Round 7: Reds v Brumbies - Friday April 7 @ Suncorp 7:35pm

[TSR]

doesnt pass the sniff test to be honest though when you look at head clashes in tackles getting the same suspension.

Blyth on Toole was a good old fashion cheap shot. i think he did intentionally hit him late. i think he butchered it but he certainly intentionally hit him and the ball was long gone

I don’t think there is doubt be meant to make contact. But that’s not a offence and happens to kickers all the time.

Disagree that the timing is an issue. The ball is gone, but only just. When Toole kicks Blyth is already in the frame and already lunging at him (with his head down) and is too close to change his direction or pull out. If he hadn’t made contact with the head it possibly wasn’t a penalty IMO (and yes - I’ve just watched it again to refresh my memory) and as far as I can see neither the referee’s decision, the charge nor the judiciary ruling make reference to late contact.

Blyth got charged, and suspended for,
reckless contact to the head and failing to wrap. Valetini’s lack of care is almost identical. Neither are looking. Neither had regard for the safety of the person they hit. Both commit to contact early at force without accuracy. Both had direct head on head contact with their opponent.

 

[Maulalltheway]

Find me some evidence to the contrary.

For the record I can't find any SANZAAR judiciary outcome since 2020 that graded something in the top-end range of the offence.

You’re the one sprouting it mate. Show us where it says deliberate act is needed to grade high.

 

[Maulalltheway]

I don’t think there is doubt be meant to make contact. But that’s not a offence and happens to kickers all the time.

Disagree that the timing is an issue. The ball is gone, but only just. When Toole kicks Blyth is already in the frame and already lunging at him (with his head down) and is too close to change his direction or pull out. If he hadn’t made contact with the head it possibly wasn’t a penalty IMO (and yes - I’ve just watched it again to refresh my memory) and as far as I can see neither the referee’s decision, the charge nor the judiciary ruling make reference to late contact.

Blyth got charged, and suspended for,
reckless contact to the head and failing to wrap. Valetini’s lack of care is almost identical. Neither are looking. Neither had regard for the safety of the person they hit. Both commit to contact early at force without accuracy. Both had direct head on head contact with their opponent.

 

[Maulalltheway]

He’s not charging down. He’s charging the man. Its a dog shot and defending it is pathetic guys

he is looking straight at him when the kick starts. He makes the choice to still belt him

 

[LeCheese]

Not one person has defended his actions.

Surely it's time for Rule 10

 

[Braveheart81]

You’re the one sprouting it mate. Show us where it says deliberate act is needed to grade high.

I'm going on the basis that we have several years of judiciary outcomes without a single incident being deemed to reach the top-end threshold and the first point in the World Rugby regulation about the grading being whether it was intentional.

So no, I have no definitive statement that something has to be intentional to be considered top-end but I have a heap of judicial findings that haven't found the actions to be intentional and have not graded them to be a top-end offence.

 

[TSR]

He’s not charging down. He’s charging the man. Its a dog shot and defending it is pathetic guys

he is looking straight at him when the kick starts. He makes the choice to still belt him

Meh - it’s not pathetic. You’re just wrong. Get over it.

 

[Maulalltheway]

Meh - it’s not pathetic. You’re just wrong. Get over it.

quality insight...

show youre wrong with stills and you still hold the position...

He eyeballed him and its a dog shot. Is your reds love is blinding you to this?

 

[cyclopath]

Not one person has defended his actions.

Surely it's time for Rule 10

Defo Rule 10

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Surely it's time for Rule 10

That's the boobs rule right?

 

[Slim 293]

That's the boobs rule right?

Blyth or Toole’s?

 

[cyclopath]

There will be no blithe use of the words boobs or tools.
There, I said it.

 

[Maulalltheway]

Lol. What was that about intent being required for top entry point. Another proof that Blyth was lucky to only get 3 weeks

 

[Rebel man]

Lol. What was that about intent being required for top entry point. Another proof that Blyth was lucky to only get 3 weeks

Swinton has got more red cards than I have had hot dinners. He will never learn

 

[LeCheese]

Lol. What was that about intent being required for top entry point. Another proof that Blyth was lucky to only get 3 weeks

There’s an argument that Swinton showed greater intent to put a shot on, whereas Blyth’s was a poorly executed and lazy charge down attempt.

 

[Maulalltheway]

There’s an argument that Swinton showed greater intent to put a shot on, whereas Blyth’s was a poorly executed and lazy charge down attempt.

When you read both decisions it’s very hard to say what the actual difference was.

 

[LeCheese]

When you read both decisions it’s very hard to say what the actual difference was.

But not impossible

Blyth's:

With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee considered the act of foul play was reckless, direct head contact was made and with high force. The Committee found it was not deliberate

Swinton's:

With respect to sanction, the Judicial Committee deemed the act of foul play was reckless, with the contact point directly made with the head, high force and no mitigating factors present.