Squad for 6N

[stevedog1980]

Lol has previous for pointing out when he’s been bitten or gouged, the cheek!!!

[Sourdust]

Mmm, I see your point but I'm not sure. I said he was coming in from distance and should have been more careful but I didn't see this as one where he absolutely flew in. I think if he hadn't made contact with the head it was probably a penalty but no more. To me, the head contact is the only thing that brings a red into question, and therefore it matters how the head contact came about.

It's "with force" and "out of control". It's hard because players have been coached to do this, and are now getting sent off for it. Players are thinking "But this is how it's always been done?" and officials are saying "We know: Change it." It's a coaching challenge to find a way to contest the ruck without losing footing, and using arms. Clearly coaches are not catching on fast enough. It's ironic that old-fashioned rucking was originally outlawed for being too dangerous, and is now being widely touted as the answer to making the ruck LESS dangerous.

The obvious diference between the Fagerson and O'Mahony incidents is that Jones was on his feet, and a legitimate target for a (legal) clearout. Fagerson had the right to target him; just not like that. It's very poor technique, dangerous, and deserving of severe punishment; but it's not "dirty", IMO. Conversely, POM ran half the length of the pitch to smash a defenceless prone opponent in the face. There's a clear moral distance between the two actions, but now, with POM's tediously predictable minimum ban, Fagerson will suffer AT LEAST as harsh a sanction. That just wrong.

[stevedog1980]

The jackal needs to be strongly looked at, it promotes the need for a clear out "with force" because of how strong (but vulnerable) a position players are able to adopt. The traditional areas of the body to tackle are not available to the tackler with only an exposed back to hit and the head placed at a height which is at odds with the message world rugby are trying to send. If the jackal is not removed by the initial hit then the subsequent efforts of the attacking teams teammates only serve to compound the issue. To me, we just need to remove the ability for the defensive player to keep their hands on the ball after a ruck is formed. 4 outcomes only -

1. Defending player picks ball up before ruck is formed and play continues
2. Defending player prevented from picking ball up by illegal lack of release by tackled player - penalty to defending team
3. Defending player keeps hands on ball after ruck is formed - penalty to attacking team
4. Ruck formed and contested legally

Of course, this will lead to the jackals thinking "But this is how it's always been done?", I would argue that the jackal will have to adopt a safer body position to allow the move from contesting the ball to being engaged in the ruck. I think the issue of head injury is a serious one but I would say that removing a players head from being in the dangerous position it is with a jackal is more pressing than penalising the player clearing out who has been left with little choice.

For arguments sake, if Zander didn't have his arm cocked and did bind to Wyn Jones but there was an ensuing shoulder to head contact would that still constitute a red card?

I agree about Fagerson and O'Mahony incidents being very different but likely to have the same ban being ridiculous.

[Sandydragon]

The jackal needs to be strongly looked at, it promotes the need for a clear out "with force" because of how strong (but vulnerable) a position players are able to adopt. The traditional areas of the body to tackle are not available to the tackler with only an exposed back to hit and the head placed at a height which is at odds with the message world rugby are trying to send. If the jackal is not removed by the initial hit then the subsequent efforts of the attacking teams teammates only serve to compound the issue. To me, we just need to remove the ability for the defensive player to keep their hands on the ball after a ruck is formed. 4 outcomes only -

1. Defending player picks ball up before ruck is formed and play continues
2. Defending player prevented from picking ball up by illegal lack of release by tackled player - penalty to defending team
3. Defending player keeps hands on ball after ruck is formed - penalty to attacking team
4. Ruck formed and contested legally

Of course, this will lead to the jackals thinking "But this is how it's always been done?", I would argue that the jackal will have to adopt a safer body position to allow the move from contesting the ball to being engaged in the ruck. I think the issue of head injury is a serious one but I would say that removing a players head from being in the dangerous position it is with a jackal is more pressing than penalising the player clearing out who has been left with little choice.

For arguments sake, if Zander didn't have his arm cocked and did bind to Wyn Jones but there was an ensuing shoulder to head contact would that still constitute a red card?

I agree about Fagerson and O'Mahony incidents being very different but likely to have the same ban being ridiculous.

In the Ausumn internationals, Liam Williams cleared out an Italian player at force and made some contact with the Italian players head. I think most of Wales held their breath at that point but Liam has used his arms to bind and avoiding the players head want possible so the match officials were content it was legal.

Still not great for the defending player though.

I’d remove the wrestling contest at the ruck and only allow hands in if there are no players on their feet. Make the ruck a dynamic contest again, no diving off their feet. Since that make it somewhat easier to keep the ball, I’d revert also to the old practice of a Mail being called unless the ball is on the floor, not a players knees.

[stevedog1980]

That's sort of my point in a nutshell, allowing players to have their heads in the vicinity of the contact is the problem.

Definitely not and I think they should be penalised for their own safety.

Only allow hands in if you're not part of the ruck full stop. If you want the ball, counter ruck until your team can pick it up. Otherwise the advantage stays with the attacking team.

What about the caterpillar ruck? Are you happy with the state of play there?

[Sandydragon]

That's sort of my point in a nutshell, allowing players to have their heads in the vicinity of the contact is the problem.

Definitely not and I think they should be penalised for their own safety.

Only allow hands in if you're not part of the ruck full stop. If you want the ball, counter ruck until your team can pick it up. Otherwise the advantage stays with the attacking team.

What about the caterpillar ruck? Are you happy with the state of play there?

The caterpillar ruck is just tedious. The five second rule should help in theory but how many times has it been enforced?

[Cameo]

That's sort of my point in a nutshell, allowing players to have their heads in the vicinity of the contact is the problem.

Definitely not and I think they should be penalised for their own safety.

Only allow hands in if you're not part of the ruck full stop. If you want the ball, counter ruck until your team can pick it up. Otherwise the advantage stays with the attacking team.

What about the caterpillar ruck? Are you happy with the state of play there?

I'm on board with getting rid of the jackal but only if the guy on the floor needs to properly release the ball and the whole height of the ruck comes up. At the moment, you are allowed to enter a ruck at a height that, if the other team pulls away, you will inevitably fall on the floor. The ruck therefore becomes a solid mass on the floor that is impossible to counter ruck. If you got rid of the jackal too, the attacking team could keep ball forever. It needs to be clear that if you are touching the floor with your upper body you either need to roll away or get penalised as otherwise you are making it impossible to compete.

[Big D]

So Zander refuses to agree it was a red card and is banned for 4 weeks. Honest to fuck, no common sense at all.

[Mikey Brown]

Ha. I'd like to have seen how that went down. Is the fact he was carded at the time taken into account, like time served? I agree with the red now I've settled down but the ban on top seems a bit much.

Rowlands direct shoulder in to the face, spotted by ref, nothing at the time and no citing. Williams elbow/forearm to the face right in front of touch judge, nothing. Does everyone always feel like they're on the wrong end of these decisions a lot?

[Spiffy]

I would not mind seeing the whole jackling business removed from the game. At least half the penalties awarded for turnovers are not genuine turnovers at all. It used to be that a turnover meant picking the ball up, gaining full possession and turning around to present to your own side . For many refs, all a player has to do now is touch the ball with two hands and that's it. Very often he has gone beyond the ball to get it, or is clearly not bearing his weight on his legs alone, or has outright flopped over it, and frequently after the ruck has formed and it should be no hands at all. I hate to see the result of a game depend on dodgy decisions like this. At present it's just a lottery depending on a whim of the ref, which is often inconsistent during the course of a game.

[Cameo]

So Zander refuses to agree it was a red card and is banned for 4 weeks. Honest to fuck, no common sense at all.

That's a joke that his ban is longer than O'Mahoney's. I can be brought on board with it being a red but missing the rest of the tournament - give me a break!

I get not mitigating if the player disputes having done the act but is then found guilty (i.e. they are effectively found to have lied) but simply disputing that it should have been a red?? How does an honest disagreement about the laws (shared by a reasonable minority of pundits/refs (including the TMO!)/players/fans) justify a longer ban.

I just cannot see how a committee has any justification for coming to a decision where his actions (including prior record and subsequent actions) can result in a longer ban than O'Mahony.

An appeal is probably pointless but what's the harm?

[Big D]

So Zander refuses to agree it was a red card and is banned for 4 weeks. Honest to fuck, no common sense at all.

That's a joke that his ban is longer than O'Mahoney's. I can be brought on board with it being a red but missing the rest of the tournament - give me a break!

I get not mitigating if the player disputes having done the act but is then found guilty (i.e. they are effectively found to have lied) but simply disputing that it should have been a red?? How does an honest disagreement about the laws (shared by a reasonable minority of pundits/refs (including the TMO!)/players/fans) justify a longer ban.

I just cannot see how a committee has any justification for coming to a decision where his actions (including prior record and subsequent actions) can result in a longer ban than O'Mahony.

An appeal is probably pointless but what's the harm?

It has always been the case that to get the full mitigation you pretty much have to agree completely with the red card and apologise.

Fagerson has either taken a punt hoping to get ban knowing 3 games is the end of his 6N or completely misread the mood music from the lawmakers. They are trying to stamp this out and disciplinary board will always back the ref here.

[Big D]

If anything the issue for me is the entry point of POM should have been higher than the 6 weeks.

[AL.]

I'm having a bit of trouble with this, O'Mahoney gets three matches for a deliberate and blatant charge, and (in my mind) is a dirty player. I though ZFags was careless and no more (I think of him as dumb with offenses normally, not habitually dirty) he gets four because he didn't agree it was a red?

Players notoriously agree and get their sentence reduced, he doesn't agree and gets longer. Surely he would have just taken the Managers/legal team advice and sucked it up if he thought he was anything but innocent? Who knows better than he?!

Incidentally, the dropped shoulder to me looked like he was making himself the right size to fit through the gap and not lose efficacy in the clear out by side swiping Hogg (who helped stand Jones up to an unfortunate height at an unfortunate time....)

I try not to feel hard done by with Scotland, hard enough normally, but this seems harsh? Not sure why, maybe I just have cabin fever. Why would you argue the decision knowing it will make things worse, no one with any sense ever does? Even the foulest of fouls is usually reduced by some faux humility.

[septic 9]

so Zander only got 2 weeks discount for saying the same as the TMO it would seem.

On that basis he would have got a life ban for this

[stevedog1980]

This extra week for not agreeing it's a red card is laughable. He's accepted it's foul play but doesn't feel personally it warranted a red card, a perfectly legitimate view in my mind. It's easy to show contrition and disagree with the severity of the sanction, they aren't mutually exclusive.

As I've said elsewhere, it's not as if he's going to turn up to play v France and just saw screw it, I'm treating it as a yellow chuck me in there Gregor. He's accepted the punishment, countered with a defence and been punished for having an opinion farcical.

[stevedog1980]

I would not mind seeing the whole jackling business removed from the game. At least half the penalties awarded for turnovers are not genuine turnovers at all. It used to be that a turnover meant picking the ball up, gaining full possession and turning around to present to your own side . For many refs, all a player has to do now is touch the ball with two hands and that's it. Very often he has gone beyond the ball to get it, or is clearly not bearing his weight on his legs alone, or has outright flopped over it, and frequently after the ruck has formed and it should be no hands at all. I hate to see the result of a game depend on dodgy decisions like this. At present it's just a lottery depending on a whim of the ref, which is often inconsistent during the course of a game.

I've come to the same decision recently. Compete for the ball all you like but give the attacking player the safe target of the stomach / chest to engage with rather than presenting your neck / back to them

[Mikey Brown]

I thought the jackal was made illegal somewhere around 82 minutes on Saturday, just before Chris Harris spent 10 seconds trying to wrestle the ball away from the Welsh cover.

Not that unbearably bitter about it or anything.

[stevedog1980]

You're misplacing your anger there Mikey, it's Ali Price you should have a voodoo doll of!!

[Donny osmond]

I would not mind seeing the whole jackling business removed from the game. At least half the penalties awarded for turnovers are not genuine turnovers at all. It used to be that a turnover meant picking the ball up, gaining full possession and turning around to present to your own side . For many refs, all a player has to do now is touch the ball with two hands and that's it. Very often he has gone beyond the ball to get it, or is clearly not bearing his weight on his legs alone, or has outright flopped over it, and frequently after the ruck has formed and it should be no hands at all. I hate to see the result of a game depend on dodgy decisions like this. At present it's just a lottery depending on a whim of the ref, which is often inconsistent during the course of a game.

Absolutely agree, and this bullshit with ZFs ban just underlines it. Everyone watching a ruck right now will see a different penalty being committed, no one knows which one the ref is going to whistle for or what the sanction will be. It's fucking pathetic.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[stevedog1980]

People have been moaning about scrum resets taking too long and the game losing the spectacle because of it. Now we are facing the prospect of games being 100+ minutes thanks to supercilious TMO's taking exception to so many normal parts of the game and forcing the referee to review ad nauseam

[septic 9]

People have been moaning about scrum resets taking too long and the game losing the spectacle because of it. Now we are facing the prospect of games being 100+ minutes thanks to supercilious TMO's taking exception to so many normal parts of the game and forcing the referee to review ad nauseam

bollocks.

Getting the right decision is more important than allowing serious foul play to go unpunished during a game.

There are remedies to the scrum, whose main issues have come since WR (pushed by Aus and NZ) tried to make it a spectacle. The best way to aid the spectacle is to apply the laws. All of them, all of the time. The refs job has fuck all to do with a spectacle, his first priority remains the safety of the players on the park. If - and hopefully when - WR eventually manage to understand that, we might move on positively

[whatisthejava]

I thought the jackal was made illegal somewhere around 82 minutes on Saturday, just before Chris Harris spent 10 seconds trying to wrestle the ball away from the Welsh cover.

Not that unbearably bitter about it or anything.

Dont forget tackling without the ball is also A-OK because Hogg doesn't touch it, gets taken out the game

But the biggest learning point from that game has to be

Moan to the GOD DAMN FUCKING REF

If Lang had called the ref or TJ to the elbow of Liam Williams we would have won the game
If Hogg had screamed about getting tacked off the ball we could have won the game

Scotland need to accept its not 19 canteen and treat the ref professionally and when they don't see something fucking say it.

Against NZ Reid should have been in the bin but we didn't tell the ref
Against England 2 years ago when Billy tried to take Johnsons head off no body told the ref to review it

FFS guys, moan to the ref, especially with head contact, no danger would the ref not looked at a potential elbow to the head/neck especially if Lang then went to his knees a few seconds later.

[Cameo]

Haha, we (including me) are in full meltdown mode. The strange thing is I dont actually feel that hard done by the ref over the whole game. It's just one or two decisions that could have changed the whole game. Ignore the Fagerson red as that is definitely arguable and was at least a yellow, but if either Williams had been carded or Harris awarded the penalty we win. Let's not get into full victim mode though.

Team for France?

[Mikey Brown]

It’s just strange to feel we did let the game slip away, regardless of the ref, yet we win the game if any one of those last minute infringements is called, as you say. Is that a contradiction? Maybe.

Those late calls on top of the Fagerson/Lang incidents just feel hard to ignore completely, lame as it is to be focused on reffing decisions at this point. God I hate these 6 nations break weeks.