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

[Tomthumb]

Why rugby’s new foul play system needs a red card

The new rules have failed their first big test after a sickening hit on Brumbies winger Corey Toole, begging the question of what a player has to do to be sent off.

www.smh.com.au

I think Paul Cully's take on this is pretty rubbish.

It was an obvious red card given there was contact with the head with force and no mitigation but I don't see this as being close to being a straight red card with no replacement.

It was a standard red card which under Super Rugby's rules is 20 minutes until the player can be replaced.

How is it not a straight red. Looked intentional as there was no other reason to be up that high, and it knocked Toole out of the game

If this wasn’t a red card what is?

 

[Tomthumb]

Yep.

The 'straight' red card is reserved for deliberate acts of foul play so I think it is reserved for these sort of actions because it requires intent.

Unless he though Toole was 9 foot tall, his intent was to collect the guys head. There are accidents but c’mon, that was a shocking hit on a defenceless player

 

[qwerty51]

How is it not a straight red. Looked intentional as there was no other reason to be up that high, and it knocked Toole out of the game

If this wasn’t a red card what is?

Asked and answered at least 3 times in this thread.

 

[Tomthumb]

Asked and answered at least 3 times in this thread.

By people claiming it was in-intentional. It looked completely intentional

 

[qwerty51]

By people claiming it was in-intentional. It looked completely intentional

If it was intentional, he should be banned for a year no?

 

[Rebel man]

By people claiming it was in-intentional. It looked completely intentional

His intention was to charge the ball down. It was a reckless challenge he was sent off and got three weeks. A full read has to be a clear and obvious act of intentional foul play. Now this is not that

 

[Hawko]

It always worries me when people are discussing whether an incident happened "with intent". Who among us has the mind reading powers to know what anyone intends. The issue should be "What happened?" and then a discussion of whether that is legal/illegal. Talking about intent just gets us to highly inconsistent outcomes from similar situations. If I am a lawyer and can pose "reasonable doubt" as to a persons intentions I can get him exonerated or a reduced sentence. If we just discuss what actually happened, then incidents are treated equally and a "good" lawyer doesn't interfere with a reasonable, common-sense outcome.

 

[Tomthumb]

If it was intentional, he should be banned for a year no?

Well if it was unintentional he must be the most un-co-ordinated dude to ever step on a rugby field

 

[Tomthumb]

His intention was to charge the ball down. It was a reckless challenge he was sent off and got three weeks. A full read has to be a clear and obvious act of intentional foul play. Now this is not that

He never once looked at the ball though

 

[Froggy]

Partially disagree Hawko. Yes, you are right, there are occasions where intent may not be clear, however I would suggest it often is. As an extreme, a player punches another player, intent is pretty clear. On the other hand, a player goes for a waist high tackle, the ball carrier slips and is collected high, clearly no intent.
I disagree with the proposition that the result should determine the penalty. If a player tips a player up and drives him headfirst into the ground, the act is identical whether there is no harm done or a major injury, and should be penalised the same. Likewise where an attacker slips and falls into a player already committed to a waist high tackle and as a result cops it high, the penalty (if any) should be the same whether the ball runner is uninjured or breaks his jaw.

 

[TSR]

He never once looked at the ball though

So …. Just to be clear you are suggesting he intentionally ran through and executed a head butt at speed?

It was stupid and careless and I would have had not complained with a straight red. He seems very lucky to me to have only got three weeks.

He never once looked at the ball. Nor did he once look at his head. He dropped his head and charged in recklessly.

If he was looking I’d guess it would’ve ended far better for all involved.

 

[TSR]

It always worries me when people are discussing whether an incident happened "with intent". Who among us has the mind reading powers to know what anyone intends. The issue should be "What happened?" and then a discussion of whether that is legal/illegal. Talking about intent just gets us to highly inconsistent outcomes from similar situations. If I am a lawyer and can pose "reasonable doubt" as to a persons intentions I can get him exonerated or a reduced sentence. If we just discuss what actually happened, then incidents are treated equally and a "good" lawyer doesn't interfere with a reasonable, common-sense outcome.

Disagree. It is important we stamp out reckless and careless play.

But trying to hurt someone with intent is a whole other level of issue and should be treated with lengthy bans or rubbing out from the game.

 

[Rebel man]

He never once looked at the ball though

Open both eyes next buddy

 

[Braveheart81]

It always worries me when people are discussing whether an incident happened "with intent". Who among us has the mind reading powers to know what anyone intends. The issue should be "What happened?" and then a discussion of whether that is legal/illegal. Talking about intent just gets us to highly inconsistent outcomes from similar situations. If I am a lawyer and can pose "reasonable doubt" as to a persons intentions I can get him exonerated or a reduced sentence. If we just discuss what actually happened, then incidents are treated equally and a "good" lawyer doesn't interfere with a reasonable, common-sense outcome.

This is why it's going to be unusual for something to be considered deliberate foul play unless it involves punching, biting, gouging, headbutting, kicking etc.

 

[fatprop]

As the game speeds up, big units tire and they will be less accurate

Now that means zippy little players will get more opportunities to isolate bigger units, but sometimes that tired big unit will screw up and scrag one of the dwarves illegally - it is inevitable, they will stick out an arm or not bend enough

 

[TSR]

I think in this case it was a case of Blyth trying hard to make a difference after being out.

Unfortunately that doesn’t excuse it.

 

[Maulalltheway]

As the game speeds up, big units tire and they will be less accurate

Now that means zippy little players will get more opportunities to isolate bigger units, but sometimes that tired big unit will screw up and scrag one of the dwarves illegally - it is inevitable, they will stick out an arm or not bend enough

it was 10 minutes into the game...

 

[Sword of Justice]

I agree with posters that he is obviously not trying to get himself carded but simultaneously I think you could argue Blyth has deliberately removed his control of the tackle by placing himself in that position.

Is something reckless if the chance of disaster is as likely as it was when he put 120kg into the jaw of Toole based on his body height? Or is that deliberately inviting chance of serious injury?

I don't think it's acceptable to say there was no intent to injure when there was also seemingly no intent to effect a safe but hard tackle. The net result is a player with a very serious concussion which Blyth knows could lead to brain injury.

 

[fatprop]

it was 10 minutes into the game...

Time in play between breaks has increased, breaks are shorter, sure this one was 10 minutes in, but the point stands

 

[TSR]

I guess we could go around forever on the semantics.

To me it’s pretty clear - intentional means he meant to do it. Not that he didn’t take enough care not to.

Anyway, however you view the terminology and whether it was a direct red or not I don’t think anyone is disputing the seriousness of the offence.