Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:56 am
I can understand referees being confused now and asking if the guidance has changed so that a hit now can be mitigated down, when up to this point they were previously told it should not be.
WR will come out with a guidance before the RWC that adds a layer or two of confusion and grey areas while also painting the 6N review process in a bad light.
WR needs to bite the bullet the same way FIFA did in 1994. Make the changes, send people off in your biggest event, persist in the face of howling.
But if you send people off for inadvertent, accidental acts then you make it ridiculous.
(eta: Have I interpreted your post correctly? Maybe not)
They also need to get this tournament right as a spectacle for the European time zone market, given a lot of games will be on prime time terrestrial tv. Wouldn’t have been such an issue to have a slew of reds with games being played in Japan, Oz or NZ, but in France it would be.
WR will come out with a guidance before the RWC that adds a layer or two of confusion and grey areas while also painting the 6N review process in a bad light.
WR needs to bite the bullet the same way FIFA did in 1994. Make the changes, send people off in your biggest event, persist in the face of howling.
But if you send people off for inadvertent, accidental acts then you make it ridiculous.
(eta: Have I interpreted your post correctly? Maybe not)
What if the player is wearing an All Blacks jersey?
WR will come out with a guidance before the RWC that adds a layer or two of confusion and grey areas while also painting the 6N review process in a bad light.
WR needs to bite the bullet the same way FIFA did in 1994. Make the changes, send people off in your biggest event, persist in the face of howling.
But if you send people off for inadvertent, accidental acts then you make it ridiculous.
(eta: Have I interpreted your post correctly? Maybe not)
Most high tackles are accidental. Should we not send people off for them?
WR needs to bite the bullet the same way FIFA did in 1994. Make the changes, send people off in your biggest event, persist in the face of howling.
But if you send people off for inadvertent, accidental acts then you make it ridiculous.
(eta: Have I interpreted your post correctly? Maybe not)
Most high tackles are accidental. Should we not send people off for them?
They're reckless from the outset.
(A related point - I think we need to go further, and have a zone at may be chest high where it's a penalty - this has been discussed to death, but the line between a 'dominant tackle' - which coaches love and encourage - and a red card is just too paper thin.)
But if you send people off for inadvertent, accidental acts then you make it ridiculous.
(eta: Have I interpreted your post correctly? Maybe not)
Most high tackles are accidental. Should we not send people off for them?
They're reckless from the outset.
(A related point - I think we need to go further, and have a zone at may be chest high where it's a penalty - this has been discussed to death, but the line between a 'dominant tackle' - which coaches love and encourage - and a red card is just too paper thin.)
I'm ok with the current laws, it's the punishments that aren't sufficient. If it's 6 weeks, it's 6 weeks. Fuck this lowering of bans. Short bans will never change coaching techniques.
Imagine if one high tackle in the first game means you miss the entire World Cup right up to the final. That's make people think more about changing.
As a Springbok supporter, I welcome this "if you play at 500mph, throw your body about recklessly and 'accidently' injure an opponent, then that wasn't intended it's all good and not foul play" verdict. I trust there'll be a recommendation issued to refs which will be applied equally to all teams, including the Boks.
_Os_ wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:47 pm
As a Springbok supporter, I welcome this "if you play at 500mph, throw your body about recklessly and 'accidently' injure an opponent, then that wasn't intended it's all good and not foul play" verdict. I trust there'll be a recommendation issued to refs which will be applied equally to all teams, including the Boks.
inactionman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:03 am
Wondering if they're going to update law interpretation and guidance off the back of this, or is the judgment enough by itself.
I appreciate it's not exactly simple to legislate for 'what happens when someone gets stuck in two minds when opponent drops ball' but it would be good to make sure there's some sense when red cards are issued.
The guidance available to Peyper allowed him to downgrade it. He should have done so and let the citing commissioner deal with it.
_Os_ wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:47 pm
As a Springbok supporter, I welcome this "if you play at 500mph, throw your body about recklessly and 'accidently' injure an opponent, then that wasn't intended it's all good and not foul play" verdict. I trust there'll be a recommendation issued to refs which will be applied equally to all teams, including the Boks.
Don't fancy being the next ref of the cab rank debating the next time there's a "weird/unusual collision incident " that results in a player getting smacked in the head.
England fullback Freddie Steward appeared before an independent Disciplinary Committee via video link having received a red card in the Guinness Six Nations match between Ireland and England on Saturday 18th March 2023 played at the Aviva Stadium.
The Red Card was issued as a result of the Referee concluding that the Player had acted contrary to Law 9.13 (A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders).
The independent Disciplinary Committee consisting of Nigel Hampton KC – Chair (New Zealand), Frank Hadden (Scotland) and John Langford (Australia) heard the case, and considered all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles and submissions from the Player and his representative.
After hearing the submissions, the Disciplinary Committee formally amended the Law which was breached to Law 9.11 (Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler).
The player denied that he had committed an act of foul play worthy of a red card as described in Law 9.11.
Having reviewed all the evidence, the Committee decided that: (i) head contact with an opposing player had occurred; (ii) there had been an act of foul play in breach of Law 9.11 in that the Player had been reckless in his actions and in his upright positioning as he approached and came into highly dangerous contact with the other player; and (iii) there were sufficient mitigating factors including the late change in the dynamics and positioning of the opposing player which should have resulted in the issue of a yellow card rather than a red card.
On that basis, the Committee did not uphold the red card and the player is free to play again immediately.
The Committee acknowledged that match officials are required to make decisions under pressure and in the heat of a live match environment.
Click here to watch the video that explains how rugby’s disciplinary process works.
Visit World Rugby’s dedicated disciplinary process education and information page here.
It is worth noting that his decision to start at red hasn't been deemed as wrong but the decision not to mitigate to a yellow was. Tough school for refs under huge pressure especially when they are being criticised for not penalising head contact too.
The margins are fine and I think the wording of the judgement is an acknowledgement that the laws are not clear. If Peyper and the TMO decide it was a "tackle" which was highly reckless then mitigation can't be applied. The committee seem to have determined that it was reckless so mitigation can be applied.
They really need to allow some subjectivity for the refs to use in their judgement.
Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:17 pm
Make all VAR reviews played in real time only. Slow motion totally distorts the picture.
Sure... the whole put your hands over your eyes thing works a treat.
No, I don't think the referee should put their hands over their eyes when doing reviews, just see the event happen in the same time frame that the player they're judging saw it.
The interesting part in this is the decision being downgraded because of the mitigation from the late change in dynamics. I actually heard from someone yesterday who sits on these panels and their take was the drop in height by Keenan would be a mitigating factor and the red card would be overturned, and that's certainly something. Something because you could take the view Keenan is going to bend down to scoop the ball so Steward is only ever closing space in uncontrolled fashion, or you could take the view Keenan initially wasn't lower and Keenan could have stayed as was, bent to scoop the ball, or perhaps nudged the ball ahead with his foot and thus when Keenan lowers his height so Steward gets the benefit, or more particularly should have got the benefit.
I still broadly feel this was a red card because of the height and speed Steward approaches at and that he's not ready to effect a safe tackle, and that he turns to present his shoulder/elbow. I take that view having in mind how the laws are now and how the game looks to the future and its likely liabilities. A day later I'm thus still disagreeing with the barrister who sits on the panels because dammit my ignorance has to count for something, and now I'm in disagreement with those who sat on Stewards hearing, though it's hardly the worst call I can think of from a disciplinary hearing, especially when the bigger part of my concern isn't the laws as they are but the game as it could (should?) be
CM11 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:08 pm
Or bring in the 20 min bin thing.
Would still have been harsh on Steward but not so harsh on England.
I’m being a bit glib but if it’s meant to be half way between yellow and red it needs to be more than 20 minutes.
It's recognising that head contacts can happen with no intent but they have to be shown to be doing something meaningful. Player gets sent off but team is only punished for 20 mins.
Red cards used to be for clear thuggery. Now there's barely a red card that would have been a red card 10-15 years ago.
CM11 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:08 pm
Or bring in the 20 min bin thing.
Would still have been harsh on Steward but not so harsh on England.
Lifted off rugbyrefs forum (on the steward thread) which I thought was very sensible
This is something for which I have advocated for a long time...
Law 9 needs to be divided into sections that reflect three different types of foul play...
Cynical;
Careless/Reckless;
Intentionally Dangerous.
Yellow Card for acts of foul play that are Cynical... intentional technical infringements such as deliberate knock-ons, repeated offsides on defence etc... player comes back on after 10 minutes
Red Card for acts of foul play that are Careless or Reckless cause or are likely to cause injury to an opponent (late and early tackles, tackles without the ball etc)... player is dismissed for the rest of the match, but can be replaced after 20 minutes.
Black Card for acts of foul play that are Intentionally Dangerous such as punching, stamping, eye-gouging, bag-snatching, biting etc (i.e. what sendings-off used to be for).... player is dismissed for the rest of the match and is not replaced.
This outcome is only going to change the outcome of exactly the same incident.
Nothing has changed, the framework was there for Peyper to give yellow, he didn't see it that way. Same happened to Cian Healy this season. Same will happen again in the future in both directions.
CM11 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:09 pm
This outcome is only going to change the outcome of exactly the same incident.
Nothing has changed, the framework was there for Peyper to give yellow, he didn't see it that way. Same happened to Cian Healy this season. Same will happen again in the future in both directions.
Peyper applied the framework incorrectly hence his red card being cancelled.
Any decent top tier ref will be paying close attention.
CM11 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:09 pm
This outcome is only going to change the outcome of exactly the same incident.
Nothing has changed, the framework was there for Peyper to give yellow, he didn't see it that way. Same happened to Cian Healy this season. Same will happen again in the future in both directions.
Peyper applied the framework incorrectly hence his red card being cancelled.
Any decent top tier ref will be paying close attention.
How did I not say that?
What the ref applies and what a panel decide aren't always the same. This ruling won't have changed anything.
