Rescinding it seems ‘fair’ but in the same situation would the rules allow a different decision next time?
Bruce
I totally agree it did seem harsh but we haven’t been so lucky. We’ve had players red carded for similar actions and none were rescind. I just wish there was some common sense and consistency.
I don’t think we can expect any consistency to be applied though if the “on report” system as used by Rugby League was adopted then there might be a bit more chance for common sense to apply.
The odds that the RWC outcome is determined by a poor red card seem pretty high. I am sure the beneficiaries won’t be complaining though!
2 Likes
In football, a red card is dependent on the force involved. Lot of force, red card. Minimal force, no red card. It’s not rocket science, although it is subjective.
On Saturday the English guy was virtually stationery, the Irish guy stumbled into him. They need to adopt the same criteria as football.
All true but regardless intent should play a part in their decision making. It’s not as if they don’t have enough camera angles.
Stationary? Well he still suffered a significant concussion and failed HIA.
The issue of intent isn’t easy to judge but taking avoiding action, or action to protect yourself does seem to be pretty strong mitigation, and yet wasn’t considered in this case because the laws don’t allow for it. Must be addressed surely?
Bruce
2 Likes
Judging by FS’s demeanour and actions, this is how I saw it, of course this all took place within 0.6s of the knock-on:
1- ball was knocked-on which FS saw – and there was no possibility of any advantage, as the space was tight with the 2 lines of players converging – not overly fast but coming together in open play
2- HK scrambles for the ball and grasps at it, being bent down and, to the conscientious rugby player, a player bending forward in an exposed position (which the NFL recognise), is not someone you want to hit hard or tackle with force – nobody wants to inflict damage on another player when the situation is avoidable.
3- unfortunately, FS, as the space is closing, sees HK is still coming (the whistle hasn’t gone – why?), so he turns to make himself smaller and, by reflex, braces and avoids shoulder to head/head to head (see on). FS is now resigned to contact he doesn’t want – probably, in expecting the whistle, he would have embraced a slowing HK, no damage done?
The alternatives:
a- FS simply plays the whistle and tackles HK in an exposed position – every thought in his mind was probably telling him this was dangerous, even if within the laws. A proper head to head?, shoulder to head?..who knows…HK could have even broken FS’s jaw as he rose from a stooped position with force.
b- FS plays possum and gets pummelled under the ribs/even in the groin – which goes against all his reflexes as a rugby player.
IMHO, and having played, while some think the incident alone of elbow/arm to a low head is a yellow, it really shouldn’t be when examined like this. HK put himself in an exposed position voluntarily in grasping for the ball and FS tried to lessen what could have been a much more severe contact.
Sadly, Peyper & Jonker just reviewed the literal picture in slo-mo. There’s also an argument here that Peyper should have blown quicker for the knock-on, seeing that an Irish player was gathering the ball?
All-in-all this defines as an accident — and, if it doesn’t, many more players are going to be exposed to this e.g. the tackling near the respective goal lines is often more a shoulder barge with arms out, endeavouring to try and tackle an opponent coming at you head first/down.
Common sense must apply throughout.
1 Like
Think you’ve put your finger on it most of these red cards are the offending player bracing themselves for an impact. It’s human nature to protect yourself also in real time it happens quickly and instinctively. Very few I’ve seen last season were deliberate.
No one wants to see any player injured but common sense from the match officials is a minimum. Also no one wants to see a good game of rugby ruined by poor decision making.
Some tackling can be poor e.g. as happened in the WRWC final, when England’s wing went 100% upright in to contact and smashed heads. That’s inviting danger through recklessness IMHO. But, equally, there are times when a ball-carrying player almost headbutts an opponent, who was entirely passive in the contact (which is normally mitigation), and not even positioning to effect a tackle.
There have been several instances in the English Prem of players getting reds (and apologies from the refs), where they weren’t the tackler but a falling player in the course of being tackled, dropped their head in to them at head/shoulder height. After all, it’s a game for all shapes and sizes. The laws have evolved to allow for mitigation but some refs seem blind to some aspects.
1 Like
In the (entirely sensible) discussion above what is unclear is how the structured decision making process we hear being applied allows for discretion. Has it replaced discretion/common sense with a rigid framework, one that refs are anxious they must not depart from?
It sounds like that watching and listening. This is the issue when technology and the laws makes these calls a forensic right/wrong process instead of a nuanced and ultimately personal refereeing decision.
Bruce
Having read this before and just now i.e. the head contact framework, and noting a ref is empowered to manage a game with sensitivity (i.e. interpret - not literally apply), I think JP and his team totally ignored the bigger picture (as I’ve outlined above). All they saw was the collision, completely missing the oil on the road which caused it. At worst a yellow.
Noting Wayne Barnes only gave a yellow (due to mitigation) a couple of games earlier (Atonio for Fra v Ire?) which was over-turned to a red – I haven’t looked up why yet.
Barnes does follow a process of logic to arrive at a conclusion, looking to take in real time vs slo-mo perspective, that recognises it is not usually black and white. Majority seem to look for a safe black/white interpretation that does the game a disservice. Think the on report approach could defuse this a lot but it does need IRB to expand the guidance for incidents like Saturday’s.
I had another look at the Atonio/Herring impact and it was body on body by a fraction but Atonio’s (massive unit!) momentum, having lined Herring up in open play, was like one of those car crash vids, where the ripple of energy transmission causes structures to deform – in this case, head and neck severely whiplashed, with Atonio following through too. Barnes’ adjudication was right to the laws vis 1st point of contact but, and here’s the tricky bit, I agree it ‘deserved a red’, which is where the Citing Commission landed.
All goes to show that any set of laws can never legislate for every scenario which may arise in life/during the game. For the good of the game, I’m glad Atonio accepted (didn’t contest it seems) the CC’s determination.
Women’s 6N starts today, with England playing later – something for the Sky-box to store.
1 Like
ITV coverage of Premiership today and Luke Pearce giving a master class in sensible refereeing. English referees are a class act! Pity we can’t have them in our games but we are unlikely to make the RWC final so a good chance that we will be represented.
2 Likes
I watched the non-tackle incident with Danny Care and the contrast with how it was handled compared to last week was stark (inc. with the TMO) – and, arguably, the facing/turning shoulder contact was worse. Great to hear the words ‘I’m not interested in the slo-mo’.
1 Like
Watched the Varsity match for the first time in decades. Entertaining in that it was much more like the rugby I used to play (i.e. with mixed skill levels!) Though with less violence.
How did this happen?
It seems the RFU are quite "indifferent’ to the problems some clubs face , or is that just my perception ?
Whilst I think the RFU must bear some of the responsibility, sadly I fear that much of what has happened with Wasps has been self inflicted. There has been a steady loss of control and poor decision making by the owners since they left Repton Avenue at the beginning of the professional era in my view.
2 Likes
Ok I’ll take the bait whats the issue?