RugbyRebels

"The player argued that the referee had been wrong to issue a red card, and that there was no foul play. Whilst the full judgment has not been published, it is clear that Barrett would have argued that his contact with Koroibete was accidental – not reckless – and thus there was no breach of Law 9.11"

So, anything deemed to be accidental should not be penalised? But havent a whole heap of players got reds and bans after accepting they made an error in a challenge but absent any intent.
Surely something can be both accidental and reckless at the same time?

Seemingly it can be accidental and reckless without need for sanction providing it doesn't happen too often. At least that's the claim

Essentially the author of the piece is arguing for more case by case variation, more flexibility, or put another way less consistency

fivepointer wrote: Surely something can be both accidental and reckless at the same time?

Exactly.
The antonym of "accidental" is "deliberate" not "reckless"
The antonym of "reckless" would be "cautious" or "prudent"

Reckless and accidental are, if anything and given context - pretty much synonyms!


Being a bit clumsy has never been an excuse before, and I'd put money on it never being an excuse again

Yeah, I’d think the only non-reckless way to kick someone directly in the face is if it’s malicious, in which case ban him for a year.

Which Tyler wrote:

fivepointer wrote: Surely something can be both accidental and reckless at the same time?

Exactly.
The antonym of "accidental" is "deliberate" not "reckless"
The antonym of "reckless" would be "cautious" or "prudent"

Reckless and accidental are, if anything and given context - pretty much synonyms!


Being a bit clumsy has never been an excuse before, and I'd put money on it never being an excuse again

We've already established the precedent here from catchers tipping players by being in their landing zone/running underneath them while blinded by blockers.

Did they mean to drop someone on their head? Was it just an accident where, by the time they realised the person was going to be where their body was, there was no way for them to change course without breaking the laws of physics? Was the only thing that they could have done differently was not to compete for the ball? Was it a case of dumb luck that meant the contact was with the head rather than any other body part and almost partly the fault of the contacted player?

Did they get a red card anyway because someone got dropped on their head and we don't want that to happen? Abso-fucking-lutely. "They have a duty of care to the other players" was the line, I believe. As well as "it's not about deliberate action, it's about the end result of where the contact was made."

Puja

It was a fair card I thought....as long as they consistently police the flailing leg thing from now on. Risk for ugly injury is huge so stamp it out (Ha Ha).

Jordie Barret looks like he was built from spare parts taken from the recently deceased so maybe the motor system had a short.

When you say consistently police do you mean always penalise even if it doesn't connect, or always issue a red card for studs to the face? And has there been a spate of studs to the face that didn't see red cards?

Further to this - anyone seen the Jasper Wiese Yellow and subsequent citing from the weekend? head charge into a ruck, no arms whatsoever involved in the clearout, hands went straight for the ball. Head collision straight into the neck/head of Kerevi. Subsequent statements from the citing officers have let him off without sanction. I'm convinced in the NH that would have been a straight red. I cannot really see any mitigation for it if we are supposedly protecting players from head injury.

Gloskarlos wrote:Further to this - anyone seen the Jasper Wiese Yellow and subsequent citing from the weekend? head charge into a ruck, no arms whatsoever involved in the clearout, hands went straight for the ball. Head collision straight into the neck/head of Kerevi. Subsequent statements from the citing officers have let him off without sanction. I'm convinced in the NH that would have been a straight red. I cannot really see any mitigation for it if we are supposedly protecting players from head injury.

Used mod powers to fix your link for you as it wasn't working originally.

That is a straight red and a 3 week ban (assuming pleading guilty) in the NH.



That seems utter nonsense to me - it doesn't matter what he was trying to do, it matters that he clocked him directly in the head. The directives and framework specifically exempt intent, it's about result. Feels like they're operating a different version of the laws in the SH on head contact right now and the IRB need to get a handle on this pronto.

Puja

Agree completely. Thanks for rectifying the link.

Lol. That must set a record for number of infringements in a split second of play. Off feet, playing the ball on the ground, pointed shoulder/no bind, contact with the head, knocks it on.

A round of applause for coming through the gate though.

The really weird thing is that Matt Carley was the ref, who should go to the red straight away, right?

Puja wrote:
That seems utter nonsense to me - it doesn't matter what he was trying to do, it matters that he clocked him directly in the head. The directives and framework specifically exempt intent, it's about result. Feels like they're operating a different version of the laws in the SH on head contact right now and the IRB need to get a handle on this pronto.

Puja

Which framework is being used now. The last HCP update I saw didn't mention intent, so that's sort of exempt by dint of being absent, but it did allow for mitigation unless the action was intentional or reckless, basically you could get a yellow card down to penalty, or a red card down to a yellow as part of the on field decision making by the match officials. Have they already updated that?

Peej wrote:The really weird thing is that Matt Carley was the ref, who should go to the red straight away, right?

Did anyone spot it at the time or was it just brought up on citing?

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
That seems utter nonsense to me - it doesn't matter what he was trying to do, it matters that he clocked him directly in the head. The directives and framework specifically exempt intent, it's about result. Feels like they're operating a different version of the laws in the SH on head contact right now and the IRB need to get a handle on this pronto.

Puja

Which framework is being used now. The last HCP update I saw didn't mention intent, so that's sort of exempt by dint of being absent, but it did allow for mitigation unless the action was intentional or reckless, basically you could get a yellow card down to penalty, or a red card down to a yellow as part of the on field decision making by the match officials. Have they already updated that?

I was under the impression that any head contact, unless part of a bent-at-the-waist tackle where they just got unlucky, was counted as reckless?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Peej wrote:The really weird thing is that Matt Carley was the ref, who should go to the red straight away, right?

Did anyone spot it at the time or was it just brought up on citing?

Puja

Carley gave him a yellow at the time

Peej wrote:

Puja wrote:

Peej wrote:The really weird thing is that Matt Carley was the ref, who should go to the red straight away, right?

Did anyone spot it at the time or was it just brought up on citing?

Puja

Carley gave him a yellow at the time

That is weird then. No idea.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Peej wrote:The really weird thing is that Matt Carley was the ref, who should go to the red straight away, right?

Did anyone spot it at the time or was it just brought up on citing?

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
That seems utter nonsense to me - it doesn't matter what he was trying to do, it matters that he clocked him directly in the head. The directives and framework specifically exempt intent, it's about result. Feels like they're operating a different version of the laws in the SH on head contact right now and the IRB need to get a handle on this pronto.

Puja

Which framework is being used now. The last HCP update I saw didn't mention intent, so that's sort of exempt by dint of being absent, but it did allow for mitigation unless the action was intentional or reckless, basically you could get a yellow card down to penalty, or a red card down to a yellow as part of the on field decision making by the match officials. Have they already updated that?

I was under the impression that any head contact, unless part of a bent-at-the-waist tackle where they just got unlucky, was counted as reckless?

Puja

I've never reviewed the examples they'd issue with something like the HCP, maybe it's only being bent at the waist that gets you off the hook. But they will have the question is it foul play, and my guess is they wouldn't be anything like that doctrinal that only being bent at the waist isn't foul play