England hard done by - law clarification incoming

[Ymx]

And so it begins …

By the law, Freddie Steward was right to see red – but the law isn’t correct simply because it’s the law
England full back was victim of an entirely accidental clash — referee should have dealt with incident with greater perspective

March 18 2023, The Sunday Times

‘Red card, red card?” Owen Farrell was quizzical as it dawned on the England skipper that his full back, Freddie Steward, had been dismissed in the final minutes of a first half in which England had defied their critics, the expectations and grand-slam favourites, Ireland. It looked a harsh decision but the referee’s words spilt out: “There is no mitigation.”

Steward is never known for anything other than legitimate aggression, but, as the South African referee, Jaco Peyper, said: “In the current climate . . . you’re upright, you’re into contact.” There was no doubting the accuracy of the referee’s opinion up until then as he continued: “You had time to turn your shoulder.”

The slow-motion replays suggest this is the case but in the moment of the collision there was anything but time to turn away from the fierce contact with Hugo Keenan. Steward tried to explain he was bracing for impact. But that phrase “the current climate” was the early warning that England were set to play the entire second half with 14 men. Last season, they lost a man earlier in proceedings and eventually succumbed with some degree of honour.

Keenan was coming to the contact with his head low. Steward, at the last second, turned his shoulder, not to make a debilitating contact but to avoid a crunching crash of bodies with Ireland’s outstanding full back, his opposite number. “Care of duty” (and get him off the field) was the Irish angle; “a rugby incident” was the English perspective (and give him a yellow at most).

This was one of those high-profile moments in which the problems that beset the sport were cruelly exposed. Why? Because both the Irish and the English opinion is right and wrong at one and the same time. The letter of the law is the fallback position but the law isn’t necessarily correct simply because it’s the law. Laws are not the same as justice. Laws change.

Keenan was taken off the field for a head-injury assessment. He was not to return. Where was the justice if the man who accidentally did the damage stayed on the field? Yet is a purely accidental incident an automatic red because of the current climate of which the referee spoke? Don’t we want referees to put these flashpoints in a perspective relative to the game and not the angry and at times all-pervasive atmosphere that doesn’t allow for a fair and decent 6ft 5in full back having no legitimate option but to instinctively turn his body away from the opposing player to prevent a front-on smash of bodies?

[Prembore]

Red cards for high tackles are there in part to make players change their behaviour so that there is less risk of head shots.

Accidental head contact is always going to be part of the game.

So for me it comes down to, could Steward reasonably be expected to have done something different in yesterday's incident that would have averted contact with Keenan's head? If so, red seems appropriate.

[tc27]

Red cards for high tackles are there in part to make players change their behaviour so that there is less risk of head shots.

Accidental head contact is always going to be part of the game.

So for me it comes down to, could Steward reasonably be expected to have done something different in yesterday's incident that would have averted contact with Keenan's head? If so, red seems appropriate.

The only thing would have being to not attempt to make the tackle at all. Otherwise as I understand it any contact was going to lead to a red because of Keenans lowered head.

Watching again whilst his posture is unfortunate but if he had received Keenans head on his chest instead of his arm it would still be an auto red as far as I can tell. So those suggesting he was stupid for not within a second or less changing his bodies position are perhaps wrong?

[Jim Lahey]

I thought it was harsh and unfortunate rugby incident. It might have been red according to the laws, but it was never a red in the spirit of the game.

[Ymx]

Marler has a balanced view

[Jim Lahey]

Intent is irrelevant. You would despair sometimes particularly as so many have had a crack off this as they feel sorry for him. Another stupid fucking suggestion by the likes of Quinlan is you send off the offender but then send on someone else. Its possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard and it's gathering steam. The team are meant to be punished Al you fucking idiot. How long before someone sacrifices themselves by kicking Dupont in the gooch because I can tell you that would be my plan and then wave to the crowd as my replacement trots on beaming

Doubt you'd be able catch the nippy wee fuck tbf.

[Sandstorm]

No matter what Steward did, his body was going to make contact with Keenan’s head. The Irishman was dropping into an unfortunate position and today’s law doesn’t appear to give a ref any choice.

The thread title is facetious, but might also be true.

[GogLais]

Red cards for high tackles are there in part to make players change their behaviour so that there is less risk of head shots.

Accidental head contact is always going to be part of the game.

So for me it comes down to, could Steward reasonably be expected to have done something different in yesterday's incident that would have averted contact with Keenan's head? If so, red seems appropriate.

Watching again whilst his posture is unfortunate but if he had received Keenans head on his chest instead of his arm it would still be an auto red as far as I can tell.

I’m not going to bother reading the laws as I’d then have to try and understand them but I’m not sure about that. Surely there must be any number of chest/head contacts in games? I agree it would be ludicrous to have a red in that situation.

[Sandstorm]

Red cards for high tackles are there in part to make players change their behaviour so that there is less risk of head shots.

Accidental head contact is always going to be part of the game.

So for me it comes down to, could Steward reasonably be expected to have done something different in yesterday's incident that would have averted contact with Keenan's head? If so, red seems appropriate.

Watching again whilst his posture is unfortunate but if he had received Keenans head on his chest instead of his arm it would still be an auto red as far as I can tell.

I’m not going to bother reading the laws as I’d then have to try and understand them but I’m not sure about that. Surely there must be any number of chest/head contacts in games? I agree it would be ludicrous to have a red in that situation.

Tackler has to try to wrap his arms to stay within the tackle laws. Doubt Steward had time to do that while bracing for impact in a surprise collision.

[GogLais]

Watching again whilst his posture is unfortunate but if he had received Keenans head on his chest instead of his arm it would still be an auto red as far as I can tell.

I’m not going to bother reading the laws as I’d then have to try and understand them but I’m not sure about that. Surely there must be any number of chest/head contacts in games? I agree it would be ludicrous to have a red in that situation.

Tackler has to try to wrap his arms to stay within the tackle laws. Doubt Steward had time to do that while bracing for impact in a surprise collision.

I have seen cards in the past where I’ve thought the defender had no time to do anything else. He might well have done it instinctively rather than maliciously but I guess it’s the turning of the shoulder that did for Steward.

[tc27]

Despite what I said yesterday in my cups its cleary a red under the current laws. Still bullshit though.

Also on replays the Irish players all shouting at the ref for a red is pretty obvious...not good.

[PornDog]

Plating the ball from an offside position following a knock on is instinctual. Players used to do it all the time, but kept giving away penalties, so instincts have changed.

Steward instinctively braced for impact, in doing so he reduced the level of danger to himself by a miniscule amount, but greatly increased the potential level of danger to his opponent. It is this duty of care that he failed and why the red card was absolutely the correct decision. Even if it was incredibly unfortunate.

Instincts need to change - just a CJ Stander shouldn't have turned his hip into Lambies head while attempting an otherwise perfectly legal block down, a player cannot lead into contact with their shoulder, elbow and hip in what would otherwise have been just a rugby collision.

Its the shape he entered contact with that gets him the red card, not the fact that there was contact itself.

[MungoMan]

I’m not going to bother reading the laws as I’d then have to try and understand them but I’m not sure about that. Surely there must be any number of chest/head contacts in games? I agree it would be ludicrous to have a red in that situation.

Tackler has to try to wrap his arms to stay within the tackle laws. Doubt Steward had time to do that while bracing for impact in a surprise collision.

I have seen cards in the past where I’ve thought the defender had no time to do anything else. He might well have done it instinctively rather than maliciously but I guess it’s the turning of the shoulder that did for Steward.

It.Was.Not.A.Tackle. It was a contest to gain possession from a misdirected pass in which the winner of that contest ran into the loser.

From repeated viewings, both players seemed to have eyes only for the ball in the first instance. When Steward realised he'd lost he began turning way from contact. Keenan, with his head lower than Steward's, may not have been aware of impending contact until too late to avoid same.

Unfortunate, yes. Red card, my arse.

[SaintK]

I have looked back at the video a few times and I think k I am in the twilight zone. It was a red card all day every day. Irish fans have had a bit of craic with red cards for SOB or Aki but unbelievably lads of you actually believe this. If I was an English fan I would be concentrating on how shit so many of your senior players are and not that unfortunate incident

I think most do already but thanks for your advice

[tc27]

Tackler has to try to wrap his arms to stay within the tackle laws. Doubt Steward had time to do that while bracing for impact in a surprise collision.

I have seen cards in the past where I’ve thought the defender had no time to do anything else. He might well have done it instinctively rather than maliciously but I guess it’s the turning of the shoulder that did for Steward.

It.Was.Not.A.Tackle. It was a contest to gain possession from a misdirected pass in which the winner of that contest ran into the loser.

From repeated viewings, both players seemed to have eyes only for the ball in the first instance. When Steward realised he'd lost he began turning way from contact. Keenan, with his head lower than Steward's, may not have been aware of impending contact until too late to avoid same.

Unfortunate, yes. Red card, my arse.

Yeah its still a red though as the circumstances of the collision are not allowable mitigation. This obviously needs looking at.

[Ymx]

No matter what Steward did, his body was going to make contact with Keenan’s head. The Irishman was dropping into an unfortunate position and today’s law doesn’t appear to give a ref any choice.

The thread title is facetious, but might also be true.

You’re no fun anymore

[MungoMan]

You are also insane. He had other options open to.him rather than elbowing him in the face. That's the no mitigation. The amount of gonks online saying this is making them give up watching rugby is extraordinary. The death of rugby will be these concussions. You know the one that Keenan got so he couldn’t play on

What were those options: dematerialising, hurdling Keenan, continuing to run at the same angle such that Keenan conected with another part of his (Steward's) body?

What have I missed?

[Paddington Bear]

TMOs and refs should have to watch these incidents in real time before making a decision

[Ymx]

Forwarded to collision

[tc27]

He reacted the same way anyone would react instinctively before a collision.

[MungoMan]

He needed to not brace the way he did. If you can't see that you missed nothing

Steward bracing himself is merely a supposition based on his observed behaviour, which was turning his torso from contact. Had Steward not done so, Keenan's head would still have connected with some part of Steward's anatomy at the combined speeds of both players.

Are you seriously suggesting a red card would not have been on the table had Keenan showed any indication of being injured in that circumstance?

[Slick]

TMOs and refs should have to watch these incidents in real time before making a decision

This

[inactionman]

So that's two red cards in consecutive 6N games for England vs Ireland - Perhaps worth contrasting them.

Ewels was exactly the sort of tackle that should be sanctioned - trying to put a reducer in and just sconed the player instead. Steward was caught out by a fumble and pretty much withdrew from the tackle and stood up to brace for the inevitable contact.

The red card should encourage Charlie Ewels to go significantly lower in future. I'm not sure what the red card for Steward should encourage him to do in the split second he had to react - there have been some pretty unrealistic suggestions on this bored and elsewhere.

When is an accident just an accident? You can only punish reckless, you can't punish unfortunate.

[Ymx]

Found a version with a decent frame rate …

[MungoMan]

So that's two red cards in consecutive 6N games for England vs Ireland - Perhaps worth contrasting them.

Ewels was exactly the sort of tackle that should be sanctioned - trying to put a reducer in and just sconed the player instead. Steward was caught out by a fumble and pretty much withdrew from the tackle and stood up to brace for the inevitable contact.

The red card should encourage Charlie Ewels to go significantly lower in future. I'm not sure what the red card for Steward should encourage him to do in the split second he had to react - there have been some pretty unrealistic suggestions on this bored and elsewhere.

When is an accident just an accident? You can only punish reckless, you can't punish unfortunate.

Yes. Yes one can. We know this for a fact now.

Whether one should is now the topic.

[PornDog]

He reacted the same way anyone would react instinctively before a collision.

I agree. However he is not just anyone - he's a professional rugby player with a duty of care to his fellow professionals, Those instincts need to change, not be excused!

He needed to not brace the way he did. If you can't see that you missed nothing

Steward bracing himself is merely a supposition based on his observed behaviour, which was turning his torso from contact. Had Steward not done so, Keenan's head would still have connected with some part of Steward's anatomy at the combined speeds of both players.

Are you seriously suggesting a red card would not have been on the table had Keenan showed any indication of being injured in that circumstance?

This is just daft - literally any other part of his body (well I guess the head) would have lead to a softer collision than with his shoulder, elbow or hip - which is exactly what Steward deliberately (though instinctively) turned toward Keenan.

You are then projecting your own prejudices about the situation onto what would, could or might have happened - if Keenan had barrelled into Stewards torso and they both went over in 'natural' collision it almost certainly would have been the 'play on - just a rugby incident' that you think it should have been regardless.

The offence is not the collision, the offence is that Steward actions made the collision significantly more dangerous for his fellow professional than it needed to be. THATS why it rightly was a red card.

[_Os_]

And so it begins …

By the law, Freddie Steward was right to see red – but the law isn’t correct simply because it’s the law
England full back was victim of an entirely accidental clash — referee should have dealt with incident with greater perspective

March 18 2023, The Sunday Times

Not really "entirely accidental" when the England player was in the defencive line and rushing towards the Irish player. The England player wasn't simply run into, replays cut to the exact moment of contact are misleading in this regard, he was moving forward towards the Irish player when the contact happened. The England player put his body in that position, he could've remained committed to the tackle (in which case there probably would've been grounds for mitigation even if head contact was made, if he went low enough), or he could've put his arms into the air to get more out of the way. The "bracing for impact" (as the player without the ball!), just meant body checking the Irish player with his arm/shoulder into his head. But had he got both arms in the air and out of the way, he would've looked like an idiot, the Irish player would probably have gone straight through him unless his head caught the England player's hip. The England player didn't want that.

If it was a Springbok player in the same position as the England player, I'm sure the Sunday Times would basically say he was a dumb low skilled South African who was reckless and the punishment wasn't only justified but should come with a lengthy ban.

[tc27]

I agree. However he is not just anyone - he's a professional rugby player with a duty of care to his fellow professionals, Those instincts need to change, not be excused!

Not sure if this is realistic or even possible

[Insane_Homer]

Marler has a balanced view

I completely agree with him.

[Biffer]

Mitigation could not be applied yesterday because Steward made no attempt to wrap. That's the way the guidelines and laws are at the moment.

Steward made a couple of choices that led to the collision happening the way it did. He didn't go for the loose ball, and he chose not to make a tackle. Had he gone for the loose ball the collision wouldn't have happened. If he'd tackled, most likely an upright soak style tackle, he wouldn't have got a red as mitigation would have applied. So those decisions led to his red. Yes, those decisions are made in a fleeting moment as reactions without clear sight of the consequences but had he made different choices he wouldn't have got the red. He's very, very unfortunate, but bottom line is you're responsible for your own body on the pitch.

[JM2K6]

I agree with PornDog and _Os_. Essentially Steward ran into contact and made an absolute fucking mess of it, choosing (on instinct) the worst possible solution to the problem presented to him, and executed it really fucking badly. No intent but a very dangerous thing to do, it caused a brain injury and deserved a red.

You can argue all you like about "what was he supposed to do" and I have some sympathy for that but the answer also includes "anything that doesn't result in a jumping shoulder charge (well, elbow) direct to the head". This also includes taking evasive action that actually evades the player, rather than just bracing for contact at the expense of your opposite number.

But then I'm also a firm believer in the idea that just because something was unintentional that doesn't mean a red shouldn't be given for it. Everyone doing everything at 100mph and damn the consequences is a big problem at the moment, and something very dangerous happening because you were clumsy has already been done to death with taking people out in the air.


As for the silly topic title - funny, there's been several instances of laws being changed that directly affected England or English sides because of their success at it. The caterpillar, the switch to the goal-line dropout, the outlawing of kicking the ball in the ruck...

[el capitan]

Pretty much agree word for word with Os and JM's sentiments. Unfortunate and I don't think anyone would claim there was intent, but the narrative amongst a lot of the rugby world seems to be he was just standing there and couldn't do anything differently...... nah. He's run out of the defensive line into contact and ended up making a jumping shoulder charge and clouted someone in the head. Making a complete horlicks of it and trying to brace for impact doesn't save you from a red card.

[Torquemada 1420]

Intent is irrelevant. You would despair sometimes particularly as so many have had a crack off this as they feel sorry for him. Another stupid fucking suggestion by the likes of Quinlan is you send off the offender but then send on someone else. Its possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard and it's gathering steam. The team are meant to be punished Al you fucking idiot. How long before someone sacrifices themselves by kicking Dupont in the gooch because I can tell you that would be my plan and then wave to the crowd as my replacement trots on beaming

A point I've made previously about the equally dim red card system in the SH: start with a sacrificial pawn and have him take out the oppos' key player.

Also, as you point out, intent is irrelevant. Otherwise given how thick this Eng team is, nobody would be carded for foul play because it would be impossible to prove there was a brain cell operating the limbs.

[OomStruisbaai]

We need more Rassie videos

[Uncle fester]

Good post in a refs WhatsApp group:

It’s either play on or a red card, depending on your judgement on if it’s foul play or not.

It’s red all day if you think it’s foul play, or play on if you think it’s not. Yellow as a halfway house doesn’t really make sense in terms of the head contact process.

[Ymx]

Good post in a refs WhatsApp group:

It’s either play on or a red card, depending on your judgement on if it’s foul play or not.

It’s red all day if you think it’s foul play, or play on if you think it’s not. Yellow as a halfway house doesn’t really make sense in terms of the head contact process.

Joking aside (my contributions so far), isn’t there probable mitigation in that the “tackled” player fell forward and was very low?

[Mahoney]

I think players need to learn that once contact is inevitable you’ve just got to go through with the tackle regardless of what happens. It should be possible, people are coached to complete the tackle when the player passes, so it should be possible to learn to complete it when they knock on as well.

I have a lot of sympathy, I think it’s a bit like the way a pass that bounces sometimes beats the defence because it takes them off guard and throws their assumptions - in the same way the failure of the Irish player to catch the ball throws Steward’s assumption that he’s going to tackle him, but too late to avoid contact, so he just ends up instinctively bracing while trying to stop.

[Blackmac]

Good post in a refs WhatsApp group:

It’s either play on or a red card, depending on your judgement on if it’s foul play or not.

It’s red all day if you think it’s foul play, or play on if you think it’s not. Yellow as a halfway house doesn’t really make sense in terms of the head contact process.

Joking aside (my contributions so far), isn’t there probable mitigation in that the “tackled” player fell forward and was very low?

Not sure he fell forward that low as he still hit a 6'4 players shoulder.

[Lobby]

Good post in a refs WhatsApp group:

Joking aside (my contributions so far), isn’t there probable mitigation in that the “tackled” player fell forward and was very low?

Not sure he fell forward that low as he still hit a 6'4 players shoulder.

Elbow rather than shoulder iirc.

[Uncle fester]

Good post in a refs WhatsApp group:

It’s either play on or a red card, depending on your judgement on if it’s foul play or not.

It’s red all day if you think it’s foul play, or play on if you think it’s not. Yellow as a halfway house doesn’t really make sense in terms of the head contact process.

Joking aside (my contributions so far), isn’t there probable mitigation in that the “tackled” player fell forward and was very low?

No because the "tackle" was never legal.
See the red box down the bottom right.
If he had attempted an actual tackle but clattered into his head then mitigation could be applied.