RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:I switched off once the Italians were reduced to 13 so I missed the subsequent debate on that decision. Should the referee, as a principle, look for a reason not to reduce a game to a farce? Or should he always apply the letter of the law?

If he had decided that the Irish guy dipped a little and it just gave him leeway to only award a yellow would anyone have complained?

I take your point, but the whole idea of the head contact framework is that it's supposed to remove personal interpretation and any questions of whether it's better for the game or not. If he gives the yellow and then the Italian hooker scores the winning try (or, to take a fun hypothetical, Ireland then have to go down to 14 because the high tackle makes them go uncontested), is that "fair"?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I switched off once the Italians were reduced to 13 so I missed the subsequent debate on that decision. Should the referee, as a principle, look for a reason not to reduce a game to a farce? Or should he always apply the letter of the law?

If he had decided that the Irish guy dipped a little and it just gave him leeway to only award a yellow would anyone have complained?

I take your point, but the whole idea of the head contact framework is that it's supposed to remove personal interpretation and any questions of whether it's better for the game or not. If he gives the yellow and then the Italian hooker scores the winning try (or, to take a fun hypothetical, Ireland then have to go down to 14 because the high tackle makes them go uncontested), is that "fair"?

Puja

Buggered if I know. I had sympathy for 80,000 fans not getting their money's worth. I reckon Andy Farrell would have voted for 'just yellow' if only to get decent practice. I thought the ruling was basically to stop anyone feigning injury to get uncontested scrums originally? I suppose I'd think differently if it was not Italy but it was Italy!

Mikey Brown wrote:A truly baffling response. Are there some words missing or something? I’m trying to understand what part of my post you’re actually responding to.

Jaminet's arms are in front of him because he's legitimately attempting to catch the ball. Skinner is slapping at the ball (not sure he even gets a touch on it). Jaminet is the one who's actually trying to take action to protect the safety of the players here and being aware of his surroundings, by pulling his arms away from the contact point. They then both collide in the air, with Jaminet higher than Skinner, and since it bounced off his head, and his arms were out in front to collect the ball, arguably in the better position to actually play the ball.

So I want to know why Jaminet jumping in is worse than Skinner jumping in. Why Jaminet being in a more realistic position to catch the ball than Skinner, makes it Jaminet's fault there's a collision, and why Jaminet's awareness of his surroundings is to blame for the collision, when Skinner shows zero awareness of his surroundings and the safety of other players.

Why are Jaminet's actions any more "guilty" of that collision than Skinners?

Raggs wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:A truly baffling response. Are there some words missing or something? I’m trying to understand what part of my post you’re actually responding to.

Jaminet's arms are in front of him because he's legitimately attempting to catch the ball. Skinner is slapping at the ball (not sure he even gets a touch on it). Jaminet is the one who's actually trying to take action to protect the safety of the players here and being aware of his surroundings, by pulling his arms away from the contact point. They then both collide in the air, with Jaminet higher than Skinner, and since it bounced off his head, and his arms were out in front to collect the ball, arguably in the better position to actually play the ball.

So I want to know why Jaminet jumping in is worse than Skinner jumping in. Why Jaminet being in a more realistic position to catch the ball than Skinner, makes it Jaminet's fault there's a collision, and why Jaminet's awareness of his surroundings is to blame for the collision, when Skinner shows zero awareness of his surroundings and the safety of other players.

Why are Jaminet's actions any more "guilty" of that collision than Skinners?

You can't actually be serious? Jaminet is the one flying in knees first from several metres away? Are you just looking at the slow motion close-up of the last few microseconds before impact when you're saying he was in the more realistic position to take the ball?



Skinner takes a couple of steps and hops a few inches to get to the pass. I think he might even be back on the ground by the time Jaminet crashes in to him. He tries to bat the ball along to the men free outside because he has a guy flying in to him like a ninja.



I guess you could argue Jaminet is "the one who's actually trying to take action to protect the safety of the players" in the same way as if you were to drive your car up on to the pavement and then slam the breaks on just before hitting a pedestrian, even if it turns out to actually be too late and you hit them anyway, but I'm unsure why anyone would take that stance.

I don't even understand why the chance of Jaminet winning the ball would negate the dangerous play. You can win the ball back by doing any number of dangerous/illegal things. Do you honestly feel that allowing players to fly in to tackles like this is remotely sensible? I can't imagine it would take many moments like this before someone was seriously hurt.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:A truly baffling response. Are there some words missing or something? I’m trying to understand what part of my post you’re actually responding to.

Jaminet's arms are in front of him because he's legitimately attempting to catch the ball. Skinner is slapping at the ball (not sure he even gets a touch on it). Jaminet is the one who's actually trying to take action to protect the safety of the players here and being aware of his surroundings, by pulling his arms away from the contact point. They then both collide in the air, with Jaminet higher than Skinner, and since it bounced off his head, and his arms were out in front to collect the ball, arguably in the better position to actually play the ball.

So I want to know why Jaminet jumping in is worse than Skinner jumping in. Why Jaminet being in a more realistic position to catch the ball than Skinner, makes it Jaminet's fault there's a collision, and why Jaminet's awareness of his surroundings is to blame for the collision, when Skinner shows zero awareness of his surroundings and the safety of other players.

Why are Jaminet's actions any more "guilty" of that collision than Skinners?

You can't actually be serious? Jaminet is the one flying in knees first from several metres away? Are you just looking at the slow motion close-up of the last few microseconds before impact when you're saying he was in the more realistic position to take the ball?



Skinner takes a couple of steps and hops a few inches to get to the pass. I think he might even be back on the ground by the time Jaminet crashes in to him. He tries to bat the ball along to the men free outside because he has a guy flying in to him like a ninja.



I guess you could argue Jaminet is "the one who's actually trying to take action to protect the safety of the players" in the same way as if you were to drive your car up on to the pavement and then slam the breaks on just before hitting a pedestrian, even if it turns out to actually be too late and you hit them anyway, but I'm unsure why anyone would take that stance.

I don't even understand why the chance of Jaminet winning the ball would negate the dangerous play. You can win the ball back by doing any number of dangerous/illegal things. Do you honestly feel that allowing players to fly in to tackles like this is remotely sensible? I can't imagine it would take many moments like this before someone was seriously hurt.

Flying into a tackle? He's not making a tackle he's trying to catch the ball, no different to a kick. I'm leaving it there, we're clearly not going to agree.

Whatever you're calling the tackle/contact situation I don't think Jaminet knew exactly what he was going for either, only really jumping at the moment Skinner was landing. I can't see any interpretation where throwing yourself through the air with 100% chance of hitting another player can be deemed anything other than reckless, whether you have a chance of getting the ball or not.

You're probably right we're not going to agree on this. It's certainly been, err... interesting though.

Mikey Brown wrote:Whatever you're calling the tackle/contact situation I don't think Jaminet knew exactly what he was going for either, only really jumping at the moment Skinner was landing. I can't see any interpretation where throwing yourself through the air with 100% chance of hitting another player can be deemed anything other than reckless, whether you have a chance of getting the ball or not.

You're probably right we're not going to agree on this. It's certainly been, err... interesting though.

Finally got round to watching Scotland v France…. Jaminet gets there late and takes out Skinner in the air. Looks like there is no intent and Skinner lands safely so, IMO, the officials got it right. Ultimately, Jaminet is the tackler so the duty of care lays with him. If you’d want to be a complete pedant, you’d say Jaminet is making a late tackle and tackling a player in the air and with no attempt to wrap the arms.
I’ll probably regret bumping this. Apols in advance.

Seeing some people on twitter loudly doing the whole "the game's gone" thing over DVDM getting red carded. Looks like a good dimecision to me, as he pretty proactively forearm smashes an incoming tackler in the face. Yes, that tackler could and should be lower, but still...

For those who haven't seen it.



He tries to fend off in the tackle, but is too late and too high, so it starts as a strike to the head with the hand (ETA: From the 90* angle, it looks like he misses with the hand, so it starts off with a forearm to the face), and ends up with a strike to the head with the elbow.

Least controversial red card of the weekend (well, maybe Naulago)

I have some sympathy with it as the tackler goes in so high and I’d put it more in the accidental/unfortunate category, but he still strikes him in the face. I feel like a red and no ban in that situation is about right but I’ve never seemed to be in line with how they hand out bans.

It’s just a bit hard to level this with seeing Ford not put his arm up and getting KOd by a head high tackler, who I don’t think saw any punishment at all?

I wish this had been enforced when Teo was playing.

Mikey Brown wrote:I have some sympathy with it as the tackler goes in so high and I’d put it more in the accidental/unfortunate category, but he still strikes him in the face. I feel like a red and no ban in that situation is about right but I’ve never seemed to be in line with how they hand out bans.

It’s just a bit hard to level this with seeing Ford not put his arm up and getting KOd by a head high tackler, who I don’t think saw any punishment at all?

I wish this had been enforced when Teo was playing.

Yeah, I'd agree with that - except that I wouldn't consider the tackler's height to be mitigation (if anything, it's an aggravation, as Duane has to work harder to get his arm that high).
Had it been a head-on tackle, with a reasonably high risk of head on head, then yeah, it could act as mitigation (alternatively even less excuse to fend high) - but it's side-on so starting "high" (both arms are below Duane's shoulders) and sliding down, so very low risk of head on head.

I don't think there was anything malicious in it, but being clumsy has never been a good defence.
I'd agree that the card should be enough, without needing any further sanction, though I'm not sure that's an option for "strike to the head".

I haven't seen the Ford one yet - for the sake of my blood pressure, I'm not sure I want to either.

I'd say it looks equally accidental, but is also a player just running in fully upright and not seeming to be aware of where his own head is.

The ford one should definitely have been a red. Frustrating as it's not different to what Umaga got a ban for.

The ref gave him mitigation for having been stepped, which I didn't think was a thing.

The commentary was infuriating, all talking about, "If he's rushing up to cut down the space, how can he get low?" Wrong way around - if he can't get low, then he shouldn't be rushing up that fast.

Puja

And those arguments never survive the question of technique. Lawes is 6'7" and I don't think I've ever seen him tackle anyone high.

Puja wrote:The ref gave him mitigation for having been stepped, which I didn't think was a thing.

The commentary was infuriating, all talking about, "If he's rushing up to cut down the space, how can he get low?" Wrong way around - if he can't get low, then he shouldn't be rushing up that fast.

Puja

Yep, and again, Umaga (rightly) didn't get any mitigation for that. Being stepped should not be a surprise. You were at the wrong height to start with, sort your height out and the step won't matter.

I blame Smith

Looking at the trajectory of Rowe’s arrival I’m not sure how he thought that was gonna play out other than head to head contact with VDM. He’s prob glad he got a forearm to the face once he looked back at it.

p/d wrote:I blame Smith

Paul?

I haven't seen any real dispute over the Ewels red card, but just wanted to mention how commentators can make decisions seem so much more contentious by their ignorance.

The channel I was watching had Dewi Morris for this game. On first reply of the Ewels tackle he isn't even considering whether it was could play and just bangs on about it being unintentional. Then he sighs when they go for a review. Then on the third slo mo when the main commentator points out that it is head to head, he says it will probably be a yellow then. He shouts "oh, no!" when the red is given them accepts that the ref had no choice "by the letter of the law". He then spends the next minute or so saying how there was almost nothing Ewels could do as it was a matter of split seconds.

I just think this all feeds into some people's outrage at everything and also creates a perception that rugby is terribly reffed.

This 6N I've also heard commentators speculate for some time over whether a kick was touched when it was clearly a 50 22, be baffled at why there wasn't a maul turnover when the ref has explained that it was from a kick, and wax lyrical about tackles that were clearly going to be penalised once reviewed.

Dewi Morris....say no more.

It is surprising how little some former players/pundits know about the laws of the game. A lot are just plain lazy, not bothering to keep up to date with the laws/protocols.

fivepointer wrote:Dewi Morris....say no more.

It is surprising how little some former players/pundits know about the laws of the game. A lot are just plain lazy, not bothering to keep up to date with the laws/protocols.

It is not just the laws of the game. Morris continually gets things wrong about players' backgrounds, mispronounces names, misses a lot on the pitch etc. It is obvious he does no homework, is thick as two short planks and never has anything to say but the most obvious hackneyed platitudes. How does a man like this hold down such a commentator's job when he is so blatantly useless at it?

Anyone looking for a "pardon?" moment should check out the people on twitter who reckon Caleb Clark shouldn't have been sent off for his... Not sure what to call it really other than maybe Harald Schumacher tribute in the super rugby.

Clark lands on his shoulders/head…. stonewall red for 14 white.

32nd Man wrote:Anyone looking for a "pardon?" moment should check out the people on twitter who reckon Caleb Clark shouldn't have been sent off for his... Not sure what to call it really other than maybe Harald Schumacher tribute in the super rugby.

CANTONAAAA