RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D)
-
@mariner4life said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
So you really think that was foul play and worth a couple of weeks?
Really?
A shoulder charge to the head that forced a player from the field?
Yes, really.
-
@mariner4life said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
I've just seen that Hodge incident. That's bullshit. In real speed that's absolutely nothing.
OK, you made me go and watch it again.
I reckon you're dead set wrong fella. The tackle is an example of what the game is trying to iron out - basically a shoulder with no grasping to the head, that caused someone to leave the field. It ticks all the boxes (and the effect isn't even a goddamn box).
The precedent is there; ScoBa is a red, that's a red, SBW gets a red, Devin Toner gets a red, everyone gets a red! It may not be what you want the game to be, but it's sure as shit what they are trying to achieve.
.
That said, I have some sympathy for the match officials. Hard to see in real time
-
@mariner4life said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
I've just seen that Hodge incident. That's bullshit. In real speed that's absolutely nothing.
Rugby is fucked. Grow a pair you fairies
Plenty of tries on the scoreboard that aren't tries in real time as well. Yes, slowing down the action can make it look worse but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
Dangerous play isn't just foul play (which implies intent) either. It can be careless, reckless or high risk as well.
Hodge (like SB) took a split second risk of trying to effect a stop when he wasn't in a good position to do so and the consequence was contact to another player's head that caused brain injury. That isn't just 'get over it you softies' anymore. Evidence has confirmed the incidence of long term effects of brain injuries so trying to tell players not to be reckless, careless or take risks when in these situations is the sensible thing to do.
If players can make split second decisions on plenty of other on field actions they can add this one into the mixEdit: if it helps, you are firmly in the Phil Kearns camp.
Former Wallabies hooker Phil Kearns has slammed the decision to cite Australian wing Reece Hodge for a dangerous tackle as "the biggest load of tripe that we have seen in world rugby for a long time".
"Reece didn't have time to get his arms up properly."Good one Phil.
-
Seems I am mistaken. No worries.
-
@MrDenmore said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
It makes Scott Barrett’s shoulder on Hooper, where no one was injured, look like a cuddle in comparison.
It really doesn't.
-
@mariner4life said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
Seems I am mistaken. No worries.
You just don't want to agree with Phil Kearns - perfectly understandable.
-
For the record: I have no problem with Hodge going to the judiciary.
It was beyond clumsy, without being malicious, and 5 metres out he should have been trying to hit him lower.
I'm not actually judging the incident on the harm it caused, because the intent is actually the soul of Law for Rugby.
The problem is we've become focused on outcomes - in this case a player leaving the field under WR safety protocols - rather than what the offending player was attempting to do.
Someone has already pointed out Hooper didn't leave the field after Barrett nailed him (and several other incidents clearly targeting Hooper in the first half), but are any of you neurologists going to state categorically that Hooper wasn't injured?
I believe Hodge has a pretty clean record. So likely looking at ~two weeks but maybe up to four if the outrage continues to build.
The inconsistency of refereeing so far this RWC is a talking point, and that's a shame.
BUT when you appoint Grade-level referees like BOK instead of driving a better development program worldwide, this is what you get
-
@NTA said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
The inconsistency of refereeing so far this RWC is a talking point, and that's a shame.
BUT when you appoint Grade-level referees like BOK instead of driving a better development program worldwide, this is what you get
Yes, yes and yes.
Trying to referee a horrific set of laws is almost impossible, it's a mug's game and the refs don't get good support, training or reward for excellence. It's really tough.
-
The other aspect of this is laying down a marker in practical terms rather than just the theory and videos. Over the games leading up to the RWC various results came from similar situations. This could be the opportunity for WR to clearly show which interpretation is correct to both players and refs.
I also have this hope that karma will bite Owen Farrell in the arse
-
-
@Crucial said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
The other aspect of this is laying down a marker in practical terms rather than just the theory and videos. Over the games leading up to the RWC various results came from similar situations. This could be the opportunity for WR to clearly show which interpretation is correct to both players and refs.
I also have this hope that karma will bite Owen Farrell in the arseIt would also be nice if the minnows didn’t get fucked over playing the top sides.
-
@Kirwan said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
@NTA the main point is a shoulder charge to the head is either a red card or it isn’t. Needs to be consistently ruled.
Correct, and they have dealt with the tricky one (for the refs) of what is a shoulder charge placing the onus on the tackler to have arm in front of shoulder at impact not 'but I was going to and didn't have time'
-
glad sense was seen in the Eng/Ton game where I think it was Watson had fallen to his knees and the Tongan hit him right on the high side of the shoulder line
-
@taniwharugby said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
glad sense was seen in the Eng/Ton game where I think it was Watson had fallen to his knees and the Tongan hit him right on the high side of the shoulder line
Yeah, that was good reffing. The TMO was trying hard to push for sanction yet the tackler had arm forward and had got very low, impact was high on chest and he can't be blamed for the ball carrier then falling in a way that the shoulder made light contact with head, The tackler did everything he could to make a legal tackle. Just like competing for a high kick, it was a fair contest.
-
@Crucial said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
Yeah, that was good reffing. The TMO was trying hard to push for sanction
Didn't see it that way. The TMOs generally have been non-judgemental in the incidents I've seen.
If the Pommy guy in charge of the buttons for Wobs v Fiji didn't think it was worth of sanction, that is another story.
-
@NTA said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
@Crucial said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
Yeah, that was good reffing. The TMO was trying hard to push for sanction
Didn't see it that way. The TMOs generally have been non-judgemental in the incidents I've seen.
If the Pommy guy in charge of the buttons for Wobs v Fiji didn't think it was worth of sanction, that is another story.
My recollection was that the ref was trying to understand why he was even being shown the footage and the TMO was trying so hard to not say what he was thinking that the whole thing was a farce.
'I see a tackler getting very low and a ball carrier then also getting low' . 'Um yes'
'I see contact high on the chest' 'Um yes'
'So we have no foul play'. 'I'll show you again'
Repeat conversation. until ref gives up and tells TMO to feck off -
I can see why the TMO looked at the Hodge tackle and thought it was fine. I wasn't aware of any controversy until after the game when I went on social media.
In real time, on the side-on camera it looks like a legal tackle. He wraps both arms. Now the question is if he lead with the shoulder, in which case he might be in trouble.
The thing is, that tackle was not a shoulder charge. His arm wasn't cocked like Scott Barrett. Now it may be a 'dangerous tackle', but the whole thing still leaves me a bit uneasy. Because to me he was making a genuine tackle attempt that looks to have gone a bit wrong.
I think anything more than a one week ban would be a bit harsh.
-
@barbarian said in RWC: Fiji v Australia (Pool D):
I can see why the TMO looked at the Hodge tackle and thought it was fine. I wasn't aware of any controversy until after the game when I went on social media.
In real time, on the side-on camera it looks like a legal tackle. He wraps both arms. Now the question is if he lead with the shoulder, in which case he might be in trouble.
The thing is, that tackle was not a shoulder charge. His arm wasn't cocked like Scott Barrett. Now it may be a 'dangerous tackle', but the whole thing still leaves me a bit uneasy. Because to me he was making a genuine tackle attempt that looks to have gone a bit wrong.
I think anything more than a one week ban would be a bit harsh.
I reckon the sanction will be 4 weeks but because of his record it will be halved to 2.
-
Hodge is cited under Law 9.13. They'll most likely start with a mid-range entry point and then - because of clean record, early remorse blah blah - reduce it with 50%: 3 weeks. (If contact is made with the head, they must start with a mid-range entry point or higher).
If he contests the citing, he'll probably end up with 4 weeks if the citing is upheld.
Although the regulations permit reducing a sanction with more than 50%, this only happens in very exceptional cases.
