factor is chatting sh*t as well, even if they wouldn’t do that themselves.

But don’t worry, I’ll go get accredited so I can be put on the same pedestal as your fine self.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

So I have to be accredited to interpret the laws as they are clearly written down?

I have to be accredited to say that even suggesting VDF doing everything right could be a mitigating factor in him getting a shot to the head is a load of bollocks?

I have to be accredited to comment on anything that is said by that poster now? Because he is accredited and I’m not?

It’s the typical put down from yourself. People who are not qualified are not allowed to talk.

I’m not ‘freaking out or throwing a fit’, I’m saying that a player who gets a blow to the head should not be blamed in any f*cking way like some of the commentary around VDF has been. Quinlan, O’Driscoll and Hartley just three pundits who made those exact arguments. They’re chatting sh*t and anyone who tries to suggest it’s a mitigating factor is chatting sh*t as well, even if they wouldn’t do that themselves.

But don’t worry, I’ll go get accredited so I can be put on the same pedestal as your fine self.

No, you don’t need to be accredited to talk about anything. But if you’re not and someone else is, it’s totally ridiculous to dismiss their opinion out of hand and act as if you know better without consideration. It’s exceptionally Dunning-Kruger

Tim Robbins

When you issue a Red you need to be 100% sure. Because you will change the game and people will talk about you instead of the game if you get it wrong.

We watch those incidents on TV, press rewind when we feel like it and are in a better position than any official -- none of us are accountable. All those officials are being assessed not just for their decisions but how they communicate. Given the complexity of the game, the standard is usually pretty high. All I was doing was trying to explain how someone who might go for Yellow instead of a Red would see it. As I said, in my view it is a Red. However, if an elite ref doesn't even think it is a penalty, either he is wrong or I am.

In the cold light of day, I think he will think that is minimum a Yellow.

If it is unquestionably a Red, well then sadly, I think the Ref will bear the repercussions of his decision. When there were some bad tackles in a certain NZ match there was a big communication from World Rugby to get more consistency between penalty, Yellow or Red.

So, now, do we need more from World Rugby? Or do we have enough and this Ref made massive blunder...

Burkie1203

Tim Robbins wrote: »

When you issue a Red you need to be 100% sure. Because you will change the game and people will talk about you instead of the game if you get it wrong

A shoulder direct to the head with a run up to enter a ruck.

If any ref cannot be 100% sure of that with multiple angle replays then they should not be let ref.

We'll know more if a citing does or doesn't come. If it does, and I suspect it will, it's really not a good look for a few people including the ref.

Enough former players and commentators seem to be of the opinion that this wasn't a card-able offence that I'm going to sit on the fence and see whether there is a citing.

My understanding of the rules was that if the shoulder makes contact with the head then it's a penalty and card and there is absolutely no mitigation from what I can see as VDF didn't move and was entitled to be where he was. I think it looked worse than it was, I don't think VDF was particularly hurt and at the time I thought it was a certain yellow but only possibly a red.

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

It's an odd one for sure, potentially a bit of a precedent setter for supporters.

ButtersSuki

Deleted User wrote: »

Enough former players and commentators seem to be of the opinion that this wasn't a card-able offence that I'm going to sit on the fence and see whether there is a citing.

My understanding of the rules was that if the shoulder makes contact with the head then it's a penalty and card and there is absolutely no mitigation from what I can see as VDF didn't move and was entitled to be where he was. I think it looked worse than it was, I don't think VDF was particularly hurt and at the time I thought it was a certain yellow but only possibly a red.

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

It's an odd one for sure, potentially a bit of a precedent setter for supporters.

Whether VDF was particularly hurt or not is immaterial.

Burkie1203

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Enough former players and commentators seem to be of the opinion that this wasn't a card-able offence that I'm going to sit on the fence and see whether there is a citing.

My understanding of the rules was that if the shoulder makes contact with the head then it's a penalty and card and there is absolutely no mitigation from what I can see as VDF didn't move and was entitled to be where he was. I think it looked worse than it was, I don't think VDF was particularly hurt and at the time I thought it was a certain yellow but only possibly a red.

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

It's an odd one for sure, potentially a bit of a precedent setter for supporters.

A lot of those pundits are very quiet on social media since too. IMO ref got it totally wrong. VDF was in perfect position. If you want him out you do it legally. If you cannot do it legally you have lost the space.


Alix Popham is suffering in part because of sub concussion blows or knocks. VDF not being hurt now doesn't mean this isn't adding up to when he is in his 40s or 50s and cannot recall ever winning Europe or Pro14 with Leinster

Faugheen

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Whether VDF was particularly hurt or not is immaterial.

Exactly this. Just because VDF wasn’t hurt this time doesn’t mean someone else won’t be if it happens again.

I’d consider VDF lucky that he wasn’t seriously injured here.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Enough former players and commentators seem to be of the opinion that this wasn't a card-able offence that I'm going to sit on the fence and see whether there is a citing.

My understanding of the rules was that if the shoulder makes contact with the head then it's a penalty and card and there is absolutely no mitigation from what I can see as VDF didn't move and was entitled to be where he was. I think it looked worse than it was, I don't think VDF was particularly hurt and at the time I thought it was a certain yellow but only possibly a red.

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

It's an odd one for sure, potentially a bit of a precedent setter for supporters.

I think what should have been particularly damning was the fact that VDF is relatively still. He’s in a great position and he doesn’t drop before the contact and nothing really changes. If he had dropped at the last minute maybe you could argue for a yellow. But I don’t think the referee was even looking at that tbh

I’d be really shocked if it isn’t mentioned by EPCR at all. That would require further explanation, and I’m sure they’ll make a comment on that when journalists enquire. Most likely I think, SURELY, there’ll be a citing or at least a citing commissioners warning.

Former Former Former

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

The ref didn't see a contact with the head, that's why he awarded nothing.

Dog Botherer

i get why people feel the need to defend refs, they get a hard rub of it and it’s not an easy job, especially at pro level.

but yer man has clearly ****ed that decision. not everything has to be defended with paragraphs and paragraphs of ifs and buts. he has ****ed that call.