Judiciary Happenings
-
@NTA said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Gunner said in Judiciary Happenings:
It’s only a matter of time before a big game (ie pool decider or a finals game) is decided on a red card due to minimal accidental contact with the head.
Been done. Sam Warburton, 2011 v France semifinal.
Wales fall to France after red card strips game of colour | Rugby World Cup semi-final match report
Wales' World Cup dream ended against France after Sam Warburton's red card stripped the semi-final of colour
2015 final almost ruined also.
-
I’m not surprised Hodge got suspended, but thought it may have been a lesser sentence (4 down to 2 because of record).
Just on replacements and squads, I thought it was mandated that every team bring 3 rakes?
-
@ACT-Crusader nope there are no rules around who is in your 31, just rules around who is in your 23. Up to the team too ensure they reach that
-
Usually, at moments like this, people moan that judiciary deal in weeks rather than games.
Not something I usually care about.
But in a RWC tournament? With games on all sorts of days of the week? Come on fellas, give it a tiny bit of thought.
Play last pool game on Monday or Sunday, get a 2 week ban, you miss probably 2 knockout games. Play on a Saturday and get a ban, semi is scheduled for a Sunday , you miss 1. Etc.
-
rock and a hard place really...want to protect the head at all costs, but by the same token, being realistic about completely accidental contacts with the head in a physical game where contacts happen all the time.
Seen worse than Hodges go unpunished, I think in the RWC, maybe that needs to be taken into context as well and reduce the ban by another week? If this happened in week 1 of TRC could they replace him with someone?
There was a REd Card in the Northland v BOP game for a contact with the head, I dont believe there was any malice or intent in that, I think it was purely accidental, but he sat out 20 or so minutes, I expect he has a judicial hearing coming up (or had it) and based on this result, he will sit out the remainder of the RR for BOP too...harsh IMO.
-
@taniwharugby said in Judiciary Happenings:
rock and a hard place really...want to protect the head at all costs, but by the same token, being realistic about completely accidental contacts with the head in a physical game where contacts happen all the time.
Seen worse than Hodges go unpunished, I think in the RWC, maybe that needs to be taken into context as well and reduce the ban by another week? If this happened in week 1 of TRC could they replace him with someone?
There was a REd Card in the Northland v BOP game for a contact with the head, I dont believe there was any malice or intent in that, I think it was purely accidental, but he sat out 20 or so minutes, I expect he has a judicial hearing coming up (or had it) and based on this result, he will sit out the remainder of the RR for BOP too...harsh IMO.
So, on we've seen the lottery in action.
Hodge - no penalty on field, subsequent RC and 3
ScoBar - Red, and 3
Devin Toner - no penalty on field, no citingThe issue is the lack of conistency, it's just crazy
-
@Billy-Webb said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Gunner said in Judiciary Happenings:
What a fucking joke.
I couldn’t believe this was sighted in the first place and I’m absolutely stunned he got a holiday.
It’s only a matter of time before a big game (ie pool decider or a finals game) is decided on a red card due to minimal accidental contact with the head.
Rugby is heading down a very slippery slope, one that they won’t be able to climb back out of and it worries me.
I didn't watch the game live. But subsequently saw a bunch of press about the incident, so I watched.
In real time, it didn't look too bad to me, so my instinct was / is to agree with you.
But following the 2 Samoan tackles, what did occur to me was that current tackle technique is the issue - it is placing unnecessary risk on the tackled player. The trend of going for the upper body, and leading with the shoulder for maximum stopping impact is fraught with risk. I get why tacklers want to do this but risk of serious injury is high with this approach. Like the now banned tip-tackle, I am in favour of strict rules on this. These are people with families and placing them at unnecessary physical risk, both immediate and in the long term for the sake of a rugby game and our entertainment just doesn't sit well with me.And yes. I know this is not tiddlywinks. Nor is it the Roman games.
Agree.
While it would be nice if RCs were the domain of deliberate acts only that would only encourage recklessness as it would have a built in excuse.
The RC/YC system is a pretty blunt tool and as many have said a system of report and future banning may arguably be a better one. (which is what has effectively happened here)
That system would also carry issues though. The team infringed against (eg Fiji) gets no recompense for their player being taken out other than a 10 minute advantage.
The solution is behaviour driven and most good coaching now includes an adjustment to technique and decision making.
You take a big risk flying in without control and aiming high. Sometimes the risk has no negative result sometimes it does.
Does anyone complain about people getting a drink drive charge when they haven't caused an accident/injury/worse? Nope, it is expected that you don't drink and drive in the first place. -
@Crucial not sure I agree with the drink driving analogy unless you think accidentally getting drunk and accidentally getting into your car and driving home happens too?
-
@taniwharugby said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial not sure I agree with the drink driving analogy unless you think accidentally getting drunk and accidentally getting into your car and driving home happens too?
It is an extreme analogy I admit but I was also about to post about your previous post regarding 'accidental'
To continue the poor analogy, no-one sets out to have an accident when drinking and driving do they? They make poor deliberate decisions instead. WR are trying to reduce head injuries caused by poor decisions ie not being in control of a high hit and leading with the shoulder.
The protocol (if used correctly), should take into account real 'accidents', which IMO are only when a tackler does everything right - aims low, in control, arm forward..., yet through the BC slipping or getting lower ends up with head contact. One of those has already happened at the RWC and was correctly dismissed on the field. -
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@taniwharugby said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial not sure I agree with the drink driving analogy unless you think accidentally getting drunk and accidentally getting into your car and driving home happens too?
It is an extreme analogy I admit but I was also about to post about your previous post regarding 'accidental'
To continue the poor analogy, no-one sets out to have an accident when drinking and driving do they? They make poor deliberate decisions instead. WR are trying to reduce head injuries caused by poor decisions ie not being in control of a high hit and leading with the shoulder.
The protocol (if used correctly), should take into account real 'accidents', which IMO are only when a tackler does everything right - aims low, in control, arm forward..., yet through the BC slipping or getting lower ends up with head contact. One of those has already happened at the RWC and was correctly dismissed on the field.For road accidents there are effectively three tiers, careless, reckless and dangerous. (Might be a bit out of order). The higher the tier, the more severe the penalty.
The problem is that we have TAIC and the Police high speed crash unit to forensically reconstruct events and determine facts. Whereas the ref has his reaction in real time plus a couple of potentially obstructed camera angles.
-
@Cyclops it goes Careless, Dangerous, Reckless...reckless is where it is deemed pretty much a deliberate act (racing, driving excessive speeds, burnouts etc)
Pretty much any RTA that police attend in NZ, a minimum of Careless Use charge is issued, but they cal also have the additional bit at the end....for example Careless Use causing death or injury might result in a fine and demerits, whereas Reckless driving causing death or injury will sometimes result in time in jail or Home Detention.
-
@Cyclops said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@taniwharugby said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial not sure I agree with the drink driving analogy unless you think accidentally getting drunk and accidentally getting into your car and driving home happens too?
It is an extreme analogy I admit but I was also about to post about your previous post regarding 'accidental'
To continue the poor analogy, no-one sets out to have an accident when drinking and driving do they? They make poor deliberate decisions instead. WR are trying to reduce head injuries caused by poor decisions ie not being in control of a high hit and leading with the shoulder.
The protocol (if used correctly), should take into account real 'accidents', which IMO are only when a tackler does everything right - aims low, in control, arm forward..., yet through the BC slipping or getting lower ends up with head contact. One of those has already happened at the RWC and was correctly dismissed on the field.For road accidents there are effectively three tiers, careless, reckless and dangerous. (Might be a bit out of order). The higher the tier, the more severe the penalty.
The problem is that we have TAIC and the Police high speed crash unit to forensically reconstruct events and determine facts. Whereas the ref has his reaction in real time plus a couple of potentially obstructed camera angles.
The ref can check those camera views to assess some simple criteria. Did the tackler make contact with head? Shoulder charge? Mitigating factors. Not perfect but not overly complicated either.
The system isn't perfect but they have to work with the tools they have.
Upshot is that intent doesn't come into play unless that tackler has taken care to tackle correctly. That is a pretty good approach.If you go back to the Hodge situation it is pretty cut and dried.
Contact with head? Yes.
Shoulder charge? Yes (timing out).
Did tackler take care and try to effect a 'safe' tackle? No.IMO an aggravating factor should have applied that the tackled player suffered a head injury that has taken him out of the game (and subsequently)
-
@Gunner said in Judiciary Happenings:
What a fucking joke.
I couldn’t believe this was sighted in the first place and I’m absolutely stunned he got a holiday.
It’s only a matter of time before a big game (ie pool decider or a finals game) is decided on a red card due to minimal accidental contact with the head.
Rugby is heading down a very slippery slope, one that they won’t be able to climb back out of and it worries me.
Easy way to avoid a ban, don't shoulder charge people to the head. Barrett was dumb, Hodge was reckless and a little dumb. Both are responsible for how they tackle.
-
i keep seeing this "lead with the shoulder" every single decent tackle leads with the shoulder, arms come 2nd. This isn't AFL.
Hodge's technique was clumsy as shit, but his arms were in front of his body when contact was made. It certainly wasn't SBW circa-2006, or even Barrett a month or so ago.
I blew up at the time about anything being done about it. I've since watched the multi-angle gif over and over and i can see that it probably met yellow threshold because it was clumsy, and the outcome wasn't good. But 6 weeks? 6 fucking weeks for a clumsy tackle? What would a decent old-fashioned stomp get nowadays?
-
Some people seem to have missed the fact that the suspension is in matches, not weeks. That's the difference between suspensions during the RWC and suspensions pre-RWC. See the text quoted by @Quo-vadis:
@Quo-vadis said in Judiciary Happenings:
DISCIPLINARY UPDATE: REECE HODGE (AUSTRALIA)
The committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to mitigate the risk of head injuries, which according to World Rugby’s sanctions table, carries a minimum six-match suspension.
Having acknowledged Hodge’s exemplary disciplinary record, good character and conduct at the hearing, the committee reduced the six-match entry point by three matches, resulting in a sanction of three matches.
Hodge will miss Australia’s three remaining pool matches. The suspension will end at midnight on 11 October, 2019 after which he is free to resume playing.
The player has the right to appeal the decision within 48 hours of receiving the written decision.
.
.@NTA said in Judiciary Happenings:
Hodge gets 3 weeks - down from 6. Therefore they considered it Medium and halved it?
Precedent set.... no wait: its the judiciary, so its just random madness from here on in.
Actually no, the judiciary is pretty consistent because the sanctions are prescribed in the regulations.
What is inconsistent is the the in-game sanctions (no card, YC, RC) during the game. Citings are already more predictable, because a citing commissioner has more time to review all the camera angles and cases may also be brought by the management of both teams. Some inconsistency is still present, but it's not really that bad. Take the examples of Lee-Lo and Matu'u. Inconsistency during the game (YC, where a RC would have been more appropriate), but consistency after: both have been cited.
.
The judiciary, however, doesn't have much choice, as is clearly stated in the decision:
The committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to mitigate the risk of head injuries, which according to World Rugby’s sanctions table, carries a minimum six-match suspension.
.
This is from Regulation 17, Appendix 1:Note: Any act of foul play which results in contact with the head and/or neck shall result in at least a mid-range sanction.
.
I'd also like to emphasise the "at least". If, for example, the camera angles show that Matu'u's offending is way more reckless and dangerous than Hodge's, they could decide to go for a higher entry-point than 6 games. In other cases, if a player was found to intentionally aim at the head of an opposition player, they could go for anywhere from the high-end entry point of 10 games to the maximum of 52 weeks.Hodge got the minimum under the Regulations: mid-range entry point of 6 games.
The application of mitigating (and aggravating) factors is quite consistent, too. In this case, they were as lenient as possible: Hodge’s exemplary disciplinary record, good character and conduct at the hearing led to the full 50% deduction. They didn't even mention "early remorse shown" as often referred to in other cases (so maybe he didn't show early remorse and contested the citing).
So the initial 6 weeks is entirely consistent with the regulations (also applied in S Barrett's and other cases) and the deduction of 50% is as well.
Finally, I think everyone should take into account that we don't get to see all the camera angles available to the citing commissioners, the player's legal team and the judicial committees. There are way more camera angles than what is shown by the broadcasters.
..
By the way, the judicial decision still hasn't been published. Maybe, just maybe, this might mean that Hodge/the Wallabies are appealing the decision.
-
@Stargazer top post. But that is a warning for bringing facts to a discussion.
-
-
