Refereeing decisions

[kiap]

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

Yup. It is interesting.

I'd say most of these incidents aren't actually missed. It's more a case of the "send off" trigger not being pulled. The on-field refs are in an invidious position because sends offs, more often than not, ruin the game.

We know that WR (World Rugby)'s glad-handers up the chain of command will throw the refs under the bus without compunction whenever there is sufficient noise. Has already happened in RWC week one.

There needs to be a decoupling of red cards and send offs. The idea posted earlier in the thread about binning a player for 10 minutes in all cases (allowing further time for the penalty to be finalised) is a good one.

For mine, the worst cases of dangerous foul play should mean the perpetrator takes no further part in the match (+ a post-game tribunal) - but be allowed to be replaced after 20 minutes (the team penalty still needs to be more than for a yellow card).

 

[tragic]

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

What do you expect - he’s a front row forward.

 

[Sully]

What do you expect - he’s a front row forward.

Don't lump him in with us!!!!!!

 

[KOB1987]

What do you expect - he’s a front row forward.

He was an 8 wasn't he?

 

[tragic]

He was an 8 wasn't he?

My bad assumption - he’s got a head like a battered prop.

 

[Froggy]

He was an 8, and whatever you think of him as a coach (which is actually a pretty good record up until three years ago) he was a very hard, uncompromising 80 minute forward.

 

[D-Box]

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”

View attachment 11076

What if it was Hodge who was concussed?

The rational from the scientific paper (and maybe later I will hunt it down and try and summarise but watching AFL away from my computer) is that when the injuries happen to both tacklers and the attacker, the defender went high and attempted a chest on chest tackle. Yes defenders get injured going low if they get the technique wrong, but the risk is theirs and could be reduced by focusing on the defenders technique. Chest to chest increases risk for both, by significantly increaseing the risk of head to head or head to shoulder contact.

 

[KOB1987]

After I posted that I listened to the RR podcast and they mentioned that as a tackler the least injury prone hit is between the armpits and the groin. SO that's where everyone (including Hodge) is taught to tackle from the age of 5. This is talking about front on tackling, around the legs usually occurs from behind or the side. Not tackling around the head is a by-product of that. Hodge was simply wrong footed making a pretty copybook tackle.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

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

Good on ya champion. I wouldn't pass judgement based on your gutless standards. I've tackled plenty of big blokes including big pacific islanders. And guess what I'm not a professional and haven't played for Australia.

 

[molman]

After I posted that I listened to the RR podcast and they mentioned that as a tackler the least injury prone hit is between the armpits and the groin. SO that's where everyone (including Hodge) is taught to tackle from the age of 5. This is talking about front on tackling, around the legs usually occurs from behind or the side. Not tackling around the head is a by-product of that. Hodge was simply wrong footed making a pretty copybook tackle.

It was interesting listening to a rather upset Morgan Turinu on the RR podcast. He seemed to have more insight to the proceedings and what occurred than us armchair commentators. From what I could gather from his comments and Cheika's in the press conference, there was some concern that elements not outlined in the framework were brought in as part of the decision-making process which the Wallabies were upset about.

It was also interesting that the outcome (to Yato) seemed to have a bearing on the proceedings.

I also agree that the aspects around Hodge knowing the decision making framework or not really is irrelevant. I don't think we should really expect players to have flowcharts in their heads as they execute tackles. As long as they are being coached in a manner compliant with the current rules then that’s what’s important. I'd expect the coaching staff to know the framework and be advising their players if they noticed technique issues in training or game footage. I'm doubtful that Hodge is being coached in a manner that isn't compliant, and his track record of high tackles across his career gives a fair indication.

I feel sorry for Hodge. I think it was the right outcome within the framework but the punishment does seem harsh in light of some of these other tackles receiving the same sanctions. Even Ugo Monye (Ex-Player / Commentator) whose opinion I respect acknowledged this harsh outcome when discussing some of the challenges around this aspect of the game in his Guardian piece (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/27/rugby-world-cup-referees-are-not-robots-ugo-monye)

 

[Strewthcobber]

That's my understanding as well the tribunal went through the framework, using the guidelines and couldn't come up with a high degree of danger. But decided it was high danger anyway

 

[KOB1987]

That's my understanding as well the tribunal went through the framework, using the guidelines and couldn't come up with a high degree of danger. But decided it was high danger anyway

Correct. They said the framework wasn't exhaustive and brought in other factors to justify the retrospective red. That's what Turinui was going off about - if they are going to have a framework to refer to then fucking make it exhaustive so that there's no dispute. And what's the point of educating players with the framework if it isn't exhaustive.

 

[tragic]

It’s pretty clear any contact with the head that is cited = 3 weeks minimum.
So why bother with a framework
Just come out and say it like it is.

 

[Dctarget]

Soooo, should we crack it open and start debating Kerevi's penalty he got for steamrolling a shit Welshman?

 

[Tex]

Open that bitch right up.

 

[cyclopath]

Piers Francis let off. "Mitigated" down to a "yellow card" equivalent.
World Rugby come through with the goods, yet again.

 

[Ignoto]

As harsh as the penalty on Samu was/is, it's silly to be leading with your forearm. He does it quite frequently, so I'm surprised it hasn't been an issue. If the first contact point was his hand, I'd say he should get off completely.

I'm more concerned about the inaction of Josh Adams tackle of Isi's head. Contact point was on Isi's nose so what made this just a penalty, but Hodge's a 6 week sidelining?

 

[Up the Guts]

As harsh as the penalty on Samu was/is, it's silly to be leading with your forearm. He does it quite frequently, so I'm surprised it hasn't been an issue. If the first contact point was his hand, I'd say he should get off completely.

I'm more concerned about the inaction of Josh Adams tackle of Isi's head. Contact point was on Isi's nose so what made this just a penalty, but Hodge's a 6 week sidelining?

I don't know, anyone of PI descent I've played with or against runs like that, there's a reason they call it the Fijian shrug (some great montages of it on Youtube). It's going to be a hell of an overhaul if they want to start policing forearms into tackles.

 

[Tex]

It's all just karmic debt for Kerevi's "shoulder charge" on Barrett back in Perth.

Seriously though, it would be great if World Rugby posted a summary of their post-match decision review. I'll regularly bay for blood only to be schooled by the ref, so I'd appreciate understanding from their perspective why they've called something one way or the other. Sure, they fuck up and will have to own it, but let the sunlight in FFS.

The Welsh nine was offside to my eyes and if there was another angle that the TMO saw then at least let me know, because as it stands, it looks like they've bottled it.

 

[tragic]

Yatos Fijian shrug contacted Hodges head. So based on tonight they both should have been penalised.
Good one world rugby - give yourself an uppercut.
You are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.