England hard done by - law clarification incoming

[Grandpa]

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.

But in reality... this has never happened? Why is that? Why in the hundreds of matches using the 20 minute red card system has no one thought to do this?

But anyway... no one has mentioned the elephant in the room. Red cards alone are not deterring high tackles... it's the punishment that is the real problem. Players should be banned for much much longer. 6 months, 12 months, 3 years... and lifetime bans for kicking Dupont in the gooch...

It's ridiculous that Owen Farrell got away with playing the 6 Nations after his high tackle resulted in bans of games he was never going to play in.. I guarantee Owen Farrell (or anyone really) will adjust their tackle technique if they are given a 12 month holiday for a deliberate head high tackle that seriously injures someone.

[Camroc2]

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.

Keenan had control of the ball when he was hit, that makes it a tackle.

[JM2K6]

At no point did Steward contest possession. He just ran at a bloke who was gathering the ball and ended up making an arse of himself and badly hurting them.

[Hellraiser]

Murray Kinsella
@Murray_Kinsella
·
2h
Six Nations confirms that Freddie Steward will face an independent disciplinary hearing on Tuesday evening following his red card against Ireland.

Fascinated to hear what the committee make of it.

[Biffer]

Murray Kinsella
@Murray_Kinsella
·
2h
Six Nations confirms that Freddie Steward will face an independent disciplinary hearing on Tuesday evening following his red card against Ireland.

Fascinated to hear what the committee make of it.

They’ll agree with the red and give it a low end punishment with discounts.

[ASMO]

Would anyone be arguing for a yellow if th Irish player had the ball in his hands? of course not, the fact that he did not have full possession of the ball makes it worse in my view, he hit someone off the ball in the head, the duty of care is on him, end of, there can be no complaints.

[MungoMan]

At no point did Steward contest possession. He just ran at a bloke who was gathering the ball and ended up making an arse of himself and badly hurting them.

Does ‘contest possession’ on Planet JMK rely on (at least) two players from opposing teams laying a hand on the ball, however briefly? Because, f’rinstance, a lineout jumper having a swipe and miss is typically seen as contesting the ball.

From multiple viewings of the incident footage, Steward appears to have his gaze directed towards the ball, and to be running towards the ball, until Keenan gathers it. He (Steward) lost the contest.

[C69]

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?

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.

This

Reckless therefore red card

[Line6 HXFX]

Beginning to think controversy and crappy decisions is all part and parcel of the product and operation of Professional Rugby.

The RFU or the Italians marketing, PR teams would much rather go mental and constantly feed (or train and enrage ) their supporters icontroversy and resentment than inevitable disappointment and humiliation.

So the product of outrage is slightly better than paying 100 quid a game, to feel disappointment, despair and hopelessness.

"Come support our team and feel the outrage" is much easier to produce and sell than creating a disciplined team that doesn't constantly do stupid shit.

PS) CTE, Early Onset dementia and Moror Neurons is a real problem for this sport, if they didn't come down strong on stuff like this they are opening themselves up to massive lawsuits and problems in the future. Can you imagine the courtroom drama, where a lawyer puts that impact up and tells everyone "in rugby this is considered perfectly fine, even after the player failed to return to the field... 6 officials decided it should fly and go unpunished".

[clydecloggie]

I'm fully behind it being a red card.

He has time to turn his shoulder into the contact, he therefore had time to do something less dangerous. It may be clumsy rather than malicious, but it's a red card offence all the same.

[Slick]

I'm fully behind it being a red card.

He has time to turn his shoulder into the contact, he therefore had time to do something less dangerous. It may be clumsy rather than malicious, but it's a red card offence all the same.

Even if he has time, is it really realistic for him to do anything but the completely natural reaction and brace for impact? That's where I think this is mad.

[tc27]

I'm fully behind it being a red card.

He has time to turn his shoulder into the contact, he therefore had time to do something less dangerous. It may be clumsy rather than malicious, but it's a red card offence all the same.

Even if he has time, is it really realistic for him to do anything but the completely natural reaction and brace for impact? That's where I think this is mad.

Some people here have got some pretty incredible ideas of how quickly even pro athletes can react and what can be reasonably expected. His instinctive reaction to the collision (flinching and pulling away but also turning shoulder on) is what does him. The strict liability of head collisions is one thing but the idea its in anyway a deliberate shoulder charge is ludicrous

[SaintK]

I'm getting bored with all this. Either side could argue for ever and a day and not agree
He will receive a 4 week ban reduced to 3 weeks for good previous and agreeing to attend the WR tackling course.

[Prembore]

I'm getting bored with all this. Either side could argue for ever and a day and not agree
He will receive a 4 week ban reduced to 3 weeks for good previous and agreeing to attend the WR tackling course.

He really needs to attend the WR evasive action course, since that seems to be what he was clumsily attempting.

[sockwithaticket]

I'm fully behind it being a red card.

He has time to turn his shoulder into the contact, he therefore had time to do something less dangerous. It may be clumsy rather than malicious, but it's a red card offence all the same.

Even if he has time, is it really realistic for him to do anything but the completely natural reaction and brace for impact? That's where I think this is mad.

If he was standing still in a defensive line and braced for impact it would be one thing, but he came steaming in to be the one to initiate a contact. He forced himself and the other player into a position where impact is inevitable, so the onus is on him to make a decision and he chose a bad option that injured the other player.

[SaintK]

Just seen this
How the actual fuck did this clearout on Ludlum's head not get reviewed.

[Slick]

I'm fully behind it being a red card.

He has time to turn his shoulder into the contact, he therefore had time to do something less dangerous. It may be clumsy rather than malicious, but it's a red card offence all the same.

Even if he has time, is it really realistic for him to do anything but the completely natural reaction and brace for impact? That's where I think this is mad.

If he was standing still in a defensive line and braced for impact it would be one thing, but he came steaming in to be the one to initiate a contact. He forced himself and the other player into a position where impact is inevitable, so the onus is on him to make a decision and he chose a bad option that injured the other player.

Because he thought he was going to make it first to a bouncing ball then realised a fraction of a second before he wasn't going to make it. Are we really getting to the stage where we think players should not challenge for a bouncing ball coming towards them?

[sockwithaticket]

Even if he has time, is it really realistic for him to do anything but the completely natural reaction and brace for impact? That's where I think this is mad.

If he was standing still in a defensive line and braced for impact it would be one thing, but he came steaming in to be the one to initiate a contact. He forced himself and the other player into a position where impact is inevitable, so the onus is on him to make a decision and he chose a bad option that injured the other player.

Because he thought he was going to make it first to a bouncing ball then realised a fraction of a second before he wasn't going to make it. Are we really getting to the stage where we think players should not challenge for a bouncing ball coming towards them?

Then he should've committed to challenging for the ball. There's no issue if he dives for the ball, but is second to it.

[Ymx]

Just seen this
How the actual fuck did this clearout on Ludlum's head not get reviewed.

Saw this doing the rounds on Twitter. If he got hit badly there will presumably be a citing.

I realise it’s side on, but struggling to see how that could just be a misleading angle where he didn’t actually clock him on the head.

[Paddington Bear]

Just seen this
How the actual fuck did this clearout on Ludlum's head not get reviewed.

It's been commented on plenty but England's great mistake is that Ludlam should have lain prone after the ruck clutching his head, basically forcing a review. It's really shit and says plenty good about Ludlam that he doesn't, but the reality is we missed a cast iron opportunity to even up the numbers that Ireland would not have turned down.

You have to question how Peyper doesn't see that. Obviously his focus isn't head contact at a ruck, but he must notice a clear out close to a head and Ludlam pointing it out to him. When Barnes is reffing what you generally then get is a 'TMO can you take a look at that' as the game goes on.

[SaintK]

Just seen this
How the actual fuck did this clearout on Ludlum's head not get reviewed.

It's been commented on plenty but England's great mistake is that Ludlam should have lain prone after the ruck clutching his head, basically forcing a review. It's really shit and says plenty good about Ludlam that he doesn't, but the reality is we missed a cast iron opportunity to even up the numbers that Ireland would not have turned down.

You have to question how Peyper doesn't see that. Obviously his focus isn't head contact at a ruck, but he must notice a clear out close to a head and Ludlam pointing it out to him. When Barnes is reffing what you generally then get is a 'TMO can you take a look at that' as the game goes on.

Quite, he's about 3 feet away and WTF was the TMO doing not checking it or bringing it to Peyper's attention?

[inactionman]

I'm fully behind it being a red card.

He has time to turn his shoulder into the contact, he therefore had time to do something less dangerous. It may be clumsy rather than malicious, but it's a red card offence all the same.

Even if he has time, is it really realistic for him to do anything but the completely natural reaction and brace for impact? That's where I think this is mad.

If he was standing still in a defensive line and braced for impact it would be one thing, but he came steaming in to be the one to initiate a contact. He forced himself and the other player into a position where impact is inevitable, so the onus is on him to make a decision and he chose a bad option that injured the other player.

But he was approaching for a (presumably legal - we'll never know but nothing suggests it would be anything other than fair) tackle and half-stopped because of a fumble, and from then on was trying to avoid. He stands up and braces, in many cases he'd have just bumped shoulders but unfortunately for all he hits Keenan in the head with his elbow.

If he'd just come running in and shoulder-charged/led with his elbow then yes, red card. He simply did not do that.

He could, of course, just followed through and wiped out Keenen, but if Keenan had truly lost control of the ball and Steward hits him late it would be foul play.

I'm also uncomfortable with the phrase 'decision' - it was split-second reaction to an event which threw him. He decided to make the tackle, agreed, but that's all he did - and that is the point of game. In the course of initiating the tackle the attacking player fumbled the ball and he reacted to that. Maybe his reactions could have been 'better' when judged against outcomes, but fuck my old boots - if we're red carding people for that, we've lost the plot.

I'm not downplaying the need for safety and the removal of high shots, but we just need to accept that there will be unfortunate collisions in a high-speed impact sport, and there is absolutely sod-all point giving red cards for offences for completely unintended acts that were not reckless (again, I'll simply not accept Steward did anything I can see as reckless). It won't change behaviour, as they're not conscious decisions.

[Paddington Bear]

Just seen this
How the actual fuck did this clearout on Ludlum's head not get reviewed.

It's been commented on plenty but England's great mistake is that Ludlam should have lain prone after the ruck clutching his head, basically forcing a review. It's really shit and says plenty good about Ludlam that he doesn't, but the reality is we missed a cast iron opportunity to even up the numbers that Ireland would not have turned down.

You have to question how Peyper doesn't see that. Obviously his focus isn't head contact at a ruck, but he must notice a clear out close to a head and Ludlam pointing it out to him. When Barnes is reffing what you generally then get is a 'TMO can you take a look at that' as the game goes on.

Quite, he's about 3 feet away and WTF was the TMO doing not checking it or bringing it to Peyper's attention?

The TMOs are the absolute weakest link in rugby at the moment, what they do and don't see is completely random. They only noticed Ewell's 'tackle' last year after the Irish player had been down for a prolonged period of time, and IIRC the game had played on for the best part of a minute after (not suggesting that was a fake injury for a second, it absolutely wasn't). There's tonnes of other examples.
Healey is naughty in how he tries to TMO the game from the commentary box, but he's right over 50% of the time that the TMO has missed something he's spotted, despite them literally having one job and him following the play. I'm sure we all end up noticing things that ought to be checked that seem never to have actually been checked by the officials. It's a total, total lottery that then becomes a pantomime farce as the crowd bay if its against their team.

[Slick]

Even if he has time, is it really realistic for him to do anything but the completely natural reaction and brace for impact? That's where I think this is mad.

If he was standing still in a defensive line and braced for impact it would be one thing, but he came steaming in to be the one to initiate a contact. He forced himself and the other player into a position where impact is inevitable, so the onus is on him to make a decision and he chose a bad option that injured the other player.

But he was approaching for a (presumably legal - we'll never know but nothing suggests it would be anything other than fair) tackle and half-stopped because of a fumble, and from then on was trying to avoid. He stands up and braces, in many cases he'd have just bumped shoulders but unfortunately for all he hits Keenan in the head with his elbow.

If he'd just come running in and shoulder-charged/led with his elbow then yes, red card. He simply did not do that.

He could, of course, just followed through and wiped out Keenen, but if Keenan had truly lost control of the ball and Steward hits him late it would be foul play.

I'm also uncomfortable with the phrase 'decision' - it was split-second reaction to an event which threw him. He decided to make the tackle, agreed, but that's all he did - and that is the point of game. In the course of initiating the tackle the attacking player fumbled the ball and he reacted to that. Maybe his reactions could have been 'better' when judged against outcomes, but fuck my old boots - if we're red carding people for that, we've lost the plot.

I'm not downplaying the need for safety and the removal of high shots, but we just need to accept that there will be unfortunate collisions in a high-speed impact sport, and there is absolutely sod-all point giving red cards for offences for completely unintended acts that were not reckless (again, I'll simply not accept Steward did anything I can see as reckless). It won't change behaviour, as they're not conscious decisions.

That last paragraph is spot on.

[Paddington Bear]

Even if he has time, is it really realistic for him to do anything but the completely natural reaction and brace for impact? That's where I think this is mad.

If he was standing still in a defensive line and braced for impact it would be one thing, but he came steaming in to be the one to initiate a contact. He forced himself and the other player into a position where impact is inevitable, so the onus is on him to make a decision and he chose a bad option that injured the other player.

But he was approaching for a (presumably legal - we'll never know but nothing suggests it would be anything other than fair) tackle and half-stopped because of a fumble, and from then on was trying to avoid. He stands up and braces, in many cases he'd have just bumped shoulders but unfortunately for all he hits Keenan in the head with his elbow.

If he'd just come running in and shoulder-charged/led with his elbow then yes, red card. He simply did not do that.

He could, of course, just followed through and wiped out Keenen, but if Keenan had truly lost control of the ball and Steward hits him late it would be foul play.

I'm also uncomfortable with the phrase 'decision' - it was split-second reaction to an event which threw him. He decided to make the tackle, agreed, but that's all he did - and that is the point of game. In the course of initiating the tackle the attacking player fumbled the ball and he reacted to that. Maybe his reactions could have been 'better' when judged against outcomes, but fuck my old boots - if we're red carding people for that, we've lost the plot.

I'm not downplaying the need for safety and the removal of high shots, but we just need to accept that there will be unfortunate collisions in a high-speed impact sport, and there is absolutely sod-all point giving red cards for offences for completely unintended acts that were not reckless (again, I'll simply not accept Steward did anything I can see as reckless). It won't change behaviour, as they're not conscious decisions.

Right, there's no realistic 'coachable moment' for Steward that doesn't result in him giving away a penalty. If he goes through with the tackle he'll be penalised and could well have picked up a yellow, and I'm very dubious if in real time and in all the circumstances that was at all viable.

Fester mentioned a refereeing whatsapp call which I think was correct - there's only two viable outcomes, play on or a red. IMO Peyper and his TMO skipped any opportunity to consider play on as an option. The process goes:

1. Has head contact occurred?
Head contact includes neck and throat area

To which the answer is obviously yes. But IMO they skipped either totally or practically

2. Was there foul play?
Considerations:
• Intentional
• Reckless
• Avoidable

Intentional and Avoidable? No. See it in real time. Which leaves reckless, pretty dubious IMO. See further

• Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier
• Player had no time to readjust
• Passive action
• Involuntary collision
• No leading arm when close to the body

He ticks at least two of these criteria, no time to adjust and involuntary collision. Arguable he meets passive action and no leading arm.

The challenge is that once something is on the big screen, one team is screaming and the crowd are in pantomime mode, the decision maker is 'primed' to give a decision. How often does the answer to 2) come back 'no, play on'? I struggle to think of many, and most involve Wayne Barnes, the most experienced ref and one with credit at the bank and a back up career that means he really doesn't give a shit. The whole process is skewed so that as soon as something is on the big screen, someone is walking.

[inactionman]

If he was standing still in a defensive line and braced for impact it would be one thing, but he came steaming in to be the one to initiate a contact. He forced himself and the other player into a position where impact is inevitable, so the onus is on him to make a decision and he chose a bad option that injured the other player.

But he was approaching for a (presumably legal - we'll never know but nothing suggests it would be anything other than fair) tackle and half-stopped because of a fumble, and from then on was trying to avoid. He stands up and braces, in many cases he'd have just bumped shoulders but unfortunately for all he hits Keenan in the head with his elbow.

If he'd just come running in and shoulder-charged/led with his elbow then yes, red card. He simply did not do that.

He could, of course, just followed through and wiped out Keenen, but if Keenan had truly lost control of the ball and Steward hits him late it would be foul play.

I'm also uncomfortable with the phrase 'decision' - it was split-second reaction to an event which threw him. He decided to make the tackle, agreed, but that's all he did - and that is the point of game. In the course of initiating the tackle the attacking player fumbled the ball and he reacted to that. Maybe his reactions could have been 'better' when judged against outcomes, but fuck my old boots - if we're red carding people for that, we've lost the plot.

I'm not downplaying the need for safety and the removal of high shots, but we just need to accept that there will be unfortunate collisions in a high-speed impact sport, and there is absolutely sod-all point giving red cards for offences for completely unintended acts that were not reckless (again, I'll simply not accept Steward did anything I can see as reckless). It won't change behaviour, as they're not conscious decisions.

Right, there's no realistic 'coachable moment' for Steward that doesn't result in him giving away a penalty. If he goes through with the tackle he'll be penalised and could well have picked up a yellow, and I'm very dubious if in real time and in all the circumstances that was at all viable.

Fester mentioned a refereeing whatsapp call which I think was correct - there's only two viable outcomes, play on or a red. IMO Peyper and his TMO skipped any opportunity to consider play on as an option. The process goes:

1. Has head contact occurred?
Head contact includes neck and throat area

To which the answer is obviously yes. But IMO they skipped either totally or practically

2. Was there foul play?
Considerations:
• Intentional
• Reckless
• Avoidable

Intentional and Avoidable? No. See it in real time. Which leaves reckless, pretty dubious IMO. See further

• Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier
• Player had no time to readjust
• Passive action
• Involuntary collision
• No leading arm when close to the body

He ticks at least two of these criteria, no time to adjust and involuntary collision. Arguable he meets passive action and no leading arm.

The challenge is that once something is on the big screen, one team is screaming and the crowd are in pantomime mode, the decision maker is 'primed' to give a decision. How often does the answer to 2) come back 'no, play on'? I struggle to think of many, and most involve Wayne Barnes, the most experienced ref and one with credit at the bank and a back up career that means he really doesn't give a shit. The whole process is skewed so that as soon as something is on the big screen, someone is walking.

Yep - the officials do seem a little backed into a corner when it's put up on screen.

An issue is the current focus on head contact - it seems to be the 'won't someone think of the children' fallback whenever there's an incident, and whilst I'll always support actions to remove reckless behaviour or to rejig the rules to make it less likely, it can't be sole arbiter of offence..

Much like there's a phrase saying 'no-one ever got fired for buying IBM' it's almost silently agreed that 'no ref will ever receive bad evaluations for red carding a head knock'. That does need to be rethought.

I do agree, to a great extent, with having a framework for removing objectivity around the legality of contact, but sometimes we need to realise where the framework isn't valid. For argument's sake, when someone is actively trying to avoid contact.

[Sandstorm]

At no point did Steward contest possession. He just ran at a bloke who was gathering the ball and ended up making an arse of himself and badly hurting them.

How does the slowest fullback in the world hurt someone by running into them?

[Sandstorm]

He really needs to attend the WR evasive action course

Slade got an A* doing that course

[GogLais]

But he was approaching for a (presumably legal - we'll never know but nothing suggests it would be anything other than fair) tackle and half-stopped because of a fumble, and from then on was trying to avoid. He stands up and braces, in many cases he'd have just bumped shoulders but unfortunately for all he hits Keenan in the head with his elbow.

If he'd just come running in and shoulder-charged/led with his elbow then yes, red card. He simply did not do that.

He could, of course, just followed through and wiped out Keenen, but if Keenan had truly lost control of the ball and Steward hits him late it would be foul play.

I'm also uncomfortable with the phrase 'decision' - it was split-second reaction to an event which threw him. He decided to make the tackle, agreed, but that's all he did - and that is the point of game. In the course of initiating the tackle the attacking player fumbled the ball and he reacted to that. Maybe his reactions could have been 'better' when judged against outcomes, but fuck my old boots - if we're red carding people for that, we've lost the plot.

I'm not downplaying the need for safety and the removal of high shots, but we just need to accept that there will be unfortunate collisions in a high-speed impact sport, and there is absolutely sod-all point giving red cards for offences for completely unintended acts that were not reckless (again, I'll simply not accept Steward did anything I can see as reckless). It won't change behaviour, as they're not conscious decisions.

Right, there's no realistic 'coachable moment' for Steward that doesn't result in him giving away a penalty. If he goes through with the tackle he'll be penalised and could well have picked up a yellow, and I'm very dubious if in real time and in all the circumstances that was at all viable.

Fester mentioned a refereeing whatsapp call which I think was correct - there's only two viable outcomes, play on or a red. IMO Peyper and his TMO skipped any opportunity to consider play on as an option. The process goes:

1. Has head contact occurred?
Head contact includes neck and throat area

To which the answer is obviously yes. But IMO they skipped either totally or practically

2. Was there foul play?
Considerations:
• Intentional
• Reckless
• Avoidable

Intentional and Avoidable? No. See it in real time. Which leaves reckless, pretty dubious IMO. See further

• Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier
• Player had no time to readjust
• Passive action
• Involuntary collision
• No leading arm when close to the body

He ticks at least two of these criteria, no time to adjust and involuntary collision. Arguable he meets passive action and no leading arm.

The challenge is that once something is on the big screen, one team is screaming and the crowd are in pantomime mode, the decision maker is 'primed' to give a decision. How often does the answer to 2) come back 'no, play on'? I struggle to think of many, and most involve Wayne Barnes, the most experienced ref and one with credit at the bank and a back up career that means he really doesn't give a shit. The whole process is skewed so that as soon as something is on the big screen, someone is walking.

Yep - the officials do seem a little backed into a corner when it's put up on screen.

That’s why I think the ref/other officials discussion should be private. Once the ref has said their piece it’s hard for the others to publicly disagree and if they do they have to do it code “I’ll just show you another angle”. Explain the discussion afterwards by all means.

[Sandstorm]

That’s why I think the ref/other officials discussion should be private. Once the ref has said their piece it’s hard for the others to publicly disagree and if they do they have to do it code “I’ll just show you another angle”. Explain the discussion afterwards by all means.

Premiership football run the VAR process that way and it's a shitshow! No-one knows what the ref is thinking and there isn't a debate between him and the other officials. One man, one (arse-covering) vote.

Rugby have got it right IMO - it's some Laws that need tweaking (as usual)

However the big change needs to come from the players. And the only way to get that is to massively ramp up the sanctions to many months for dangerous/foul play.

[GogLais]

That’s why I think the ref/other officials discussion should be private. Once the ref has said their piece it’s hard for the others to publicly disagree and if they do they have to do it code “I’ll just show you another angle”. Explain the discussion afterwards by all means.

Premiership football run the VAR process that way and it's a shitshow! No-one knows what the ref is thinking and there isn't a debate between him and the other officials. One man, one (arse-covering) vote.

I did say it’s perfectly fine, in fact desirable, for the ref to explain the decision and I certainly didn’t suggest there shouldn’t be a debate.

[Biffer]

All of those mitigation criteria are for a tackle. He didn't wrap his arms so it wasn't classed as a tackle, so mitigation can't be applied. Those are the current guidelines.

[Sandstorm]

That’s why I think the ref/other officials discussion should be private. Once the ref has said their piece it’s hard for the others to publicly disagree and if they do they have to do it code “I’ll just show you another angle”. Explain the discussion afterwards by all means.

Premiership football run the VAR process that way and it's a shitshow! No-one knows what the ref is thinking and there isn't a debate between him and the other officials. One man, one (arse-covering) vote.

I did say it’s perfectly fine, in fact desirable, for the ref to explain the decision and I certainly didn’t suggest there shouldn’t be a debate.

Apologies, my good sir.

[Slick]

Just saw this:

World Rugby’s research scientist Ross Tucker, who helped to design the high-tackle framework that informs refereeing decisions, said that Steward should have been shown a yellow card.

“Personally, I think you could arrive at red initially and mitigate for a late change in the situation and go yellow,” he wrote on Twitter. “Or you could say that there’s no fault.

“These brace situations are complex even when it’s a typical tackle. The picture in front of him changed rapidly and I can see how his decision making would be affected by it, and then he made a call that led to a poor situation.”

[GogLais]

Premiership football run the VAR process that way and it's a shitshow! No-one knows what the ref is thinking and there isn't a debate between him and the other officials. One man, one (arse-covering) vote.

I did say it’s perfectly fine, in fact desirable, for the ref to explain the decision and I certainly didn’t suggest there shouldn’t be a debate.

Apologies, my good sir.

Ta.

[Mahoney]

• Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier
• Player had no time to readjust
• Passive action
• Involuntary collision
• No leading arm when close to the body

He ticks at least two of these criteria, no time to adjust and involuntary collision.

I'm largely on your side of this debate, but there's clearly time to adjust to some degree because he does - he stands up, indeed jumps a little, leans back to lessen the impact, twists his body and braces. What there isn't time to do is avoid contact altogether.

I just think it's a purely instinctive reaction to a coming collision when he's been thrown out of his initial intention of tackling the player by the player knocking on. From the knock on until they make contact is a fraction of a second.

[Sandstorm]

Just saw this:

World Rugby’s research scientist Ross Tucker, who helped to design the high-tackle framework that informs refereeing decisions, said that Steward should have been shown a yellow card.

“Personally, I think you could arrive at red initially and mitigate for a late change in the situation and go yellow,” he wrote on Twitter. “Or you could say that there’s no fault.

“These brace situations are complex even when it’s a typical tackle. The picture in front of him changed rapidly and I can see how his decision making would be affected by it, and then he made a call that led to a poor situation.”

For the Irish. DId we go this hard on any of our reds ever?

Your lot go even harder if someone just frowns at your team.

[PornDog]

Even if he has time, is it really realistic for him to do anything but the completely natural reaction and brace for impact? That's where I think this is mad.

If he was standing still in a defensive line and braced for impact it would be one thing, but he came steaming in to be the one to initiate a contact. He forced himself and the other player into a position where impact is inevitable, so the onus is on him to make a decision and he chose a bad option that injured the other player.

Because he thought he was going to make it first to a bouncing ball then realised a fraction of a second before he wasn't going to make it. Are we really getting to the stage where we think players should not challenge for a bouncing ball coming towards them?

Why should it be any different to challenging for a high ball? You can still challenge for a high or loose ball - you just can't poleaxe your opponent while doing so!

[Slick]

Just saw this:

World Rugby’s research scientist Ross Tucker, who helped to design the high-tackle framework that informs refereeing decisions, said that Steward should have been shown a yellow card.

“Personally, I think you could arrive at red initially and mitigate for a late change in the situation and go yellow,” he wrote on Twitter. “Or you could say that there’s no fault.

“These brace situations are complex even when it’s a typical tackle. The picture in front of him changed rapidly and I can see how his decision making would be affected by it, and then he made a call that led to a poor situation.”

For the Irish. DId we go this hard on any of our reds ever?

It’s certainly not “my red”, and the other red for a Scottish player wasn’t disputed by anyone. Rather outed the oirish there my good friend

[Paddington Bear]

Just saw this:

World Rugby’s research scientist Ross Tucker, who helped to design the high-tackle framework that informs refereeing decisions, said that Steward should have been shown a yellow card.

“Personally, I think you could arrive at red initially and mitigate for a late change in the situation and go yellow,” he wrote on Twitter. “Or you could say that there’s no fault.

“These brace situations are complex even when it’s a typical tackle. The picture in front of him changed rapidly and I can see how his decision making would be affected by it, and then he made a call that led to a poor situation.”

For the Irish. DId we go this hard on any of our reds ever?

Rishi Sunak has yet to demand that the match is replayed, in our defence.