June Internationals not involving Australia

[Gnostic]

It's not really like the SBW one. For a start the French player was falling into the tackle and secondly, SBW didn't use his arms. One mitigating factor for Ofa and one exacerbating factor for SBW. I don't think that was necessarily a straight red.



Also, Moody didn't have a previous ban commuted, his offence was ruled to be below the level required for a citing.

Mitigation doesn't change the outcome, only the penalty in terms of reduction. It is still a red card, the mitigation is given at sentencing and it is still a significant ban.

That is what I meant by Moody's matter being commuted. His matter was like Owen Franks not getting cited for eye gouging Kane Douglas a couple of years ago, at least neither can no longer claim innocence and clean records for their next infringement of scumdom, which is only a matter of time for both, they both seem to me to have gotten a liberal dose of the Richard Loe gene.

 

[Grant NZ]

Mitigation doesn't change the outcome, only the penalty in terms of reduction. It is still a red card, the mitigation is given at sentencing and it is still a significant ban.

That is what I meant by Moody's matter being commuted. His matter was like Owen Franks not getting cited for eye gouging Kane Douglas a couple of years ago, at least neither can no longer claim innocence and clean records for their next infringement of scumdom, which is only a matter of time for both, they both seem to me to have gotten a liberal dose of the Richard Loe gene.

Mitigation factors do come into to deciding what colour card is issued.

Moody had never been cited before - that's why his clean record was a factor.

 

[Grant NZ]

Oh also, 'scumdom' ? Ge a f'king grip, David Pocock - one of the most admired players in World Rugby and generally thought of as a saint - did one of the dirtiest things I've seen on a rugby pitch and far worse than anything Moody or Franks have done. I don't think he's scum, nor are Moody or Franks. It's rugby FFS.

 

[Gnostic]

Mitigation factors do come into to deciding what colour card is issued.



Moody had never been cited before - that's why his clean record was a factor.

World Rugby 2017 Guidance on Dangerous Contact with Head and Neck

World Rugby 2017 Guidance on Dangerous Contact with Head and Neck


World Rugby has announced new guidance to be applied starting January 2017.
Reckless Tackle
A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders. Minimum sanction: Penalty & Yellow card / Maximum sanction: Penalty & Red card
GUIDANCE: It is a deliberate action from tackler. The onus is on the tackler to ensure the tackle is safe with regards to above the shoulder and contact in the head and neck area. It will be up to the referee to differentiate the severity of the tackle and what sanction is appropriate – a good process would be to combine the level of recklessness with the outcome and effect on the tackled player.
Accidental Tackle
When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent’s head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle. Minimum sanction: Penalty
GUIDANCE: It is an accidental action from tackler. Contact above the shoulder in the head and neck area was not due to a deliberate or reckless action from the tackler.​

"The onus is on the tackler to ensure the tackle is safe with regards to above the shoulder and contact in the head and neck area."​

Given the danger of the situation and the fact that the falling into the tackle of Ofa is quite likely caused by the foul play of Kane which by the guideline is entry level Penalty and Yellow it is pretty clear cut. Mitigation is not a factor under the Guidelines. It is for determination at sentencing only.

Re:- Moody - the continued defence of clear thuggish behaviour does nothing but cement the perception of favourable treatment of NZ players. It is a push and push back thing.

 

[Derpus]

It's not really like the SBW one. For a start the French player was falling into the tackle and secondly, SBW didn't use his arms. One mitigating factor for Ofa and one exacerbating factor for SBW. I don't think that was necessarily a straight red.

And if Cane's offence is a yellow - as you said you thought would be consistent with other rulings - why would it require a citing when that's for red card level offences.

I suspect Ofa will get cited, Cane may not.

Also, Moody didn't have a previous ban commuted, his offence was ruled to be below the level required for a citing.

But it was, at a minimum, yellow. So thats 2 yellow card decisions in the ABs favour. And the second the French player went the game was over.

Whatever causes it, the All Blacks always get the rub of the green. Just the way it is.

 

[Grant NZ]

Are you seriously arguing refs don't consider mitigating factors when determining what card to issue?

 

[Derpus]

Shit does happen in Rugby and the defence that the French player was falling into the tackle of Ofa is indeed valid, but that is mitigation, precedent has been well and truly established that the tackler has a total responsibility to execute the tackle with safety the utmost consideration. There is no defence for Kane's high tackle. first contact as shown in the video is with the jaw. If both players are not cited and action taken and meaningful action then perception that the ABs get favourable treatment will get reinforced and validated.

You wouldn't expect Cane to get cited. Not a red card offence, his.

 

[Grant NZ]

the All Blacks always get the rub of the green. Just the way it is.

Fuck off with that bullshit.

 

[Gnostic]

I am seriously suggesting exactly what the guidelines say. That is what they are directed to make their determinations on. No more no less.

 

[Gnostic]

Actually under the guidelines it can be argued that it could indeed be a Red card offence as the first contact is with the jaw, with a high degree of force in a reckless or careless manner as outlined in the guidelines.

 

[Derpus]

Fuck off with that bullshit.

Not much of a rebuttal.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Grant NZ]

Actually under the guidelines it can be argued that it could indeed be a Red card offence as the first contact is with the jaw, with a high degree of force in a reckless or careless manner as outlined in the guidelines.

The guidelines suggest a range "Minimum sanction: Penalty & Yellow card / Maximum sanction: Penalty & Red card"

I'd think it's pretty clearly apparent they consider mitigating factors to help them determine where the offence falls within that range.

 

[Gnostic]

Franks got away with attacking the face of Douglas. I care not that Douglas sucked it up and carried on. It was clear and deliberate as have been his other acts. So it is clear he has a penchant for foul play. ie scum.

Just like Richard Loe who even his team mates regarded as dirty, I am sure you'll find the old articles on it after he gouged his own team mate.

Oh also, 'scumdom' ? Ge a f'king grip, David Pocock - one of the most admired players in World Rugby and generally thought of as a saint - did one of the dirtiest things I've seen on a rugby pitch and far worse than anything Moody or Franks have done. I don't think he's scum, nor are Moody or Franks. It's rugby FFS.

I have quite a firm grip, just like a Franks or a Loe on the eyes of an opposition player, or a Meads on the leg of a player trapped in a ruck.​

What was this dirty thing the alleged saint Pocock did? I really don't recall.

In any event the …..BUT you guys...." defensive is really laughable you know.

 

[Grant NZ]

Not much of a rebuttal.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Didn't deserve one.

 

[Gnostic]

You really are struggling aren't you. Maybe you are a Lawyer they tend to struggle with things like ethics. How about you actually read the guidelines not skip to the bits you want to read.

 

[Grant NZ]

Franks got away with attacking the face of Douglas. I care not that Douglas sucked it up and carried on. It was clear and deliberate as have been his other acts. So it is clear he has a penchant for foul play. ie scum.

Just like Richard Loe who even his team mates regarded as dirty, I am sure you'll find the old articles on it after he gouged his own team mate.




I have quite a firm grip, just like a Franks or a Loe on the eyes of an opposition player, or a Meads on the leg of a player trapped in a ruck.

What was this dirty thing the alleged saint Pocock did? I really don't recall.

In any event the …..BUT you guys.." defensive is really laughable you know.

I'm not saying 'but you guys', I'm saying that if a stand up guy like Pocock can get cited and banned for a prolonged choke hold, then maybe writing other players off as scum for lesser acts is a bit over the top.

 

[Grant NZ]

You really are struggling aren't you. Maybe you are a Lawyer they tend to struggle with things like ethics. How about you actually read the guidelines not skip to the bits you want to read.

So what sort of things do you think they consider to determine yellow vs red? Flip a coin? Maybe that's how George Ayoub does his thing, but I'm talking about proper refs.

 

[cyclopath]

I think this to and fro is done now. Can everyone move along?

 

[Grant NZ]

So what sort of things do you think they consider to determine yellow vs red? Flip a coin? Maybe that's how George Ayoub does his thing, but I'm talking about proper refs.

From the guidelines -

It will be up to the referee to differentiate the severity of the tackle and what sanction is appropriate – a good process would be to combine the level of recklessness with the outcome and effect on the tackled player.

The fact that he's falling into the tackle could be something a ref would consider in determining the level of recklessness and therefore a mitigating factor when determining the penalty. I'm not even necessarily arguing it would rule out a red in this case, just differentiating it from the SBW one which was clearly more reckless.

 

[Grant NZ]

I think this to and fro is done now. Can everyone move along?

Sure.