Re: Rainbow Cup
Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:33 pm
Who mentioned intent?Jackie Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:01 pm Contact with the head is contact with the head. Intent doesn't matter, except when it does
The Ulternative Alster Fan Club supporting Ulster Rugby!
https://www.uafc.co.uk/
Who mentioned intent?Jackie Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:01 pm Contact with the head is contact with the head. Intent doesn't matter, except when it does
Clothesline to me is a swinging arm or a case like Nadolo in the Tigers game which should have been a red.Lurgan Lad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:06 pmSo there are instances where a clothsline to the head is ok, and times when it isn't.Snipe Watson wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:52 pmI agree with the referee. Sensible decision. Mike's knee was on the ground and the tackler couldn't go any lower.Lurgan Lad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:35 pmThe 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.Jackie Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:24 pm The hit on Lowry was a joke as well. He's small so therefore deserves no protection.
The refereeSnipe Watson wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:33 pmWho mentioned intent?Jackie Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:01 pm Contact with the head is contact with the head. Intent doesn't matter, except when it does
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.Snipe Watson wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:40 pmClothesline to me is a swinging arm or a case like Nadolo in the Tigers game which should have been a red.Lurgan Lad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:06 pmSo there are instances where a clothsline to the head is ok, and times when it isn't.Snipe Watson wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:52 pmI agree with the referee. Sensible decision. Mike's knee was on the ground and the tackler couldn't go any lower.Lurgan Lad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:35 pmThe 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.Jackie Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:24 pm The hit on Lowry was a joke as well. He's small so therefore deserves no protection.
Common sense suggests if a tackler makes every reasonable effort to tackle low he shouldn't be penalised.
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.Jackie Brown wrote:Contact with the head is contact with the head. Intent doesn't matter, except when it does
Was he not just calling what he saw happen, rather than mind reading intent?Jackie Brown wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:05 amThe refereeSnipe Watson wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:33 pmWho mentioned intent?Jackie Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:01 pm Contact with the head is contact with the head. Intent doesn't matter, except when it does
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17Hans Indaruck wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:21 pm 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!
The recent framework is for head contact specifically. Any dangerous play (including whereHans Indaruck wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:01 pm 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!