RugbyRebels

Rescinded

free to play against Munster in the P12 final.

Good. Complete accident, not helped by the intervention from Lee. The Leinster player was uninjured and there is no history of dangerous play by Evans previously. I agreed that it was a Red Card in the first instance, by the letter of the law, but I think that a subsequent ban would have been unfair, given some of the punishments handed out for deliberate infringements.

It was ruled a lawful tackle. 3rd player (Lee) entered the tackle situation... the panel referred to a similar case where the ban was overturned.

Tre wrote:It was ruled a lawful tackle. 3rd player (Lee) entered the tackle situation... the panel referred to a similar case where the ban was overturned.

Yeah I saw that, although I can also understand why the ref gave a red card in the first place.

I don't really understand this. I'll believe it was unintentional, but then aren't a lot of tip tackles just an overly (or recklessly) successful tackle? The player was lifted, tipped over and even landed on his head. I don't want Steff to be banned, but what is that if not a red card?

I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd considered Lee for a card too, for the part he played.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't really understand this. I'll believe it was unintentional, but then aren't a lot of tip tackles just an overly (or recklessly) successful tackle? The player was lifted, tipped over and even landed on his head. I don't want Steff to be banned, but what is that if not a red card?

I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd considered Lee for a card too, for the part he played.

I think the mitigation was because the tackle by Evans if taken on it's own wouldn't have resulted in him falling on his head, I would have thought Samson Lee should have more of a case to answer.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd considered Lee for a card too, for the part he played.

I think that's the point. The initial tackle was fine but in the process of the collision the tacklee pivoted around Lee.
I did wonder at the time whether Marius should have just given Lee a yellow for clumsy play. That would have been the path of least resistance.

Good news for Scarlets. With the loss of Ball and Owens, adding Steff to that list, would have made the final an even harder prospect than it already is. Good news for Wales too, hopefully we'll get to see him scoring tries in a Welsh jersey this summer.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't really understand this. I'll believe it was unintentional, but then aren't a lot of tip tackles just an overly (or recklessly) successful tackle? The player was lifted, tipped over and even landed on his head. I don't want Steff to be banned, but what is that if not a red card?

I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd considered Lee for a card too, for the part he played.

For a horrible moment in the match, I though both were going to get carded.

This is the problem with changing the laws, or how they are interpreted. A sanction brought in post the BOD incident with the Lions in 05 is now needing further review because unless there is clear intent, or recklessness, many tip tackles are the result of the physics of the tackle and the momentum. It does seem harsh to penalise a player who is just trying to tackle, and tackling low which is a decent skill but momentum gets the better of them.

As opposed to someone who has a rush of blood to their head and drops a player. Perhaps it should be a yellow in future if there is no clear intention to drop the tackled player?

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't really understand this. I'll believe it was unintentional, but then aren't a lot of tip tackles just an overly (or recklessly) successful tackle? The player was lifted, tipped over and even landed on his head. I don't want Steff to be banned, but what is that if not a red card?

I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd considered Lee for a card too, for the part he played.

For a horrible moment in the match, I though both were going to get carded.

This is the problem with changing the laws, or how they are interpreted. A sanction brought in post the BOD incident with the Lions in 05 is now needing further review because unless there is clear intent, or recklessness, many tip tackles are the result of the physics of the tackle and the momentum. It does seem harsh to penalise a player who is just trying to tackle, and tackling low which is a decent skill but momentum gets the better of them.

As opposed to someone who has a rush of blood to their head and drops a player. Perhaps it should be a yellow in future if there is no clear intention to drop the tackled player?

But where will this leave us? Will players team up (a la Mealamu and Umaga) so that neither of them is responsible for the end result?

But anyway... great news for Steff, the Turks and Wales.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't really understand this. I'll believe it was unintentional, but then aren't a lot of tip tackles just an overly (or recklessly) successful tackle? The player was lifted, tipped over and even landed on his head. I don't want Steff to be banned, but what is that if not a red card?

I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd considered Lee for a card too, for the part he played.

For a horrible moment in the match, I though both were going to get carded.

This is the problem with changing the laws, or how they are interpreted. A sanction brought in post the BOD incident with the Lions in 05 is now needing further review because unless there is clear intent, or recklessness, many tip tackles are the result of the physics of the tackle and the momentum. It does seem harsh to penalise a player who is just trying to tackle, and tackling low which is a decent skill but momentum gets the better of them.

As opposed to someone who has a rush of blood to their head and drops a player. Perhaps it should be a yellow in future if there is no clear intention to drop the tackled player?

I think (tho I may be wrong) that the intent in these cases is irrelevant, if the player lands on the head or neck then a red it is no matter what.

I agree with Numbers, but can't see that Ringrose would have ended up on his head without Lee adding the momentum. I don't think the ref had much choice and had to issue a red and thank feck it didn't impact on the result. I also think it's absolutely right that the card is overturned by the panel.

No! Hauls on a minute! Yes're just a cheatin' bunch a aul hoores and I'd want ye all banned for a week and a Jeff.

Yeah. Fair enough.
There's an interpretation/application because it's Law. This was a good one.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't really understand this. I'll believe it was unintentional, but then aren't a lot of tip tackles just an overly (or recklessly) successful tackle? The player was lifted, tipped over and even landed on his head. I don't want Steff to be banned, but what is that if not a red card?

I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd considered Lee for a card too, for the part he played.

This. It was a red card. Should have deemed it sufficient punishment due to the mitigation of the influence of Lee.

Unfortunately every time we take a step forward in safety we take an almost immediate half step back and then inch our way back to where we started in no time.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Unfortunately every time we take a step forward in safety we take an almost immediate half step back and then inch our way back to where we started in no time.

This wasn't one of those.

When I saw he was free to play, I assumed the red was considered sufficient punishment. Rescinding it gives the impression that those in control of the game don't know their arses from their elbows.

If that's a red card decision which needed to be rescinded then they've missed a lot of chances to do so for other players. Week to week it seems we can have little idea what decision will be reached.