6N England v Ireland
-
-
@mikethesnow said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
Assume Ewels not cited?
Doesn't look like anyone was
Times says he’s suspended. Not sure where the official record is available!
-
@mikethesnow said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
Assume Ewels not cited?
Doesn't look like anyone was
Furlong can breathe easier now 😳
-
-
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
Paywall. Any chance of a cut and paste?
Looking at the Charlie Ewels incident a number of times, I think that Ewels was going for the ball carrier and James Ryan, who braced for the impact, stepped into his path in what could be construed as attempted obstruction to protect his man.
Chris GarrodHi Chris. Thank you for writing in. We have had a couple of questions on Ewels’ red card, suggesting that he was unlucky. Respectfully, I do not agree. In my opinion, Matthieu Raynal dealt with the incident impressively and outlined everything clearly.
I thought his key line, while explaining Ewels’ sanction to England captain Courtney Lawes, was this: “It is the responsibility of the player [Ewels] to not put himself in a reckless position that can seriously injure an opponent.” Raynal went on to say: “He’s upright, he runs the risk. It is high speed, a high degree of danger, clear head contact. We go for a red card.”
I find it difficult to argue with any of that. In May 2019, when World Rugby first published their high tackle framework, head-on-head contact was a big part of what they wanted to avoid. Since then, though, head-on-head contact has often seemed to be regarded as accidental.
I believe that Ewels wanted to tackle Ryan in a similar manner to how Genge had tackled Furlong seconds previously – slightly late, yet legally. However, he was beaten by the speed of the movement before he could lower himself or simply wanted to make a dominant, upright tackle.
Either way, there is a degree of recklessness that leads to contact between Ewels’ head and Ryan’s head. That part is accidental. But, crucially, it is avoidable. Ryan, for his part, had just played a pass to Sexton and was entitled to stand his ground. I am not sure he is at all at fault for what happened next.
Pakman: 🤦🏽♂️ All this analysis, and ToryGraph writer doesn’t even spot that Ryan ran into Ewels (having already passed to Sexton)!!!! On writer logic, Ewels was entitled to stand his ground and onus on Ryan running into him to be conscious of safety.
Very unconvincing.
-
@bones said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
“It is the responsibility of the player [Ewels] to not put himself in a reckless position that can seriously injure an opponent.”
Yes, now apply it consistently. Caleb Clarke springs to mind....
Consistency, we haven’t had that spirit here since 1969!
-
Took the plea bargain: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60769889
-
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
Took the plea bargain: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60769889
3 games for that, yet not even a mention of Furlong even being cited. Ok imaboutready to get both feet on this "rugby's fucked" wagon.
-
@pakman
"Having acknowledged mitigating factors including, the player's early acceptance of the red card, his remorse and contrition for his offending, his relatively unblemished disciplinary record over a long playing career and his good character and conduct at the hearing, the committee reduced the six-week entry point by three weeks."This part appears in virtually every judicial subcommittee report so must be something drummed up as an acceptable to be used inclusion by the IRB. The only slight differences being that "previously clean" becomes "relatively unblemished" and "apologised to the player wronged immediately afterward" is missing
-
the whole process is now fundamentally stupid
That's a rugby accident any way you want to look at it
England played a man down the entire game because we aren't allowed to do nuance and context. Accidental contact or swinging arm clothesline to the jaw? same shit
Then, because of this same lack of fucking nuance and context, we have top OPEN with 6 fucking weeks. To get it to something people won't have a heart attack over, we copy and paste the "good character" bullshit above so we can instantly halve it.And now, after 3-4 years of this level of interpretation, how is it going changing rugby behaviour. Seeing less of this now are we? Working is it? No, it's fucking not. Because we stamped (pardon the term) almost all violent bullshit out of the game years and years ago. So now we are left with harsly punishing accidental play, after reviewing shit in ultra-HD Super SloMo and removing all context.
All you "what choice did the ref have" people can do one. I am well past that. The policies are bullshit, and having a serious detrimental effect on the game i still kinda love for very little real world impact.
I have said it before, and i will continue to say it. you cannot make rugby 100% "safe" without fundamentally changing the game.
You want to protect players and their brains? Protect them from themselves. you get concussed? 6 week minimum stand down. -
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
“It is the responsibility of the player [Ewels] to not put himself in a reckless position that can seriously injure an opponent.” Raynal went on to say: “He’s upright, he runs the risk. It is high speed, a high degree of danger, clear head contact. We go for a red card.”
The referee was addressing this to the England captain, pretending to make an innocent enquiry about something he did not know about. If Lawes does not know the Laws then he should not be captain.
The standard could not be clearer - responsibility of the player - no matter how much vitriol one directs at referees; the learned submissions of barrister-fans citing contradictory, persuasive precedent decisions by other referees at other times; swearing robustly at the moon; and relying on invisible Law X by which the referee is obliged to keep the game attractive.
They are too dim to understand that the game affords them a handsome income for as long as they care to enhance and protect it; and too lazy to study the laws. RUPA is silent on the risk, utterly useless, focused only on the income for today's players and does not give a rat's about the future. Daddy can pay for that.
For all their posturing most of the coaches have abrogated their responsibility to sanction dopes who continue to go high - their thinking extends only for the period for which they are contracted, less 33% for likely early termination.
These circumstances are common to Union and League - the games are in a precarious state, with legal actions now being mounted about failure to protect players; and both are a single fatal injury away from public horror and consequential political intervention.
As an aside - five weeks ago League lost one of its favourite sons, John Raper. If you saw him moving in to tackle you, there was nothing you could do but surrender - the best I have seen in the game. I doubt he ever made a tackle above the waist. I played against one of his younger brothers, Mick or Maurie - I don't remember which - they were all the same, deadly. It can be done.
The biggest mistake League made was to permit the high tackles Sonny Bill was good at - I didn't see much of that 'cos I stopped supporting League after they kicked my beloved Souths out. It was little more than a shoulder charge, evidently. A good few of the boofheads lumbering about now would welcome its return, to show off how tough they are - that League wonder boy Mitchell deserved a long, long holiday for his most recent effort last August.
