Refereeing decisions

[cyclopath]

Actually WOB he did land on back, and very clearly, another foot or so he would of actually almost landed on his feet!!Just absolute plain lucky that he was flipping over so quick. That really shows what I say about photos show nothing in these situations.

"Mitigation" here is complete rubbish. Owens didn't wrap his arms and just used momentum to throw him over. Extremely dangerous. Video replays look bad from every angle. The fact he landed on his back was pure luck, nothing more, and every action in the tackle by Owens was reckless. It's quite idiotic if they want to use the precedent of dumb luck to decide a player was more or less reckless. That tackle really should be a red card, if World Rugby are fair dinkum. Which they are not, on evidence thus far at this World Cup.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Fiji get a penalty try in the 52 minute for Wales collapsing their driving maul. No yellow card (which incidentally would have put Wales down to 13)

Do refs have a choice here?

 

[Braveheart81]

Fiji get a penalty try in the 52 minute for Wales collapsing their driving maul. No yellow card (which incidentally would have put Wales down to 13)

Do refs have a choice here?

No. There should have been a yellow card if the penalty try was for collapsing the maul.

Collapsing a maul comes under the foul play law (9.20c) and the penalty try law at 8.3 states that a player must be temporarily suspended if foul play results in a penalty try being awarded.

 

[barbarian]

It's quite idiotic if they want to use the precedent of dumb luck to decide a player was more or less reckless. That tackle really should be a red card, if World Rugby are fair dinkum. Which they are not, on evidence thus far at this World Cup.

But that's always been the case with these tackles, and with aerial challenges. The way the player lands dictates the sanction.

It's not a perfect system but I'm not sure one exists. How do you determine intent with these things? You could argue the reason Owens didn't go through with the tackle was the player had passed the ball, and it was his momentum that caused the flip.

I thought the YC was the right call there.
.

 

[Derpus]

No. There should have been a yellow card if the penalty try was for collapsing the maul.

Collapsing a maul comes under the foul play law (9.20c) and the penalty try law at 8.3 states that a player must be temporarily suspended if foul play results in a penalty try being awarded.

This was a little more ridiculous than the judo flip. Judo flip is outcome based, so yellow was correct call. No yellow for the penalty try is a blatant error.

Same with Skeenyboi dismissing foul play because it followed a forward pass. Ridonkulous. Seems the rule is, if you see a forward pass, go for the throat because it doesn't count.

 

[Braveheart81]

Same with Skeenyboi dismissing foul play because it followed a forward pass. Ridonkulous. Seems the rule is, if you see a forward pass, go for the throat because it doesn't count.

That was fine in my opinion. It was a potential early tackle which whilst it does come under the foul play law ("a player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously") and I don't think it is mentioned elsewhere in the laws, what happened wasn't at all dangerous and in my view doesn't overrule the fact that the play technically broke down earlier.

It would be different if something dangerous had happened.

 

[molman]

No. There should have been a yellow card if the penalty try was for collapsing the maul.

Collapsing a maul comes under the foul play law (9.20c) and the penalty try law at 8.3 states that a player must be temporarily suspended if foul play results in a penalty try being awarded.

I was likewise curious. Someone else mentioned that there had been a law change, but I never got a chance to check. From what you have posted (I'm assuming direct for the horses mouth), the law is still in place? Pretty big screw up if Wales played a whole 10mins with an extra player on the field.

 

[Tex]

Lavanini's red was clearly not outcome based, just saying...

FWIW I thought most of the calls were ok. The judo throw was a yellow, and the penalty try should have been a yellow

 

[Derpus]

Lavanini's red was clearly not outcome based, just saying.

FWIW I thought most of the calls were ok. The judo throw was a yellow, and the penalty try should have been a yellow

It was, his shoulder hit the guys head. That's the outcome. Injury isn't the outcome.

If he shoulder charged him but hit him in the chest it's yellow.

 

[Tex]

Is the framework different for a lifting tackle? Ie, is the outcome lifting a player beyond the horizontal and not making the effort to bring him safely to ground, or is the outcome whether or not he lands on his shoulder/neck/head?

 

[molman]

But that's always been the case with these tackles, and with aerial challenges. The way the player lands dictates the sanction.

It's not a perfect system but I'm not sure one exists. How do you determine intent with these things? You could argue the reason Owens didn't go through with the tackle was the player had passed the ball, and it was his momentum that caused the flip.

I thought the YC was the right call there.
.

I can see for the high ball/aerial challenge where you may need some give to allow such a contest, but for a tackler to be planted and literally judo flip another player it just feels off.

I thought YC was also right in context of laws, but that said that was equally, if not 'alot' more dangerous than many other red cards to cause real and irreparable harm to the Fijian. Really was no real mitigating reason for that to be ok and I find for it to swing on luck and the athleticism of the Fijian to not feel right.

Let me put it this way, if my kid was getting flipped like that and having to rely on his luck to not land on his head, whilst the other player only gets a yellow for such reckless and dangerous action, I don't think I'd be all that happy.

 

[barbarian]

Is the framework different for a lifting tackle? Ie, is the outcome lifting a player beyond the horizontal and not making the effort to bring him safely to ground, or is the outcome whether or not he lands on his shoulder/neck/head?

Yes, it's different. As I understand it, once you determine the action was illegal/reckless, the landing point of the player determines the sanction - if it's on his back then it's a yellow, if it's neck/head it's a red.

 

[Braveheart81]

The big thing World Rugby needs to reconcile in regards to the high tackle framework and the cards and suspensions that follow is that I think this is a very different situation to lifting tackles in terms of removing it from the game.

Lifting tackles could be rapidly decreased fairly easily by changing player behaviour. Most lifting tackles were unnecessary and it was really just trying to add a level of dominance to the tackle that caused most of them and that could be stopped due to the risk being too high for the tackler (in terms of cards and suspension).

The high tackles are totally different in my view. Tackling fairly high is pretty much a necessity either because you are tackling a player who is low to the ground or you're trying to stop an offload or win the contact. A lot of tackles are going to target the chest area. From there it's a very low margin of error for either your tackle going slightly too high on its own or the player dropping slightly and hitting them high.

I have no issues with a crackdown on this because we are understanding better and better the dangers of concussion and players getting hit in the head.

Where we have to see changes is in the treatment of these incidents during a game and by the judiciary afterwards. There is a potentially huge discrepancy between a yellow and a red card yet the difference in the action might be minute.

World Rugby have dictated that any contact with the head or neck is deemed as a mid range offence at minimum which stipulates a 6 week suspension. The question there is whether a low range offence is still possible. What is a low range dangerous tackle given it still needs to be a red card offence?

If red cards are going to become more common then we need to deal with that situation and ensure that the integrity of games is balanced with player safety. Likewise, if suspensions are going to become more common we need to be able to better differentiate between incidents.

World Rugby have created a situation where there is a potentially huge difference in punishment for a very minor difference in dangerous play combined with the judiciary system being a very blunt instrument with little ability to apply different penalties for very different offences.

 

[cyclopath]

But that's always been the case with these tackles, and with aerial challenges. The way the player lands dictates the sanction.

It's not a perfect system but I'm not sure one exists. How do you determine intent with these things? You could argue the reason Owens didn't go through with the tackle was the player had passed the ball, and it was his momentum that caused the flip.

I thought the YC was the right call there.
.

You don't try to measure intent. You sanction actions. Dangerous contact with head = red card, and so on. Tackle action puts player in incredibly dangerous position = red card.

 

[cyclopath]

Yes, it's different. As I understand it, once you determine the action was illegal/reckless, the landing point of the player determines the sanction - if it's on his back then it's a yellow, if it's neck/head it's a red.

But that inherently makes no sense, as the end point is determined by chance as much as anything. Sanction the controllable variables - i.e. what the tackler does. Not what gravity, air-speed ratio of a swallow carrying a coconut or the Coriolis effect do.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

But that inherently makes no sense, as the end point is determined by chance as much as anything. Sanction the controllable variables - i.e. what the tackler does. Not what gravity, air-speed ratio of a swallow carrying a coconut or the Coriolis effect do.

African or European swallow?

 

[Mr Wobbly]

The AFL seem to have a similar philosophy, the worse the outcome for the injured player the more harsh the punishment.

Seems silly to me. If you punched a bloke in the face and knocked out a few teeth should you get a worse penalty than if he just got a black eye, or a bloodied nose vs a broken nose?

 

[barbarian]

You don't try to measure intent. You sanction actions. Dangerous contact with head = red card, and so on. Tackle action puts player in incredibly dangerous position = red card.

I see your point, but how do you define a 'dangerous position'? How do you determine the level of control a player has in any collision?

I don't think there's a perfect way to do it, and accept the current situation has its flaws.

 

[Braveheart81]

You could reasonably argue that a shoulder charge that doesn't connect with the head is potentially more dangerous than a high tackle that does connect with the head because of the damage the shoulder charge could have done if it had connected differently.

It's very hard to rule on things that didn't happen.

You could certainly change the specifics around the treatment of lifting tackles though to make it that any tackle that flips a player beyond 180 degrees is deemed reckless and very dangerous and subject to a red card. Under the current laws and regulations though, it isn't a red card if they don't land on their head/neck.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Posted in the match thread, but world rugby has two different situations in which the consider a red card

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)

The first is judged on outcome, while the second has to make an intent judgement. There's room there to cite under the "due care" provision if they want to