Refereeing decisions

[LeCheese]

Agree with all of that - but this can also result in only a penalty being issued. You don't need mitigating factors if they deem it be low danger.

Correct, but it can also be a yellow even if it is deemed low danger (high is a red). Look, maybe my memory's failing me, but I'm sure I recall similar instances of 1-on-1 upright tackles with a not-insignificant degree of head contact being given a yellow in both Super and internationals. Consistency is all that everyone is wanting.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I can only recall one other like this (Jordie Barrett) being a yellow card - but I could be wrong.

There was significantly more force into he Jordie one though I reckon. Straight shoulder to the head at force. Higher level of danger

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1gmvdvw
If Kerevi is red and Jordie is yellow, I can see why this ref decides this one is lower danger than them and penalty only.

 

[Brumby Runner]

@BR I come to the same conclusion, but mate, you are being somewhat harsh on Skelton. He is just a fabulous talent - a one-off even. Our problem is he has not prioritised Wallaby access for his talents and he becomes a B plan that just does not make ends meet compared to the alternative. That alternative being (Starting) Frost Williams; Valetini, McReight, Wilson. Now every one of those (bar possibly Valetini) has challenges that might provide a different selection. But any alternative with Skelton, does not have enough time availability in training to beat the alternative. It very possibly would be different if Skelton returned to Aus in 2025.

I can't argue with your reasoning Dru, but just say that the result in the Scottish test particularly was not good and was largely down to the disruptive effect of his inclusion.

 

[JRugby2]

Correct, but it can also be a yellow even if it is deemed low danger (high is a red). Look, maybe my memory's failing me, but I'm sure I recall similar instances of 1-on-1 upright tackles with a not-insignificant degree of head contact being given a yellow in both Super and internationals. Consistency is all that everyone is wanting.

Everyone wants consistency - it will never truly happen until we remove the human element from refereeing and I'm not convinced people are willing to accept that. I want referees to identify mistakes that have occurred and not make them again - and when there is subjectivity around it, communicate it with fans.

 

[JRugby2]

There was significantly more force into he Jordie one though I reckon. Straight shoulder to the head at force. Higher level of danger

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1gmvdvw
If Kerevi is red and Jordie is yellow, I can see why this ref decides this one is lower danger than them and penalty only.

Yeah maybe - Jordie going backwards as a passive tackler would be enough to mitigate to PK only if they had deemed it not be high danger in the first place.

 

[Tomthumb]

It doesn't take a physicist to know that a head clash that occurs from close range, at walking pace - is probably different to one where the players are 30m apart and sprint at each other

Maybe, maybe not. There is no evidence to suggest they both won’t cause brain trauma

Does brain trauma only matter if it happens at speed?

 

[JRugby2]

Maybe, maybe not. There is no evidence to suggest they both won’t cause brain trauma

Does brain trauma only matter if it happens at speed?

I think this is a strawman argument, and Im not sure where the end point is? Do you want all head contact to be deemed as foul play?

Brain trauma can occur from zero head contact (whiplash is a good example) and so I think if you follow the garden path your argument is heading down, the answer is “no more rugby”.

Im not sure what your background is, mine isn’t neuroscience or medicine - but I would be surprised if there wasn’t evidence that suggested brain trauma was more likely to happen and more likely to be more severe, the faster the collision happens.

My understanding is that rugby isn’t trying to completely eradicate the risk of concussion, rather than mitigate the risk of it happening - and allowing room for nuance in decision making so that severe, high risk incidents happen less.

They still ID’d this as foul play (so either intentional, reckless or avoidable) and dealt with it - but just less likely to cause serious head trauma. It’s not like they said this was completely fine and acceptable

 

[Tomthumb]

Do you want all head contact to be deemed as foul play?

All head contact is foul play

the problem is we have been told for years that head on head contact was always a card and it was always reffed that way. Now out of the blue that’s changed and no one has said why it’s changed and there are no clear rules around it only refs making inconsistent decisions

 

[Pfitzy]

 

[Pfitzy]

The link is here for anyone interested. I'll make my thoughts apparent below

https://passport.world.rugby/media/j5senlan/2303-update-head_contact_process_en.pdf

 

[JRugby2]

All head contact is foul play

the problem is we have been told for years that head on head contact was always a card and it was always reffed that way. Now out of the blue that’s changed and no one has said why it’s changed and there are no clear rules around it only refs making inconsistent decisions

Ok, I think its very clear now that you’ve been completely misguided and formed an incorrect view.

There has never been a mandate that all head contact was a card - that’s just your (and no doubt a number of others) read of what youve seen on TV. No doubt that rugby went through a period between around 2018-2020 where we saw very harsh penalties, but that changed in 2021 when the HCP was rewritten (and was communicated at the time). Its not out of the blue, you clearly just missed it - Rugby definitely has a PR/ comms problem - so that’s honestly fair enough

 

[Pfitzy]

My thoughts on the head contact, as promised, you lucky dogs:

Fuck me there's some wank about head contact going on in here. Have a word to yourselves after reading the head contact process, some of you.

Facts:
- The ball carrier did not change height, direction, or anything else that could be factored into the point of contact.
- The distance or speed into contact is only relevant insofar as judging force.
- Tackler was low initially and then stood up as contact approached.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume the tackler's intent was to initiate head contact - or they're a giant pussy wearing a bad mullet who was scared of Valetini's ribs.

Using the process, the Italian ref and French TMO - while sharing a mutual love of fine cuisine and surrendering in armed conflicts - have somehow talked themselves down to "low danger".

In opposition to every other incident we've seen of this nature.

Which is a fucking joke, given the questions in the frame work. "Force" is a consideration, but it is not a qualifying or dismissive criteria.

Step through the flow and you'll answer the question.

For me: Yellow Card, not enough to be red, and referral to a better barber.

 

[Tomthumb]

Ok, I think its very clear now that you’ve been completely misguided and formed an incorrect view.

There has never been a mandate that all head contact was a card - that’s just your (and no doubt a number of others) read of what youve seen on TV. No doubt that rugby went through a period between around 2018-2020 where we saw very harsh penalties, but that changed in 2021 when the HCP was rewritten (and was communicated at the time). Its not out of the blue, you clearly just missed it - Rugby definitely has a PR/ comms problem - so that’s honestly fair enough

No, I’m well aware of the little flowchart

The problem is it’s not a law, it’s completely up to the discretion of the ref. What one ref views as low risk another ref will view as high risk. That’s nonsense, the same action should not have 2 different outcomes that are both correct

And despite the little flowchart allowing it, refs very very rarely decided anything was “low risk” for the best part of the last 3 years, hence my comment re it always being a card

 

[JRugby2]

In opposition to every other incident we've seen of this nature.

I'm genuinely open to having my mind changed and can accept that I'm wrong (I swear), but I just wish the people debating this would bring more to this than pointlessly dog-whistling "WHERE'S THE CONSISTENCY!!!"

What's inconsistent with? Show me some clips from the last few weeks or refer to specific incidents - rather than vaguely referring to these mystery hits.

Talk me through it: the hit, the dynamics in the lead up, everything. I don't know how you can claim something is inconsistent if you don't clearly identify the reference point.

 

[JRugby2]

No, I’m well aware of the little flowchart

The problem is it’s not a law, it’s completely up to the discretion of the ref. What one ref views as low risk another ref will view as high risk. That’s nonsense, the same action should not have 2 different outcomes that are both correct

And despite the little flowchart allowing it, refs very very rarely decided anything was “low risk” for the best part of the last 3 years, hence my comment re it always being a card

Again, you misunderstand it, and that's fine. Literally every decision is at the discretion of the refand we have plenty of examples of referees deeming something low risk.

Off the dome, I can think of:
- NZ v Argentina with Angus Gardener earlier in the year, and the hit on nick White two weeks with doleman (though I don’t agree with that one)

We should just have a way for rugby administrators to communicate this with fans after the fact so we know

 

[Derpus]

Yeah mate this is it, and our main aim to upset anon nuffies on rugby forums

And I'm ok with being wrong, in your opinion, if your opinion is you want to see cards instead of penalties for collisions where the 2 guys collide heads, after they practically walked into other off about 2 steps each

Refusing to see the nuance in my view isn't making you any more convincing.

If they want to make that tackle PK only say so in a clear and consistent way. Don't just change how its reffed week to week.

 

[JRugby2]

Refusing to see the nuance in my view isn't making you any more convincing.

If they want to make that tackle PK only say so in a clear and consistent way. Don't just change how its reffed week to week.

Fuck, we got there in the end.

 

[Pfitzy]

say so in a clear and consistent way.

YEAH! Like every other Rugby L-

You know what? Never mind

 

[John S]

All I can say is bloody lawyers.

As in the ones who wrote the laws, and I'm assuming write the updates. Not the arm chair lawyers (myself included) arguing over the damn thing

 

[Strewthcobber]

All I can say is bloody lawyers.

As in the ones who wrote the laws, and I'm assuming write the updates. Not the arm chair lawyers (myself included) arguing over the damn thing

I have a very interesting book on the history of the laws of rugby union up to 1945.

It's interesting mainly to see how many of our current laws come from a bunch of drunk ex-public schoolboys sitting in a pub writing down how they thought an almost completely unrecognizable game should be played before Australia was even a nation