EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 5:25 pm
Good man YMX. I heard Lucy Letby said she hopes he gets a ban. That's says it all
Colin Hunt from the Fast Show says hi.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:59 pm
by Margin__Walker
Just for some balance, whilst I think bans generally should be longer, the length here is consistent imo
Some recent bans for repeat offenders
6 down to 5 - Kremer
10 down to 8 - Aki
6 down to 4 - Lavanini (also after his 4th red)
Even players with spotty records don't get the full tariff if they admit foul play has occurred etc . I'd have given Faz 5 weeks, but he was never getting 6. Clearly a lot of the outrage here will be fuelled by the farce around him getting off in the first place
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:59 pm
by sockwithaticket
He got 4 weeks back in January for his 3rd offence. Functionally it was 3 because of the stupid tackle school thing, but the ban judgement said 4 weeks.
I fail to understand how his 4th ban for the same offence. is also 4 weeks.
Speaking of which, players with 4 bans in total is a pretty bloody small club. I feel confident in saying that having 4 bans for the same type of offence puts Farrell out on his own. It's fucking bonkers that the disciplinary process is still treating him with kid gloves.
I've made my feelings about the things they give mitigation for clear in the past, this really does highlight that it's not fit for purpose.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:08 pm
by TedMaul
sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:59 pm
He got 4 weeks back in January for his 3rd offence. Functionally it was 3 because of the stupid tackle school thing, but the ban judgement said 4 weeks.
I fail to understand how his 4th ban for the same offence. is also 4 weeks.
Speaking of which, players with 4 bans in total is a pretty bloody small club. I feel confident in saying that having 4 bans for the same type of offence puts Farrell out on his own. It's fucking bonkers that the disciplinary process is still treating him with kid gloves.
I've made my feelings about the things they give mitigation for clear in the past, this really does highlight that it's not fit for purpose.
Thing is. He’s clearly been told this for years. He doesn’t listen. Who gives a fk about the conflation. Walking card and not a sensible pick certainly now.
No. That’s not true at all. It is not ever reduced if they accept it as just a yellow card. It’s only reduced if they accept the red card. It’s not rocket science as to why this would be the case.
Maybe he did in this hearing however, unlike the other one.
However, showing remorse. He picked a fight.
Good character
World Rugby changed the guidance / regs. It used to be if you didn't accept it was a red card and contested you couldn't get the mitigation for admitting guilt (eg Zander Fagerson's first ban he got a week longer as he argued the red).
Now acceptance of guilt only requires admitting committing an act of foul play - players don't have to accept that that act of foul play met the red card threshold. Gives a free pass to dispute the red and try and get it down to a yellow so I think we will see more and more contested red cards and citings.
That makes absolutely zero sense, given anything adjudged a yellow results in zero ban.
Are you absolutely certain? You have any links to this?
The phrase foul play is used in both yellow and red card situations.
Practical effect can be seen in these examples where the player admitted they committed an act of foul play but didn't agree that it met warranted a red card - but still received full mitigation:
Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:59 pm
Just for some balance, whilst I think bans generally should be longer, the length here is consistent imo
Some recent bans for repeat offenders
6 down to 5 - Kremer
10 down to 8 - Aki
6 down to 4 - Lavanini (also after his 4th red)
Even players with spotty records don't get the full tariff if they admit foul play has occurred etc . I'd have given Faz 5 weeks, but he was never getting 6. Clearly a lot of the outrage here will be fuelled by the farce around him getting off in the first place
I think the slight difference to those would be each of them featured an add on which Farrell's ban doesn't appear to.
Kremer - entry point 6; aggravation +2; mitigation -3 = 5
Aki - entry point 10; mitigation -4; aggravation +2 = 6
Lavanini - entry point 6; mitigation -2; aggravation +1 = 5*
*Lavanini also got to substitute the final week of his ban for a coaching intervention as it was his first red since this was introduced(!)
Farrell looks very much like 6 - 2 + 0 = 4 and I'd say if that's the case he's very fortunate to avoid any add on for aggravating factors.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:22 pm
by Gumboot
That "tackle school" one-week ban reduction is a complete joke. It may be effective for a young, inexperienced player who may have uncorrected tackle technique issues. But a 100+ cap international player? Leave it out. Feral's problem isn't his technique, it's his shit attitude.
Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:22 pm
That "tackle school" one-week ban reduction is a complete joke. It may be effective for a young, inexperienced player who may have uncorrected tackle technique issues. But a 100+ cap international player? Leave it out. Feral's problem isn't his technique, it's his shit attitude.
He's not eligible for that this time round.
It is a total nonsense, though.
If a fully pro player is having an issue with tackling and they consider the issue is with the coaching the player has receive, then surely that player's whole team needs to brought in because they're all experiencing the same coaching that's apparently at fault.
The alternative is it's an issue specifcially with the player and that they've been ignoring proper coaching, in which case why would they engage with this coaching intervention beyond what they need to do to get through it.
Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:22 pm
That "tackle school" one-week ban reduction is a complete joke. It may be effective for a young, inexperienced player who may have uncorrected tackle technique issues. But a 100+ cap international player? Leave it out. Feral's problem isn't his technique, it's his shit attitude.
He's not eligible for that this time round.
It is a total nonsense, though.
If a fully pro player is having an issue with tackling and they consider the issue is with the coaching the player has receive, then surely that player's whole team needs to brought in because they're all experiencing the same coaching that's apparently at fault.
The alternative is it's an issue specifcially with the player and that they've been ignoring proper coaching, in which case why would they engage with this coaching intervention beyond what they need to do to get through it.
Yep, why would he bother, when all he's ever copped are laughably lenient bans? Rinse and repeat.
But, but... changing his plea to guilty is ever so remorseful. Mitigation, m'lords!
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 4:34 am
by Guy Smiley
Bit of a chat with Jerome Kaino on the subject du jour,
Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:59 pm
Just for some balance, whilst I think bans generally should be longer, the length here is consistent imo
Some recent bans for repeat offenders
6 down to 5 - Kremer
10 down to 8 - Aki
6 down to 4 - Lavanini (also after his 4th red)
Even players with spotty records don't get the full tariff if they admit foul play has occurred etc . I'd have given Faz 5 weeks, but he was never getting 6. Clearly a lot of the outrage here will be fuelled by the farce around him getting off in the first place
I think the slight difference to those would be each of them featured an add on which Farrell's ban doesn't appear to.
Kremer - entry point 6; aggravation +2; mitigation -3 = 5
Aki - entry point 10; mitigation -4; aggravation +2 = 6
Lavanini - entry point 6; mitigation -2; aggravation +1 = 5*
*Lavanini also got to substitute the final week of his ban for a coaching intervention as it was his first red since this was introduced(!)
Farrell looks very much like 6 - 2 + 0 = 4 and I'd say if that's the case he's very fortunate to avoid any add on for aggravating factors.
It's all a load of procedural nonsense though really. The end results are effectively the same.
Ultimately repeat offenders should be copping long bans. Farrells tackle technique is high risk. He goes for a shoulder line or chest hit to stop the play and win the gainline. Not a lot has to go wrong for it to hit the head. There seems to have been very little attempt by him to modify his game. If his coaches won't force the issue, the authorities should have
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:28 am
by Torquemada 1420
ASMO wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:56 pm
That is a complete cop out
Yup. And basically says the original panel was incompetent.
Joke of it all is he will be back in time to further undermine Eng's chances.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:29 am
by Chilli
Billy gets 3 weeks.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:33 am
by Tichtheid
Chilli wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:29 am
Billy gets 3 weeks.
Tackle school brings it down to two
Fuck them all
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:35 am
by Guy Smiley
The first RC of the tournament’s going to be fun to watch.
Not the offense, sorry… the hoop jumping afterwards.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:37 am
by PornDog
I object to the reasons for mitigation, but its fairly consistently applied so at least they're fair with it. It does seem a bit odd to not be adding back on a week or two though considering his priors, which are all for the exact same type of offence (are they not?). As well as being another stupid element, that bit does seem somewhat inconsistent with other punishments handed out.
All told he is (yet again) very lucky that its only 4 weeks and not 5 or 6, but its not quite torch and pitchfork o'clock.
On a more legal philosophy note though, and to tie it on to Moala, why is a deliberate shoulder charge which then makes contact with the head broadly considered to be 40% safer than a tip tackle which doesn't result in head contact? That's what the punishment entry points would suggest!
And, why is a reckless taking someone out in the air like Steward did against Wales then not even deemed red card worthy. Intent is the only real difference between his act and Moala's. They're both incredibly dangerous to players and in this instance at least, neither resulted in head first contact with the ground!
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:40 am
by Torquemada 1420
PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:37 am
I object to the reasons for mitigation, but its fairly consistently applied so at least they're fair with it. It does seem a bit odd to not be adding back on a week or two though considering his priors, which are all for the exact same type of offence (are they not?). As well as being another stupid element, that bit does seem somewhat inconsistent with other punishments handed out.
All told he is (yet again) very lucky that its only 4 weeks and not 5 or 6, but its not quite torch and pitchfork o'clock.
On a more legal philosophy note though, and to tie it on to Moala, why is a deliberate shoulder charge which then makes contact with the head broadly considered to be 40% safer than a tip tackle which doesn't result in head contact? That's what the punishment entry points would suggest!
And a tip tackle is at least an attempt to tackle.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:43 am
by Raggs
Farrell should have got 5/6 weeks.
Billy has a fairly clean record do not surprised he only has 3 to 2.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:43 am
by Margin__Walker
I think any tip tackle where a player lands on his shoulder/neck/head is automatically a minimum of ten week entry. I guess it makes sense as the danger of immediate catastrophic injury is probably higher.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:46 am
by Margin__Walker
Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:43 am
Farrell should have got 5/6 weeks.
Billy has a fairly clean record do not surprised he only has 3 to 2.
Yeah, whether you agree with how they are dealt with or not. 6 to 3 (to 2 with tackle school) seems to be completely standard for players with clean records recently.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:01 am
by inactionman
PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:37 am
I object to the reasons for mitigation, but its fairly consistently applied so at least they're fair with it. It does seem a bit odd to not be adding back on a week or two though considering his priors, which are all for the exact same type of offence (are they not?). As well as being another stupid element, that bit does seem somewhat inconsistent with other punishments handed out.
All told he is (yet again) very lucky that its only 4 weeks and not 5 or 6, but its not quite torch and pitchfork o'clock.
On a more legal philosophy note though, and to tie it on to Moala, why is a deliberate shoulder charge which then makes contact with the head broadly considered to be 40% safer than a tip tackle which doesn't result in head contact? That's what the punishment entry points would suggest!
And, why is a reckless taking someone out in the air like Steward did against Wales then not even deemed red card worthy. Intent is the only real difference between his act and Moala's. They're both incredibly dangerous to players and in this instance at least, neither resulted in head first contact with the ground!
That's quite a big difference, all told.
You can change behaviour for intentional acts via sanctions, it's (obviously) harder to do for unintentional.
I'm not a fan of reds for accidents, but the pin tof high tackles is they could opt to go lower and not rsk contacting head. There is a point to the red cards, even if the head contact itself was unintentional.
Steward just ballsed it up completely, and lost situational awareness.
Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:43 am
Farrell should have got 5/6 weeks.
Billy has a fairly clean record do not surprised he only has 3 to 2.
Yeah, whether you agree with how they are dealt with or not. 6 to 3 (to 2 with tackle school) seems to be completely standard for players with clean records recently.
It is consistent yes, but they also deem that tucking your arm and leading with the shoulder is NOT a deliberate act of foul play?!?!?! Those report card things they sometimes release consistently leave the "deliberate foul play" box unticked for arm tucked shoulder charges.
That's objectively fucking wrong, unless you're some sort of weird Irish Dancing/Rugby player hybrid then running around with your arms tucked by your side is not a natural position for them to be, it's a conscious (deliberate) act to tuck your arm and lead into contact with your shoulder and it is most definitely foul play!
The stupidity of the entire thing just completely undermines their own integrity, let alone decisions like we had last week (thankfully overturned).
topofthemoon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:43 pm
World Rugby changed the guidance / regs. It used to be if you didn't accept it was a red card and contested you couldn't get the mitigation for admitting guilt (eg Zander Fagerson's first ban he got a week longer as he argued the red).
Now acceptance of guilt only requires admitting committing an act of foul play - players don't have to accept that that act of foul play met the red card threshold. Gives a free pass to dispute the red and try and get it down to a yellow so I think we will see more and more contested red cards and citings.
That makes absolutely zero sense, given anything adjudged a yellow results in zero ban.
Are you absolutely certain? You have any links to this?
The phrase foul play is used in both yellow and red card situations.
Practical effect can be seen in these examples where the player admitted they committed an act of foul play but didn't agree that it met warranted a red card - but still received full mitigation:
Therefore, in order to be given credit for a guilty plea, it is now clear that players only need to admit that they committed an act of foul play. They do not have to accept that it warranted a red card. Thus, a player can contest an on-field red card decision and argue that the referee should only have awarded a yellow card (or even just a penalty) without risking a longer ban.
Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:43 am
Farrell should have got 5/6 weeks.
Billy has a fairly clean record do not surprised he only has 3 to 2.
Yeah, whether you agree with how they are dealt with or not. 6 to 3 (to 2 with tackle school) seems to be completely standard for players with clean records recently.
Gilchrist got four down to three in the six nations this year, for one where there was a clear deviation due to another tackler.
Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:43 am
Farrell should have got 5/6 weeks.
Billy has a fairly clean record do not surprised he only has 3 to 2.
Yeah, whether you agree with how they are dealt with or not. 6 to 3 (to 2 with tackle school) seems to be completely standard for players with clean records recently.
It is consistent yes, but they also deem that tucking your arm and leading with the shoulder is NOT a deliberate act of foul play?!?!?! Those report card things they sometimes release consistently leave the "deliberate foul play" box unticked for arm tucked shoulder charges.
That's objectively fucking wrong, unless you're some sort of weird Irish Dancing/Rugby player hybrid then running around with your arms tucked by your side is not a natural position for them to be, it's a conscious (deliberate) act to tuck your arm and lead into contact with your shoulder and it is most definitely foul play!
The stupidity of the entire thing just completely undermines their own integrity, let alone decisions like we had last week (thankfully overturned).
+1
Tucked shoulder hit should be an automatic 10 weeks. Then you can mitigate down from there if you want to....
Yeah, whether you agree with how they are dealt with or not. 6 to 3 (to 2 with tackle school) seems to be completely standard for players with clean records recently.
It is consistent yes, but they also deem that tucking your arm and leading with the shoulder is NOT a deliberate act of foul play?!?!?! Those report card things they sometimes release consistently leave the "deliberate foul play" box unticked for arm tucked shoulder charges.
That's objectively fucking wrong, unless you're some sort of weird Irish Dancing/Rugby player hybrid then running around with your arms tucked by your side is not a natural position for them to be, it's a conscious (deliberate) act to tuck your arm and lead into contact with your shoulder and it is most definitely foul play!
The stupidity of the entire thing just completely undermines their own integrity, let alone decisions like we had last week (thankfully overturned).
+1
Tucked shoulder hit should be an automatic 10 weeks. Then you can mitigate down from there if you want to....
Edit: Actually no. Just 10 weeks. No mitigation.
I was just thinking the same thing. If you tuck the arm it’s a high end entry point so 10+ weeks.
Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:43 am
Farrell should have got 5/6 weeks.
Billy has a fairly clean record do not surprised he only has 3 to 2.
Yeah, whether you agree with how they are dealt with or not. 6 to 3 (to 2 with tackle school) seems to be completely standard for players with clean records recently.
Gilchrist got four down to three in the six nations this year, for one where there was a clear deviation due to another tackler.
I thought he got the same. 6 to 3 to 2 (for tackle school).
“Having acknowledged that there were no aggravating factors and accepted mitigating factors including: the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse, the committee reduced the six-week entry point by three weeks, resulting in a sanction of three weeks, (to be served as the following given the player’s upcoming schedule):
“12 March 2023 Scotland v Ireland Guinness Six Nations
“18 March 2023 Scotland v Italy Guinness Six Nations
“25 March 2023 Connacht v Edinburgh URC.”
“The player applied to take part in the Coaching Intervention Programme to substitute the final match of his sanction for a Coaching Intervention, which was granted by the committee. The programme is aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play.”
PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:37 am
I object to the reasons for mitigation, but its fairly consistently applied so at least they're fair with it. It does seem a bit odd to not be adding back on a week or two though considering his priors, which are all for the exact same type of offence (are they not?). As well as being another stupid element, that bit does seem somewhat inconsistent with other punishments handed out.
All told he is (yet again) very lucky that its only 4 weeks and not 5 or 6, but its not quite torch and pitchfork o'clock.
On a more legal philosophy note though, and to tie it on to Moala, why is a deliberate shoulder charge which then makes contact with the head broadly considered to be 40% safer than a tip tackle which doesn't result in head contact? That's what the punishment entry points would suggest!
And, why is a reckless taking someone out in the air like Steward did against Wales then not even deemed red card worthy. Intent is the only real difference between his act and Moala's. They're both incredibly dangerous to players and in this instance at least, neither resulted in head first contact with the ground!
That's quite a big difference, all told.
You can change behaviour for intentional acts via sanctions, it's (obviously) harder to do for unintentional.
I'm not a fan of reds for accidents, but the pin tof high tackles is they could opt to go lower and not rsk contacting head. There is a point to the red cards, even if the head contact itself was unintentional.
Steward just ballsed it up completely, and lost situational awareness.
There is a difference in Stewards case, but I'm not so sure its so big. You can teach people to not be such a clumsy fucking oaf with no situational awareness. When that clumsiness is a very real danger to your fellow pros, then it should absolutely be punished with sever sanctions (red cards and time on the sideline). The only difference between his yellow and him getting a red and a ban was how (Zammit?) landed. He didn't land on his head and so it was a YC. Steward had absolutely zero control over this outcome of his actions. It is nothing other than pure luck that he got a YC instead of a red - his actions would have been identical either way. And either way those actions were reckless and dangerous and should have been a red and a ban.
In Farrell's case I don't see any real difference - they were both deliberate acts fo foul play that greatly increased the danger to their fellow players. Farrel may not have meant to make head contact, but he absolutely meant to make a high impact illegal tackle (tucking your arm and leading with the shoulder is and never has been legal - despite that fact that it has become so common and largely unpunished so long as head contact isn't made). Moala probably didn't mean to make a tip tackle, he probably just meant to lift and drive back, but physics got the better of him. I really don't see any difference to the level of danger these acts put on their opponents.
Both in theory could cause immediate severe injury, maybe you could argue Moala's has a higher chance of spinal injuries, but Farrell's absolutely has a higher chance of longer term brain injuries. Why is one deemed to be 40% safer than the other?
Yeah, whether you agree with how they are dealt with or not. 6 to 3 (to 2 with tackle school) seems to be completely standard for players with clean records recently.
Gilchrist got four down to three in the six nations this year, for one where there was a clear deviation due to another tackler.
I thought he got the same. 6 to 3 to 2 (for tackle school).
“Having acknowledged that there were no aggravating factors and accepted mitigating factors including: the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse, the committee reduced the six-week entry point by three weeks, resulting in a sanction of three weeks, (to be served as the following given the player’s upcoming schedule):
“12 March 2023 Scotland v Ireland Guinness Six Nations
“18 March 2023 Scotland v Italy Guinness Six Nations
“25 March 2023 Connacht v Edinburgh URC.”
“The player applied to take part in the Coaching Intervention Programme to substitute the final match of his sanction for a Coaching Intervention, which was granted by the committee. The programme is aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play.”
My mistake, you’re right.
Him and Vunipola getting one week less than Farrell (ignoring the tackle school), when they’ve both had ten year plus careers, 250 odd games without a red card, and Farrell has been banned three times previously, is nonsense.
Gilchrist got four down to three in the six nations this year, for one where there was a clear deviation due to another tackler.
I thought he got the same. 6 to 3 to 2 (for tackle school).
“Having acknowledged that there were no aggravating factors and accepted mitigating factors including: the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse, the committee reduced the six-week entry point by three weeks, resulting in a sanction of three weeks, (to be served as the following given the player’s upcoming schedule):
“12 March 2023 Scotland v Ireland Guinness Six Nations
“18 March 2023 Scotland v Italy Guinness Six Nations
“25 March 2023 Connacht v Edinburgh URC.”
“The player applied to take part in the Coaching Intervention Programme to substitute the final match of his sanction for a Coaching Intervention, which was granted by the committee. The programme is aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play.”
My mistake, you’re right.
Him and Vunipola getting one week less than Farrell (ignoring the tackle school), when they’ve both had ten year plus careers, 250 odd games without a red card, and Farrell has been banned three times previously, is nonsense.
No worries
No argument there. There isn't currently enough of a deterrent for repeat offending.
I thought he got the same. 6 to 3 to 2 (for tackle school).
My mistake, you’re right.
Him and Vunipola getting one week less than Farrell (ignoring the tackle school), when they’ve both had ten year plus careers, 250 odd games without a red card, and Farrell has been banned three times previously, is nonsense.
No worries
No argument there. There isn't currently enough of a deterrent for repeat offending.
This. 4 bans for Farrell for the same thing. Feels like the obvious thing to do is actually take previous form into the equation (which doesn't seem to happen at the moment). Or should WR start looking at fines? I know this would be complicated (given huge disparity in salaries etc), but maybe it could be levied at the club as a percentage of turnover or something.
PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:37 am
I object to the reasons for mitigation, but its fairly consistently applied so at least they're fair with it. It does seem a bit odd to not be adding back on a week or two though considering his priors, which are all for the exact same type of offence (are they not?). As well as being another stupid element, that bit does seem somewhat inconsistent with other punishments handed out.
All told he is (yet again) very lucky that its only 4 weeks and not 5 or 6, but its not quite torch and pitchfork o'clock.
On a more legal philosophy note though, and to tie it on to Moala, why is a deliberate shoulder charge which then makes contact with the head broadly considered to be 40% safer than a tip tackle which doesn't result in head contact? That's what the punishment entry points would suggest!
And, why is a reckless taking someone out in the air like Steward did against Wales then not even deemed red card worthy. Intent is the only real difference between his act and Moala's. They're both incredibly dangerous to players and in this instance at least, neither resulted in head first contact with the ground!
That's quite a big difference, all told.
You can change behaviour for intentional acts via sanctions, it's (obviously) harder to do for unintentional.
I'm not a fan of reds for accidents, but the pin tof high tackles is they could opt to go lower and not rsk contacting head. There is a point to the red cards, even if the head contact itself was unintentional.
Steward just ballsed it up completely, and lost situational awareness.
There is a difference in Stewards case, but I'm not so sure its so big. You can teach people to not be such a clumsy fucking oaf with no situational awareness. When that clumsiness is a very real danger to your fellow pros, then it should absolutely be punished with sever sanctions (red cards and time on the sideline). The only difference between his yellow and him getting a red and a ban was how (Zammit?) landed. He didn't land on his head and so it was a YC. Steward had absolutely zero control over this outcome of his actions. It is nothing other than pure luck that he got a YC instead of a red - his actions would have been identical either way. And either way those actions were reckless and dangerous and should have been a red and a ban.
In Farrell's case I don't see any real difference - they were both deliberate acts fo foul play that greatly increased the danger to their fellow players. Farrel may not have meant to make head contact, but he absolutely meant to make a high impact illegal tackle (tucking your arm and leading with the shoulder is and never has been legal - despite that fact that it has become so common and largely unpunished so long as head contact isn't made). Moala probably didn't mean to make a tip tackle, he probably just meant to lift and drive back, but physics got the better of him. I really don't see any difference to the level of danger these acts put on their opponents.
Both in theory could cause immediate severe injury, maybe you could argue Moala's has a higher chance of spinal injuries, but Farrell's absolutely has a higher chance of longer term brain injuries. Why is one deemed to be 40% safer than the other?
I'm worried we'll end up sanctioning people simply for playing the game, as there will always be incidents and risks and it's not reasonable - or, indeed, effective - to sanction people if their skills fail them. In this case, Steward was trying to get over to cover a kick, and he got it all badly wrong and caught someone in the air. I'll leave it to others to judge if that is reckless, I think reckless is more torpedoing into rucks and aiming tackles at chests with an indifference to whether you catch jaws. Anyway, at some point we need to accept we can't remove all risk and we can't make players exclusively culpable for outcomes - we can only make them culpable for events which they directly control and for which they choose to undertake recklessly or dangerously.
(as an aside, it's why I'm not a fan of cards for scrum infringement, it shouldn't be a sanctionable act to be bested by your opponent. Maybe walk the scrum 10 yards instead?)
I'm with you on the high tackle front - my main concern is we have, legislatively allowed the difference of a few inches in height to distinguish between a legal hit and a red card. It's too fine, and we end up in this huge fudged world of mitigations. If we really wanted to remove high shots we need to ban tackles at shoulder height, so that the chance of hitting heads is massively reduced and penalising head shots is much more black and white. I've no idea where the 'midriff' tackle limits trialled at lower levels went, but I can definitely understand the logic of it, even if it's tricky to actually set a limit for tackles. Maybe a line on the jersey as an indicator? Don't know.
(In all this, I'd still say Steward's red against Ireland was quite rightly rescinded, as he was trying to back out of contact rather than enter it illegally)
Him and Vunipola getting one week less than Farrell (ignoring the tackle school), when they’ve both had ten year plus careers, 250 odd games without a red card, and Farrell has been banned three times previously, is nonsense.
No worries
No argument there. There isn't currently enough of a deterrent for repeat offending.
This. 4 bans for Farrell for the same thing. Feels like the obvious thing to do is actually take previous form into the equation (which doesn't seem to happen at the moment). Or should WR start looking at fines? I know this would be complicated (given huge disparity in salaries etc), but maybe it could be levied at the club as a percentage of turnover or something.
They'd claim that they do as you can see on the infographic from Farrell's last ban
But since not having a good record and being a repeat offender seems to only knock off one week of mitigation according to that graphic (and presumably the one for his latest ban will look the same given that it's also 4 weeks), I think it's fair to say that they clearly aren't taking it seriously.
Theoretically they have the power to slap extra weeks on anyway, much like refs could red card any player who disputes one of their decisions vociferously. However, a power you never exercise may as well not exist.
The whole 'tackle school' thing is framed as a coaching intervention which would suggest that they believe the player is receiving inadequate coaching. It follows that they believe the player's club and/or national defence coaches are drilling poor technique, so one of both of those individuals are culpable and perhaps the organisations that employ them. If the fault lies not with individual players then surely every member of a team being instructed by this dangerous coach needs to also go through the coaching intervention?
It's a nonsense that's been invented purely as a sop to players who whinge publicly about their mates getting banned for being lazy or dangerous.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:37 am
by Hal Jordan
No World Class superstars at 8 or 10 for part of the pool games, we have our excuse ready made!
You can change behaviour for intentional acts via sanctions, it's (obviously) harder to do for unintentional.
I'm not a fan of reds for accidents, but the pin tof high tackles is they could opt to go lower and not rsk contacting head. There is a point to the red cards, even if the head contact itself was unintentional.
Steward just ballsed it up completely, and lost situational awareness.
There is a difference in Stewards case, but I'm not so sure its so big. You can teach people to not be such a clumsy fucking oaf with no situational awareness. When that clumsiness is a very real danger to your fellow pros, then it should absolutely be punished with sever sanctions (red cards and time on the sideline). The only difference between his yellow and him getting a red and a ban was how (Zammit?) landed. He didn't land on his head and so it was a YC. Steward had absolutely zero control over this outcome of his actions. It is nothing other than pure luck that he got a YC instead of a red - his actions would have been identical either way. And either way those actions were reckless and dangerous and should have been a red and a ban.
In Farrell's case I don't see any real difference - they were both deliberate acts fo foul play that greatly increased the danger to their fellow players. Farrel may not have meant to make head contact, but he absolutely meant to make a high impact illegal tackle (tucking your arm and leading with the shoulder is and never has been legal - despite that fact that it has become so common and largely unpunished so long as head contact isn't made). Moala probably didn't mean to make a tip tackle, he probably just meant to lift and drive back, but physics got the better of him. I really don't see any difference to the level of danger these acts put on their opponents.
Both in theory could cause immediate severe injury, maybe you could argue Moala's has a higher chance of spinal injuries, but Farrell's absolutely has a higher chance of longer term brain injuries. Why is one deemed to be 40% safer than the other?
I'm worried we'll end up sanctioning people simply for playing the game, as there will always be incidents and risks and it's not reasonable - or, indeed, effective - to sanction people if their skills fail them. In this case, Steward was trying to get over to cover a kick, and he got it all badly wrong and caught someone in the air. I'll leave it to others to judge if that is reckless, I think reckless is more torpedoing into rucks and aiming tackles at chests with an indifference to whether you catch jaws. Anyway, at some point we need to accept we can't remove all risk and we can't make players exclusively culpable for outcomes - we can only make them culpable for events which they directly control and for which they choose to undertake recklessly or dangerously.
(as an aside, it's why I'm not a fan of cards for scrum infringement, it shouldn't be a sanctionable act to be bested by your opponent. Maybe walk the scrum 10 yards instead?)
I'm with you on the high tackle front - my main concern is we have, legislatively allowed the difference of a few inches in height to distinguish between a legal hit and a red card. It's too fine, and we end up in this huge fudged world of mitigations. If we really wanted to remove high shots we need to ban tackles at shoulder height, so that the chance of hitting heads is massively reduced and penalising head shots is much more black and white. I've no idea where the 'midriff' tackle limits trialled at lower levels went, but I can definitely understand the logic of it, even if it's tricky to actually set a limit for tackles. Maybe a line on the jersey as an indicator? Don't know.
(In all this, I'd still say Steward's red against Ireland was quite rightly rescinded, as he was trying to back out of contact rather than enter it illegally)
Excellent post, agree on all counts.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 11:00 am
by PornDog
inactionman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:03 am
I'm worried we'll end up sanctioning people simply for playing the game, as there will always be incidents and risks and it's not reasonable - or, indeed, effective - to sanction people if their skills fail them. In this case, Steward was trying to get over to cover a kick, and he got it all badly wrong and caught someone in the air. I'll leave it to others to judge if that is reckless, I think reckless is more torpedoing into rucks and aiming tackles at chests with an indifference to whether you catch jaws. Anyway, at some point we need to accept we can't remove all risk and we can't make players exclusively culpable for outcomes - we can only make them culpable for events which they directly control and for which they choose to undertake recklessly or dangerously.
(as an aside, it's why I'm not a fan of cards for scrum infringement, it shouldn't be a sanctionable act to be bested by your opponent. Maybe walk the scrum 10 yards instead?)
I understand that concern and back when Jared Payne got sent off against Sarries and Stander was sent off for ending Lambie's career I had the same concerns and had very different opinions. Those opinions have changed and the concerns aren't there so much any more.
We still do have challenges for the kicks, but they are on average much much safer than they were. The game hasn't really changed all that much and we probably have fewer kicks in the game than we do now (England aside ), which was a concern at the time.
If you can't compete for the ball safely, then you shouldn't be competing for the ball at all. If you allow these incidents to go unpunished then players wont adjust their behaviour and that's why its so important.
Agree with you on the scrums and even go further - why is it a penalty offence at all? Okay, some will be, but others are just the scrum being monstered. Being bested shouldnt' be a penalty offence. I do like the idea of reset but 10 yards back.
inactionman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:03 am
(In all this, I'd still say Steward's red against Ireland was quite rightly rescinded, as he was trying to back out of contact rather than enter it illegally)
Again I disagree with you here though. That incident was very similar to the one where Stander's hip clocked Lambie's head - which again ended up finishing his career. It is instinctual looking to protect himself, but in doing so he has turned all of the harder, sharper bits of his body towards his opponent. He reduces the amount of danger to himself by an amount, but increases the danger to his opponent by a much greater amount at the same time. That's not cool and needs to be trained out of people - sanctions is the best way to do that *
I know people have argued you can't change instinct, but you absolutely can. Players used to frequently play the ball from offside after a knock on, but now they rarely do it. I used to have so much sympathy for those penalties because it was so instinctual, but those instincts have changed (except for the particularly dim witted). Likewise, poleaxing your opponent while protecting yourself is an instinct that needs to change.
* sanctions has worked to change behaviour before - reckless tackles in the air, offside from knockons, tip tackles and gouging is a thing of the past etc. but it obviously hasn't helped with shoulder charges and high shots - maybe its because they have not been treated anywhere near as seriously as they should be.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 11:28 am
by Torquemada 1420
Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:43 am
I think any tip tackle where a player lands on his shoulder/neck/head is automatically a minimum of ten week entry. I guess it makes sense as the danger of immediate catastrophic injury is probably higher.
Like to see the evidence of that. Other than pile drivers (not seen one in years), I'd think direct trauma to the head is far more likely to cause damage. The risk of broken neck exists but AFAIK it's never happened at pro level. Hell, if it was that dangerous, all combat sports would be banned including wrestling and martial arts.
Yeah, whether you agree with how they are dealt with or not. 6 to 3 (to 2 with tackle school) seems to be completely standard for players with clean records recently.
It is consistent yes, but they also deem that tucking your arm and leading with the shoulder is NOT a deliberate act of foul play?!?!?! Those report card things they sometimes release consistently leave the "deliberate foul play" box unticked for arm tucked shoulder charges.
That's objectively fucking wrong, unless you're some sort of weird Irish Dancing/Rugby player hybrid then running around with your arms tucked by your side is not a natural position for them to be, it's a conscious (deliberate) act to tuck your arm and lead into contact with your shoulder and it is most definitely foul play!
The stupidity of the entire thing just completely undermines their own integrity, let alone decisions like we had last week (thankfully overturned).
+1
Tucked shoulder hit should be an automatic 10 weeks. Then you can mitigate down from there if you want to....
), which was a concern at the time.