6N Ireland v England
-
@Catogrande said in 6N Ireland v England:
This is a very Fern thread divergence in that seemingly it is only the English and Irish that are not frothing at the mouth one way or another.
Just the view that it was perhaps a bit tough on Steward but not surprising he was carded. Not much else to see. Time to move on.
But this is the Fern and long may it be so.
Quite the opposite in my work.
In truth, it's not huge as in most peoples mind it didn't affect the outcome of the game. If it had happened in the reverse (irish man off, going for the GS) you can bet your arse it would be never ending.
-
Read this elsewhere regarding the red card:
What you are saying is counter to basic logic, go and look at any, and I mean any rugby training in the last 15 years and you will find something called the tower of power, it might be labelled something else based on the country you are from but its the stance they teach players from minis all the way up to adults. That stance is instinctive in all decent to very good rugby players, it is used to protect yourself in contact.
It was simply a rugby accident and didn't even merit a penalty, regardless of who you support or which laws you follow. The ball wasn't in either teams possession as it was thrown forward, so its not as if Stewart targetted the fullback with a shot, if anything he was pulling out of what would have been a tackle, where in all likelihood his shoulder would have hit the full back in the face.
Some people are saying the Irish full back should bear responsibility but thats not true either, from minis to adults, you are taught to dive on the loose ball to recover it.
Neither training technique is going to be removed, ever, so the responsibility sits with World Rugby and referee education. the only way they'll learn is by falls in coverage. -
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
@MajorRage said in 6N Ireland v England:
@MiketheSnow said in 6N Ireland v England:
@MajorRage said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Bones said in 6N Ireland v England:
Thanks @Duluth first time I've watched again since the game and it's worse than I thought.
@MajorRage I don't know what you're watching to say Steward had switched off - he's watching Keenan all the way into contact, and came from a long way back.
He's switched off from the defensive play. He came from a long way back because if the pass is good and ball is caught he needs to defensively shut things down.
When that doesn't happen, he slows down and starts turning. Keenan is not looking in front of him anymore & gets the ball and as he's moving he lifts his head from a low position (which naturally causes a body acceleration) and his head smashes into Stewards arm. Head contact, red.
Did Peyper get it wrong according to rules? Probably not.
What was the real collision? Keenan head butting Steward, or Steward elbowing Keenan? For me, its definitely the former.
Could Steward have done better? If he'd thought solely about rules/duty of care, I think so yes. But don't forget the play literally fell down less than a second before the collission
Was common sense applied? No, not at all. But rugby rules haven't been common sense for yearsI said after Lions 3 that a little bit of my passion for rugby died that day after the French farce. So far today, I'm hearing similar from colleagues.
We should be talking about the Irish grand slam. But nobody is. Including the Irish.
I still don’t understand this ‘shutting down / pulling out’ idea
Jaco only indicated ‘advantage England’ after Steward had clattered into Keenan causing Keenan to lose possession forward
Up until that point Jaco was happy with Hansen’s pass and it was play on
You play the whistle, not what you think has happened
I'm not buying the above. Plenty of players play what in front of them when something obvious has happened. Steward changed his whole play / actions after the shitty forward pass. Just because Peyper hasn't indicated it doesn't mean the play isn't going to change because off it
Reminds me of the Bjorn Basson try from 2011 vs Rebels. 1.42 on in this video.
Kirchner spills it a mile forward. Everybody stops instinctively. The play is deader than dead. Basson ambles up , picks up and jogs in for a try comedically.People on this thread would have you believe there are 30 automatons on the field who just play to the whistle, who are in full control of everything they do and anything they do is intentional and premeditated. They give no empathy to instinct, reaction, being unsighted, being off balance etc. It must be great to live in such a slo-mo black and white world.
You just contradicted yourself
No knock on, off the shoulder
That's why the ref didn't blow his whistle
No whistle = play on
You don't and this is what happens
-
@junior said in 6N Ireland v England:
@mariner4life said in 6N Ireland v England:
oh i know why he got a red, the process was followed perfectly. The refs couldn't have done any better.
I just hate the way all the replays took the 2 seconds before the final contact away. That ball is in dispute because of a forward pass and Steward was going for the ball, he's second to it by a split second, and a reflex action saw him sent off.
He wasn't thinking about a tackle, he was thinking "get the ball" so he's not in a position to make a "legal tackle"
Under the current thinking he was fucked no matter what he did because he was always going to be higher than Keenan and was always going to make contact with the head.It's a nailed on red card in 2023. Doesn't mean i have to like the way these things are looked at.
This to me is the major problem with the rules as they currently are - as a player, you constantly have to make a decision as to whether or not to play rugby in any particular moment. Because if you choose to play rugby - by, for example, going for a loose ball, as Steward did - and you do not do it perfectly, you could be off and having early shower.
The slippery slope of all this would be to turn the match into a 15-man game of touch, because the consequences of simply trying to play rugby will often far outweigh the benefit of doing so.
I get what you are saying, but World Rugby have put player safety above everything else and players like Steward know that any head contact is going to look bad and know exactly how the RC process operates. It's up to them to adapt or take the risk of a Red - sometimes they'll try to avoid head contact but still get carded no matter what they do.
Your early shower comment is spot-on though. 20 minute Reds or automatic YC with a TMO review would pretty much sort this out.
-
just watched the contact. This shit is a total lottery. Stewart stayed high, Irish player was low - but then you get head to elbow contact.
Key question under the frame work is 'was foul play involved'. Given the circumstances, you could argue 'no' - but once head contact occurs, it's almost always a 'yes'.
What is indisputable is that Rugby has a huge issue with head contact red card lotteries, and in my opinion it's wrecking the game. But I'm an old rugby nerd, so what do I know... not the target audience any more.
-
You’d think that Steward ought to have gone low and for the wrap, but then Keenan is already low so the possibility of head on head is increased. If the wrap is there and the tackle low does that make head on head contact then irrelevant? If so does that make something of a mockery of the player welfare thing?
I’m not looking at this argument to white knight Steward, just trying to see if there is a way out in these instances. We’ve seen a lot of comments on what Steward did wrong but apart from “not be in that position” not much about what he should have done.
-
@nzzp I know it is splitting hairs, but I hate how it is called 'foul play'
We have seen plenty of examples in the past where a player simply braces prior to contact in that split second when they realise there will be collision for whatever reason rather than the tackle being made, that often makes the contact worse, but that more your bodies natural instinct to protect itself, which is pretty hard to fight.
-
@taniwharugby said in 6N Ireland v England:
@nzzp I know it is splitting hairs, but I hate how it is called 'foul play'
I know - but it's the language they use. It's performative - head contact in tackles are only part of the overall issues with CTE, but it's visible and 'something must be seen to be done'. The most recent framework I saw is below - expliticly uses 'foul play' (however that's defined these days)
Law Application Guidelines | World Rugby Laws
Law application guidelines for the game of rugby union.
-
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
What you are saying is counter to basic logic, go and look at any, and I mean any rugby training in the last 15 years and you will find something called the tower of power, it might be labelled something else based on the country you are from but its the stance they teach players from minis all the way up to adults. That stance is instinctive in all decent to very good rugby players, it is used to protect yourself in contact.
I have never in my life seen what Steward did taught to rugby players. I have seen it specifically penalised for the action that it is.
-
-
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
Oh......this is awkward.
“The great shame is that the sport is so paralysed by its existential crisis that a vastly experienced referee such as Peyper did not feel empowered or emboldened enough to apply common sense and treat the incident as the accidental collision it was.”
Imo he was influenced by his history at aviva. The Irish gave him heaps of stick and in true Irish fashion still hold a grudge over cane vs henshaw etc during the physical match in ?2017. The crowd would have booed etc nonstop. Am genuinely intrigued to see hearing results as it’s one of the stupidest red cards ever. This year they have rid of ridiculous and systematic YC for attempted intercepts maybe they look at RC yet. But the threat of legal action over head trauma has WR in a bind.
-
@Catogrande said in 6N Ireland v England:
You’d think that Steward ought to have gone low and for the wrap, but then Keenan is already low so the possibility of head on head is increased. If the wrap is there and the tackle low does that make head on head contact then irrelevant? If so does that make something of a mockery of the player welfare thing?
I’m not looking at this argument to white knight Steward, just trying to see if there is a way out in these instances. We’ve seen a lot of comments on what Steward did wrong but apart from “not be in that position” not much about what he should have done.
From my seat, he closed the distance rapidly once he saw that Keenan was in a position to join the line, create the extra man, and catch the pass
He came from a long way back in his sweeper role, possibly too far back, and once the distance had been closed and when he was in a position to tackle Keenan - the ball carrier - he wasn’t set up for it
So he tried to disguise pulling out of the tackle by turning sideways bracing for contact
But like defenders who are penalised for changing their path of running when obstructing a supporting player or someone attempting to regather a kick ahead, Steward deliberately and consciously moved into the line of Keenan’ s run
If Keenan hadn’t made contact with Steward’s elbow it would have and should have been a YC
The elbow contact elevated it to RC
What could Steward have done differently?
- Held his line as sweeper and waited to see if the play developed
He would have been in a far stronger defensive position
-
Made up the ground quicker and attempted a tackle
-
Moved in the opposite direction from Keenan’s path of movement and avoided him completely
-
@Catogrande said in 6N Ireland v England:
You’d think that Steward ought to have gone low and for the wrap, but then Keenan is already low so the possibility of head on head is increased. If the wrap is there and the tackle low does that make head on head contact then irrelevant? If so does that make something of a mockery of the player welfare thing?
I’m not looking at this argument to white knight Steward, just trying to see if there is a way out in these instances. We’ve seen a lot of comments on what Steward did wrong but apart from “not be in that position” not much about what he should have done.
Mike summed it up nicely, but Steward obviously came flying in to make a tackle, right? So attempt a legal tackle. At least then there's mitigation - his action wasn't at all to benefit anyone but himself. Even if he hadn't turned side on, what's the damage to him? He'd obviously got himself into a position where he wasn't going to be able to control the contact and this is what players need to learn - if you want to do that, go for it, but you run the risk.
-
Still think you guys are
a) living in the planet of real time thinking on slow motions movements
b) having no thoughts about Keenan's role in the collisionRegardless, we won't agree on that but all games have these flashpoints.
Of greater concern is that I believe many a referee would have called it a rugby incident & played the scrum. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. And that's the larger issue. Should be never be a discussion between red card & no sanction.
-
@MajorRage said in 6N Ireland v England:
a) living in the planet of real time thinking on slow motions movements
b) having no thoughts about Keenan's role in the collisiona) Yeah, dismiss us as not being able to watch a replay at full speed, ok cool.
b) Keenan was the attacker, it's not on him - sure he dips, but that doesn't mean Steward can go in upright.
-
@MiketheSnow said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Catogrande said in 6N Ireland v England:
You’d think that Steward ought to have gone low and for the wrap, but then Keenan is already low so the possibility of head on head is increased. If the wrap is there and the tackle low does that make head on head contact then irrelevant? If so does that make something of a mockery of the player welfare thing?
I’m not looking at this argument to white knight Steward, just trying to see if there is a way out in these instances. We’ve seen a lot of comments on what Steward did wrong but apart from “not be in that position” not much about what he should have done.
From my seat, he closed the distance rapidly once he saw that Keenan was in a position to join the line, create the extra man, and catch the pass
So, doing his job.
He came from a long way back in his sweeper role, possibly too far back, and once the distance had been closed and when he was in a position to tackle Keenan - the ball carrier
Again, doing his job
he wasn’t set up for it
You have a point here though I feel this was mainly down to circumstance in that he was looking to cover Keenan but the ball went forward and it became a do I or don't I in regard for going for the ball. He was always going to lose that contest though and was then in two minds.
So he tried to disguise pulling out of the tackle by turning sideways bracing for contact
That is mightily subjective your honour.
But like defenders who are penalised for changing their path of running when obstructing a supporting player or someone attempting to regather a kick ahead, Steward deliberately and consciously moved into the line of Keenan’ s run
He was always in the line of Keenan's run, that's A) where the ball was and
how you make a front on tackleIf Keenan hadn’t made contact with Steward’s elbow it would have and should have been a YC
The elbow contact elevated it to RC
I can see the rationale for either card TBH, certainly under ht current protocols and I'm not arguing against that decision.
What could Steward have done differently?
- Held his line as sweeper and waited to see if the play developed
Actually he was last line of defence facing a likely two on one. If he held back it was a guaranteed try (save for the forward pass).
He would have been in a far stronger defensive position
Couldn't disagree more.
- Made up the ground quicker and attempted a tackle
Here I feel is the nub of it. Should he have attempted a tackle? The obvious answer is yes but as that would have meant him being lower, the danger of head on head is increased significantly. Now I'm not saying here that he had the time to evaluate that but there could certainly be a case for thinking it was instinctive.
- Moved in the opposite direction from Keenan’s path of movement and avoided him completely
If he did that, I can't see that the coach would have picked him ever again!
The trouble was caused in that split second when the ball went forward and Keenan (quite rightly) went for it, as did Steward. At that time I don't see what, other than attempting a wrap, Steward could have done.
-
I feel like the fact the ball hits the ground and is in dispute is being completely ignored by some
If that pass goes to hand, forward or not, thrn my view completely changes, but once that ball hits the ground the entire situation changes for me.
I could have handled a yellow because no matter the circumstances, Steward got there 2nd. But a red for a guy being beaten to the ball irks me
-
@Catogrande said in 6N Ireland v England:
I don't see what, other than attempting a wrap, Steward could have done.
Yeah that definitely would have caused less damage than offering up a nice hard shoulder.
-
@Catogrande said in 6N Ireland v England:
If he did that, I can't see that the coach would have picked him ever again!
Works for Smith.
-
@Bones said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Catogrande said in 6N Ireland v England:
If he did that, I can't see that the coach would have picked him ever again!
Works for Smith.
Except he was dropped 😀
