Wallabies v France 3
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@kirwan use your eyes mate, he only hit him in the jaw because the Frenchy was ducking. Needs to be some common sense here.
This is the sentiment that misses the point of the ruling altogether.
Sanctioning head contact is as much about getting players to change technique to reduce the amount of times it goes wrong unintentionally as it is to punish after the fact.
That's why they talk about a 'significant drop' i.e. you have to have been aiming below the nipple line or you were creating the dangerous situation.*I'm not judging this particular case just the way that some keep getting the basis behind the law wrong.
-
@crucial I get what the law is trying to do but you also have to take into account what the French player is doing aswell. I don’t think Koroibete’s technique is that bad in this case. In fact I thought it was a great hit, unfortunately he makes contact with the chin because the French fella leans into the tackle and then proceeds to act like a right twat.
There were worse tackles during the test, just take that reckless shot by Valentini late in the game as an example. If the refs are going to come down hard and penalise every tackle that’s around the chest area we wouldn’t have anyone left on the park. It’s a collision sport for Christ sake.
Saying to a player that they need to aim below the nipple line every tackle is all well and good, but it’s just not realistic due to how the opposition carry the ball into contact. Rennie summed it up perfectly post game.
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial I get what the law is trying to do but you also have to take into account what the French player is doing aswell. I don’t think Koroibete’s technique is that bad in this case. In fact I thought it was a great hit, unfortunately he makes contact with the chin because the French fella leans into the tackle and then proceeds to act like a right twat.
There were worse tackles during the test, just take that reckless shot by Valentini late in the game as an example. If the refs are going to come down hard and penalise every tackle that’s around the chest area we wouldn’t have anyone left on the park. It’s a collision sport for Christ sake.
Saying to a player that they need to aim lower or at the legs every tackle sounds fine, but it is just not realistic due to how the opposition carry the ball.
As I said, not judging against this particular instance or the diving/face clutching etc
Players/coaches need to go with the change of the game. If we are going to have bigger, faster harder players then there is a point that becomes unsafe. Front on upright tackles is that point.
If that means more offloads or more spilled ball from carrying it high then that is the new game. Target the ball/area above the nipples and you may find yourself on the sideline if it goes wrong.
I just don't agree that the tackler isn't at fault when they aim for a shoulder to chest level shot with no chance of pulling out and a player changes direction to try and avoid.BTW I wasn't targeting you either. Just that your post best summed up the point I wanted to make
-
@crucial I get where you’re coming from, I just don’t want to see our game get to a point where the refs are blowing their whistle every two seconds. It ruins the game as a spectacle, and it prevents the game from flowing.
Yes we want to keep the players as safe as we can, and of course you never want to see a player end up like Steve Devine but I feel their needs to be more common sense by the refs when making such a big decision like the one last night. Instead of immediately giving out a red card because the law says so, they need to treat every situation differently and take into account mitigating factors.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial I get where you’re coming from, I just don’t want to see our game get to a point where the refs are blowing their whistle every two seconds. It ruins the game as a spectacle, and it prevents the game from flowing.
Yes we want to keep the players as safe as we can, and of course you never want to see a player end up like Steve Devine but I feel their needs to be more common sense by the refs when making such a big decision like the one last night. Instead of immediately giving out a red card because the law says so, they need to treat every situation differently and take into account mitigating factors.
They do though. They have a clear protocol and process. They may sometimes make mistakes in the decision but to say that they don't look at situations for what they are is plain incorrect.
The argument is that if they use these rules then players and coaches will adjust and they won't have to blow their whistle too much.
I'm not sure if you remember when rucking/ use of the boot was stopped but that changed a fundamental way that players and coaches operated. It took a little while for instinctive stuff to disappear but it has and the game lived on. (probably a poor example of a good law change but an example of how adjustments happen) -
@crucial well they made a right botch up last night then because they obviously didn’t take everything into account in my view. Pretty much everyone on that expert panel last night believed it wasn’t red. If they showed Koroibete a yellow then you could probably say fair enough, but a red was just ridiculous.
At the end of the day rugby isn’t tiddlywinks, players are always going to take knocks. I feel rugby has done a good job in bringing in HIA protocols etc to help deal with those knocks, but I feel they might now be going a little too far with some of these rulings.
Before you know it we will be watching touch rugby and you won’t be able to breath on someone without getting carded.
-
-
Jeez I hope Rennie wasn't 'bloody angry'!
-
-
How original, another whinging Aussie coach.
-
-
@nta said in Wallabies v France 3:
Rennie made a good point about the contact in the presser: French 8's head snaps forward on contact, ergo the primary contact can't have been on the head.
I found it more interesting that if it's contact to the head at all, it's to the right side of his chin. But when he goes down sobbing like a little bitch, it's his left cheek that he's clutching like he's got the owiest of all owies.
-
@act-crusader good on him, we don't want this game to turn into football. Instead of having a crack at Rennie for sticking up for the credibility of the game, maybe take a shot at the French twit rolling on the ground like he'd been shot. He obviously watched too much European Football of late.
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial well they made a right botch up last night then because they obviously didn’t take everything into account in my view. Pretty much everyone on that expert panel last night believed it wasn’t red. If they showed Koroibete a yellow then you could probably say fair enough, but a red was just ridiculous.
At the end of the day rugby isn’t tiddlywinks, players are always going to take knocks. I feel rugby has done a good job in bringing in HIA protocols etc to help deal with those knocks, but I feel they might now be going a little too far with some of these rulings.
Before you know it we will be watching touch rugby and you won’t be able to breath on someone without getting carded.
Total overstatement. Huge difference between getting smashed and battered and copping a shoulder to the head. It can still be a hard physical game without high shots.
Perhaps you should take a look at the protocol http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/11/08/world-rugby-high-tackle-framework-update-2020-red-card-player-welfare-referee-sent-off/ and apply it as per the tackle. I'd be interested to have you walk through it and explain how they 'didn't take things into account.
I'll have a go from my pov.I go from both perspective (shoulder charge or high tackle)
Shoulder Charge
If there is a Shoulder Charge, the first question is whether there was contact with the head or neck of the ball-carrier. YES
The second question is whether there was a high or low degree of danger. If the answer to the first question is yes, a high degree of danger is presumed, and the appropriate sanction will be a red card. So HIGH Danger and REDHigh Tackle
the first consideration is the point of contact on the tackler’s body – does the tackler make the high contact with the ball-carrier with their shoulder, head or arm? If the tackler makes contact with the ball-carrier’s head or neck, using the tackler’s shoulder or head, the question is then whether there was a high or low degree of danger. A high degree of danger will lead to a red card, a low degree to a yellow. If the tackler’s arm does make contact with the ball-carrier’s head/neck, the question is then whether the degree of danger was high or low Let's look at definitions of degrees of danger...What does a high degree of danger look like? World Rugby cite the following as signs of a high degree of danger:
-
“The tackler draws the arm back prior to contact;
-
The tackler may leave the ground;
-
Arm swings forward prior to contact;
-
The tackler is attempting an active/dominant tackle, as opposed to passive/soak, or “pulling out” of contact
-
The tackler speed and/or acceleration into tackle is high
-
Rigid arm or elbow makes contact with BC head as part of a swinging motion Contact;
-
The tackler completes the tackle (as opposed to immediate release/withdrawal)”
At least 3 signs there so HIGH Danger. A high degree of danger will lead to a red card
Mitigations
World Rugby states that any mitigating factor must be “clear and obvious”, and that any mitigation will only take the sanction down “one level” – i.e. from a red card to a yellow card
-
“The tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier’s head NO
-
The ball-carrier suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score) IMO NO - Not sudden
-
The tackler is unsighted prior to contact NO
-
“Reactionary” tackle, immediate release NO
-
Contact is indirect…” NO - contact at least at neck and driving up
It will be an aggravating factor that “the tackler and ball-carrier are in open space and the tackler has clear line of sight and time before contact”. YES
So even if you apply a benefit of doubt on height drop the aggravating factor cancels that. The tackler had plenty of time to work out that a small drop in height would result in high contact.
-
-
Diving surrender monkey number 8 got bitched by a winger so bad his little baby head bounced off MKs back. He then held the other side of his face and did a diveball.
Permanent ejection from the game for being pathetic for the 'captain', high five for MK for being an absolute weapon.
-
@crucial it's all a matter of opinion then, since when is that shoulder charge? The French player is dropping into the tackle and the first point of contact is shoulder to shoulder before Koroibete proceeds to push up (as seen in the below screen shot). It's just a hard blimmen tackle from what I can see.
This screenshot of SBW against the Lions is the definition of a shoulder charge, it's reckless and fully deserves a red. The one above is hardly even a penalty and it shows how soft the game has gone with all these messy interpretations.
Stuff
