Wallabies v France 3
-
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.
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@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.
That's why I went through the whole protocol. To show how it works for a non shoulder charge.
You still aren't justifying why you think it is 'messy interpretations' or a 'botch up'
-
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
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.
Gunning for the fern 'tough guy' badge?
-
@Canes4life a couple from another angle
Looks like shoulder to neck to me.
Now his head which was in front of him has been jolted back.
A High Tackle, meanwhile, is:
“An illegal tackle causing head contact, where head contact is identified by clear, direct contact to [the ball-carrier’s] head/ neck OR the head visibly moves backwards from the contact point OR the ball carrier requires an HIA”
So while the exact point of contact could be debated I think the other two criteria fit the bill. (I think he went for HIA?)
-
@crucial you can refer to the rules all you like, my argument is that no matter what the rules say, the incident in question shouldn’t have led to a red card in my view.
If you want to go further though then why aren’t we pinging the ball carrier? The tackler did everything right, hit square and dropped his shoulder height to meet the ball carriers chest. Essentially you could argue that it was actually the ball carrier who deserved a red for being reckless and dropping his head at the last second but fuck me, then we would really open up a can of worms.
Dishing out a red because it ticks a few boxes is ridiculous and it’s a blight on the game. At the end of the day the rules need to be simple and need to factor in whether or not there is malice / intention in the tackle, how reckless the tackle is etc. Or if they are going to be pedantic, let’s bring in the 20 min red card replacement rule like we saw in SRTT.
-
I'm happy with the decision. Fits the RC criteria as laid down by World Rugby.
For all the Aussies whining about it, I bet most if them would take the opposite view if the sides were reversed.
I think the focus should be on overcoming that setback for a great win. And the French should be asking themselves why they played so dumb against an opponent short a player.
-
Another angle here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/RugbyAustralia/comments/om4chl/another_angle/
Suspect that initial contact was shoulder to shoulder, quickly followed by bicep to jaw/neck.
Overhead view would be definitive.
-
@crucial said in Wallabies v France 3:
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
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.
Gunning for the fern 'tough guy' badge?
When I read the post I pictured lots of dope gang signs.
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial you can refer to the rules all you like, my argument is that no matter what the rules say, the incident in question shouldn’t have led to a red card in my view.
So your problem is with the laws not the way they are applied? That’s not what you were saying before?
I think you’ll find that many of us agree that the 20 minute Red would be better.
As for the bit about actions of the ball carrier that’s just dumb. All ball carriers that can see a bit hit coming will brace themselves by spreading legs and dropping a bit if they have time to. The tackler knows that or at least should. Same argument for a tackler smashing a player as they jump for a high kick.
-
@act-crusader said in Wallabies v France 3:
How original, another whinging Aussie coach.
All recent Wallaby coaches are expected to follow the blueprint laid down by Deans.
Stuff
