Rugby Thread

[GB72]

This is the thing. At first I thought it was total nonsense. But in hindsight I'm starting to agree with the ref. If Steward had carried on playing it would have been a rugby incident. There would have been head contact but the mitigation would be that he was low down etc. But he didn't play on. He stopped - likely cause of the knock on - he protected himself but not the other player. He has made dangerous contact with the head, so what is the mitigation? He made the wrong choice and the punishment for that is red.

Not sure how you get this, the knock on occurred prior to this and the incident happened with Keenan trying to reclaim the ball from an offside posiiton in front of the player knocking it on (penalty england). The reckless element was Keenan dropping down to claim a ball to prevent Steward recovering and breaking and to kill the play and give the penalty in a harmless position. Steward had fractions of a second to react and braced to take the impact. Just because there is a duty to protect the other player in some circumstnaces, that does not allow the player to be reckless and then rely on that defence. If that were the case, I could dive into the elbow of the opposition at will and claim a penalty. If Steward had also dropped we would have had a head on head colission and likely 2 nasty concussions.

As for mitigation, according to World Rugby you have:

Sudden Drop in height.
Player had no time to readjust
Passive action (this was a colision not a tackle)
Involuntary colision
No leading arm when close to body

Those are all the factors for play on, no penalty even and most, if not all apply.

The panel decision was a fudge to allow Steward to play on without the card on his record whilst not throwing Pyper under the bus.

 

[WGCRider]

Utter rubbish

Insightful - Thanks

 

[WGCRider]

Not sure how you get this, the knock on occurred prior to this and the incident happened with Keenan trying to reclaim the ball from an offside posiiton in front of the player knocking it on (penalty england). The reckless element was Keenan dropping down to claim a ball to prevent Steward recovering and breaking and to kill the play and give the penalty in a harmless position. Steward had fractions of a second to react and braced to take the impact. Just because there is a duty to protect the other player in some circumstnaces, that does not allow the player to be reckless and then rely on that defence. If that were the case, I could dive into the elbow of the opposition at will and claim a penalty. If Steward had also dropped we would have had a head on head colission and likely 2 nasty concussions.

As for mitigation, according to World Rugby you have:

Sudden Drop in height.
Player had no time to readjust
Passive action (this was a colision not a tackle)
Involuntary colision
No leading arm when close to body

Those are all the factors for play on, no penalty even and most, if not all apply.

The panel decision was a fudge to allow Steward to play on without the card on his record whilst not throwing Pyper under the bus.

Yes, as you say there was a knock on and Keenan was offside as you say. BUT- the whistle hadn't gone yet so you should still be playing. Steward had stopped playing.

If you follow the steps - was there contact to the head - YES. So red. Now to mitigation.

Sudden Drop in height. - No. Keenan was playing the ball
Player had no time to readjust - No. He very clearly had time to adjust his own position
Passive action (this was a colision not a tackle) - Maybe
Involuntary colision - Well. If he had tried to tackle him like he should have none of this would have happened!
No leading arm when close to body - No his elbow hit him.

I don't think it was foul play and as I said my first reaction was "nonsense". But following the framework I'm not sure the ref had much choice once it was shown in slomo.

 

[GB72]

Yes, as you say there was a knock on and Keenan was offside as you say. BUT- the whistle hadn't gone yet so you should still be playing. Steward had stopped playing.

If you follow the steps - was there contact to the head - YES. So red. Now to mitigation.

Sudden Drop in height. - No. Keenan was playing the ball
Player had no time to readjust - No. He very clearly had time to adjust his own position
Passive action (this was a colision not a tackle) - Maybe
Involuntary colision - Well. If he had tried to tackle him like he should have none of this would have happened!
No leading arm when close to body - No his elbow hit him.

I don't think it was foul play and as I said my first reaction was "nonsense". But following the framework I'm not sure the ref had much choice once it was shown in slomo.

Totally disagree

Firstly, contact to the head is not an immediate red so that is wrong.

Sudden drop in height, yes, Keenan dropped to collect the ball.
No time to readjust. Milliseconds in which he braced for impact which could be a reflex as much as deliberate. The question is meant to ask if he could avoid the contact. Answer is no.
Passive action. As you say, maybe.
Involuntary collission. An attempt to tackle would have made the situation far worse with a high potential of head on head collision.
No leading arm. The elbow was tight to the body in a defensive posture

Any or all of these are applied to show no penaltly let alone no red card. We can bring more factors if we look at the penalty/yellow/red card mitigation.

What we potentially had was a cyncal attempt by Keenan to prevent an England break from a knock on that was rewarded with a penalty and red card. Even the panel, as much as I disagree with it, have it as only a yellow. As for the slow motion, when reaction time is a mitigating factor, that replay should not be shown, just full speed.

As for Steward stopping playing, he did not stop, he braced for an impact and it is actually not inaccurate to say that he was protecting both himself and Keenan by not going for the tackle.

You could even go further. Ireland have given away a penalty so advantage being played. With the evidence pointing to no foul play and a rugby incident, or just a penalty, neither of those trump the orignal offence and so the correct ruling should be no foul play, pemalty england.

 

[WGCRider]

As for Steward stopping playing, he did not stop, he braced for an impact and it is actually not inaccurate to say that he was protecting both himself and Keenan by not going for the tackle.

I agree with pretty much everything you say except this - 100% he stopped playing instead of playing to the whistle. It's obviously speculation, but if he was still playing he would be trying to retrieve the ball same as Keenan. But he saw the knock on and knew it was an England ball so stopped playing. Keenan didn't he was playing on. Were Keenan's actions cynical - yip. Could he have been penalised for this - again yes.

If Steward had no time to act Keenan would have run into him. Probably still would have hit his head and likely Steward would have been injured as well. It's possible (maybe even probable given how low Keenan was) that they could clashed heads. We don't know but we can speculate. For what it's worth this is what I think would have been the outcome.

However, what can't be disputed is that Steward did have time to act. He "chose" to use that time to protect himself. This action resulted in his elbow hitting his opponents head. You can't hit someone in the head with your elbow and hope not to be punished.

 

[WGCRider]

On a similar not to the red cards. I saw the photos of Owen Farrell hugging his dad after the game. Was very, very surprised by this - I did not know Owen was able to wrap his arms like that.

 

[GB72]

On a similar not to the red cards. I saw the photos of Owen Farrell hugging his dad after the game. Was very, very surprised by this - I did not know Owen was able to wrap his arms like that.

OK that is funny.

The two of them were quite funny all week with day taking Owen's kids to Ireland training and getting them to ask for Ireland shirts.

Still not conviced on the not playing bit but happy to accept your view on it. I still thnk that, irrespective of that point, there is enoug hto argue no penalty at all, I think most would accept a penalty, a yellow card as pretty harsh but I just cannot see how the red card decision was reached (well I can in that I heard the ref mike on the coverage) as that was wrong on so many levels.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

As much as I don't really like JP as a ref, I think the TMO drove the outcome on Steward. If I remember correctly, the TMO was a female ref and whilst I love watching the female game I can't help but notice a slight tendancy to not apply context but only look at an injury/possible outcome when officiating.

 

[WGCRider]

there is enoug hto argue no penalty at all, I think most would accept a penalty, a yellow card as pretty harsh

Yes for sure - and look the fact that someone who knows more about the laws than either of us has looked at it today and said the punishment should not be red in effect proves this.

but I just cannot see how the red card decision was reached (well I can in that I heard the ref mike on the coverage) as that was wrong on so many levels.

To draw a comparison with the VAR offside rule. The rule itself is clear on what is offside or not. VAR means you can now measure that to within millimetres. Then people get upset - "oh, it's just his big toe - that's not the spirit" etc. If this is your view it can be summed up as "Offside is bad, but a little bit of offside is okay".

The "framework" for head contact gives refs the same problem. Everyone watching at home knew the second they saw the video and heard the ref asking was there direct contact to the head what the outcome would be. We were all shouting "no" but once the ref starts asking questions there is no way out. The protocol today doesn't allow the ref to form a judgement because "we" demand consistency. So it is reduced to answer these yes or no questions rather than form a judgement.

 

[WGCRider]

As much as I don't really like JP as a ref, I think the TMO drove the outcome on Steward. .

More likely the TV producer showing the slow motion. As I say above once the ref sees that I don't think there is a choice. I've seen a far more egregious clip from Saturdays game where an Irish player diver shoulder first into a ruck and hits the English player square in the face. It's a double red! But the TV producer didn't pick it up and there aren't 5 angles to show - so nothing.

Home town TV producers are a real thing and the WORST are the French ones. Good luck in the world cup.

 

[WGCRider]

One on the things being used in Superugby this season is that the only card the ref shows is yellow. So say there is deliberate foul play the ref doesn't spend ages watching TV clips he shows yellow then gets on with the game. While the player is sitting on the side line another ref watches it all back. This ref has 8 minutes to decide if the player is allowed back or if the card is upgraded to red.

Separately they also have 20 min red cards where the player is out the game but a sub is allowed after 20 min.

 

[GB72]

Yes for sure - and look the fact that someone who knows more about the laws than either of us has looked at it today and said the punishment should not be red in effect proves this.



To draw a comparison with the VAR offside rule. The rule itself is clear on what is offside or not. VAR means you can now measure that to within millimetres. Then people get upset - "oh, it's just his big toe - that's not the spirit" etc. If this is your view it can be summed up as "Offside is bad, but a little bit of offside is okay".

The "framework" for head contact gives refs the same problem. Everyone watching at home knew the second they saw the video and heard the ref asking was there direct contact to the head what the outcome would be. We were all shouting "no" but once the ref starts asking questions there is no way out. The protocol today doesn't allow the ref to form a judgement because "we" demand consistency. So it is reduced to answer these yes or no questions rather than form a judgement.

I am not in agreement with that. This was a clear mistake as there is plenty of wiggle room in the rules. What I printed earler represents just the steps the ref needs to consider when deciding if it was foul play and there are 4 or 5 steps to consider as to whether it is a penalty or a yellow card and even more for a red. The process used was clear on the ref mike, JP stated contact with the head, high level of force, no mitigation. What he has done is ignore the dozens of other options and focused on 2 main mitigation factors (hit low and tackler rises up, clearly not applicable, and sudden change in height from the person being tackled, could be argued). if the other factors had been noted, I think few could argue that there was not at least one ground for mitigation and not the no grounds at JP stated. This was simply a bad and incorrect decision. Certainly the contact with the head rule is not as rigid as you may assume. The only rule I can think of that is that rigid is the spear tackle and tackling in the air where, pretty much whatever you do, if the players head or neck hit the ground before the rest of him or her, the tackler is taking an early bath.

 

[GB72]

One on the things being used in Superugby this season is that the only card the ref shows is yellow. So say there is deliberate foul play the ref doesn't spend ages watching TV clips he shows yellow then gets on with the game. While the player is sitting on the side line another ref watches it all back. This ref has 8 minutes to decide if the player is allowed back or if the card is upgraded to red.

Separately they also have 20 min red cards where the player is out the game but a sub is allowed after 20 min.

Interested to see how this pans out. How are the fans treating it and is it all being communicated clearly in the ground.

 

[WGCRider]

Interested to see how this pans out. How are the fans treating it and is it all being communicated clearly in the ground.

I've only seen it in action once. The player sitting on his chair was very confused! I think it is a good idea. It keeps the game flowing and allows longer for the decision.

Something that is not talked about at all is that we sit at home watching this in 4K HDR. The giant stadium screens are often aren't great. In January I was at a game where the ref sent 2 players off. Cause of the quality of the image both looked questionable in the stadium. At home afterwards both decisions were clearly correct.

 

[GB72]

I've only seen it in action once. The player sitting on his chair was very confused! I think it is a good idea. It keeps the game flowing and allows longer for the decision.

Something that is not talked about at all is that we sit at home watching this in 4K HDR. The giant stadium screens are often aren't great. In January I was at a game where the ref sent 2 players off. Cause of the quality of the image both looked questionable in the stadium. At home afterwards both decisions were clearly correct.

I have only seen the screens at Welford Road and they are very clear. Eveyone could see that the last minute Ospresy score was never a try.

I think that a lot of these new ideas will work if communicated well to the crowds. If the crowd is in the dark, it just becomes a mess.

 

[WGCRider]

Nigel Owens here pretty much sums up what I was trying to explain yesterday.

 

[Val]

Totally disagree

Firstly, contact to the head is not an immediate red so that is wrong.

Sudden drop in height, yes, Keenan dropped to collect the ball.
No time to readjust. Milliseconds in which he braced for impact which could be a reflex as much as deliberate. The question is meant to ask if he could avoid the contact. Answer is no.
Passive action. As you say, maybe.
Involuntary collission. An attempt to tackle would have made the situation far worse with a high potential of head on head collision.
No leading arm. The elbow was tight to the body in a defensive posture

Any or all of these are applied to show no penaltly let alone no red card. We can bring more factors if we look at the penalty/yellow/red card mitigation.

What we potentially had was a cyncal attempt by Keenan to prevent an England break from a knock on that was rewarded with a penalty and red card. Even the panel, as much as I disagree with it, have it as only a yellow. As for the slow motion, when reaction time is a mitigating factor, that replay should not be shown, just full speed.

As for Steward stopping playing, he did not stop, he braced for an impact and it is actually not inaccurate to say that he was protecting both himself and Keenan by not going for the tackle.

You could even go further. Ireland have given away a penalty so advantage being played. With the evidence pointing to no foul play and a rugby incident, or just a penalty, neither of those trump the orignal offence and so the correct ruling should be no foul play, pemalty england.

Contact with the Head starts as a red card then factor's are taken into account. Sadly many records are for head contact with mitigating factors and Ref, TMO and citing officer don't consider them.

The biggest issue for me is consistency and world rugby do not help referees when they over turn reds.

At the time I though the red was harsh, over the course I leaned towards it being definite red and now I've no idea and agree with both sides of the discussion.

A few years ago Finn Russell received a yellow against Wales when going to receive a high ball with Biggar challenging. Biggar jumped and Russell stayed on the ground whilst watching the ball, as Biggar collected Russell turned to protect himself from Biggar landing on him which resulted in a citing and subsequent ban, he had no where to go in the same way Steward had.

This is part of my issue with the whole citing process.

 

[Val]

One on the things being used in Superugby this season is that the only card the ref shows is yellow. So say there is deliberate foul play the ref doesn't spend ages watching TV clips he shows yellow then gets on with the game. While the player is sitting on the side line another ref watches it all back. This ref has 8 minutes to decide if the player is allowed back or if the card is upgraded to red.

Separately they also have 20 min red cards where the player is out the game but a sub is allowed after 20 min.

Not keen on a 20 min red but do like the other idea.

 

[Beezerk]

Nigel Owens here pretty much sums up what I was trying to explain yesterday.

Well he’s obviously talking out of his backside as the red card has been rescinded
Again though, he says he doesn’t agree that Steward had no other option, but like everyone else he hasn’t said what his other options were in that 0.6 seconds before impact.

 

[GB72]

Not keen on a 20 min red but do like the other idea.

Yes, I am pretty keen on getting the player off on a yellow with a subsequent decision on whether it becomes red.