Queensland Reds 2025

[LeCheese]

I didn't think they did. But I'll trust you.

Listening to the ref comms, they absolutely looked at it and cleared it.

It's one of those incidents that you could create a reasonable argument for either way. We shall see, but I'd say Paisami will sit out a couple of weeks.

 

[TSR]

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.

I know this wasn’t to me - but, I’m confident I wouldn’t.

Paisami did everything he is supposed to do under the protocols. He dropped his body height and wrapped his arms. The referees are allowed under the frame work to consider mitigation which, in this case, was the ball carrier dropping his height late.

The inconsistency is that often a yellow is still issued in cases like these where the tackler has done what he is supposed to be. So I understand why some people think he should/would have been carded. I wouldn’t have had an issue if he was. But incidents like this are also passed. If it was another player against the Reds I’d be quite comfortable that they did what they were supposed to do and if the ref didn’t card them I believe I’d be fine.

 

[Major Tom]

Paisami did everything he is supposed to do under the protocols. He dropped his body height and wrapped his arms. The referees are allowed under the frame work to consider mitigation which, in this case, was the ball carrier dropping his height late.

Yeah I’m sure the framework goes
1. was there head contact. Yes
2. was it foul play. No = no penalty.

 

[Purce]

If Paisami is gone who comes in at 12? Does one of the young fellas get a run? Goldsbrough or Pakeho?

If Jock is out I'd feel a lot more comfortable with HMP at 15 than Gordon. Interesting I feel that was as there isn't a lot of difference between them experience wise.

Wouldn't mind still having JOC (James O'Connor) around to cover all this off!

 

[Adam84]

Pakeho is the next 12 in line with Henry still out injured… Goldsbrough is a 13 and probably want to ease him into Super Rugby not throw him into starting

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

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?

I get it's todays dumb idea. Wonder what I'll get next. Just doing the mental gymnastics of how this should be ok but in reality the responsibility is on the defender to not make contact with the ball carrier in a dangerous way. I can get the ball carrier can put themselves at greater risk but it's still on the defender to perform a legal tackle.

Ah well. Dre in line for the start? I see people talking about shifting guys around but I think that's unnecessary extra changes and I also don't think Flook is a 12 as versatile as he can be. Wouldn't you rather a rookie get a chance in their position surrounded by some more experienced heads knowing their roles.

 

[Major Tom]

I get it's todays dumb idea. Wonder what I'll get next. Just doing the mental gymnastics of how this should be ok but in reality the responsibility is on the defender to not make contact with the ball carrier in a dangerous way. I can get the ball carrier can put themselves at greater risk but it's still on the defender to perform a legal tackle.

Hunter did perform a legal tackle though. Lowered body height, dipped at the waste attempting to wrap. I'm not sure the framework says anything about where your head needs to be? I see it as a rugby incident/accident. Which is rightly how the match officials adjudicated it according to the framework: 1. Has head contact occurred? - Yes 2. Was there any foul play? - No - play on.

 

[Braveheart81]

Hunter did perform a legal tackle though. Lowered body height, dipped at the waste attempting to wrap. I'm not sure the framework says anything about where your head needs to be? I see it as a rugby incident/accident. Which is rightly how the match officials adjudicated it according to the framework: 1. Has head contact occurred? - Yes 2. Was there any foul play? - No - play on.

This is the question. The TMO determined it wasn't foul play and the citing commissioner decided it was.

"2. Was there foul play? Considerations: • Intentional • Reckless • Avoidable – e.g. the defender is always upright"

The questions that need to be answered there are whether it was reckless or and/or avoidable.

I would argue that it was reckless. Paisami put his head in a position where it was incredibly likely there would be a head clash.

Was it avoidable? I would also argue yes. Paisami tried to get between the ball carrier and the goal line and that is what led to the head clash.

Anyway, he's just been suspended for three weeks (which will be reduced to two after attending tackle school).

 

[Braveheart81]

HUNTER PAISAMI SUSPENDED FOR THREE WEEKS

The Super Rugby Pacific Foul Play Review Committee (FPRC) has found Hunter Paisami (Queensland Reds) guilty of committing a dangerous tackle in contravention of Law 9.13.



The tackle occurred in the 30th minute of the match between the Reds and Moana Pasifika at Suncorp Stadium on 21 February 2025.



The FPRC upheld the citing issued to Paisami and determined the mid-range entry point of six weeks/matches was appropriate. In light of the player accepting he committed an act of foul play as well as mitigating factors such as an exemplary disciplinary record, the FPRC applied the full 50 per cent reduction in sanction.



*Paisami was also given permission to apply to take part in World Rugby's Coaching Intervention Programme as a substitute for the final match of the sanction.



Paisami has been suspended from all forms of the game for three weeks, which will apply to the following Super Rugby Pacific matches:

- Western Force v Queensland Reds, Saturday 1 March 2025

- Crusaders v Queensland Reds, Sunday 9 March 2025

- Queensland Reds v NSW Waratahs, Saturday 15 March 2025*

 

[Major Tom]

This is the question. The TMO determined it wasn't foul play and the citing commissioner decided it was.

"2. Was there foul play? Considerations: • Intentional • Reckless • Avoidable – e.g. the defender is always upright"

The questions that need to be answered there are whether it was reckless or and/or avoidable.

I would argue that it was reckless. Paisami put his head in a position where it was incredibly likely there would be a head clash.

Was it avoidable? I would also argue yes. Paisami tried to get between the ball carrier and the goal line and that is what led to the head clash.

Anyway, he's just been suspended for three weeks (which will be reduced to two after attending tackle school).

Yeah, I read the Law Guidelines more but I'm still not convinced that they got the right outcome. I think reckless and avoidable are all ridiculous terms when you consider you're asking the defender to bend at the hips placing their head closer to the attacker's centre of mass whilst they approach at high speed.
I'm yet to understand how Paisami should have tackled instead. I've heard he should have performed a "soak" tackle but honestly that ain't realistic and to me is fraught with danger because you're more likely to be upright and collect their head with an arm / chest / shoulder.
Let's just be completely honest, he's getting a suspension because the bloke got knocked out and they want to look like their doing the right thing.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm yet to understand how Paisami should have tackled instead. I've heard he should have performed a "soak" tackle but honestly that ain't realistic and to me is fraught with danger because you're more likely to be upright and collect their head with an arm / chest / shoulder.

He should have tackled the player around the waist in what would have been a perfectly safe tackle and the Moana player would have scored the try (because they were a couple of metres out from the try line).

The only reason the try was stopped was because he smashed him in the head.

It was basically impossible for Paisami to make a legal tackle and prevent the try from where he was.

 

[Major Tom]

He should have tackled the player around the waist in what would have been a perfectly safe tackle and the Moana player would have scored the try (because they were a couple of metres out from the try line).

Just wave him through next time then. That'll do me!

 

[Adam84]

definition of the law overlooks the stupidity of the implementation….. players are now in positions where they at times can’t avoid head contact or defend the line if the ball carrier simply ducks their head…

If the concern is on the head contact, then responsibility for protecting the head needs to shared with ball carriers…

We’re in trouble if they ever start applying this around rucks 2m out where a pick and drive results in head contact 75% of the time.

 

[JRugby2]

Just wave him through next time then. That'll do me!

I don't agree with BH (I don't think there is foul play) but his point here is valid. You can't commit dangerous or illegal acts just because it's the only way to stop a try.

 

[JRugby2]

definition of the law overlooks the stupidity of the implementation….. players are now in positions where they at times can’t avoid head contact or defend the line if the ball carrier simply ducks their head…

If the concern is on the head contact, then responsibility for protecting the head needs to shared with ball carriers…

We’re in trouble if they ever start applying this around rucks 2m out where a pick and drive results in head contact 75% of the time.

FWIW, the law and HCP is more nuanced than this, and in a way already addresses this concern by allowing referees to include the force of the hit (which would be lower in a pick and go scenario) in the decision making process.

 

[Strewthcobber]

player accepting he committed an act of foul play

guilty plea (obv done to reduce reduce sentence), but once he admits that already on a yellow card there was only one outcome.

9.13 A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.

I think he's unlucky due to speed and change of direction etc, but his tackle showed poor technique, with head in front of hips. There's a reason we teach our youngest players to avoid this type of tackle - because it's dangerous, both to ball carrier and defender.

Just about by definition a tackle with the head in front of hips is dangerous and meets the requirements of 9.13.

The fact that this resulted in a a concussion to the ball carrier just raises the stakes to a cardible offense

 

[JRugby2]

guilty plea (obv done to reduce reduce sentence), but once he admits that already on a yellow card there was only one outcome.

This annoys me.

a 50% reduction is massive - and it's a huge incentive to not bother challenging it at all - meaning we really don't know what the true outcome of this is. Morgs on BTP's last night says the conversations he's had with the referee group are that they believe the on field call was correct - so now we have the referee group and the judiciary misaligned on the application of law.

Keep the suspension period at 6 weeks for head contact by all means, but if the guilty plea discount was only a week instead of 50% of the suspension - we'd probably see more of these challenged and hopefully more consistent outcomes.

Having consistent 5-6 week suspensions would probably also do a hell of a lot more to discourage dangerous tackles than 3 weeks, as an added consequence.

 

[Major Tom]

guilty plea (obv done to reduce reduce sentence), but once he admits that already on a yellow card there was only one outcome.

I think he's unlucky due to speed and change of direction etc, but his tackle showed poor technique, with head in front of hips. There's a reason we teach our youngest players to avoid this type of tackle - because it's dangerous, both to ball carrier and defender.

Just about by definition a tackle with the head in front of hips is dangerous and meets the requirements of 9.13.

The fact that this resulted in a a concussion to the ball carrier just raises the stakes to a cardible offense

So, he's "guilty" of poor tackle technique.
Red's should have brought in a biomechanist like the AFL clubs do.

 

[TSR]

He should have tackled the player around the waist in what would have been a perfectly safe tackle and the Moana player would have scored the try (because they were a couple of metres out from the try line).

The only reason the try was stopped was because he smashed him in the head.

It was basically impossible for Paisami to make a legal tackle and prevent the try from where he was.

He tried to tackle him around the waist. He dropped his body height as he is supposed to do. He’s actually in the process of making a midsection tackle. Then the ball carrier dropped his height as well, but later, and Paisami had no chance to adjust. You’re essentially saying a tackler needs to be able to forsee the actions of the ball carrier and tackle for where he thinks he’ll end up. I get that it is relatively predictable that the ball carrier will drop their height, but I think what your suggesting is not a realistic expectation IMO. And that’s what my problem is with the decision. IMO it’s setting an unrealistic expectation on the tackler - regardless of the virtue of the outcome it is trying to achieve.

Anyway - despite my misgivings ironically I feel the citing is actually consistent with the way these tackles are generally ruled. At the time it happened I assumed he’d get carded. And the only possible solution I can see to this issue is putting some oneous on the attacker to do their part and I’m not sure if that is either practical or desirable.

Edit - or, of course, do what the ref and TMO did and recognise there was no fault and it was play on.

 

[JRugby2]

So, he's "guilty" of poor tackle technique.
Red's should have brought in a biomechanist like the AFL clubs do.

They might have, had he not plead guilty.