NPR

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 4:17 pm

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:48 am 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.

MungoMan wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:29 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:13 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:03 am

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.

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.

Hellraiser wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:49 pm

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.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:11 pm 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.

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:49 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:43 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:08 pm 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.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:03 am

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 am 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.

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:25 am 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.

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:03 am

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 am 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.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:31 am

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:03 am

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 am 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.

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:41 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:31 am

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:03 am

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?

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:33 am Just seen this
How the actual fuck did this clearout on Ludlum's head not get reviewed.

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:33 am Just seen this
How the actual fuck did this clearout on Ludlum's head not get reviewed.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:58 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:33 am 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.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:31 am

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:03 am

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:02 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:58 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:33 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:04 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:31 am

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:03 am

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.

inactionman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:04 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:31 am

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:03 am

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.

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

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

• 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

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:17 pm

inactionman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:04 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:31 am

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.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:11 pm 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.

Prembore wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:28 am
He really needs to attend the WR evasive action course

inactionman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:33 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:17 pm

inactionman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:04 pm

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.

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:20 pm

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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:25 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:20 pm

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.

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:28 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:25 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:20 pm

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.

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.”

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:31 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:28 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:25 pm

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.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:17 pm

• 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.

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:50 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:33 pm 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?

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:41 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:31 am

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:03 am

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?

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:50 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:33 pm 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?

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:50 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:33 pm 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?