RugbyRebels

My post is prompted by the Watson red card against Sarries. This is just an example, but typical of many similar decisions made now.

It is illegal to tackle a player in the air. If you do tackle a player in the air it seems to be yellow card offence, except that if he lands on his head, it's a red card. The offence is exactly the same in both cases. How the player lands is a matter of pure chance/bad or good luck. This is reffing dependent on outcome, not offence. Is there any real provision for this ref decision in the actual laws of rugby? Is it all clearly spelled out what the ref must do, depending on outcome, or is this just something that refs have decided to do, and nobody questions it?

If it's red based on outcome in this case, then why not in other cases? E.g. if a player is late tackled, or no-arms tackled, and has an arm or leg broken as a result, should that then also be a red card, assessed on outcome and not offence? Or what if a front rower is severly injured as a result of his opponent pulling down a scrum?

I suppose the whole business is covered by a ref's discretionary decision on what constitutes dangerous play. But it does seem all a bit arbitrary and you can't really regard something as dangerous or not, depending only on chance outcome after the event.

Maybe some laws experts here can clarify.

watching it real time I thought a red was a bit harsh, obvious that Watson bounced off the player before the bad tackle

They're getting themselves tied in knots in this area. They're trying to do something about it but not really addressing the problem properly, in a similar fashion to the mess that they've foisted on us with the scrum nonsense. In Watson's case it seemed like he was about to jump to compete for the ball but Ashton got in the way at the crucial moment. Outcome based decision made it a plain red.

For me, the incidents should be judged on intent. Some players clearly intend to inflict injury with their recklessness but don't manage it, why should they not be carded just because they were lucky it wasn't a bad outcome?

The sin-bin/sending off punishments are for foul play...so should not apply for clumsy or ill-timed tackles where no malicious intent is deemed.
(intent matter similar to difference in hand-ball vs. ball-hand for wendyball penalties )
But this is a big and difficult call for something done at speed with several variables.
Match outcomes too here at stake..a season or even a 4-year build-up can be turned on it's head (literally) if executed badly.
Also we have seen plenty of milking/simulation creeping in too which is even worse.
Over to the leagle-egals...

What about if a player is challenged in the air, falls on his ankle, twists it and is forced to leave the field. That presumably would only be a yellow? But if another player falls on their head and is able to get up and play on, thats a red?

The arrangements we have now are not covered by the Laws but have been put in place to try and get some clarity into this area. I confess I dont have a magic solution but "outcome" must mean more than what body part the challenged player falls on as this is surely a matter of pure chance.

fivepointer wrote:What about if a player is challenged in the air, falls on his ankle, twists it and is forced to leave the field. That presumably would only be a yellow? But if another player falls on their head and is able to get up and play on, thats a red?

The arrangements we have now are not covered by the Laws but have been put in place to try and get some clarity into this area. I confess I dont have a magic solution but "outcome" must mean more than what body part the challenged player falls on as this is surely a matter of pure chance.

Might 'outcome' be more contextual in that an induced head/neck/back landing could have more life-threatening consequences? Therefore, deliberate action causing that landing (regardless of any injury actually caused) is red-card rated whereas an actual ankle injury is not the result of a life-threatening intent etc.

It strikes me that this is all about the authorities being seen to take action to discourage/prevent serious lawsuit-inducing injuries. It's a case of getting their defence in early.

fivepointer wrote: what body part the challenged player falls on as this is surely a matter of pure chance.

or is it ?.. human instinct is to twist body and neck so the face looks to the floor and place a hand to the floor to cushion the landing. (evolution at work, though tree not rugby related I guess)
Hope i'm wrong but there does seem now to be cases where players adopt a rag-doll approach and land near the neck, but rarely actually on the head.Strange.
('they cudda doid...')

I have no issue that outcomes are considered, I'd find it odd if one didn't look at action and consequence. I am though left feeling we've oddly ignored things can be simply accidental rather than reckless, such as the Watson case, and that even reckless needs a margin of error for how the game is played such as in the Finn Russell case. Just because something bad has happened doesn't mean we need to find anyone guilty and/or punish them, sometimes it's just bad things happen.

I think that basing these things on outcome is purely about being seen to do something.
Can you imagine the outcry if, for example; Ashton was considered to have changed his angle (on repeated slow-mo replays), leaving Watson no case to answer; that Watson had then made contact a little lower and Goode had landed on his head, not shoulder; and left the pitch in an ambulance with a broken neck. Penalty to Bath for blocking?
Now that's front page news, with GIFs of Watson taking Goode (conveniently ignoring the block); rugby in disrepute.

It's one of those, a bit like rucking - it's usually fine; the player is usually uninjured; but the ignoramus seeing that happen will roundly condemn the entire sport.



My view of the incident itself; Ashton runs a blocking line - and holds it, as he's allowed to do - he's only not allowed the moment the ball passes over his head; and at that stage, he's allowed to obey the laws of physics, so long as he doesn't change his direction (no mention of slowing down though).
That block is instrumental for Watson - take it out and he's should be able to challenge in the air; or if too late, he's in control of himself enough to slow and wait for Goode to land(ish). As it is, the block pushes him sideways and he losses his footing. He stumbles, trying to regain control of himself, rather than hitting the ground and appealing for a penalty (and is to be applauded for that). He has no real control when he hits Goode - Ashton's "fault" but he's allowed to. Given that Ashton is allowed to run that line; the ref feels he has to take that contact out of the equation and assume that Watson was reckless, rather than accidental (which is where he may have bought himself some wriggle-room).
This means that AW takes Goode in the air, who then lands on the head/shoulder region, which is an automatic red.

Technically Garner was correct (and had a pretty decent game IMO - scrum lottery aside); but chose to go with rigid interpretation, rather than chance his arm on finding some wriggle room, which risks him being trampled in the press and by his bosses. Can't really blame him for that.

Which Tyler wrote:
My view of the incident itself; Ashton runs a blocking line - and holds it, as he's allowed to do - he's only not allowed the moment the ball passes over his head; and at that stage, he's allowed to obey the laws of physics, so long as he doesn't change his direction (no mention of slowing down though).
.

Is this correct? If Ashton is running on a line to block Watson, for no other reason than to block Watson, is this not already a blocking line without the need for deviation?

Genuine question, I'm not sure.

He can just claim to have mis-read the path of the ball. He's also not offside, so allowed to be where he damn well likes (until the ball passes him by; when he's still not offside, just in front of the ball carrier and required to make his way back).

Of course, I reserve the right to be wrong here; but it's always been my interpretation.

Which Tyler wrote:He can just claim to have mis-read the path of the ball. He's also not offside, so allowed to be where he damn well likes (until the ball passes him by; when he's still not offside, just in front of the ball carrier and required to make his way back).

Of course, I reserve the right to be wrong here; but it's always been my interpretation.

I've always assumed you can't purposefully block another player, regardless of where the ball is. Obviously, the ref would need to be sure he's blocking on purpose but.....

Where is a ref when you need one?

Mellsblue wrote:I've always assumed you can't purposefully block another player, regardless of where the ball is. Obviously, the ref would need to be sure he's blocking on purpose but.....

Where is a ref when you need one?

Dummy runners are allowed - so long as they don't change their line. Chasing back for a kick someone else has covered and "obstructing" is allowed, so long as you don't change your line; blocking a kick's chaser is allowed, so long as you don't change your line.

My view has always been that if you're allowed to be there, then you're allowed to continue being there once it's not allowed any more (eg the pass goes behind you to someone else). What you're not allowed to do is start running in a different direction in order to obstruct someone.

twitchy wrote:

Very harsh imo. Caused by deliberate blocking by PFC who then has the gaul to get all uppity.

bruce wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Very harsh imo. Caused by deliberate blocking by PFC who then has the gaul to get all uppity.

indeed!

Im not sure why but I figured this belongs in here, if anywhere. http://www.rugbydump.com/2016/04/4999/l ... -argentina It says the guy was just dizzy, which is quite amazing really. That could have been deadly, and the ban rightly reflects that.

Mikey Brown wrote:Im not sure why but I figured this belongs in here, if anywhere. http://www.rugbydump.com/2016/04/4999/l ... -argentina It says the guy was just dizzy, which is quite amazing really. That could have been deadly, and the ban rightly reflects that.

Fucking hell! Cunt should be in court for that.

I felt PFC should have been sent off for causing this offence
But again it's a matter of teams not being reffed correctly. You see it every weekend with one of the top teams not being reffed
I also want to see refs stopping the clock when the ball is not in play. We lose about 20 mins of play per game all because the ball is kicked out or the scrum is being reset

gthedog wrote:I felt PFC should have been sent off for causing this offence
But again it's a matter of teams not being reffed correctly. You see it every weekend with one of the top teams not being reffed
I also want to see refs stopping the clock when the ball is not in play. We lose about 20 mins of play per game all because the ball is kicked out or the scrum is being reset

The most recent estimates are that the ball is in play something between 33-35 mins per game. So we are losing well over 50% (over 40 min) of play in an 80 min game. If the clock is stopped, are you ready for three hour rugby matches?

Spiffy wrote:

gthedog wrote:I felt PFC should have been sent off for causing this offence
But again it's a matter of teams not being reffed correctly. You see it every weekend with one of the top teams not being reffed
I also want to see refs stopping the clock when the ball is not in play. We lose about 20 mins of play per game all because the ball is kicked out or the scrum is being reset

The most recent estimates are that the ball is in play something between 33-35 mins per game. So we are losing well over 50% (over 40 min) of play in an 80 min game. If the clock is stopped, are you ready for three hour rugby matches?

We all pay for 80 mins
It's then up to the ref to move things along as quickly as possible

The discretionary part of the ref's decision is determined by intent, isn't it..?. I feckin' hope it is,...that's what I've been doing.
Wayne Barnes used intent in the 6N's. Should have been a yellow.....but not a red. Right decision,....wrong call. It happens.

Slightly OT and 'stream of consciousness',....a ref's primary responsibility is to provide structure. If they can provide structure then continuity should follow fairly naturally. However,....some games are almost impossible to get some continuity regardless of how good the ref' is at providing structure.
At the lower levels the players usually want to collaborate with the ref' so that everyone gets their chance to play their best and have a good game. But it sometimes seems to me that at elite level the teams/players are refusing to collaborate, at which point it becomes almost impossible to get any sort of continuity.
The Ben Youngs interview this week was interesting. He was talking about being frightened of making mistakes under the previous regime and was now playing his natural game and just forgetting about the bits that go wrong. I thought it was quite a revealing thing to say. Elite professional sport is decided on such fine margins, it's not surprising that a lot of them are wound up tight like a spring.
Further OT, I'm always really impressed by the guys who just say 'forget about it', when their teammates f*ck up. It's a silly thing but I worry about how few times I hear that from the Coaches at age group. We will all make mistakes in a game and losing focus is potentially quite simple in rugby. Anything that makes you switch back on is useful.

Rather predictably, I took different things from that Ben Youngs segment.

Did anyone like Eddie going in to see what it felt like as the 10?