Wasps vs Toulouse

[Beasties]

Unfortunately missed it, but definitely going to be one that I watch!

What a game to miss. I can’t really comprehend what I’ve just watched tbh. Gonna take a while to process it. Toulouse appeared to be easily capable of running away with the game but didn’t appear to know where the switch was. Wasps are generating some fighting spirit these days. Tremendous will to not be beaten after Umaga went off. The likes of Alo and Martinez put in a hell of a shift, along with the more obvious guys. Willis was the standout until he went off, what a player he’s matured into.

[Raggs]

Just watching now. 20 minutes in, I know the ref replies, but that's clearly kicked out by a player on the floor. He's out of the game and that's surely a penalty try and a yellow card? He doesn't fall to the ground in the kick attempt, he falls to the ground attempting to get on the ball, then whilst on the ground, lashes out with a foot. Remove the player due to the offence, and that's a probable try.

[Raggs]

Just got to the red. Don't think that's going to get overturned, I think the ref could have argued it to a yellow if he wanted to, but it's enough to be a red without much argument. That's 5-6 weeks for Umaga.

[Peej]

Just watching now. 20 minutes in, I k6now the ref replies, but that's clearly kicked out by a player on the floor. He's out of the game and that's surely a penalty try and a yellow card? He doesn't fall to the ground in the kick attempt, he falls to the ground attempting to get on the ball, then whilst on the ground, lashes out with a foot. Remove the player due to the offence, and that's a probable try.

It's not an offence to kick the ball on the floor in open play

[Danno]

On the floor = out of the game

[Puja]

Yeah, Barbeary was falling. But the ref didn't seem to be trying to find mitigation for Umaga.

I think both calls were right tbh. There was no drop in height from the Toulouse player before Umaga hit him, in fact he rose slightly immediately before contact. Whereas with Barbeary there was a fair drop.

Classy interaction with the ref from Shields after the yellow.

Agreed that there was no drop in height, but I think an argument could have been made for Umaga that it was a low force contact - the head on head was the top of his head against the Toulousian's chin so it wasn't like it was a solid nut - but I can also see how the ref ended up with a red.

Thought the ref was pretty good in general, especially his minerals in his first game. It would've been so easy to send off the French 8 to "even things up" after a very strict red on Umaga and a lot of lesser refs would've bowed to the pressure there instead of following the process evenly.


I would not be averse to Shields being back in the England squad this 6N. He's in terrific form and he could teach a thing or two about leadership to some of our players.

Just watching now. 20 minutes in, I k6now the ref replies, but that's clearly kicked out by a player on the floor. He's out of the game and that's surely a penalty try and a yellow card? He doesn't fall to the ground in the kick attempt, he falls to the ground attempting to get on the ball, then whilst on the ground, lashes out with a foot. Remove the player due to the offence, and that's a probable try.

It's not an offence to kick the ball on the floor in open play

If you're on the floor, you're not allowed to play the ball in any way. Good catch Raggs - I'd not realised that on first viewing.

Puja

[Peej]

Hang on, so if you slip over you can't even touch the ball? There's loads of times a player slips over in the backfield but then reaches for the ball

[Puja]

Hang on, so if you slip over you can't even touch the ball? There's loads of times a player slips over in the backfield but then reaches for the ball

That's the way the laws have always been written. If you're on the floor, you're out of the game.

Puja

[FKAS]

Hang on, so if you slip over you can't even touch the ball? There's loads of times a player slips over in the backfield but then reaches for the ball

That's the way the laws have always been written. If you're on the floor, you're out of the game.

Puja

If you're in the floor and you intentionally stop another player playing the ball I think there's a chance you get pinged. It's one of those rugby areas which is open to the officials interpretation on the day.

[Banquo]

Just got to the red. Don't think that's going to get overturned, I think the ref could have argued it to a yellow if he wanted to, but it's enough to be a red without much argument. That's 5-6 weeks for Umaga.

that is utterly disproportinate imo

[Puja]

Just got to the red. Don't think that's going to get overturned, I think the ref could have argued it to a yellow if he wanted to, but it's enough to be a red without much argument. That's 5-6 weeks for Umaga.

that is utterly disproportinate imo

I think he's right on the ban - Umaga's literally just come back from a ban for a straight red high tackle, so he'll get no mitigation and no week off for doing the training course, cause the last one clearly didn't achieve much.

Puja

[Banquo]

Just got to the red. Don't think that's going to get overturned, I think the ref could have argued it to a yellow if he wanted to, but it's enough to be a red without much argument. That's 5-6 weeks for Umaga.

that is utterly disproportinate imo

I think he's right on the ban - Umaga's literally just come back from a ban for a straight red high tackle, so he'll get no mitigation and no week off for doing the training course, cause the last one clearly didn't achieve much.

Puja

Wasnt disputing the outcome- punishment doesnt fit the crime/error

[Puja]

that is utterly disproportinate imo

I think he's right on the ban - Umaga's literally just come back from a ban for a straight red high tackle, so he'll get no mitigation and no week off for doing the training course, cause the last one clearly didn't achieve much.

Puja

Wasnt disputing the outcome- punishment doesnt fit the crime/error

I don't know - if he's failed to learn from his first ban (and training course) and adapt his tackle technique to bend at the hips, maybe he does need a bigger ban. It might not have been as dangerous or looked as bad as the Toulouse one, but it's a consistent failure of technique that needs to be fixed before it really damages someone.

Puja

[Banquo]

I think he's right on the ban - Umaga's literally just come back from a ban for a straight red high tackle, so he'll get no mitigation and no week off for doing the training course, cause the last one clearly didn't achieve much.

Puja

Wasnt disputing the outcome- punishment doesnt fit the crime/error

I don't know - if he's failed to learn from his first ban (and training course) and adapt his tackle technique to bend at the hips, maybe he does need a bigger ban. It might not have been as dangerous or looked as bad as the Toulouse one, but it's a consistent failure of technique that needs to be fixed before it really damages someone.

Puja

I'm sticking with disproportionate.....and if we are talking damage, in a classic whataboutery, what about the horizontal no arms clearouts that go unpunished game after game. Rugby accidents and coached GBH need some differentiation- and for all I agree on the technique front, these are split second incidents in the main with head clashes (which is why the slo mo doesn't really reflect what's happening imo). There is something that all players in defence should be running around bent at the waist to avoid this kind of thing, but......

[Raggs]

Wasnt disputing the outcome- punishment doesnt fit the crime/error

I don't know - if he's failed to learn from his first ban (and training course) and adapt his tackle technique to bend at the hips, maybe he does need a bigger ban. It might not have been as dangerous or looked as bad as the Toulouse one, but it's a consistent failure of technique that needs to be fixed before it really damages someone.

Puja

I'm sticking with disproportionate.....and if we are talking damage, in a classic whataboutery, what about the horizontal no arms clearouts that go unpunished game after game. Rugby accidents and coached GBH need some differentiation- and for all I agree on the technique front, these are split second incidents in the main with head clashes (which is why the slo mo doesn't really reflect what's happening imo). There is something that all players in defence should be running around bent at the waist to avoid this kind of thing, but......

It was an unsafe tackle technique. Not bent at the waist, raising up, head in front of the tackle, rather than behind/side. It went wrong, I'm sure it wasn't intended, but that's not important, he put himself in that position for it to go wrong and it did. Given he's only just come off a suspension for a similar thing, I don't see how he can reasonably be given more and a weeks mitigation.

[Banquo]

I don't know - if he's failed to learn from his first ban (and training course) and adapt his tackle technique to bend at the hips, maybe he does need a bigger ban. It might not have been as dangerous or looked as bad as the Toulouse one, but it's a consistent failure of technique that needs to be fixed before it really damages someone.

Puja

I'm sticking with disproportionate.....and if we are talking damage, in a classic whataboutery, what about the horizontal no arms clearouts that go unpunished game after game. Rugby accidents and coached GBH need some differentiation- and for all I agree on the technique front, these are split second incidents in the main with head clashes (which is why the slo mo doesn't really reflect what's happening imo). There is something that all players in defence should be running around bent at the waist to avoid this kind of thing, but......

It was an unsafe tackle technique. Not bent at the waist, raising up, head in front of the tackle, rather than behind/side. It went wrong, I'm sure it wasn't intended, but that's not important, he put himself in that position for it to go wrong and it did. Given he's only just come off a suspension for a similar thing, I don't see how he can reasonably be given more and a weeks mitigation.

I understand the technical aspects- having actually been a back in that position at a decent level, but it’s a mistake in a fraction of a second. So imo…mistake and thus undeserving of big sanction.

Btw I’m not disputing he was in error, just the scale on which it’s judged, v other rugby stuff

[Puja]

I'm sticking with disproportionate.....and if we are talking damage, in a classic whataboutery, what about the horizontal no arms clearouts that go unpunished game after game. Rugby accidents and coached GBH need some differentiation- and for all I agree on the technique front, these are split second incidents in the main with head clashes (which is why the slo mo doesn't really reflect what's happening imo). There is something that all players in defence should be running around bent at the waist to avoid this kind of thing, but......

It was an unsafe tackle technique. Not bent at the waist, raising up, head in front of the tackle, rather than behind/side. It went wrong, I'm sure it wasn't intended, but that's not important, he put himself in that position for it to go wrong and it did. Given he's only just come off a suspension for a similar thing, I don't see how he can reasonably be given more and a weeks mitigation.

I understand the technical aspects- having actually been a back in that position at a decent level, but it’s a mistake in a fraction of a second. So imo…mistake and thus undeserving of big sanction.

Btw I’m not disputing he was in error, just the scale on which it’s judged, v other rugby stuff

It's not just a mistake though - it's the product of poor technique which he has yet to fix. The poor technique wasn't the work of a fraction of a second or a change of direction - it was the fact that his instinct when going into contact wasn't to bend at the hips.

It is unfair compared to a lot of the other things that go on in a rugby game, but it's the thing we're currently focussing on eliminating from the game. You rarely see tip tackles or players getting completely cleared out in the air anymore and hopefully i a year or two we can say the same for upright tackles.

Puja

[Banquo]

It was an unsafe tackle technique. Not bent at the waist, raising up, head in front of the tackle, rather than behind/side. It went wrong, I'm sure it wasn't intended, but that's not important, he put himself in that position for it to go wrong and it did. Given he's only just come off a suspension for a similar thing, I don't see how he can reasonably be given more and a weeks mitigation.

I understand the technical aspects- having actually been a back in that position at a decent level, but it’s a mistake in a fraction of a second. So imo…mistake and thus undeserving of big sanction.

Btw I’m not disputing he was in error, just the scale on which it’s judged, v other rugby stuff

It's not just a mistake though - it's the product of poor technique which he has yet to fix. The poor technique wasn't the work of a fraction of a second or a change of direction - it was the fact that his instinct when going into contact wasn't to bend at the hips.

It is unfair compared to a lot of the other things that go on in a rugby game, but it's the thing we're currently focussing on eliminating from the game. You rarely see tip tackles or players getting completely cleared out in the air anymore and hopefully i a year or two we can say the same for upright tackles.

Puja

A- most players will get technique wrong when a split second change happens from time to time; I was a pretty decent tackler technically, but concussed twice when getting my head in the wrong place when ‘stuff happened’.
B- he’s playing out of position and so unfamiliar with that kind of situation. Reason, not excuse
C- he’s not acting in any sort of malicious or premeditated way
D- part of me is railing against the wrong crackdown emphasis. Rucks and scrums are more dangerous than accidental head clashes.

Bit bemused- most seem to say marginal or technical correct red. Yet it’s a 5/6 week ban when far worse stuff is ignored- which is my point, notwithstanding the ‘focus on elimination’ you mention.
We won’t agree I think.

[Puja]

I understand the technical aspects- having actually been a back in that position at a decent level, but it’s a mistake in a fraction of a second. So imo…mistake and thus undeserving of big sanction.

Btw I’m not disputing he was in error, just the scale on which it’s judged, v other rugby stuff

It's not just a mistake though - it's the product of poor technique which he has yet to fix. The poor technique wasn't the work of a fraction of a second or a change of direction - it was the fact that his instinct when going into contact wasn't to bend at the hips.

It is unfair compared to a lot of the other things that go on in a rugby game, but it's the thing we're currently focussing on eliminating from the game. You rarely see tip tackles or players getting completely cleared out in the air anymore and hopefully i a year or two we can say the same for upright tackles.

Puja

A- most players will get technique wrong when a split second change happens from time to time; I was a pretty decent tackler technically, but concussed twice when getting my head in the wrong place when ‘stuff happened’.
B- he’s playing out of position and so unfamiliar with that kind of situation. Reason, not excuse
C- he’s not acting in any sort of malicious or premeditated way
D- part of me is railing against the wrong crackdown emphasis. Rucks and scrums are more dangerous than accidental head clashes.

Bit bemused- most seem to say marginal or technical correct red. Yet it’s a 5/6 week ban when far worse stuff is ignored- which is my point, notwithstanding the ‘focus on elimination’ you mention.
We won’t agree I think.

I agree that we shan't agree in general, but just wanted to ask why you think scrums are more dangerous than accidental head clashes?

Puja

[Banquo]

It's not just a mistake though - it's the product of poor technique which he has yet to fix. The poor technique wasn't the work of a fraction of a second or a change of direction - it was the fact that his instinct when going into contact wasn't to bend at the hips.

It is unfair compared to a lot of the other things that go on in a rugby game, but it's the thing we're currently focussing on eliminating from the game. You rarely see tip tackles or players getting completely cleared out in the air anymore and hopefully i a year or two we can say the same for upright tackles.

Puja

A- most players will get technique wrong when a split second change happens from time to time; I was a pretty decent tackler technically, but concussed twice when getting my head in the wrong place when ‘stuff happened’.
B- he’s playing out of position and so unfamiliar with that kind of situation. Reason, not excuse
C- he’s not acting in any sort of malicious or premeditated way
D- part of me is railing against the wrong crackdown emphasis. Rucks and scrums are more dangerous than accidental head clashes.

Bit bemused- most seem to say marginal or technical correct red. Yet it’s a 5/6 week ban when far worse stuff is ignored- which is my point, notwithstanding the ‘focus on elimination’ you mention.
We won’t agree I think.

I agree that we shan't agree in general, but just wanted to ask why you think scrums are more dangerous than accidental head clashes?

Puja

I could cite any number of front row neck injuries. The size and power going through them and potential energy pent up combined with time setting up is just a bad njury waiting to happen. many many scrums collapse horribly, and frankly its often as a result of iffy actions. Would have thought obvious tbh.

[Puja]

A- most players will get technique wrong when a split second change happens from time to time; I was a pretty decent tackler technically, but concussed twice when getting my head in the wrong place when ‘stuff happened’.
B- he’s playing out of position and so unfamiliar with that kind of situation. Reason, not excuse
C- he’s not acting in any sort of malicious or premeditated way
D- part of me is railing against the wrong crackdown emphasis. Rucks and scrums are more dangerous than accidental head clashes.

Bit bemused- most seem to say marginal or technical correct red. Yet it’s a 5/6 week ban when far worse stuff is ignored- which is my point, notwithstanding the ‘focus on elimination’ you mention.
We won’t agree I think.

I agree that we shan't agree in general, but just wanted to ask why you think scrums are more dangerous than accidental head clashes?

Puja

I could cite any number of front row neck injuries. The size and power going through them and potential energy pent up combined with time setting up is just a bad njury waiting to happen. many many scrums collapse horribly, and frankly its often as a result of iffy actions. Would have thought obvious tbh.

I reserve the right to be wrong, cause my memory is shocking, but are there many injuries from collapsed scrums nowadays? I can't remember the last time a player went off the pitch as the result of a collapsed scrum, whereas I can think of a lot (including career enders) where they've gone off because of a tackle.

Puja

[Banquo]

I agree that we shan't agree in general, but just wanted to ask why you think scrums are more dangerous than accidental head clashes?

Puja

I could cite any number of front row neck injuries. The size and power going through them and potential energy pent up combined with time setting up is just a bad njury waiting to happen. many many scrums collapse horribly, and frankly its often as a result of iffy actions. Would have thought obvious tbh.

I reserve the right to be wrong, cause my memory is shocking, but are there many injuries from collapsed scrums nowadays? I can't remember the last time a player went off the pitch as the result of a collapsed scrum, whereas I can think of a lot (including career enders) where they've gone off because of a tackle.

Puja

Well- a - we were talking accidental head clashes, not the whole gamut of tackling, b- there will be many injuries still from scrums collapsing (and definitely long term neck issues- many props and hookers have neck operations during and after their careers)..indeed, its amazing there aren't more. I'm not advocating much different in how the scrum is dealt with, though I think the whole 'set-up' piece is what causes current issues (no better answer). I'm quite surprised that as a hooker you'd think a scrum collapsing is less dangerous than a casual hit on the noggin, but maybe that's because you've been noggined a lot (that sounds offensive, but not intended that way). Maybe the scrum is safer since Matt Hampson in terms of risk management, but then players are a lot stronger for longer (which helps mitigate injury in its own way, but also adds back some potential for worse injury). This is a bit old, so feel free to say its all changed! https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... da7bd70b53

[Puja]

I could cite any number of front row neck injuries. The size and power going through them and potential energy pent up combined with time setting up is just a bad njury waiting to happen. many many scrums collapse horribly, and frankly its often as a result of iffy actions. Would have thought obvious tbh.

I reserve the right to be wrong, cause my memory is shocking, but are there many injuries from collapsed scrums nowadays? I can't remember the last time a player went off the pitch as the result of a collapsed scrum, whereas I can think of a lot (including career enders) where they've gone off because of a tackle.

Puja

Well- a - we were talking accidental head clashes, not the whole gamut of tackling, b- there will be many injuries still from scrums collapsing (and definitely long term neck issues- many props and hookers have neck operations during and after their careers)..indeed, its amazing there aren't more. I'm not advocating much different in how the scrum is dealt with, though I think the whole 'set-up' piece is what causes current issues (no better answer). I'm quite surprised that as a hooker you'd think a scrum collapsing is less dangerous than a casual hit on the noggin, but maybe that's because you've been noggined a lot (that sounds offensive, but not intended that way). Maybe the scrum is safer since Matt Hampson in terms of risk management, but then players are a lot stronger for longer (which helps mitigate injury in its own way, but also adds back some potential for worse injury). This is a bit old, so feel free to say its all changed! https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... da7bd70b53

I'll open by saying that I am not in an entrenched position here. A lot of my arguments and feelings from this spring from personal experience and the plural of anecdote is not data.

However, I do think the scrum is a much safer beast than it used to be, both from knowledge in coaching and physio and the improvements in the laws, substitutions, and refereeing. It's notable that the two legal cases raised in that link are from 1996 (which was the big one that prompted the massive changes in the way the scrum was refereed and changed the law so that non-specialist players could no longer "just give it a go and see") and from 2003 (where it appears the ref allowed a non-specialist player to play front row in specific breach of the changes from 1996). Removing the hit and changing the engagement sequence has been massive as well - making players bind means that they've got centimetres to crash into each other, not a literal metre.

It may be that there is a plethora of quiet neck injuries and problems for future being stored up, but it doesn't *feel* that way - I don't remember a player retiring recently because of a hurt neck in a scrum collapse and there are props playing on to much older ages - look at Afoa and Cole still going strong and much less injury-prone than they used to be back in the 2000s.

From a personal perspective as a very low-level current player, I don't feel a collapsed scrum is that dangerous to me. Perhaps my props will reflect differently, but there's very little possibility of getting twisted up with the way the laws are at present and there's much less of the culture of trying to hurt people in the scrum that there was when I first started playing adult rugby (2002ish maybe?) - people will stop driving if the scrum collapses and there's more of a feeling of duty to your fellow players. However, I have absolutely no idea whether that translates even slightly to a higher level or not - I play Dorset and Wilts 2 Central level, so I'm hardly representative of the whole game.

Like I said, I've got no idea if I'm right or not, but I was just very surprised to see you rate scrummaging as a clear and present danger, when it doesn't feel that way to me at all. Mind, I'm rarely high tackled either - not quick enough or agile enough to surprise anybody!

Puja

[Banquo]

I reserve the right to be wrong, cause my memory is shocking, but are there many injuries from collapsed scrums nowadays? I can't remember the last time a player went off the pitch as the result of a collapsed scrum, whereas I can think of a lot (including career enders) where they've gone off because of a tackle.

Puja

Well- a - we were talking accidental head clashes, not the whole gamut of tackling, b- there will be many injuries still from scrums collapsing (and definitely long term neck issues- many props and hookers have neck operations during and after their careers)..indeed, its amazing there aren't more. I'm not advocating much different in how the scrum is dealt with, though I think the whole 'set-up' piece is what causes current issues (no better answer). I'm quite surprised that as a hooker you'd think a scrum collapsing is less dangerous than a casual hit on the noggin, but maybe that's because you've been noggined a lot (that sounds offensive, but not intended that way). Maybe the scrum is safer since Matt Hampson in terms of risk management, but then players are a lot stronger for longer (which helps mitigate injury in its own way, but also adds back some potential for worse injury). This is a bit old, so feel free to say its all changed! https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... da7bd70b53

I'll open by saying that I am not in an entrenched position here. A lot of my arguments and feelings from this spring from personal experience and the plural of anecdote is not data.

However, I do think the scrum is a much safer beast than it used to be, both from knowledge in coaching and physio and the improvements in the laws, substitutions, and refereeing. It's notable that the two legal cases raised in that link are from 1996 (which was the big one that prompted the massive changes in the way the scrum was refereed and changed the law so that non-specialist players could no longer "just give it a go and see") and from 2003 (where it appears the ref allowed a non-specialist player to play front row in specific breach of the changes from 1996). Removing the hit and changing the engagement sequence has been massive as well - making players bind means that they've got centimetres to crash into each other, not a literal metre.

It may be that there is a plethora of quiet neck injuries and problems for future being stored up, but it doesn't *feel* that way - I don't remember a player retiring recently because of a hurt neck in a scrum collapse and there are props playing on to much older ages - look at Afoa and Cole still going strong and much less injury-prone than they used to be back in the 2000s.

From a personal perspective as a very low-level current player, I don't feel a collapsed scrum is that dangerous to me. Perhaps my props will reflect differently, but there's very little possibility of getting twisted up with the way the laws are at present and there's much less of the culture of trying to hurt people in the scrum that there was when I first started playing adult rugby (2002ish maybe?) - people will stop driving if the scrum collapses and there's more of a feeling of duty to your fellow players. However, I have absolutely no idea whether that translates even slightly to a higher level or not - I play Dorset and Wilts 2 Central level, so I'm hardly representative of the whole game.

Like I said, I've got no idea if I'm right or not, but I was just very surprised to see you rate scrummaging as a clear and present danger, when it doesn't feel that way to me at all. Mind, I'm rarely high tackled either - not quick enough or agile enough to surprise anybody!

Puja

In context, I commented that scrummaging and rucking imo present more hazard (as opposed to 'clear and present danger - playing rugby you accept the risks) than accidental head clashes as examples of why I feel the punishment for accidental head clashes seems disproportionate, and indeed you said it wasn't fair but a consequence of focussing on reducing head injuries (and I'd think more head injuries are caused by heads hitting hips and lower body but hey). I just think the quiet injury and immediate injury risk for the front row (say) is higher in the scrum than accidental head knocks- but not data driven, more instinctive.

[Spiffy]

brilliant Wasps, Barbeary excellent staying power. Harsh red.

Jones should just go ahead and install Alfie as the England No.8 right now. He's obviously got the right stuff, a mixture of power, skills and smarts, and is a big game player.