Bath Vs Wasps, Monday, 3.00

[Raggs]

Wasn't it the agreed standard in reaction to teams cheating though?

And that's where we came in - define for me the precise way to tell 100% of the time whether someone's cheating by faking an injury or actually injured and we'll allow teams who are cheating to be treated differently from those that aren't. Wasps almost certainly weren't cheating on the weekend. However, you cannot have a rule that doesn't apply some of the time depending on something impossible to tell.

Puja

Agreed. But you can have a desire of what you'd like to see. I'd have been frustrated to see Wasps being forced to drop to 14, by a law brought in to stop cheating, when we can be virtually certain they weren't cheating. Are all cases that cut and dry? Of course not. But to be frustrated that they stayed at 15, instead of dropping to 14, just seems odd, when dropping to 14 is purely in place to punish cheating.

[Mellsblue]

Ahh, this is almost peak RR. Like a warm hug on this rainy day.
If Diggers had responded to the Mx Digby as I would have expected him to the RR summit would’ve been reached.

[Puja]

In retrospect, I am actually genuinely surprised that Uncle Eddie didn't send on a message for Cole to go down with a headache and dizziness. I'd imagine we'd've been a lot more effective with uncontested scrums and a front row of Mako, George, LCD to be able to run around the pitch without heavy legs.

Maybe Eddie's a lot more honest than we took him for. Maybe he did and Cole never got close enough to active play to pretend he'd been hit in the head?

Puja

[Raggs]

In retrospect, I am actually genuinely surprised that Uncle Eddie didn't send on a message for Cole to go down with a headache and dizziness. I'd imagine we'd've been a lot more effective with uncontested scrums and a front row of Mako, George, LCD to be able to run around the pitch without heavy legs.

Maybe Eddie's a lot more honest than we took him for. Maybe he did and Cole never got close enough to active play to pretend he'd been hit in the head?

Puja

Given Sinkler was off for an HIA, I don't think Cole would even have need to have headaches himself. You're right though, could have helped us a lot if he had. Glad he didn't though.

[Puja]

In retrospect, I am actually genuinely surprised that Uncle Eddie didn't send on a message for Cole to go down with a headache and dizziness. I'd imagine we'd've been a lot more effective with uncontested scrums and a front row of Mako, George, LCD to be able to run around the pitch without heavy legs.

Maybe Eddie's a lot more honest than we took him for. Maybe he did and Cole never got close enough to active play to pretend he'd been hit in the head?

Puja

Given Sinkler was off for an HIA, I don't think Cole would even have need to have headaches himself. You're right though, could have helped us a lot if he had. Glad he didn't though.

I believe if he went off with anything but an HIA, it would've required us going down to 14 - it's the injury that would send it to uncontested that matters, not the first one.

Mind, I'm actually confused about the laws around this. I was under the impression that you were allowed to keep 15 if they were off for blood or an HIA, but that once they were certified as having failed the HIA, you had to go down to 14? I'm sure I remember a game where a side went down to 14 straight away because the player had been knocked clean out and when the coach complained to the ref, he said, "That's for an HIA; he's not going for one of those cause he's already failed by being unconscious."

Puja

[Raggs]

In retrospect, I am actually genuinely surprised that Uncle Eddie didn't send on a message for Cole to go down with a headache and dizziness. I'd imagine we'd've been a lot more effective with uncontested scrums and a front row of Mako, George, LCD to be able to run around the pitch without heavy legs.

Maybe Eddie's a lot more honest than we took him for. Maybe he did and Cole never got close enough to active play to pretend he'd been hit in the head?

Puja

Given Sinkler was off for an HIA, I don't think Cole would even have need to have headaches himself. You're right though, could have helped us a lot if he had. Glad he didn't though.

I believe if he went off with anything but an HIA, it would've required us going down to 14 - it's the injury that would send it to uncontested that matters, not the first one.

Mind, I'm actually confused about the laws around this. I was under the impression that you were allowed to keep 15 if they were off for blood or an HIA, but that once they were certified as having failed the HIA, you had to go down to 14? I'm sure I remember a game where a side went down to 14 straight away because the player had been knocked clean out and when the coach complained to the ref, he said, "That's for an HIA; he's not going for one of those cause he's already failed by being unconscious."

Puja

There's an updated clarification stating that the team can remain at 15 even if they fail the HIA. Which means Sinkler could have come off, and as long as Cole went off within 12 minutes, he would have in effect, been covered by Sinkler's head injury. Potentially, Cole could have gone off after that, and still be covered by the head injur, another clarification to a different law, and now many of them state Head Injury, rather than just HIA.

[Puja]

Given Sinkler was off for an HIA, I don't think Cole would even have need to have headaches himself. You're right though, could have helped us a lot if he had. Glad he didn't though.

I believe if he went off with anything but an HIA, it would've required us going down to 14 - it's the injury that would send it to uncontested that matters, not the first one.

Mind, I'm actually confused about the laws around this. I was under the impression that you were allowed to keep 15 if they were off for blood or an HIA, but that once they were certified as having failed the HIA, you had to go down to 14? I'm sure I remember a game where a side went down to 14 straight away because the player had been knocked clean out and when the coach complained to the ref, he said, "That's for an HIA; he's not going for one of those cause he's already failed by being unconscious."

Puja

There's an updated clarification stating that the team can remain at 15 even if they fail the HIA. Which means Sinkler could have come off, and as long as Cole went off within 12 minutes, he would have in effect, been covered by Sinkler's head injury. Potentially, Cole could have gone off after that, and still be covered by the head injur, another clarification to a different law, and now many of them state Head Injury, rather than just HIA.

Good knowledge - thanks!

Puja

[Digby]

Wasn't it the agreed standard in reaction to teams cheating though?

I understand you want to stop teams cheating, completely and fully. I just see it as needlessly punishing if a team wasn't cheating. Of course, it's going to be extremely tough to tell, however, in Wasps case, I really don't see why they would cheat and "injure" two hookers, to stop scrummaging when they were winning the scrums.

I wouldn't want to be a ref, I wouldn't want to make the call, but I don't see the point in further punishing a side that's already suffered by losing players. I understand why it's done, just dislike the people that seem to then suggest it's unreasonable when it's not applied (legally) in clearly non-cheating circumstances.

There's basically a choice, either we accept some sides get screwed over by bad luck, or we accept some sides will get away with cheating. Both seem reasonable positions to cleave to, I'm in the camp that wants to remove an incentive to cheat.

The Wasps situation is a little different given it's around concussion, and because we can't trust the teams not to cheat when it comes to concussion we have to allow they might be cheating at the scrum. I don't think Wasps were cheating against Bath, that just looked a really bad tackle getting his head in the wrong place, but it still allows a rule I like to be subverted when Wasps in this instance are still allowed a replacement.