Highlanders v Queensland Reds, Forsyth Barr Stadium, Friday 26 May

[Marce]

What a start by Reds! I don't know what happened later. Maybe the second half crisis as all the season

 

[Marce]

16 minutes so far. What a game for a neutral's perspective!

 

[Braveheart81]

For those playing along at home and not checking the Reds' thread, Vest fractured his C7 vertebrae. The outcome definitely shouldn't determine the sanction, but it's difficult to fracture a vertebrae without direct and forceful contact.

In hindsight, he really should've been medi-cabbed off too.

I just re-watched it. It's a tricky one. Vest got very low into contact and was leading with his head.

The onus is on the tackler not to make head contact so I certainly think it could have still been a yellow card (as there is definite mitigation from red).

 

[LeCheese]

I just re-watched it. It's a tricky one. Vest got very low into contact and was leading with his head.

The onus is on the tackler not to make head contact so I certainly think it could have still been a yellow card (as there is definite mitigation from red).

Yeah absolutely agree - again, it's about consistency. There's been a line drawn in the sand with similar incidents in the past, and this should have been no different.

 

[Braveheart81]

Given the lengthy stoppage in play it is pretty dumfounding that the incident wasn't reviewed by both the TMO and referee on the big screen.

It was also pretty crazy that beyond a groan from one commentator when watching the replay, nothing at all was said about direct contact to the head.

 

[Marce]

What a final! You can sum up the last 20 years of Bledisloe Cup with this game

 

[Adam84]

Tell you what other thing to note, thought Reds were bloody unlucky with injuries , and Clan have had an incredible number too. Reds I think will need to beat Drua next week to hold onto finals, Clan won't do it, they will lose to Blues.

is foul play by the opposition unlucky?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I just re-watched it. It's a tricky one. Vest got very low into contact and was leading with his head.

The onus is on the tackler not to make head contact so I certainly think it could have still been a yellow card (as there is definite mitigation from red).

My thought was that the defenders were stationary & Vest initiated the contact by going so low. Harsh to penalise let alone YC that. Haven't seen a decent replay so happy to stand corrected.

 

[Dan54]

My thought was that the defenders were stationary & Vest initiated the contact by going so low. Harsh to penalise let alone YC that. Haven't seen a decent replay so happy to stand corrected.

Yep what I posted earlier, that;'s what I thought, but if incorrect and he cited etc I am prepared to be proved wrong.

 

[Dan54]

is foul play by the opposition unlucky?

 

[TSR]

My understanding under the rules is that the defender is required to dip at the hips and, if they do and there is accidental head contact then it is no sanction.

I have seen it ruled this way a few times and I’m pretty sure there was one last week ruled exactly like that (although can’t recall the game - but it was a tackle in a winger from memory).

I do think the stance to stamp our head contact is extremely important and necessary but I also accept that they can’t remove every risk and if the tackler has followed the protocol and gone low and the attacker drops late into them then it really is one of those things. The only way to change things further that I can think of is to start punishing the attacker for dropping their height.

I’m not sure what the solution is but with regards to the incident last night in that particular case I thought the officials got it right under the current rules.

 

[The Nomad]

You only have to look at what happens close to the try line to realise you can’t totally remove head contact from the game.
Every pick and drive at the try line has attacking players with their heads lower than their hips and defensive players hitting them with whatever part of their body that will stop them.

The attacking player has to have some responsibility for head contact if they lead with their head.

Just glad Vest is ok. Watching it last night the commentators mention it was good to see him on his feet making his own way off the field. How wrong that could have gone!
An unstable C7 fracture could have seen him a paraplegic.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

The attacking player has to have some responsibility for head contact if they lead with their head.

Amen to that, brother.

Just glad Vest is ok. Watching it last night the commentators mention it was good to see him on his feet making his own way off the field. How wrong that could have gone!
An unstable C7 fracture could have seen him a paraplegic.

Amen to that even moreso, brother.

 

[Adam84]

My thought was that the defenders were stationary & Vest initiated the contact by going so low. Harsh to penalise let alone YC that. Haven't seen a decent replay so happy to stand corrected.

Frizell didn‘t even get close to wrapping his arms, it’s fine to discuss mitigation about the height of the tackle from a Red to a Yellow, but it’s still ignoring the glaring issue of the Frizell shoulder charge directly into the head of Vest. Regardless of height you cannot shoulder charge. You can’t shift the blame onto Vest because Frizell led with his shoulder into his head.

 

[liquor box]

I just re-watched it. It's a tricky one. Vest got very low into contact and was leading with his head.

The onus is on the tackler not to make head contact so I certainly think it could have still been a yellow card (as there is definite mitigation from red).

Even if someone leads very low, as a defender don't you still have to try to wrap arms?

 

[Dan54]

Even if someone leads very low, as a defender don't you still have to try to wrap arms?

I wondered that too, but I thought it was if you moved into the tackled player, where he didn't actually appear to drive into Vest?. But as I have said I happy if there is a citing to sort it out.

 

[Dan54]

Frizell didn‘t even get close to wrapping his arms, it’s fine to discuss mitigation about the height of the tackle from a Red to a Yellow, but it’s still ignoring the glaring issue of the Frizell shoulder charge directly into the head of Vest. Regardless of height you cannot shoulder charge. You can’t shift the blame onto Vest because Frizell led with his shoulder into his head.

Yep but think what WOB was saying iswas it a shoulder charge or did (as I thought) more Vest made contact with him, if you know what I mean?

 

[Ignoto]

Frizell's body height is fine, Vest's body height is fine, Vest's head is fine for his body height.

Frizell's still made contact first with his shoulder. Even if Vest kept his head up, Frizell would have smacked Vest in the nose/chin.

Makalio has a knee on the ground, has not wrapped an arm and goes straight for the knees.

 

[Dan54]

@Ignoto , I reckon Makalio is looking like he is illegal with his arm too, and actually wondered that when it happened, photo doesn't really help as we have to see if he ends up wrapping arm, but I didn't think he did when I was watching on tv.
And it's something I think has happened a lot in super this year, that I have seen no refs pull up. I have seen a few teams/players do it.

 

[LeCheese]

@Ignoto , I reckon Makalio is looking like he is illegal with his arm too, and actually wondered that when it happened, photo doesn't really help as we have to see if he ends up wrapping arm, but I didn't think he did when I was watching on tv.
And it's something I think has happened a lot in super this year, that I have seen no refs pull up. I have seen a few teams/players do it.

Yeah Makalio definitely didn't attempt to wrap at all and his arms went straight to ground. Frizell possibly made a half-attempt, but it was well and truly after the initial hit.