Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Lavanini red card was a fair call but fans question Nigel Owens' consistency with England infringements

(L) Referee Nigel Owens gesture during the Rugby World Cup and (R) Boffelli is tackled in the air by Manu Tuilagi. (Photos by Cameron Spencer and David Rogers/Getty Images)

The decision to red-card Tomas Lavanini was a fair and just decision under the letter of the law but it is the non-calls against England that have left fans questioning Nigel Owens in the wake of England’s runaway 39-10 win that all but ends Argentina’s World Cup.

ADVERTISEMENT

Referee Nigel Owens misjudged the initial high tackle on Owen Farrell, explaining to players ‘Play on, no foul play for me’ before it was reviewed by the TMO two minutes later at the next stoppage.

https://twitter.com/burdon_mike/status/1180435585598726144

Following a second look, Owens judged that a red card was necessary with no mitigating factors for the high shot.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3OuIM3AiBw/

Speaking on ITV former England coach Clive Woodward was puzzled by Owens decision to let play on following the Lavanini tackle

“Nigel Owens saw it live and said ‘it’s fine, it’s fine’. So if you haven’t got the TMO everyone would have just carried on,” he said.

“I don’t think any Argentinian can complain about that. It was a red card and a very simple decision but why didn’t Owens see it in the first place?”

Continue reading below…

Video Spacer

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision to send Lavanini off in the 17th minute was always going to swing the match hugely in England’s favour with Argentina fighting on with 14-men for the majority of the match.

However, the leniency shown by Owens towards England’s own infringements brings into question whether they were given preferential treatment.

As England piled on infringements early in the match, Owens explained to captain Owen Farrell each penalty including a ‘no-arms tackle by Kyle Sinckler’ on an Argentinian player. This warranted nothing more than a warning and a penalty without a review of the tackle.

ADVERTISEMENT

The second non-call came moments after Lavanini’s red with Manu Tuilagi taking out Argentinan fullback Emiliano Boffelli in the air. England were penalised but many feel this warranted a yellow card with the tackler not attempting a ‘fair challenge’ for the ball.

https://twitter.com/KeepRealOk/status/1180472304867909632

https://twitter.com/N1482/status/1180436898503958528

England coach Clive Woodward was also critical of the non-yellow on Manu Tuilagi for his tackle in the air.

“It’s a definite yellow card. No-one from England can be complaining if he’s got one. If the Argentina player comes down on his head, you’re looking at real problems,” he said on ITV.

“It doesn’t matter how far off the ground you are, if you hit him in the air it’s a card. I think we got away with that one big time.

“In the spirit of the game, if there’s already been a red card, then Manu has to go for a yellow card.”

Mario Ledesma following Argentina’s loss to England:

Video Spacer

 

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 49 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Yes I was the one who suggested to use a UEFA style point. And I guessed, that based on the last 5 years we should start with 6 top14, 6 URC and 4 Prem."

Yes I am aware that you suggested it, but you then went on to say that we should initially start with a balance that clearly wasn't derived from that system. I'm not a mind reader, so how was I to work out that you'd arrived at that balance by dint of completely having failed to remember the history of the competition.


"Again, I was the one suggesting that, but you didn't like the outcome of that."

I have no issues with the outcome of that, I had an issue with a completely random allocation of teams that you plucked out of thin air.

Interestingly its you who now seem to be renouncing the UEFA style points system, because you don't like the outcome of reducing URC representation.


"4 teams for Top14, URC and Prem, 3 teams for other leagues and the last winner, what do you think?"

What about 4 each + 4 to the best performing teams in last years competition not to have otherwise qualified? Or what about a UEFA style system where places are allocated to leagues on the basis of their performance in previous years' competitions?

There's no point including Black Lion if they're just going to get whitewashed every year, which I think would be a possibility. At most I'd support 1 team from the Rugby Europe Super Cup, or the Russian Championship being included. Maybe the best placed non-Israeli team and the Russian winners could play off every year for the spot? But honestly I think its best if they stay limited to the Challenge Cup for now.

39 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ ‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’ ‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’
Search