Concussion Legal Action Against WR

[GogLais]

Am I right in thinking it’s impossible/very unlikely to go to criminal court after a civil case? Because it will be presented as being impossible for her to get a fair trial. Apart from the detriment to her reputation (!) she’s got away with it really.

[Paddington Bear]

Am I right in thinking it’s impossible/very unlikely to go to criminal court after a civil case? Because it will be presented as being impossible for her to get a fair trial. Apart from the detriment to her reputation (!) she’s got away with it really.

Unlikely rather than impossible. This happened in 2017 as well so I have a suspicion if the police were going to get involved they would have by now. I suppose she is/will be banned for life from rugby, so there's that at least.

[Mahoney]

Are the standards of proof not different for a civil to a criminal case? I have a vague notion it's "balance of probabilities" for a civil one, whereas I know the jury have to be "sure" in a criminal one. Might affect the likelihood of prosecution.

[GogLais]

Am I right in thinking it’s impossible/very unlikely to go to criminal court after a civil case? Because it will be presented as being impossible for her to get a fair trial. Apart from the detriment to her reputation (!) she’s got away with it really.

Unlikely rather than impossible. This happened in 2017 as well so I have a suspicion if the police were going to get involved they would have by now. I suppose she is/will be banned for life from rugby, so there's that at least.

Of course there are legal issues but it genuinely shocks me that something like this can happen with 30+ witnesses and the police aren’t eventually involved.

[GogLais]

Are the standards of proof not different for a civil to a criminal case? I have a vague notion it's "balance of probabilities" for a civil one, whereas I know the jury have to be "sure" in a criminal one. Might affect the likelihood of prosecution.

That’s true, something like guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But as far as I’m aware the police haven’t been involved at all. Correct me if I’m wrong someone.

[Mahoney]

They've reworded it, it's no longer "beyond reasonable doubt", the jury are now told they have to be "sure" that the defendant committed the crime.

I think judges got fed up of amateur philosophising about the nature of doubt and what is and isn't reasonable.

[GogLais]

They've reworded it, it's no longer "beyond reasonable doubt", the jury are now told they have to be "sure" that the defendant committed the crime.

I think judges got fed up of amateur philosophising about the nature of doubt and what is and isn't reasonable.

Ah yes, I vaguely remember something.

[inactionman]

Does this mean there's no more man on the Clapham omnibus, or was that just for Civil cases?

[Paddington Bear]

Does this mean there's no more man on the Clapham omnibus, or was that just for Civil cases?

The reasonable man is now the reasonable person but the principles still apply.

[Kawazaki]

Am I right in thinking it’s impossible/very unlikely to go to criminal court after a civil case? Because it will be presented as being impossible for her to get a fair trial. Apart from the detriment to her reputation (!) she’s got away with it really.

Unlikely rather than impossible. This happened in 2017 as well so I have a suspicion if the police were going to get involved they would have by now. I suppose she is/will be banned for life from rugby, so there's that at least.

She was still playing in the years after 2017 - at least upto March 2020.

Hard to be sure which one wears the strap-on but I reckon it's the tackle monster.

[Mahoney]

That's a different kind of reasonableness I think - that's about testing whether a person's behaviour was reasonable to see if they were at fault or not, without transposing your personal take on what is or is not reasonable. You're meant to consider whether the man on the Clapham Omnibus would consider the defendant's action reasonable.

(So perhaps it would apply to this case? Would the person on the Clapham Omnibus consider that King's tackle was a reasonable thing to do in this rugby match?)

[Paddington Bear]

The judge's test was 'whether the Defendant failed to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances', and cited a case regarding a footballer who broke another one's leg. tl:dr - what standard of care you owe depends on your skill, and whether the injury occurred within or outside the auspices of the rules of the game.

So reasonableness I don't think is directly what he's considering here so much as the imbalance between the players and the defendant having played the game very much contrary to the stated intent of a development league.

[GogLais]

The judge's test was 'whether the Defendant failed to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances', and cited a case regarding a footballer who broke another one's leg. tl:dr - what standard of care you owe depends on your skill

That’s an interesting one. It can’t mean that the threshold for negligence is higher for a pub player than for a professional. Surely?

[Hugo]

That is desperately sad - I played all my youth rugby for Bracknell.

People like King really should not be in the sport - I hate the type of people who only play rugby because they see it as an opportunity to hurt people.

[GogLais]

I slept with a max of 6 of my teammates

Simultaneously?

[GogLais]

I slept with a max of 6 of my teammates

Simultaneously?

It was a busy weekend

Good man.

[Hugo]

I slept with a max of 6 of my teammates

Simultaneously?

It was a busy weekend

[Grandpa]

Has Ms King showed any remorse at all? She's crippled someone... which should be a criminal act if deliberately done.. and it sounded deliberate... and not even a hint of contrition?

TC posted a link to the judgment on the other thread about it, here it is for reference: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/380.html. I've c&p'd some of the more amusing bits before, but some of that makes for pretty grim reading, but is also a well written judgment that explains how this differs from most rugby injuries.

Bear in mind this is only the judgment, meaning we don't have a copy of her witness statement, defence or any cross examination that took place. It also wasn't a criminal trial. Her barrister seems to have described it as a 'very unfortunate accident', and I'd be fairly surprised if her legal team hadn't tried to make sure she included some gesture of sympathy at least in her submissions. She seems like a piece of shit in general though.

Edit: oh, and the RFU are picking up the bill. Good-o.

Thank you

[Line6 HXFX]

Also, as you all have a massive bloodlust, and love the injuries and impacts so much, to the extent touch rugby can't scratch it.. we can have a virtual fucked up guy in a wheelchair at halftime for you to applaud, and be all sanctimoniously hypocritical about.

"Look son, what an inspiration he is' etc.

[Gumboot]

Also, as you all have a massive bloodlust, and love the injuries and impacts so much, to the extent touch rugby can't scratch it.. we can have a virtual fucked up guy in a wheelchair at halftime for you to applaud, and be all sanctimoniously hypocritical about.

"Look son, what an inspiration he is' etc.

Oh, the ironing!

Yeah yeah, we get it Refry, we're all evil bastards and you're here to show us the error of our ways. Again, and again, and again...

How very virtuous you are. Well done!

[JM2K6]

As always, REFRY's posts are excuses for him to abuse everyone else, and his strength of feeling on any particular topic is directly related to how much he can he use that topic to be an absolute cunt to everyone. He gives as much of a shit about the people who are genuinely affected as I do for dead mosquitoes.

[Gumboot]

As always, REFRY's posts are excuses for him to abuse everyone else, and his strength of feeling on any particular topic is directly related to how much he can he use that topic to be an absolute cunt to everyone. He gives as much of a shit about the people who are genuinely affected as I do for dead mosquitoes.

Yep, and the "tell" is he's never genuinely interested in engaging in any debate about his pet whinges. He NEVER answers a direct question. He just lectures, then disappears back into the woodwork until his next rant. He's just a tedious fraud. Sad.

[SaintK]

As always, REFRY's posts are excuses for him to abuse everyone else, and his strength of feeling on any particular topic is directly related to how much he can he use that topic to be an absolute cunt to everyone. He gives as much of a shit about the people who are genuinely affected as I do for dead mosquitoes.

Quite!
And is also a boring, repetetive troll!

[Paddington Bear]

The judge's test was 'whether the Defendant failed to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances', and cited a case regarding a footballer who broke another one's leg. tl:dr - what standard of care you owe depends on your skill

That’s an interesting one. It can’t mean that the threshold for negligence is higher for a pub player than for a professional. Surely?

Short answer seems to be yes. As I read it, the judge suggests that this breaks the normal principle that you can't claim damages for sporting injuries due to:
- the nature of the match as a development game for new players
- the imbalance between the two players, and particularly the inexperience of the claimant who probably wouldn't have been expected to know the ball may have been out at the point of contact.
- the defendant's actions being particularly egregious, both in terms of the violence used and the pre-planning put in

Neither of the first two points would apply to a pro game where any professional should be considered more closely matched and with a clearer understanding of the laws (I know, I know) and the risks they are running. Also the judge has made it pretty clear this case does not open the floodgates to damages across club rugby, his thresholds would not have been breached if the facts were the same except for the fact that the two players involved were 3rd XV league players. He specifically references the fact that most female players take up the sport in adulthood and lack a grounding in the sport as a factor.

This makes sense to me I have to say.

One of the biggest issues in the women's game, that is being wilfully ignored because the game is becoming a money spinner, is the vast chasms in skill and size on the same pitch. It is happening the length and breadth of the land. The small number of players available make it very dangerous. And that they keep sleeping with each other. I slept with a max of 6 of my teammates

Without a doubt. The challenge is that men's rugby is a, for want of a better word, majority sport and women's rugby is a minority sport. This means that there are fewer players, greater distances to travel and bigger gulfs. However, the games are administered by the same bodies and run through the same clubs, and there's a collective delusion that it is the same sport when it is patently not. This has been made worse by the pretence of a 'pathway' to the top of the women's game, when in reality a substantial chunk are in their rugby infancy.

The same is happening in cricket. Our club is one of a number in and around North London who have had modest success creating a 'recreational' women's section. But the ECB needed their pathway and so forced us all to join a more joined up league system. Three weeks running last summer they got hit for over 350 in 35 over games, generally by county players, one of whom then demanded the umpires gave penalty runs against our side for a slow over rate. At the start of the 2021 season we had 25 women playing members, it is touch and go as to whether we'll have a side at all this summer. Go figure.

Linking the two sports, something I've observed (and just my opinion) is that men's club rugby/cricket/football has deeper cultural roots that create something of a 'spirit' to how it is played. Not in a 'walk if you've nicked it' way, rather there's a greater degree of basic common sense that you don't put players like the defendant in this case up against a recently founded team of complete novices or at least tell them to tone it down, you don't attempt four mankads in a defence of 375 etc. Not saying there aren't serious issues with behaviour in men's club sport, but women's seems more susceptible to complete travesties in a way I can only explain by fewer players having grown up with both the sport and the club environment. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I've expressed myself poorly but just my opinion.

[Line6 HXFX]

I mean you all know rugby is wrong, right? Asking someone to multiply their chances of Motor Neurons by a multiple of 15 , Dementia doubled and most likely everyone swimming in a lake of CTE just to entertain you, for eighty minutes, isn't a " reasonable" or "nice" thing for you to expect.

You can direct your vitriol at me all you like, as the fog is lifted from your eyes, but you cannot be a decent person and have this level of barbarity and severe injury be a consequence of your entertainment.

[GogLais]

The judge's test was 'whether the Defendant failed to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances', and cited a case regarding a footballer who broke another one's leg. tl:dr - what standard of care you owe depends on your skill

That’s an interesting one. It can’t mean that the threshold for negligence is higher for a pub player than for a professional. Surely?

Short answer seems to be yes. As I read it, the judge suggests that this breaks the normal principle that you can't claim damages for sporting injuries due to:
- the nature of the match as a development game for new players
- the imbalance between the two players, and particularly the inexperience of the claimant who probably wouldn't have been expected to know the ball may have been out at the point of contact.
- the defendant's actions being particularly egregious, both in terms of the violence used and the pre-planning put in

Neither of the first two points would apply to a pro game where any professional should be considered more closely matched and with a clearer understanding of the laws (I know, I know) and the risks they are running. Also the judge has made it pretty clear this case does not open the floodgates to damages across club rugby, his thresholds would not have been breached if the facts were the same except for the fact that the two players involved were 3rd XV league players. He specifically references the fact that most female players take up the sport in adulthood and lack a grounding in the sport as a factor.

This makes sense to me I have to say.

One of the biggest issues in the women's game, that is being wilfully ignored because the game is becoming a money spinner, is the vast chasms in skill and size on the same pitch. It is happening the length and breadth of the land. The small number of players available make it very dangerous. And that they keep sleeping with each other. I slept with a max of 6 of my teammates

Without a doubt. The challenge is that men's rugby is a, for want of a better word, majority sport and women's rugby is a minority sport. This means that there are fewer players, greater distances to travel and bigger gulfs. However, the games are administered by the same bodies and run through the same clubs, and there's a collective delusion that it is the same sport when it is patently not. This has been made worse by the pretence of a 'pathway' to the top of the women's game, when in reality a substantial chunk are in their rugby infancy.

The same is happening in cricket. Our club is one of a number in and around North London who have had modest success creating a 'recreational' women's section. But the ECB needed their pathway and so forced us all to join a more joined up league system. Three weeks running last summer they got hit for over 350 in 35 over games, generally by county players, one of whom then demanded the umpires gave penalty runs against our side for a slow over rate. At the start of the 2021 season we had 25 women playing members, it is touch and go as to whether we'll have a side at all this summer. Go figure.

Linking the two sports, something I've observed (and just my opinion) is that men's club rugby/cricket/football has deeper cultural roots that create something of a 'spirit' to how it is played. Not in a 'walk if you've nicked it' way, rather there's a greater degree of basic common sense that you don't put players like the defendant in this case up against a recently founded team of complete novices or at least tell them to tone it down, you don't attempt four mankads in a defence of 375 etc. Not saying there aren't serious issues with behaviour in men's club sport, but women's seems more susceptible to complete travesties in a way I can only explain by fewer players having grown up with both the sport and the club environment. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I've expressed myself poorly but just my opinion.

Interesting stuff, thanks.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

There's a moment in the Vs Scotland u20s game which highlights problems in the game and problems in how one go about correcting that. France have a lineout on the left, take ball off the top (sort of) and move it left to right, Scotland (Blue) 7 comes across and makes a tackle on the carrier. I don't know if Blue 7 makes the tackle as they do because their right side is dominant and they essentially ignore left shoulder tackles or they're looking to shift the tackle into a collision event so as to not concede yet more ground, both happen, both are problems. The game should want Blue 7 to be making a left shoulder soak tackle which concedes more ground and allows the carrier to get arms free through the tackle, coaches and defenders are happier trying to smash it in contact even as in this instance where the defender Leigh Halfpennys the situation, which is to say elects a right shoulder tackle exposing his head/neck and balls to all else. Or if Blue 7 is going to tackle right shoulder they need to get their feet much further around so they don't expose their neck/head and that leaves more space on their inside shoulder

Absent of penalising a defender (and arguably even coaches of defenders) for simply taking contact no matter the risk and placing their head on the wrong side how does one dissuade these plays?

[Niegs]

The judge's test was 'whether the Defendant failed to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances', and cited a case regarding a footballer who broke another one's leg. tl:dr - what standard of care you owe depends on your skill

That’s an interesting one. It can’t mean that the threshold for negligence is higher for a pub player than for a professional. Surely?

Short answer seems to be yes. As I read it, the judge suggests that this breaks the normal principle that you can't claim damages for sporting injuries due to:
- the nature of the match as a development game for new players
- the imbalance between the two players, and particularly the inexperience of the claimant who probably wouldn't have been expected to know the ball may have been out at the point of contact.
- the defendant's actions being particularly egregious, both in terms of the violence used and the pre-planning put in

Neither of the first two points would apply to a pro game where any professional should be considered more closely matched and with a clearer understanding of the laws (I know, I know) and the risks they are running. Also the judge has made it pretty clear this case does not open the floodgates to damages across club rugby, his thresholds would not have been breached if the facts were the same except for the fact that the two players involved were 3rd XV league players. He specifically references the fact that most female players take up the sport in adulthood and lack a grounding in the sport as a factor.

This makes sense to me I have to say.

One of the biggest issues in the women's game, that is being wilfully ignored because the game is becoming a money spinner, is the vast chasms in skill and size on the same pitch. It is happening the length and breadth of the land. The small number of players available make it very dangerous. And that they keep sleeping with each other. I slept with a max of 6 of my teammates

Without a doubt. The challenge is that men's rugby is a, for want of a better word, majority sport and women's rugby is a minority sport. This means that there are fewer players, greater distances to travel and bigger gulfs. However, the games are administered by the same bodies and run through the same clubs, and there's a collective delusion that it is the same sport when it is patently not. This has been made worse by the pretence of a 'pathway' to the top of the women's game, when in reality a substantial chunk are in their rugby infancy.

The same is happening in cricket. Our club is one of a number in and around North London who have had modest success creating a 'recreational' women's section. But the ECB needed their pathway and so forced us all to join a more joined up league system. Three weeks running last summer they got hit for over 350 in 35 over games, generally by county players, one of whom then demanded the umpires gave penalty runs against our side for a slow over rate. At the start of the 2021 season we had 25 women playing members, it is touch and go as to whether we'll have a side at all this summer. Go figure.

Linking the two sports, something I've observed (and just my opinion) is that men's club rugby/cricket/football has deeper cultural roots that create something of a 'spirit' to how it is played. Not in a 'walk if you've nicked it' way, rather there's a greater degree of basic common sense that you don't put players like the defendant in this case up against a recently founded team of complete novices or at least tell them to tone it down, you don't attempt four mankads in a defence of 375 etc. Not saying there aren't serious issues with behaviour in men's club sport, but women's seems more susceptible to complete travesties in a way I can only explain by fewer players having grown up with both the sport and the club environment. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I've expressed myself poorly but just my opinion.

Nah, that’s spot on. Sometimes it’s not even administrators but women in the system who want it to be better when it’s not ready for it.

Post=Covid teams here were struggling for numbers and lots of good vets retired. The women’s prems went from something like 8 teams down to 4 with 3 of the four who’d left down a div lower. A former player now head coach of one of those that stayed up declared they’d be prem without confirming players and relying on average ones. Got rolled over by teams when not able to field some internationals she had access to. This year, none of those average players have returned. One club that took the year off so to speak has bounced back stronger, others have realized growth will take time and are staying down. And those few ‘star’ players are quick to shit on the social ones who “don’t ‘want it’ enough”.

But it’s worse with men’s rugby with just two divisions and the reserves being fairly good, way too serious. You see average/new players getting very little time and quitting.

Administrators don’t genuinely care about growth, preferring ‘serious’ leagues and playoffs, punishing teams for not having enough players, ignoring ways to accommodate the wants of the majority/new players. They don’t realize pathway’ can’t happen without a healthy base.

[JM2K6]

Grauniad journo Michael Aylwin continues to smear faecal matter all over his own face. From his match report today:

Another deluded idea in rugby these days is that red cards will magic away head clashes. Here was the latest example of a 6ft 8in forward caught out by the modern game’s bewildering speed, only then to be subject to trial by freeze-frame analysis.

Gilchrist had never been shown a card in his life, so he is hardly a dirty player. He looked mortified and the rest of us prepared ourselves for yet another contest corrupted by this moronic red-card campaign, now more than six years old.

You absolute prick.

[inactionman]

I mean you all know rugby is wrong, right? Asking someone to multiply their chances of Motor Neurons by a multiple of 15 , Dementia doubled and most likely everyone swimming in a lake of CTE just to entertain you, for eighty minutes, isn't a " reasonable" or "nice" thing for you to expect.

You can direct your vitriol at me all you like, as the fog is lifted from your eyes, but you cannot be a decent person and have this level of barbarity and severe injury be a consequence of your entertainment.

I'm not asking anyone to do anything.

[Slick]

Grauniad journo Michael Aylwin continues to smear faecal matter all over his own face. From his match report today:

Another deluded idea in rugby these days is that red cards will magic away head clashes. Here was the latest example of a 6ft 8in forward caught out by the modern game’s bewildering speed, only then to be subject to trial by freeze-frame analysis.

Gilchrist had never been shown a card in his life, so he is hardly a dirty player. He looked mortified and the rest of us prepared ourselves for yet another contest corrupted by this moronic red-card campaign, now more than six years old.

You absolute prick.

Idiotic, it was a clear penalty- I might be inclined to argue over red or yellow, but given it looked to me like Gilchrist has done exactly the same on the first contact after kick off at the start, I won’t.

[Tichtheid]

Grauniad journo Michael Aylwin continues to smear faecal matter all over his own face. From his match report today:

Another deluded idea in rugby these days is that red cards will magic away head clashes. Here was the latest example of a 6ft 8in forward caught out by the modern game’s bewildering speed, only then to be subject to trial by freeze-frame analysis.

Gilchrist had never been shown a card in his life, so he is hardly a dirty player. He looked mortified and the rest of us prepared ourselves for yet another contest corrupted by this moronic red-card campaign, now more than six years old.

You absolute prick.

Idiotic, it was a clear penalty- I might be inclined to argue over red or yellow, but given it looked to me like Gilchrist has done exactly the same on the first contact after kick off at the start, I won’t.

I've just had a look and the first one was shoulder to upper chest, Jelonch's head rolls forward from the impact and his cheek contacts Gilchrist's upper arm, but at the top of the tricep, so legal.

Legal but too high imo.

[Slick]

Grauniad journo Michael Aylwin continues to smear faecal matter all over his own face. From his match report today:



You absolute prick.

Idiotic, it was a clear penalty- I might be inclined to argue over red or yellow, but given it looked to me like Gilchrist has done exactly the same on the first contact after kick off at the start, I won’t.

I've just had a look and the first one was shoulder to upper chest, Jelonch's head rolls forward from the impact and his cheek contacts Gilchrist's upper arm, but at the top of the tricep, so legal.

Legal but too high imo.

Agree, not exactly like the second one but close enough that you hoped he might learn

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I thought watching it at the time it was a yellow card for Fagerson and a red for Gilchrist. But Aylwin has something of a point it's an idiotic campaign on the red card front as things stand because players aren't adapting.

So maybe they do temporary red or orange cards to restore games to 15 Vs 15 and then issue (much) longer bans post match. Maybe they stay with red cards as is and issue longer bans. But staying as we are doesn't seem to be changing much

[Sinkers]

IMO the coaches are a big part of the problem. As player behaviour isn’t really changing I’m assuming coaching isn’t changing either and is still emphasising the big hit/ high hit to stop the offload.

So maybe alongside the reds to the players some kind of tiered sanction to the coaches based on # of team reds:

1st. Defence coach attends WR “tackle school”
2nd. Coach Sideline/stadium bans by # of games
3rd. Fines or some other penalty to the union

Although I admit I haven’t really thought this through at all

[Tichtheid]

Idiotic, it was a clear penalty- I might be inclined to argue over red or yellow, but given it looked to me like Gilchrist has done exactly the same on the first contact after kick off at the start, I won’t.

I've just had a look and the first one was shoulder to upper chest, Jelonch's head rolls forward from the impact and his cheek contacts Gilchrist's upper arm, but at the top of the tricep, so legal.

Legal but too high imo.

Agree, not exactly like the second one but close enough that you hoped he might learn

What should he have learned from the first one?

It was the perfect tackle in today’s parlance- it was a dominant hit, just the way defence coaches are getting their players to make those tackles.
This was his first ever card and he’s, what 32, 33, and played hundreds of professional matches.

Everyone in the game needs to understand that they have to lower, there was no malicious intent, Gilchrist was just doing what he was suppose to do, the problem is that by law of averages he is, everyone is, going to get one wrong eventually when tackling so high

[Niegs]

[Big D]

I've just had a look and the first one was shoulder to upper chest, Jelonch's head rolls forward from the impact and his cheek contacts Gilchrist's upper arm, but at the top of the tricep, so legal.

Legal but too high imo.

Agree, not exactly like the second one but close enough that you hoped he might learn

What should he have learned from the first one?

It was the perfect tackle in today’s parlance- it was a dominant hit, just the way defence coaches are getting their players to make those tackles.
This was his first ever card and he’s, what 32, 33, and played hundreds of professional matches.

Everyone in the game needs to understand that they have to lower, there was no malicious intent, Gilchrist was just doing what he was suppose to do, the problem is that by law of averages he is, everyone is, going to get one wrong eventually when tackling so high

I think the 2nd man in simply has to go low. There are too many variables for the 2nd man going high such as tackled player dropping ever so slightly, nowhere really to wrap the arm due to tackler 1 being in the way etc.

Fagerson was flirting with the tackles from KOs being high too. But as 1st man in he had more margin for error.

[Tichtheid]

That’s the first tackle, isn’t it?

What happened there was that Gilchrist hit Jelonch at the top of the chest, Jelonch’s head swings forward and his cheek contacts the back of Gilchrist’s upper arm, it was the momentum of the tackle that causes that contact

I’d back any calls for the tackle height to be lowered, but as the law stands, I don’t think that particular tackle is foul play

[Tichtheid]

Agree, not exactly like the second one but close enough that you hoped he might learn

What should he have learned from the first one?

It was the perfect tackle in today’s parlance- it was a dominant hit, just the way defence coaches are getting their players to make those tackles.
This was his first ever card and he’s, what 32, 33, and played hundreds of professional matches.

Everyone in the game needs to understand that they have to lower, there was no malicious intent, Gilchrist was just doing what he was suppose to do, the problem is that by law of averages he is, everyone is, going to get one wrong eventually when tackling so high

I think the 2nd man in simply has to go low. There are too many variables for the 2nd man going high such as tackled player dropping ever so slightly, nowhere really to wrap the arm due to tackler 1 being in the way etc.

Fagerson was flirting with the tackles from KOs being high too. But as 1st man in he had more margin for error.

Most teams look to double up on the big hit now, it happened in every game in this 6N so far and with every team
It’s how the game is being played, the big dominant hit is the be all and end all way of stopping your opponent’s’ momentum