Rainbow Cup

[Snipe Watson]

Contact with the head is contact with the head. Intent doesn't matter, except when it does

Who mentioned intent?

[Snipe Watson]

The hit on Lowry was a joke as well. He's small so therefore deserves no protection.

The amount of times we have been carded for highish hits while who we play against has immunity for a card (or even a penalty) has been crazy the past while.

I agree with the referee. Sensible decision. Mike's knee was on the ground and the tackler couldn't go any lower.

So there are instances where a clothsline to the head is ok, and times when it isn't.

Clothesline to me is a swinging arm or a case like Nadolo in the Tigers game which should have been a red.
Common sense suggests if a tackler makes every reasonable effort to tackle low he shouldn't be penalised.

[rumncoke]

He should be penalised but that doesn't mean carded -- accidental is accidental In the case of lowry the arm was straight and the hit was late -- yellow that fellow.

[Jackie Brown]

Contact with the head is contact with the head. Intent doesn't matter, except when it does

Who mentioned intent?

The referee

[UlsterNo9]

Was there any need for the Edinburgh player to initiate a tackle? Lowry was already going down, his knee was on the ground at point of contact therefore the act/ decision from Edinburgh player was stupid.

The fact that he tackled as low as he could is irrelevant as Lowry was already touching the ground.

Good to see Dan going off on one on the touchline. Rightly so.

[Lurgan Lad]

The hit on Lowry was a joke as well. He's small so therefore deserves no protection.

The amount of times we have been carded for highish hits while who we play against has immunity for a card (or even a penalty) has been crazy the past while.

I agree with the referee. Sensible decision. Mike's knee was on the ground and the tackler couldn't go any lower.

So there are instances where a clothsline to the head is ok, and times when it isn't.

Clothesline to me is a swinging arm or a case like Nadolo in the Tigers game which should have been a red.
Common sense suggests if a tackler makes every reasonable effort to tackle low he shouldn't be penalised.

Fair enough, to me clotheslines don't move a whole lot so the arm doesn't need to be swinging. The funny thing is that a moment earlier Lowry's head was a whole lot lower, his head actually went up to meet the guy's arm. To me at the very least it is a penalty all day long and common sense I don't think is of relevance with the way the officiating has changed.
I know its of no relevance but was watching a bit of the rugby league yesterday, if feels like tackling round the head is the mo in a lot of instances.

[Marco]

To all the players, coaches, referees, staff, fellow contributors to the forum, the podcasters etc, have a great break, refresh and enjoy. May we never have another sixteen months like this again, I lost an uncle through Covid, who I had ironically last seen at an Ulster game, and every family has been touched. Even an old warhorse like me can not wait to hear a full Ravenhill when the teams run out in September, a private wish is that they do allow a full crowd, not 500/1000, even half full, we’ve waited long enough so let’s do it right!

[Dave]

Contact with the head is contact with the head. Intent doesn't matter, except when it does

I couldn't follow the referee's logic. He acknowledged contact to the head which is a straight red. Then said there was mitigation so I was expecting at least a pen and a yellow card. Then he suddenly says rugby collision. The preceedent here is just smash a player in the head being tackled. It isn't a good outcome for rugby. Lowry is offloading, which is what we want to see. Now he will think twice after getting nailed with a shoulder directly to his head. Tacklers should have an awareness of when a player is being tackled he will be going down. How low a player is, is not mitigation in itself.

[Snipe Watson]

Contact with the head is contact with the head. Intent doesn't matter, except when it does

Who mentioned intent?

The referee

Was he not just calling what he saw happen, rather than mind reading intent?

[Hans Indaruck]

There is a very informative ‘decision making framework for high tackles’ on the World Rugby website. In essence it states that if the head is struck causing it to be forced backwards then it is deemed dangerous play. With regards to mitigation, only one mitigating factor can be applied i.e. if it was deemed a red card offence it can only be mitigated down to yellow - not to a penalty. This was clearly not applied as Whitehouse did not start at a penalty offence and mitigate it down to a ‘rugby incident’. To his credit the TMO (Neil Patterson - not renowned for bringing favourable to Ulster despite his background!) tried to point this out but Whitehouse was having non of it. A strict and consistent application of the law should have seen a yellow card I.e. a red mitigated down notwithstanding Whitehouse’s “sympathy/empathy” with the tackler. Personally - I’d have been happy with a penalty - but that would have been wrong too!

[Snipe Watson]

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/13
Good call Hans
It's complex to say the least.

[Yoda]

There is a very informative ‘decision making framework for high tackles’ on the World Rugby website. In essence it states that if the head is struck causing it to be forced backwards then it is deemed dangerous play. With regards to mitigation, only one mitigating factor can be applied i.e. if it was deemed a red card offence it can only be mitigated down to yellow - not to a penalty. This was clearly not applied as Whitehouse did not start at a penalty offence and mitigate it down to a ‘rugby incident’. To his credit the TMO (Neil Patterson - not renowned for bringing favourable to Ulster despite his background!) tried to point this out but Whitehouse was having non of it. A strict and consistent application of the law should have seen a yellow card I.e. a red mitigated down notwithstanding Whitehouse’s “sympathy/empathy” with the tackler. Personally - I’d have been happy with a penalty - but that would have been wrong too!

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

This is the updated March 21 guidance on head contact - there's a decision making flow chart which is helpful but I can't seem to post the picture

Question 1: Has head contact occurred? Yes/No. If no, play on. If yes goto:
Question 2: Was there any foul play? Yes/No. If no, play on. If yes, goto question 3.

later questions are about degree of danger, level of sanction and whether there's any mitigation. But its clear if its decided there's no foul play you don't consider penalties/cards etc. Ref answered the first two questions, decided no foul play and moved on.

Problem with all this is the constant changing of the guidance and how rules are interpreted, we suffered earlier in season against Leinster etc when guidance was perhaps different and are comparing it to how new guidance is applied now.

[Hans Indaruck]

Thanks Yoda - I was indeed referencing the May 2019 version- which, if anything , is clearer and less open to ambiguity. It gives a clearer definition of ‘dangerous play’.
All in all - there is still considerable work to be done by World Rugby to ensure consistent application of appropriate laws in relation to tackles on and around the neck and head. There is still too much loose interpretation based on perceived intent or indeed outcomes!
We live in hope they will get it right someday soon!

[jean valjean]

If lowry was ducking into a ruck at the same height and got hit the same way what would the sanction have been?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[BR]

Thanks Yoda - I was indeed referencing the May 2019 version- which, if anything , is clearer and less open to ambiguity. It gives a clearer definition of ‘dangerous play’.
All in all - there is still considerable work to be done by World Rugby to ensure consistent application of appropriate laws in relation to tackles on and around the neck and head. There is still too much loose interpretation based on perceived intent or indeed outcomes!
We live in hope they will get it right someday soon!

The recent framework is for head contact specifically. Any dangerous play (including where
thrre is head contact) is still open to sanction as usual. While this framework will generally trump normal dangerous play sanction, the Ref still has freedom to act under the non-memoed laws.

Outcome is an indicator of level of danger, so it still pays to stay down when hit.