Queensland Reds 2025

[Braveheart81]

I can sympathise with Hunter. I reckon almost every player would have done the same thing when defending at that angle and speed but the defender still has responsibility to play and accept the rules. What's he meant to do isn't an excuse...

The attack beat the defence (it didn't in this instance at the time but if he gets suspended it in essence did)

Thinking about it, I wish there was a Rugby Incident type category which players might get 1 week and a fine. In a shorter comp comparable to some others it sucks to miss a month of footy. Things that aren't malicious or against the spirit of the game and most Rugby people go ah yeah that happens. You will pay a penalty but not that off a real cheap shot.

I sympathise with Hunter too. Lots of players do this sort of thing.

I don't think there should be any leeway given to defenders who have essentially been beaten close to the try line though. It's not suddenly less dangerous because there wasn't a good legal option to prevent the try. Most high/dangerous tackles aren't malicious. They're just as dangerous though and we're working on reducing the number that take place in the game.

 

[Major Tom]

I sympathise with Hunter too. Lots of players do this sort of thing.

I don't think there should be any leeway given to defenders who have essentially been beaten close to the try line though. It's not suddenly less dangerous because there wasn't a good legal option to prevent the try. Most high/dangerous tackles aren't malicious. They're just as dangerous though and we're working on reducing the number that take place in the game.

It seemed like the sudden pass inside was the main change that hunter couldn't account for. I think he was expecting the winger to shoot for the corner and when he popped it inside it changed his ability to react. I'm not sure how the panel can argue for a sanction without explaining what Hunter needed to do differently? He received a yellow for not being upright in the tackle and then he remedied it and didn't receive a yellow. By this logic the framework actually worked the bloke just got unlucky.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Reminds me of that Tom Banks one from a few years ago, (although he was a lot more upright) but the change in direction meant Banks and Paisami, were all of a sudden in really bad positions and caused big head clashes.

Despite a red card and fractured cheek bone, Banks was let off by the judiciary for his one.

 

[JRugby2]

I can sympathise with Hunter. I reckon almost every player would have done the same thing when defending at that angle and speed but the defender still has responsibility to play and accept the rules. What's he meant to do isn't an excuse...

The attack beat the defence (it didn't in this instance at the time but if he gets suspended it in essence did)

Thinking about it, I wish there was a Rugby Incident type category which players might get 1 week and a fine. In a shorter comp comparable to some others it sucks to miss a month of footy. Things that aren't malicious or against the spirit of the game and most Rugby people go ah yeah that happens. You will pay a penalty but not that off a real cheap shot.

I agree - I think he should get off.

To me, there is enough to mitigate down to 'no foul play' with Hunter dropping into contact, and the inside pass reducing the amount of time he had to adjust. Because his time to adjust is reduced, I don't think the wrap or lack there of will factor - and it's not clear from the 2 angles we saw that his arm is clearly trailing his shoulder.

The rugby incident thing to me is interesting, but I feel it's almost illogical? If we're saying something is a rugby incident where the actions or outcomes are unavoidable - what are we sanctioning someone for?

 

[Wilson]

I sympathise with Hunter too. Lots of players do this sort of thing.

I don't think there should be any leeway given to defenders who have essentially been beaten close to the try line though. It's not suddenly less dangerous because there wasn't a good legal option to prevent the try. Most high/dangerous tackles aren't malicious. They're just as dangerous though and we're working on reducing the number that take place in the game.

That risk and danger is at some point on the ball carrier though. I can't really speak to the legality here beyond what has been said (that this could be legitimately ruled anywhere from a red card and a ban to nothing at all to answer for), but when the head contact is occurring with a tackler fully bent at the waist and that tackler has bent before the ball carrier has dipped, it does come back around to the ball carrier creating the risk.

With the caveat that still frames are never a complete picture, they do show here just how low Paisami has gotten, and the fact that Lalomilo dips much further than Paisami (from a more uproght position) effectively leading with his head as he prepares to dive:

Full video here

Whether Paisami gets off here or not (I personally think there's enough mitigation combined with the on field referee and TMO's opinion that this wasn't even worth a penalty), I'm not sure there's any benefit to the game in seeing this tackle as red card worthy. I can't really see how it would have the deterrence effect that the red card has been used for, when much of the risk came from the ball carrier here (Paisami's actual yellow card was the opposite - while the impact was low the risk off head on head contact in upright tackles is very high and it's on the tackler to adjust, so that should be treated relatively harshly). There are already (rarely enforced) provisions for this in the laws already - players at a ruck must keep their head above their waist or be penalized and a ball carrier cannot jump into or over a tackler.

 

[LeCheese]

If Paisami's been referred to the judiciary without receiving a card for the incident, then I would suspect it's highly unlikely he gets off.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the issue is that if you were in the middle of the field he wouldn't attempt a tackle like this. He would come in from the side and tackle him around the waist in what is a very safe tackle.

The issue is that it is close to the try line and that sort of tackle won't stop the try so instead he does everything he can to put himself between the ball carrier and the try line and that unsurprisingly leads to significant head on head contact.

The dangerous contact happens because he's trying to do the only thing he possibly can to stop the ball carrier getting across the try line but in my view this isn't an area we should decide that dangerous play goes out the window because there aren't good options to make the tackle and prevent the try.

 

[Strewthcobber]

In the moment it looked like it was absolutely worthy of a yellow going on what has been getting called. I can hear hear the he was wrapping as his arm moves up after the player has hit the floor from the shoulder.

Would have seen his night end which would have been interesting. We still doing the 20min red thing? Does it apply to dual yellows as well? I never know, they always decide to tweak these ones.

Initial 6 feels too much and and should be a 2 flat. Tackle school is such a wank

Two yellows = 20 min red card.

You also get sent straight to the judiciary and are usually suspended if both incidents are for foul play.

Usually not suspended if one of the yellows is for non-dangerous foul play

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yeah I reckon the stills are actually more damming then I initially thought. Paisami intentionally put his head in a very dangerous spot, that he should anticipate would be where his opposition's head is.

I know this all happens in a split second but he made a decision in their somewhere to proceed with a very forceful tackle even though he knew his head was on the wrong side.

It's a bit like players getting done for occupying the space where a player jumping should land. You are a pro, you should know what you are doing

He has a choice to make a more submissive/soak tackle. He doesn't though because it would almost certainly be a try

 

[JRugby2]

If Paisami's been referred to the judiciary without receiving a card for the incident, then I would suspect it's highly unlikely he gets off.

It's not really how the process works. It's as simple as a citing commissioner reviewing an incident and determining it needs to go through a judicial process, rather than a determination of guilt or innocence.

I don't have the stats on how many incidents that are not sanctioned live, then referred - actually get off, but it's not automatic. The panel could determine through the examination of evidence that there is enough to mitigate to either a yellow card, penalty only or no foul play.

 

[Wilson]

I think the issue is that if you were in the middle of the field he wouldn't attempt a tackle like this. He would come in from the side and tackle him around the waist in what is a very safe tackle.

The issue is that it is close to the try line and that sort of tackle won't stop the try so instead he does everything he can to put himself between the ball carrier and the try line and that unsurprisingly leads to significant head on head contact.

The dangerous contact happens because he's trying to do the only thing he possibly can to stop the ball carrier getting across the try line but in my view this isn't an area we should decide that dangerous play goes out the window because there aren't good options to make the tackle and prevent the try.

That holds for Lalomilo as well though, he wouldn't have lowered his body height so rapidly if it was the middle of the field, he would've stayed more upright to get more metres in contact and potentially free an arm for an offload.

 

[Wilson]

Interestingly there is a consideration for this in MLR's current variations as part of the drop in legal tackle height to the sternum:

Tackles above the base of the sternum are liable to penalty, and ball carriers must not lead with their head into a tackler. The wording of the new Law specifically refers to players ‘running in open field play’, which is designed to exclude ‘pick and drive’ scenarios around the ruck and maul, and especially play around the try line where the ball-carrier’s height is usually low by design. Collisions in these aspects of the game are not at high speed and are rarely dangerous, so the new Law will not apply. A one-page guideline with the law text, details, and diagrams can be found HERE.

Rugby Law Changes and Clarifications for 2024-25 Season

usa.rugby

 

[Strewthcobber]

Lalomilo isn't leading with his head though is he? By those photos he's actually heading in a direction away from the oncoming tackler.

If he stepped off his left foot and headed infield into on coming defence I could maybe see the argument, but he appears to be heading the other way

If Paisami attends World.Rugby tackle school, they will point to this situation and say the safe option is to make a hit with you right shoulder and get your head behind the ball carriers hips. It's Paisami that's creating the dangerous situation with incorrect technique

(I realize this is based on split second desperation and done to prevent a try?

 

[Wilson]

Lalomilo isn't leading with his head though is he? By those photos he's actually heading in a direction away from the oncoming tackler.

If he stepped off his left foot and headed infield into on coming defence I could maybe see the argument, but he appears to be heading the other way

If Paisami attends World.Rugby tackle school, they will point to this situation and say the safe option is to make a hit with you right shoulder and get your head behind the ball carriers hips. It's Paisami that's creating the dangerous situation with incorrect technique

(I realize this is based on split second desperation and done to prevent a try?

That would probably go to the definition of a ball carrier "leading with the head" but the MLR wording has it as "bending at the waist and leading with the head" which would cover what Lalomilo has done here. I don't think the final step off left or right makes much difference when he has forward momentum, his head is in front of his shoulders (instead of above them) and the tackler is in front of him. More importantly for Paisami would be the point above that about the ball carrier lowering height.

These are only partially related at this point though - the ball carrier height rules are based on the sternum tackle height variation currently being trialed, but not in super rugby. But it is still somewhat indicative that all of these trials have measures for ball carriers lowering their height and leading with the head in open play (as in, not a pick and drive) and may help any argument around mitigation.

 

[Ignoto]

Paisami intentionally put his head in a very dangerous spot, that he should anticipate would be where his opposition's head is.

I fully acknowledge the bias, but the height of Hunters head stayed fairly consistent with a minimum drop from when Hunter comes in frame to when Lalomilo and Hunter collide.

Lalomilo's head drops significantly from catching the ball until contact.

We see attackers drop their heads all too often throughout the game and if you put your head lower than the height of your butt, you're asking for trouble if you ask me.

Hypothetically, if Hunter made contact with his right shoulder instead of his head, I would still argue he would have made contact with Lalomilo's head.

 

[Major Tom]

Lalomilo isn't leading with his head though is he? By those photos he's actually heading in a direction away from the oncoming tackler.

If he stepped off his left foot and headed infield into on coming defence I could maybe see the argument, but he appears to be heading the other way

If Paisami attends World.Rugby tackle school, they will point to this situation and say the safe option is to make a hit with you right shoulder and get your head behind the ball carriers hips. It's Paisami that's creating the dangerous situation with incorrect technique

(I realize this is based on split second desperation and done to prevent a try?

lol does tackle school run through this in practice or just theory in the classroom.

 

[Major Tom]

If Paisami's been referred to the judiciary without receiving a card for the incident, then I would suspect it's highly unlikely he gets off.

Mate, any decent lawyer could get him off. The whole case is ridiculous.

 

[Tomikin]

Paisami referred to the judiciary lotto for that tackles in the corner

Called it in the game should have been looked at...I thought it was a yellow at least head on head contact. Lots of reasons for mitigation. But lucky it wasn't a yellow on field with a review, but second yellow and his gone.

 

[Wilson]

Called it in the game should have been looked at...I thought it was a yellow at least head on head contact. Lots of reasons for mitigation. But lucky it wasn't a yellow on field with a review, but second yellow and his gone.

The citing commisioner has taken a different view, but it absolutely was looked at during the game, the referee and TMO played the incident back and cleared it at the time.

 

[Tomikin]

The citing commisioner has taken a different view, but it absolutely was looked at during the game, the referee and TMO played the incident back and cleared it at the time.

I didn't think they did. But I'll trust you. But if it was against the Reds I suspect you'd feel hard done by that the player wasn't sent.

But we shall see what the commissioner thinks I believe his in some trouble.