6 nations 22

[BR]

I will rewatch the red incident. I saw it as an unfortunate clash of heads for which Ewels was totally responsible.

Appreciate that there is now an element of outcome based decision making when it comes to sanctions, but had Ryan not been 'suffering from a wee knock' I doubt it would have been more than a penalty, if it was even looked at. High degree of danger, to me suggests force applied directly. This was more 'rugby collision' albeit in the execution of an illegal, upright tackle.

But as I say pints were taken (although relatively few at that point) and I'll look at it again on the replay.

Anyone else seeing Furlong in trouble for clothesline tackle? Doesn't look good from the shots I've seen.

[big mervyn]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1502707118402592776

"Intercept that ya b@stard"

Need the slomo for a proper look I think.

[allezlesverres]

I will rewatch the red incident. I saw it as an unfortunate clash of heads for which Ewels was totally responsible.

If you're saying there was no malice from ewels I don't disagree. But if you're saying it isn't or ought not to be a red I couldn't disagree more firmly. Its as red a red as can be under current guidelines, and appropriately so - the outcome of this is precisely the reason why it is reffed the way it is.

The annoying thing about a red is it always determines the outcome of a match so the rest of the spectacle is spoiled. There is definitely space in the game for an orange card (say 20mins then the infringing player stays off but can be subbed?). But even if there was an orange card option, ewels would probably have got a red.

[BR]

Malice or otherwise not relevant.

I could look at this a few ways and arrive at less than a red card. And I'm not criticising the ref for his thinking, just suggesting alternatives which could be applied.

Lots of people making statements like 'clear red' but not talking us through their process. I didnt hear the refs, so maybe they are just agreeing with him 100% or maybe they are just reacting to the state of Ryan.

Alternative decision making:
So we could have.
Head contact?.Yes
Foul? yes High tackle White.
Degree of Danger? Medium (Head contact is head on head outside the action of the tackle..so secondary contact and not high force)
Mitigation? None.

Yellow card.


You know, you could even make an argument for:
Head contact? Yes
Foul? No the tackle was shoulder height.
Play on - scrum White.

[Lurgan Lad]

Malice or otherwise not relevant.

I could look at this a few ways and arrive at less than a red card. And I'm not criticising the ref for his thinking, just suggesting alternatives which could be applied.

Lots of people making statements like 'clear red' but not talking us through their process. I didnt hear the refs, so maybe they are just agreeing with him 100% or maybe they are just reacting to the state of Ryan.

Alternative decision making:
So we could have.
Head contact?.Yes
Foul? yes High tackle White.
Degree of Danger? Medium (Head contact is head on head outside the action of the tackle..so secondary contact and not high force)
Mitigation? None.

Yellow card.


You know, you could even make an argument for:
Head contact? Yes
Foul? No the tackle was shoulder height.
Play on - scrum White.

Sorry BR can't agree with that at all. Ewels lead with his head directly into a defenceless person's head, he hadn't lowered his height at all and there were no mitigating factors. He effectively head butted someone who is 6'6" who hadn't lowered his body height in any way, it was as clear a red card as you are ever going to get.

[BR]

Sorry BR can't agree with that at all. Ewels lead with his head directly into a defenceless person's head, he hadn't lowered his height at all and there were no mitigating factors. He effectively head butted someone who is 6'6" who hadn't lowered his body height in any way, it was as clear a red card as you are ever going to get.

Firstly - that is definitely not what i am seeing. I'm seeing an upright tackle which had their heads not hit would have been legal (on the edge of high, but still legal). From the angles I saw, Initial contact was definitely not head on head

Secondly - if it were as you say, leading with the head directly into Ryan's head, then why are you even talking about body height or mitigation?

[WestDr]

Firstly - that is definitely not what i am seeing. I'm seeing an upright tackle which had their heads not hit would have been legal (on the edge of high, but still legal). From the angles I saw, Initial contact was definitely not head on head.

Have to say, that's what my first take was too..... ?and I'd say probably Raynal's as well ?

Here's one to consider - if Ewels had been carrying the ball, would Ryan have been sent off ?

[BR]

Firstly - that is definitely not what i am seeing. I'm seeing an upright tackle which had their heads not hit would have been legal (on the edge of high, but still legal). From the angles I saw, Initial contact was definitely not head on head.

Have to say, that's what my first take was too..... ?and I'd say probably Raynal's as well ?

Here's one to consider - if Ewels had been carrying the ball, would Ryan have been sent off ?

Or if Ewels had have been the one who ended up sparko, would he still have been sanctioned?

[big mervyn]

I see Nige has looked at the scrums and concluded that Eng were equally at fault and there should have been resets or some of the pens should have gone to Ire.

[richardt84]

Treadwell likely to be on the bench at the weekend with Ryan and Baird both injured. Moloney and McCarthy called up from Leinster as replacements.

[jean valjean]

Treadwell likely to be on the bench at the weekend with Ryan and Baird both injured. Moloney and McCarthy called up from Leinster as replacements.

Leinster players benefiting again from living close by.

[Dublin4]

Malice and intent do not enter the equation for high tackles.
You would have to question how much more Ryan can take. If I were him I'd be getting out at this point.

[BR]

Malice and intent do not enter the equation for high tackles.

Actually intent does!

You would have to question how much more Ryan can take. If I were him I'd be getting out at this point.

Let's hope he has a really well advised conversation about it. Hoping he makes the right call for him.

[big mervyn]

Have to say, if somebody close to me was playing professional rugby these days, I would be seriously concerned about their welfare

[BR]

Have to say, if somebody close to me was playing professional rugby these days, I would be seriously concerned about their welfare

I remember having a conversation with the father of a professional player about 8 or 10 years ago. He described it as unsustainable. I think things have improved a bit since then, but I'm not sure it's reached levels of sustainability yet. And that is only looking at those who (have to) retire early; taking no account of the ones who play on and the impact hits in later life.