Refereeing decisions

[tragic]

Sorry if this is naive, but what difference does a closed fist or open hand indicate in a tackle. I wouldn't have thought it would make a difference in whether you are trying to wrap your arms?

You're using common sense - rookie error.
If your hands clenched and you’re penalised for illegal contact it’s more likely you were being naughty and there was intent.
But if it’s open then you were in a happy place and it’s more likely it was accidental.
Seriously you couldn’t make this shit up.

 

[VassMan]

You're using common sense - rookie error.
If your hands clenched and you’re penalised for illegal contact it’s more likely you were being naughty and there was intent.
But if it’s open then you were in a happy place and it’s more likely it was accidental.
Seriously you couldn’t make this shit up.

That's crazy. Makes sense for a swinging arm to the head, but the intent of those is usually pretty easy to see!

 

[Derpus]

You're using common sense - rookie error.
If your hands clenched and you’re penalised for illegal contact it’s more likely you were being naughty and there was intent.
But if it’s open then you were in a happy place and it’s more likely it was accidental.
Seriously you couldn’t make this shit up.

It does kind of make sense. Clenched fist indicates the person is not intending to try and grab hold of the person, which is what you would do if you just wanted to put a hit on rather than tackle.

Certainly tenuous and probably irrelevant but I can see the reasoning.

 

[Ignoto]

To clarify it’s not a blasé attitude - deliberate contact with the head needs to be sanctioned heavily.

What do you consider deliberate? Plenty of occasions used to occur where people would 'instantly react' causing coat hangers to occur. Was that deliberate or accidental?

Was it deliberate or accidental that Hodge started his tackle from that high of a position rather than being lower where even if he was wrong footed, he would still have been able to make a tackle.

Interestingly enough, the New York Times is running piece on the AFL concussion and lack of support that the administration is doing to prevent brain injuries - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/sports/afl-football-concussions.html

More than 100 retired A.F.L. players are accusing the league of failing to protect them from the known dangers of repeated collisions and of resisting calls to pay for their health care costs.

The framework that World Rugby have put in place takes care of your criticism of letting emotions dictate the findings. They have clearly stated what is a red card offence and how one gets there. I'd dare say, your letting your own emotions of the matter cloud the issue. But ultimately, Hodge put himself in that situation that allowed himself to get 3 weeks on the side line, not World Rugby, not the Ref.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

I have zero sympathy for Hodge. He should use his 3 weeks learning how to tackle properly.

 

[tragic]

I have zero sympathy for Hodge. He should use his 3 weeks learning how to tackle properly.

Says the internet warrior who’s never tackled a 110kg rampaging Fijian in his life.
Maybe you could include some tips for him as well

 

[barbarian]

Says the internet warrior who’s never tackled a 110kg rampaging Fijian in his life.
Maybe you could include some tips for him as well

Were I faced with a rampaging Fijian openside, I'd simply knock him back with a low, driving tackle, before finding my feet and jackalling the ball - either winning a turnover or forcing a penalty.

It's a real blight on Cheika's coaching that Hodge did not know to do that in the situation he was in.
.

 

[tragic]

Were I faced with a rampaging Fijian openside, I'd simply knock him back with a low, driving tackle, before finding my feet and jackalling the ball - either winning a turnover or forcing a penalty.

It's a real blight on Cheika's coaching that Hodge did not know to do that in the situation he was in.
.

Awesome - he probably never thought of that. Perhaps you could nip
across and educate him. Maybe even help with some practice drills over the next few weeks. They probably haven’t done them at training.

 

[Lindommer]

don't tackle above the armpits......

My thoughts exactly, fp. My pre-match instructions in my reffing days was to always "aim below the armpits" and all will be well.

 

[tragic]

I agree with what you say here tragic, but I do think Hodge was running too fast and at slightly the wrong angle in the first place. That is what allowed the Fiji 7 to attempt the step inside. Hodge was running a line directed just too far in front of the runner; he should have been angling from slightly behind the runner to negate any attempt at stepping inside and then attempted to force him over the sideline in the tackle. There are ways to force the runner to run the line the tackler wants; it's not just a matter of hell for leather at the runner hoping to smash him at full pace. That, in fact, is why a lot of chasers can easily be beaten by a fullback taking a high ball.

One on one I think you’re right.
But I suspect he could see there was a Fijian in support and was trying to stop the offload as well.
Hence a line which was more in front and a higher body height in the tackle.

 

[Show-n-go]

I have a question then that’s kinda already asked via defence at the ruck

Being realistic......contact with a shoulder on an attacking players armpit and above, happens countless times in a game especially at pick and drives at the ruck, it’s just simply unavoidable

At what stage is it acceptable? Where is the line? If it’s zero tolerance then why is it happening at rucks?

If a player goes into a tackle with a very lowered body position, with the intent to go into contract and drive, and leads with the head, very common in hitups off the ruck by forwards, at what point is the attacker getting some of the onus on them?

 

[Strewthcobber]

The framework that World Rugby have put in place takes care of your criticism of letting emotions dictate the findings. They have clearly stated what is a red card offence and how one gets there. I'd dare say, your letting your own emotions of the matter cloud the issue. But ultimately, Hodge put himself in that situation that allowed himself to get 3 weeks on the side line, not World Rugby, not the Ref.

Don't you think it's interesting that these "clear" guidelines are consistently being misinterpreted by onfield refs and TMO?

They've missed 80% of red cards so far this world cup by my count. If WR (World Rugby)'s chosen officials are that far off, the problem is with the framework/guidelines, not the refs

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Quill takes the (very) early guilty plea & gets the apparently now-standard three weeks:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ohn-quill-handed-threegame-ban-after-red-card

 

[tragic]

No point wasting time and money on defending the charges now.
Every country will have someone serving a 3 week suspension by finals time.
Next step will be a designated fall guy to lead with the chin and get some key players rubbed out.

 

[KOB1987]

This is a really interesting article, complete with really interesting Cheika quotes, and a really interesting incorrect media grabbing headline. Courtesy of @waratahjesus on twitter

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport...-hodge-16990450.amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ I get that he's defending his player(s) but half of what he said there is contradictory and/ or gibberish.

 

[Strewthcobber]

This is a really interesting article, complete with really interesting Cheika quotes, and a really interesting incorrect media grabbing headline. Courtesy of @waratahjesus on twitter

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport...-hodge-16990450.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Going through the judgement, it's kind of unclear what Cheika is talking about. But this quote gives it away

The Panel took the view that the “Video signs indicating higher degree of danger”, set out in the Framework, are just that: indicators. They are not exhaustive; nor are they mandatory – Counsel for the Player accepted that that was so, during the course of his submissions.

They went through the framework, and didn't find enough there to deem the tackle high risk, but deemed it high risk anyway. Which may be fair enough, but you can understand why a coach would be frustrated for his layer

 

[KOB1987]

^ I get that he's defending his player(s) but half of what he said there is contradictory and/ or gibberish.

Which half?

 

[Strewthcobber]

The other interesting one is Matu'u. He got three weeks, but the three weeks doesn't include this week because he's out following an HIA.

So apparently suspensions don't include games where you would not have played due to injury?

 

[KOB1987]

Interesting article in the Aus today. It’s on an app on my iPad so I can’t post the link, but it’s not clearing Hodge of wrong doing, but hammering WR (World Rugby) for their treatment of him.

“Inconsistencies abound and undermine all the good that World Rugby is attempting. No action is taken against All Blacks captain Kieran Read for his deliberate coathanger of a tackle against the Springboks but Hodge is called to account for almost a reflex action. And then he was deliberately hung out to dry by the judiciary chairman for giving a nervous answer in response to a question that can only have been asked for the purpose of embarrassing the Wallabies”

“Moreover, it makes no sense what World Rugby is doing. Its own statistics indicate that three-quarters of all concussions occur in tackles and in three-quarters of those cases, it is the tackler who is concussed, not the ball carrier. Yet World Rugby continues to blitz the 25 per cent of the 25 per cent of cases in which it is the tackler who errs”

What if it was Hodge who was concussed?