The Rugby Thread

[E17yid]

That's the first red card of the tournament I've seen where I have some sympathy for the offender. They were both running forward/changing direction to pounce on a loose ball, it happened very quickly, and it was a proper attempt to make a tackle.

Aki? Mate, if you think Lavanini should get red then how can you think Aki shouldn’t? Aki was totally upright and the Samoan didn’t dip at all. Lavanini could’ve gone lower but at least he did make a genuine attempt at a tackle and farrel dipped into it.

 

[mpickard2087]

Aki? Mate, if you think Lavanini should get red then how can you think Aki shouldn’t? Aki was totally upright and the Samoan didn’t dip at all. Lavanini could’ve gone lower but at least he did make a genuine attempt at a tackle and farrel dipped into it.

Because todays happened at speed, with a bouncing ball and changing direction into each other. Technically it was the right decision, I'm not arguing that, but I can see some mitigation as it was instinctive. There was also a proper attempt at a tackle.

Lavanini, and all the other red cards, were different. Time to line up the ball carrier for one, but for me crucially all guilty of leading with the shoulder and not tackling properly (a lazy belated wrap of the arm, or none at all, doesn't constitute a legal tackle). As such I have no sympathy for them, I think we're talking totally different scenarios.

 

[E17yid]

Because todays happened at speed, with a bouncing ball and changing direction into each other. Technically it was the right decision, I'm not arguing that, but I can see some mitigation as it was instinctive. There was also a proper attempt at a tackle.

Lavanini, and all the other red cards, were different. Time to line up the ball carrier for one, but for me crucially all guilty of leading with the shoulder and not tackling properly (a lazy belated wrap of the arm, or none at all, doesn't constitute a legal tackle). As such I have no sympathy for them, I think we're talking totally different scenarios.

Yeah they weren’t identical scenarios. Lavanini was rushing out of the defensive line and Aki wasn’t but Lavanini dipped a lot more (which for me demonstrates that he was making a genuine attempt of a legal tackle) than Aki who was upright.

For me they’re both yellows but the one thing we agree on is that letter of the law is they should be both red. Would be so much better imo if intent was the crucial factor in determining whether something’s a red, though. Maybe then we wouldn’t see reds every game. The thing is, they’re not even enforcing it consistently. That’s the worst thing.

 

[Japhet]

Because todays happened at speed, with a bouncing ball and changing direction into each other. Technically it was the right decision, I'm not arguing that, but I can see some mitigation as it was instinctive. There was also a proper attempt at a tackle.

Lavanini, and all the other red cards, were different. Time to line up the ball carrier for one, but for me crucially all guilty of leading with the shoulder and not tackling properly (a lazy belated wrap of the arm, or none at all, doesn't constitute a legal tackle). As such I have no sympathy for them, I think we're talking totally different scenarios.

Aki's is a straight shoulder to the head from an upright position. Red card all day long for me.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Yeah they weren’t identical scenarios. Lavanini was rushing out of the defensive line and Aki wasn’t but Lavanini dipped a lot more (which for me demonstrates that he was making a genuine attempt of a legal tackle) than Aki who was upright.

For me they’re both yellows but the one thing we agree on is that letter of the law is they should be both red. Would be so much better imo if intent was the crucial factor in determining whether something’s a red, though. Maybe then we wouldn’t see reds every game. The thing is, they’re not even enforcing it consistently. That’s the worst thing.

They've been fairly consistent in the matches I've seen.

 

[E17yid]

They've been fairly consistent in the matches I've seen.

They’ve missed quite a lot of stuff for me especially seeing some of the stuff that’s been given. That first week I don’t think any of the refs knew what was going on. You’ve seen a bit more consistency after that first week but I’ve seen a lot of neck rolls totally ignored, AWJ’ head getting smashed and a lot of other incidents that I’ve seen get yellow (not just Kerevi on Patchell or Hooper on Biggar) that have gone totally unpunished.

They’re saying it’s the end of the big hit but it’s not just the big hit we’re losing it’s the basic defensive tackle which targets the ball to prevent an offload. We all know where this is heading, no more tackling above the waist. It’s shit, IMO, but I guess we’ll see a lot more higher scoring games. Will be interesting, in the medium to long term whether concussions will decrease.

 

[Japhet]

They’ve missed quite a lot of stuff for me especially seeing some of the stuff that’s been given. That first week I don’t think any of the refs knew what was going on. You’ve seen a bit more consistency after that first week but I’ve seen a lot of neck rolls totally ignored, AWJ’ head getting smashed and a lot of other incidents that I’ve seen get yellow (not just Kerevi on Patchell or Hooper on Biggar) that have gone totally unpunished.

They’re saying it’s the end of the big hit but it’s not just the big hit we’re losing it’s the basic defensive tackle which targets the ball to prevent an offload. We all know where this is heading, no more tackling above the waist. It’s shit, IMO, but I guess we’ll see a lot more higher scoring games. Will be interesting, in the medium to long term whether concussions will decrease.

If they change the tackle laws they'll have to change a lot of other stuff to compensate. I think they'll have to change the rule about being able to position yourself and place the ball back while you're on the ground for starters and we'll be back to an immediate ball release once the tackle is made.

 

[talkshowhost86]

They’ve missed quite a lot of stuff for me especially seeing some of the stuff that’s been given. That first week I don’t think any of the refs knew what was going on. You’ve seen a bit more consistency after that first week but I’ve seen a lot of neck rolls totally ignored, AWJ’ head getting smashed and a lot of other incidents that I’ve seen get yellow (not just Kerevi on Patchell or Hooper on Biggar) that have gone totally unpunished.

They’re saying it’s the end of the big hit but it’s not just the big hit we’re losing it’s the basic defensive tackle which targets the ball to prevent an offload. We all know where this is heading, no more tackling above the waist. It’s shit, IMO, but I guess we’ll see a lot more higher scoring games. Will be interesting, in the medium to long term whether concussions will decrease.

Both the Kerevi and Hooper ones were consistent with the way that law is being interpreted.

 

[E17yid]

Both the Kerevi and Hooper ones were consistent with the way that law is being interpreted.

Not really but it’s interpretation at the end of the day. As I said, though, there’s quite a few others. If you saw the 2 yellow cards NZ got against Canada (I think) then there should’ve been quite a few others I’ve seen when ball carriers have been that low but contact has been made with the neck area. This is what I don’t get about the Kerevi incident, was there contact with the neck/head? Yes? Was it dangerous? Yes. Oh yeah, I forget, it’s only the ball carrier they’re really concerned about protecting, or that’s the way it seems anyway.

 

[Arnoldtoo]

Of the ones I've seen, which hasn't been all of them, I haven't had a problem with any of the yellow / reds.

 

[E17yid]

Of the ones I've seen, which hasn't been all of them, I haven't had a problem with any of the yellow / reds.

What you personally or by the letter of the law? I’ve got no problem with any of the reds that’s been given in the current framework (even though I think they’ve missed sone to)

Personally, however, I disagree with quite a few tbh.

 

[E17yid]

I saw Ben Kay say something about having an Orange card where you send someone off for 15-20min but after that time you can bring on a sub but the individual who got the orange card can’t come back on and could still get cited/banned. At least that way games aren’t getting ruined by unintentional incidents.

 

[westtokyospur]

Both the Kerevi and Hooper ones were consistent with the way that law is being interpreted.

Just to move slightly away from the red card issue. This is for any Scotland fans. I live in west Tokyo. Just had a walk around the neighbourhood (midnight here). Clear sky. No wind. No rain. Lovely warm evening. Forecast is sunny for tomorrow. Haven't seen any damage to buildings. No trees brought down. Would be amazed if the Scotland/Japan was cancelled. (Now I need to get my refund for the England/France game.)

 

[E17yid]

Of the ones I've seen, which hasn't been all of them, I haven't had a problem with any of the yellow / reds.

You not think that Samoan who got yellow today was a bit harsh. He dipped pretty low. There’s not much lower he could’ve gone to be honest.

 

[Arnoldtoo]

You not think that Samoan who got yellow today was a bit harsh. He dipped pretty low. There’s not much lower he could’ve gone to be honest.

I admit I wondered, but I thought back to all the matches I played as a hard tackling #13 and there was not one time that I remember hitting anyone in the head or even the chest. Given that my memory might have missed one or two*, it's because I - and all of us then - tackled really low; hit the thigh with the shoulder, grab the legs below the knee with the arms. It changed I think because of the need to stop offloads if the tackle wasn't decisive, but it's not like it's impossible to do.

* we're talking mid-nineteenth century of course; I actually played against William Webb-Ellis

 

[E17yid]

I admit I wondered, but I thought back to all the matches I played as a hard tackling #13 and there was not one time that I remember hitting anyone in the head or even the chest. Given that my memory might have missed one or two*, it's because I - and all of us then - tackled really low; hit the thigh with the shoulder, grab the legs below the knee with the arms. It changed I think because of the need to stop offloads if the tackle wasn't decisive, but it's not like it's impossible to do.

* we're talking mid-nineteenth century of course; I actually played against William Webb-Ellis

It must’ve been 19th century as targeting arms/ball has been going on for many decades.

I like aggressive defences that look to push attackers back. That’s gone now. Everyone targeting thigh/shin is just basically saying I’m willing to concede a yard or 2. You’ll probably see more double hits with the initial hit being thigh or lower then the second hit looking to stand up.

I’ve not played in a while but the wurst head injuries I got were in tackles I went low in. Getting a knee in the head hurts. I always targeted belly button area really but every situation is different.

Problem is, as we saw today with that Samoan, you can target waist and still hit someone’s head and get binned but they don’t care about the intent do they.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Not really but it’s interpretation at the end of the day. As I said, though, there’s quite a few others. If you saw the 2 yellow cards NZ got against Canada (I think) then there should’ve been quite a few others I’ve seen when ball carriers have been that low but contact has been made with the neck area. This is what I don’t get about the Kerevi incident, was there contact with the neck/head? Yes? Was it dangerous? Yes. Oh yeah, I forget, it’s only the ball carrier they’re really concerned about protecting, or that’s the way it seems anyway.

Fundamentally it's a different thing tackling someone with a shoulder to the head than it is pushing someone in the chest.

If Kerevi had literally thrown his arm into his face then fair enough but that wasn't the case and yellow was fair enough (and think most have agreed that). Seems an odd one to focus on really.

There will always be mistakes from refs, you can't get away from that. Particularly if stuff is actually missed by the TMO as well.

But for all the others they've been to the TMO. Reviewed by about 100 refs. Then the decision is given. Not really sure how there can be any argument.

 

[Arnoldtoo]

It must’ve been 19th century as targeting arms/ball has been going on for many decades.

I like aggressive defences that look to push attackers back. That’s gone now. Everyone targeting thigh/shin is just basically saying I’m willing to concede a yard or 2. You’ll probably see more double hits with the initial hit being thigh or lower then the second hit looking to stand up.

I’ve not played in a while but the wurst head injuries I got were in tackles I went low in. Getting a knee in the head hurts. I always targeted belly button area really but every situation is different.

Problem is, as we saw today with that Samoan, you can target waist and still hit someone’s head and get binned but they don’t care about the intent do they.

The Samoan got a yellow rather than a red because they took intent into account.

And it wasn't 'many' decades ago you young whippersnapper.

It was 'a few' decades ago.

 

[E17yid]

Fundamentally it's a different thing tackling someone with a shoulder to the head than it is pushing someone in the chest.

If Kerevi had literally thrown his arm into his face then fair enough but that wasn't the case and yellow was fair enough (and think most have agreed that). Seems an odd one to focus on really.

There will always be mistakes from refs, you can't get away from that. Particularly if stuff is actually missed by the TMO as well.

But for all the others they've been to the TMO. Reviewed by about 100 refs. Then the decision is given. Not really sure how there can be any argument.

See, I didn’t really see any initial impact to the chest. On one of the angles it’s straight to the head. On the other angle perhaps ever so slightly impact is on the chest but it’s minimal, but no one can doubt it then goes right up to his neck and face. The talk then should’ve been is it a yellow or red, under the current framework I would’ve understood if they said there’s slight impact with the chest before going up to his head so it’s a yellow I would’ve thought at least there’s some consistency.

 

[E17yid]

The Samoan got a yellow rather than a red because they took intent into account.

And it wasn't 'many' decades ago you young whippersnapper.

It was 'a few' decades ago.

Yeah, this is what worries me though, you can target waist and still get binned.