England hard done by - law clarification incoming

[Ymx]

It will be reviewed at citing and either
- be downgraded to a yellow
- the rugby laws will get changed (as per title)

[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.

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.

On Planet JMK, the professor says you need to do more than fucking look at the ball in order to contest possession, yeah. He was not obviously making any attempt to: gather the ball, make a tackle, kick the ball, do anything except trying to run towards Keenan. He was never, ever going to be in a position to contest possession because he was miles away when the pass was made. Somehow he was caught out by the incredible scenario of a player picking up the ball they were going for - something he had full view of the entire time - so if he was surprised by that, then he's a fucking moron.

Otherwise, I contested a shit load of tackles when I played. I was nowhere near them and didn't actually make any effort to make a tackle, but I was eyeballing them really hard from several metres away.

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.”

This is the core of my disagreement with the take, tbh. I don't think "the picture in front of him changed rapidly". I think the obvious thing happened - Keenan (who he would've been having to tackle anyway had the pass not been a fumble) went for the pass that was intended for him and collected it. Where's the rapid change in the picture?

Look at how far away Steward is (and not at full speed) when the ball is bouncing in the vicinity of Keenan, who is clearly attempting to go for it:


Keenan a split second away from gathering, Steward still metres away:


Keenan has gathered and been twatted despite doing nothing out of the ordinary:


Keenan has made no sudden moves to either side. He went for the ball, got the ball, and got smashed in the head by a big idiot for his troubles. The picture did not change.

"But still images don't tell the story!" well tbh in realtime I thought it was a shocker and watching the replay in realtime I still think it's a shocker. Sorry.

[Jim Lahey]

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?

I'm still fuming over Heaslip's red for accidently burying his knee into McCaw's face.

Fuck all in it, the game has gone soft.

[C69]

Just saw this:

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

I'm still fuming over Heaslip's red for accidently burying his knee into McCaw's face.

Fuck all in it, the game has gone soft.

Paul Ringer is innocent

[Ymx]

Assuming the kneeslip comment was a joke, but in case not

Heaslip on the incident

“I’ve had to some great memories against New Zealand [laughs],” he says, recalling the incident.

“Yeah, jeez, imagine doing that nowadays? A scary thought. Yeah, it was a stupid thing. A rush of blood to the head really.

“It was a player…I let that be a reaction rather than an action and I’ve had very few reactions in my career like that. Kind of like an emotional reaction, because they’re unpredictable, they’re a bit dangerous.

You need to be on automatic pilot but that’s off the back of putting loads of work in and you can become quite deliberate with what you’re doing even though it’s split-second thinking. That was very much an emotional reaction. I was so riled up.

Heaslip was determined to prevent McCaw do what he did best.

“Richie is blessed in the dark arts of, you know, first 20 minutes if you get inside their 22, he had a very good knack of slowing that ball down and I had just had it in my head it wasn’t going to happen but the way I did it was just wrong.

“I paid the price and the team paid the price. I remember straight away when the lads came in after the game, I just remember going, before Deccie [Declan Kidney] or before anyone spoke, just kind of owning it. It was a lesson for me and not a very great moment in my career.

[_Os_]

The first thing I was taught in rugby was tackling when I was 6 or 7 (maybe different elsewhere, but that's how it is in SA). Day 1 instruction 1, was "always be committed if you're going to tackle, make your mind up and don't change it, if you're not committed and unsure it'll be a weak tackle and you may hurt yourself".

I'm not seeing an ultra unique situation that warrants all these contortions. If he was going to tackle he should've done so, it comes up often for example that a player passes or kicks the ball just before a tackler gets there if the tackler was committed it's fine, if someone is fumbling the ball or knocking on it's fine to tackle them too (not looking up the laws, it has always been reffed as being in possession).

Pieter Steph du Toit was red carded and banned for three weeks at the end of last year against France, for a ruck entry that hit a French player's head. He was pushed into the ruck by Smith and claimed at his hearing he shouldn't have been given a red card, he had no intent to harm any French player. I expect the Sunday Times, Woodward, multiple ex-England players etc etc, all came out defend Du Toit? Hang on they didn't?!

[SaintK]

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

I'm still fuming over Heaslip's red for accidently burying his knee into McCaw's face.

Fuck all in it, the game has gone soft.

Paul Ringer is innocent

should have got 12 months in the nick

[Slick]

The first thing I was taught in rugby was tackling when I was 6 or 7 (maybe different elsewhere, but that's how it is in SA). Day 1 instruction 1, was "always be committed if you're going to tackle, make your mind up and don't change it, if you're not committed and unsure it'll be a weak tackle and you may hurt yourself".

I'm not seeing an ultra unique situation that warrants all these contortions. If he was going to tackle he should've done so, it comes up often for example that a player passes or kicks the ball just before a tackler gets there if the tackler was committed it's fine, if someone is fumbling the ball or knocking on it's fine to tackle them too (not looking up the laws, it has always been reffed as being in possession).

Pieter Steph du Toit was red carded and banned for three weeks at the end of last year against France, for a ruck entry that hit a French player's head. He was pushed into the ruck by Smith and claimed at his hearing he shouldn't have been given a red card, he had no intent to harm any French player. I expect the Sunday Times, Woodward, multiple ex-England players etc etc, all came out defend Du Toit? Hang on they didn't?!

Behave

[C69]

I'm still fuming over Heaslip's red for accidently burying his knee into McCaw's face.

Fuck all in it, the game has gone soft.

Paul Ringer is innocent

should have got 12 months in the nick

[C69]

I'm still fuming over Heaslip's red for accidently burying his knee into McCaw's face.

Fuck all in it, the game has gone soft.

Paul Ringer is innocent

should have got 12 months in the nick

[Paddington Bear]

The first thing I was taught in rugby was tackling when I was 6 or 7 (maybe different elsewhere, but that's how it is in SA). Day 1 instruction 1, was "always be committed if you're going to tackle, make your mind up and don't change it, if you're not committed and unsure it'll be a weak tackle and you may hurt yourself".

I'm not seeing an ultra unique situation that warrants all these contortions. If he was going to tackle he should've done so, it comes up often for example that a player passes or kicks the ball just before a tackler gets there if the tackler was committed it's fine, if someone is fumbling the ball or knocking on it's fine to tackle them too (not looking up the laws, it has always been reffed as being in possession).

Pieter Steph du Toit was red carded and banned for three weeks at the end of last year against France, for a ruck entry that hit a French player's head. He was pushed into the ruck by Smith and claimed at his hearing he shouldn't have been given a red card, he had no intent to harm any French player. I expect the Sunday Times, Woodward, multiple ex-England players etc etc, all came out defend Du Toit? Hang on they didn't?!

This is absolutely rancid bait, fascinated to see if anyone bites

[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.

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.

On Planet JMK, the professor says you need to do more than fucking look at the ball in order to contest possession, yeah. He was not obviously making any attempt to: gather the ball, make a tackle, kick the ball, do anything except trying to run towards Keenan. He was never, ever going to be in a position to contest possession because he was miles away when the pass was made. Somehow he was caught out by the incredible scenario of a player picking up the ball they were going for - something he had full view of the entire time - so if he was surprised by that, then he's a fucking moron.

Otherwise, I contested a shit load of tackles when I played. I was nowhere near them and didn't actually make any effort to make a tackle, but I was eyeballing them really hard from several metres away.

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.”

This is the core of my disagreement with the take, tbh. I don't think "the picture in front of him changed rapidly". I think the obvious thing happened - Keenan (who he would've been having to tackle anyway had the pass not been a fumble) went for the pass that was intended for him and collected it. Where's the rapid change in the picture?

Look at how far away Steward is (and not at full speed) when the ball is bouncing in the vicinity of Keenan, who is clearly attempting to go for it:


Keenan a split second away from gathering, Steward still metres away:


Keenan has gathered and been twatted despite doing nothing out of the ordinary:


Keenan has made no sudden moves to either side. He went for the ball, got the ball, and got smashed in the head by a big idiot for his troubles. The picture did not change.

"But still images don't tell the story!" well tbh in realtime I thought it was a shocker and watching the replay in realtime I still think it's a shocker. Sorry.

JMK you’re making out like Steward was running straight for the whole phase of play and never changed direction. He was put in two minds by a duff pass and had to move right and then left to get in front of the ball.

It’s not fair just to focus on Keenan’s movement in the incident.

[JM2K6]

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.

On Planet JMK, the professor says you need to do more than fucking look at the ball in order to contest possession, yeah. He was not obviously making any attempt to: gather the ball, make a tackle, kick the ball, do anything except trying to run towards Keenan. He was never, ever going to be in a position to contest possession because he was miles away when the pass was made. Somehow he was caught out by the incredible scenario of a player picking up the ball they were going for - something he had full view of the entire time - so if he was surprised by that, then he's a fucking moron.

Otherwise, I contested a shit load of tackles when I played. I was nowhere near them and didn't actually make any effort to make a tackle, but I was eyeballing them really hard from several metres away.

Just saw this:

This is the core of my disagreement with the take, tbh. I don't think "the picture in front of him changed rapidly". I think the obvious thing happened - Keenan (who he would've been having to tackle anyway had the pass not been a fumble) went for the pass that was intended for him and collected it. Where's the rapid change in the picture?

Look at how far away Steward is (and not at full speed) when the ball is bouncing in the vicinity of Keenan, who is clearly attempting to go for it:


Keenan a split second away from gathering, Steward still metres away:


Keenan has gathered and been twatted despite doing nothing out of the ordinary:


Keenan has made no sudden moves to either side. He went for the ball, got the ball, and got smashed in the head by a big idiot for his troubles. The picture did not change.

"But still images don't tell the story!" well tbh in realtime I thought it was a shocker and watching the replay in realtime I still think it's a shocker. Sorry.

JMK you’re making out like Steward was running straight for the whole phase of play and never changed direction. He was put in two minds by a duff pass and had to move right and then left to get in front of the ball.

It’s not fair just to focus on Keenan’s movement in the incident.

He had to what?

[Uncle fester]

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.

You got this process completely arseways. You can't apply mitigation unless a legal tackle has been attempted. You're trying to apply the mitigation halfway through the HCP.

[Ymx]

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

I'm still fuming over Heaslip's red for accidently burying his knee into McCaw's face.

Fuck all in it, the game has gone soft.

That was a great day and worth the 60-0. BOOM TAKE THAT MCCAW YAR CARNT

And this is exactly why we don’t allow you Irishers in larger groups. This happens!

Now disperse the lot of you !!

[Enzedder]

And around and around and around we go.

Same accidental collision - same result - same laws - same ref

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all ... mmon-sense

[JM2K6]

The accidental collision of a man charging into someone else upright and smacking heads? Christ, these players are clumsier than I thought.

(Thankfully, people have largely gotten over the idea that those ridiculous upright 'tackles' are acceptable, but I guess news travels slowly in some parts of the world)

[Enzedder]

The accidental collision of a man charging into someone else upright and smacking heads? Christ, these players are clumsier than I thought.

(Thankfully, people have largely gotten over the idea that those ridiculous upright 'tackles' are acceptable, but I guess news travels slowly in some parts of the world)

That's what I am saying. Nothing has changed - but the players and fans seem to think it has.

[CM11]

I'm still fuming over Heaslip's red for accidently burying his knee into McCaw's face.

Fuck all in it, the game has gone soft.

That was a great day and worth the 60-0. BOOM TAKE THAT MCCAW YAR CARNT

And this is exactly why we don’t allow you Irishers in larger groups. This happens!

Now disperse the lot of you !!

He didn't even get the right game. It was a much more respectable 66-28 defeat that day! We've no excuse for the 60-0!

[Ymx]

That was a great day and worth the 60-0. BOOM TAKE THAT MCCAW YAR CARNT

And this is exactly why we don’t allow you Irishers in larger groups. This happens!

Now disperse the lot of you !!

He didn't even get the right game. It was a much more respectable 66-28 defeat that day! We've no excuse for the 60-0!

[Biffer]

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.

On Planet JMK, the professor says you need to do more than fucking look at the ball in order to contest possession, yeah. He was not obviously making any attempt to: gather the ball, make a tackle, kick the ball, do anything except trying to run towards Keenan. He was never, ever going to be in a position to contest possession because he was miles away when the pass was made. Somehow he was caught out by the incredible scenario of a player picking up the ball they were going for - something he had full view of the entire time - so if he was surprised by that, then he's a fucking moron.

Otherwise, I contested a shit load of tackles when I played. I was nowhere near them and didn't actually make any effort to make a tackle, but I was eyeballing them really hard from several metres away.

Just saw this:

This is the core of my disagreement with the take, tbh. I don't think "the picture in front of him changed rapidly". I think the obvious thing happened - Keenan (who he would've been having to tackle anyway had the pass not been a fumble) went for the pass that was intended for him and collected it. Where's the rapid change in the picture?

Look at how far away Steward is (and not at full speed) when the ball is bouncing in the vicinity of Keenan, who is clearly attempting to go for it:


Keenan a split second away from gathering, Steward still metres away:


Keenan has gathered and been twatted despite doing nothing out of the ordinary:


Keenan has made no sudden moves to either side. He went for the ball, got the ball, and got smashed in the head by a big idiot for his troubles. The picture did not change.

"But still images don't tell the story!" well tbh in realtime I thought it was a shocker and watching the replay in realtime I still think it's a shocker. Sorry.

JMK you’re making out like Steward was running straight for the whole phase of play and never changed direction. He was put in two minds by a duff pass and had to move right and then left to get in front of the ball.

It’s not fair just to focus on Keenan’s movement in the incident.

So he changed direction twice in order to clatter him?

[Lisbon Nick]

What time is the hearing today?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Steward can close the space to Keenan not challenge the ball and have a collision and be fine, but he can't tuck his elbow/shoulder and present his elbow/shoulder to Keenan and expect to get away with it if in protecting himself he connects to the head/neck of Keenan.

It's the same as running a blocking line, as long as you don't go off your line/channel or turn into the other player just a collision is play on.

Steward can say he's unlucky the contact came about as it did and his movement was instinctive, most days maybe the players just bounce away and it's play on, or maybe a penalty for blocking whilst not making a legal tackle. But if you give the referee a chance to ping you and he pings you it's your fault, and in this we're supposed to be considering player safety, probably the game isn't thinking enough about player safety but in moments like this it will claim it is

[Joost]

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is from the hearing, suspect they will back Peiper as it’s not a completely egregious decision when you run through the protocol in the cold light of day (I had a very different opinion on Saturday - thought it was a yellow at worst).

For me you could make a case that there was some mitigation, as Keenan had lowered his height to pick up the ball and that’s why he was at elbow/forearm height. Steward makes it worse than it would have been by turning into the collision - it’s a split second reaction that’s instinctive, suspect he was caught out by the ball going to ground and tried to pull out of the collision, but too late by that point to avoid contact. If he’d stayed square on and tried to wrap it would probably have been a yellow.

Still feels harsh and dislike how many games are effected by red cards, as well-intentioned as the rule changes are.

Still, no complaint about the result of the game or the tournament - unlike in 2021, where it felt like the 2 reds (and Pascal Gauzere’s comedy performance in the Eng Wales game) materially effected the outcome of the tournament.

[Ymx]

Where are the hearings and results listed? Somewhere on the WR website?

I never know where to look for them.

[inactionman]

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is from the hearing, suspect they will back Peiper as it’s not a completely egregious decision when you run through the protocol in the cold light of day (I had a very different opinion on Saturday - thought it was a yellow at worst).

For me you could make a case that there was some mitigation, as Keenan had lowered his height to pick up the ball and that’s why he was at elbow/forearm height. Steward makes it worse than it would have been by turning into the collision - it’s a split second reaction that’s instinctive, suspect he was caught out by the ball going to ground and tried to pull out of the collision, but too late by that point to avoid contact. If he’d stayed square on and tried to wrap it would probably have been a yellow.

Still feels harsh and dislike how many games are effected by red cards, as well-intentioned as the rule changes are.

Still, no complaint about the result of the game or the tournament - unlike in 2021, where it felt like the 2 reds (and Pascal Gauzere’s comedy performance in the Eng Wales game) materially effected the outcome of the tournament.

Aye, Gauzere allowing a quick take when he'd sent Farrell to speak to the team materially impacted the game. Just an awful call.

I've whined enough about Stewards' red card, but I think it's mad to think that we can give red cards for instinctive acts. Choosing to go chest-high high into tackle and ballsing it up is a conscious decision, and is ultimately either reckless or dangerously incompetent, getting caught out by a fumble and just bracing for an impact when left stranded is simply not the same thing. In any way, in any context.

[Kawazaki]

Keenan a split second away from gathering, Steward still metres away:


Keenan has gathered and been twatted despite doing nothing out of the ordinary:


Keenan has made no sudden moves to either side. He went for the ball, got the ball, and got smashed in the head by a big idiot for his troubles. The picture did not change.

It's 0.6 seconds between the ball bouncing into Keenan's hands from the knock-on to the impact with Steward. 0.6 seconds.

[Biffer]

Keenan a split second away from gathering, Steward still metres away:


Keenan has gathered and been twatted despite doing nothing out of the ordinary:


Keenan has made no sudden moves to either side. He went for the ball, got the ball, and got smashed in the head by a big idiot for his troubles. The picture did not change.

Elite athletes are expected to have reaction times of about a quarter of a second

It's 0.6 seconds between the ball bouncing into Keenan's hands from the knock-on to the impact with Steward. 0.6 seconds.

[fishfoodie]

I believe the legal eagles have a saying; "Hard cases make for bad Laws !"

This card was a hard case, so to use it as the basis for changing the Laws is at best foolish !

Lets not forget that there are several legal actions happening, which allege that the Unions knew of the consequences of collisions, & didn't do enough to mitigate them, & protect the players.

Right now the pendulum has swung one way, so they can clearly demonstrate that they are doing everything they can to remove dangerous play from the game, & doing their utmost to protect the players. In the future it may swing back a little the other direction, but right now I can't see anyone wanting to take responsibility for backsliding on the changes they've made.

There might be more of a discussion around the orange card, or whatever it called, but others have pointed out the risks & it's going to pig to implement, & it creates another gap between the Pro game, & the amateur game, because there's no way you can implement it in the club game.

[PornDog]

It's 0.6 seconds between the ball bouncing into Keenan's hands from the knock-on to the impact with Steward. 0.6 seconds.

Elite athletes are expected to have reaction times of about a quarter of a second

A baseball is in flight for less than 0.5 of a second from mound to home plate.


But besides all of that, he had time to turn his entire body sideways - just don't do that - then you'll be grand!

[Joost]

I believe the legal eagles have a saying; "Hard cases make for bad Laws !"

This card was a hard case, so to use it as the basis for changing the Laws is at best foolish !

Lets not forget that there are several legal actions happening, which allege that the Unions knew of the consequences of collisions, & didn't do enough to mitigate them, & protect the players.

Right now the pendulum has swung one way, so they can clearly demonstrate that they are doing everything they can to remove dangerous play from the game, & doing their utmost to protect the players. In the future it may swing back a little the other direction, but right now I can't see anyone wanting to take responsibility for backsliding on the changes they've made.

There might be more of a discussion around the orange card, or whatever it called, but others have pointed out the risks & it's going to pig to implement, & it creates another gap between the Pro game, & the amateur game, because there's no way you can implement it in the club game.

I don’t think we’ll see any change to the law, but we may see some further guidance as to what may count as mitigation - ie where players collide going for a loose ball or a player is bracing to protect themselves from a collision there may be more leniency than a tackle/ruck situation.

Hardest thing is to put it into a framework that refs can apply consistently, think refs have got better at applying mitigation and do try to avoid reds more than a couple of years ago, but it’s tough on them making a call that will often ruin a game and draw criticism.

[JM2K6]

Keenan a split second away from gathering, Steward still metres away:


Keenan has gathered and been twatted despite doing nothing out of the ordinary:


Keenan has made no sudden moves to either side. He went for the ball, got the ball, and got smashed in the head by a big idiot for his troubles. The picture did not change.

It's 0.6 seconds between the ball bouncing into Keenan's hands from the knock-on to the impact with Steward. 0.6 seconds.

Just two things there

1) players navigate much quicker scenarios constantly at this level without shitting the bed
2) 0.6 seconds from the expected thing happening to the collision is meaningless. What was steward having to react to? Nothing unexpected happened! The thing he could see was likely to happen from the start happened!

[Guy Smiley]

Fuck this defensive posturing based on split second timing...

the whole point of the 'controversial rulings'* that include cards and citings is to protect players. There is therefore a requirement from all players to enter into situations with a basic level of awareness regarding the possible consequences of their actions. There are rare instances where some sudden and bizarre involvement of extraterrestrials within a passage of play renders a completely unpredictable outcome for the attacking player and they become the victim of circumstance...

but otherwise, they are all the masters of their own destinies and the considerations regarding mitigation cater for any extenuating circumstances within the passage of play. Human nature being what it is results in some variation of interpretation but the basic thrust of the Laws and the desire behind them is clear.


* there is controversy only for the reactionary old school thinkers who refuse to accept a need to change. Unfortunately, they squeal the loudest like all minorities.


Hats off to YMX for generating such an argument off yet another Walrus quote, from the looks of it. You have to question the motives of someone who seems to be paying for that opinion.

[Ymx]

Hey, that’s a very mean personal attack Guy. I pay for Apple News and it’s free within that.
Also it was
a) a bit of fun
b) filling in a tiny bit of the gaping void of the international window gap
c) it was Stuart Barnes

[Ymx]

Here’s one from the independent (yesterday)

Freddie Steward’s ridiculous red card shows rugby must make changes to survive

Steward’s sending off during Ireland vs England highlighted that rugby’s laws too often lead to games being ruined

Luke Baker

Rugby has a problem. Well, it has lots of problems. From outdated, archaic governance (cc: the Welsh Rugby Union – only narrowly averting a player strike during the Six Nations and battling an ongoing homophobia, racism, sexism and misogyny scandal) to an over-filled playing calendar and hundreds-strong concussion lawsuits from former players suffering the horrible after-effects of not being protected when playing the game they love.

But the problem that this weekend highlighted most was the way that rugby’s laws are set up too often leads to games being ruined.

The general consensus from players past and present, pundits and fans on both sides of the Irish Sea is that Freddie Steward’s red card during the crunch Ireland vs England clash was ridiculous. Or at the very least, incredibly harsh.

The ‘wisdom of the crowd’ is often a misnomer and following the general consensus is certainly no guarantee of reaching the right decision but in this instance, it is completely justified.

If you missed the incident, just before half time in the final game of this year’s Six Nations, Steward was sent off after his elbow made contact with Hugo Keenan’s head. With Keenan bending to pick up a spilled ball while running at his opposite number, the England full back turned his body to brace for the collision and accidentally contacted the Irishman’s head. The game was in the balance at the time of the red card, with England only trailing 10-6, but Ireland went on to win 29-16 against 14 men to complete a deserved grand slam.

<p>Freddie Steward saw red at the hands of referee Jaco Peyper </p>
Freddie Steward saw red at the hands of referee Jaco Peyper
(PA)
The sending off ruined the Test match as a spectacle, with an already-outgunned England being unable to compete against a relentless Irish machine with a man disadvantage, and, while entertainment value should not be in the minds of referees when they’re making on-pitch decisions, it absolutely should be at the forefront of the law-makers’ thinking. Like all sports, rugby is ultimately just a fun diversion from everyday life and those spending their hard-earned money to watch deserve the optimal experience.

To be clear, player safety is paramount and law adjustments in recent years to reduce avoidable head trauma have been a good thing. The ‘dangerous tackle protocol’ referees run through when making a decision and the punishments to incentivise players to tackle lower and more safely are vital to ensuring rugby’s survival in the 21st century as we learn more about brain injuries. Anyone who red-facedly snarls that “the game has gone soft” is simply not worth listening to – it is more physical and brutal than it has ever been, and measures to reduce direct head contact won’t negatively affect that.

However, surely no one can watch the Steward incident and, in good faith, deem it as an avoidable head impact? Rugby is still a contact sport and collisions will happen.

“In the current climate… you’re upright, you’re into contact,” explained referee Jaco Peyper to Steward and baffled England skipper Owen Farrell. "You have time to turn your shoulder,” continued Peyper. “Direct contact to the head, it’s a high level of danger. No mitigation." And thus the red card was brandished.

How Peyper arrived at the decision that Steward had time to turn his shoulder is mystifying. Sure, super slow-motion replays suggest he could have made cup of tea and still had time to adjust his positioning but in reality, he had just 0.6 seconds between a bent-over, forward-moving Keenan picking up the spilled ball and contact. 0.6 seconds...

He turned to brace for impact to avoid a front-on collision with a man who, at that point, didn’t have the ball and the Irish full back – who was lower than his natural running position – made contact with the elbow. It was impossible, given the circumstances, for Steward to avoid contact. What could he have done differently?

Peyper was applying the dangerous tackle protocol to a situation that wasn’t a tackle and both Keenan’s body position and the lack of time between the ball being collected and impact should have been mitigating factors.

[Ymx]

Where does it get announced?

[Sandstorm]

Where does it get announced?

Korean DMZ

[JM2K6]

That article is absolutely fucking brain dead.

I would also suggest that what ruined the game was England's compete absence of ambition and Borthwick preferring for us to lose by less than trying to win the game. The game was ruined by being contested by a team terrified of its own shadow, kicking away possession at every opportunity and refusing to take a risk in service of winning the game.

[fishfoodie]

That article is absolutely fucking brain dead.

I would also suggest that what ruined the game was England's compete absence of ambition and Borthwick preferring for us to lose by less than trying to win the game. The game was ruined by being contested by a team terrified of its own shadow, kicking away possession at every opportunity and refusing to take a risk in service of winning the game.

Ahh, this thread helps pass the time while I wait for the shitgibbon to be arrested, & the bumblecunt to lie some more.

[Niegs]

Here’s one from the independent (yesterday)

To be clear, player safety is paramount…

However…

I’m sick of seeing this from pundits, players, coaches, and the socials. At least the “game’s gone soft!” brigade clearly state they prefer the biff without contradiction.