RWC: AUS v ENG (Twickenham): POOL A; 6am (AEDT) Sunday 4 October

[qwerty51]

The clean out of an unsighted and arguably unprepared player

Not sure how those parts are relevant. Brown was about to disrupt the breakdown.. He is fair game, if he didn't want to be hit, get out of there.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Really?!!

here
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/29724975/?

There was a "robust" discussion in the tunnel after referee Romain Poite had penalised the English scrum three times in the first half, The Times newspaper reported.

 

[Slim 293]

It was certainly a brainfart from Hooper, and lucky not to see yellow on the night considering it's a pretty clear case of charging into the ruck........

I expect one week.........

 

[Viking]

So if Hooper had used his arms in the cleanout of Brown, as per the correct technique, but done some serious injury to Brown like breaking his neck, would it have been all honkey dory?

Yes. But correct technique would require Hooper to use his arms AND not attack Browns head, attacking Brown in a lower position. If an injury results in that then it's just bad luck.

 

[Viking]

Well of course. If Hooper had done something he didn't do it could have been more dangerous.

If he'd run in and fly kicked Brown in the face it would have been really dangerous but he didn't do that.

What are you trying to say? Because he didn't directly connect with Browns head it's okay? That's bullshit.

He could easily be found guilty of 1. Using no arms (he only used one) 2. attacking the head (he grazed his head). Whether he was successful at directly hitting his head won't matter.

Although I don't think he intentionally attacked the head, it certainly looks like that in some camera angles and probably backed up from Browns reaction.

 

[Slim 293]

Actually, from the very start Hooper was guilty of charging into the ruck............

Whether or not he used his arms in this instance is irrelevant to the fact that it was an illegal cleanout.........

But considering he did lead in with the shoulder he will likely get a week.

 

[Braveheart81]

What are you trying to say? Because he didn't directly connect with Browns head it's okay? That's bullshit.

He could easily be found guilty of 1. Using no arms (he only used one) 2. attacking the head (he grazed his head). Whether he was successful at directly hitting his head won't matter.

Although I don't think he intentionally attacked the head, it certainly looks like that in some camera angles and probably backed up from Browns reaction.

All I was saying is that he'll be judged on what happened, not what might have happened if the hit was higher.

I don't think you can argue that his intent was to hit Brown in the head.

I think it's fairly clear that his shoulder didn't connect with Brown's head because if it had, Brown wouldn't have been fine and been able to get up immediately.

Anyway, we'll see tonight. My guess is that he'll end up with a one week suspension.

 

[KOB1987]

On other matters, is there any news on Horne?

 

[Viking]

All I was saying is that he'll be judged on what happened, not what might have happened if the hit was higher.

I don't think you can argue that his intent was to hit Brown in the head.

I think it's fairly clear that his shoulder didn't connect with Brown's head because if it had, Brown wouldn't have been fine and been able to get up immediately.

Anyway, we'll see tonight. My guess is that he'll end up with a one week suspension.

Actually the clean out was the right height to connect with his head but he missed to the side. So they may argue intent for that reason. Although I don't 100% agree with that but I could certainly see the commissioner arguing that.

If it's any more then 1-2 weeks I'd be pretty pissed off.

 

[Viking]

Actually, from the very start Hooper was guilty of charging into the ruck....

Whether or not he used his arms in this instance is irrelevant to the fact that it was an illegal cleanout...

But considering he did lead in with the shoulder he will likely get a week.

Your not allowed to charge into the ruck? I thought the only issue was the shoulder and possibly attacking the head.

 

[Slim 293]

Your not allowed to charge into the ruck?

Nope.........

In 2010 they revised the laws to clamp down on players flying into rucks:

Players entering a ruck must do so in accordance with the Laws of the Game. Referees are reminded that appropriate binding is a requirement, and charging into a ruck is dangerous play and must be penalised as such.

(h)​

A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.​

​

​

​

​

They also provide some video examples (In Clip 3 there are arms used, but still deemed illegal):​

​

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=2&language=EN​

​

​

 

[Viking]

Did anyone notice Fardy's clean-out around the 14min mark on the side of the field, now that was a good clean out!

 

[cyclopath]

Nope...

In 2010 they revised the laws to clamp down on players flying into rucks:





They also provide some video examples (In Clip 3 there are arms used, but still deemed illegal):

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=2&language=EN

Indeed. Although you'd be hard-pressed to say that this law is at all well-enforced. We see one of these get sanctioned every now and then, and many other examples go seemingly unnoticed. I'd add to it players flying at rucks then spinning around them and loitering in the way or dragging defenders away and preventing them getting back into play - not dangerous, but not on either.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I think it's fairly clear that his shoulder didn't connect with Brown's head because if it had, Brown wouldn't have been fine and been able to get up immediately.

You may be underestimating the size and density of Mike Brown's melon. On the evidence, not a lot gets through there.

(But that doesn't mean it's the one head okay to attack.)

 

[mark_s]

From looking at the video/text posted by Slim. Hooper is guilty of not grasping the pommy player. Using your arms (or one arm) doesn't make charging into a ruck ok by itself. Hard to argue with that. But why is it a red card offense, which is what the citing says? A yellow card would seem on the harsh side, but be understandable. But a red? Thats seems wrong.

 

[Lorenzo]

Having viewed those vids - what is the recommended method for cleaning out players that have left their feet?

Not sure how those parts are relevant. Brown was about to disrupt the breakdown.. He is fair game, if he didn't want to be hit, get out of there.

Brown was legal - I think - by virtue of his being the tackler. Whilst I agree that one takes a risk by participating in rucks, it's pretty dangerous to have players taking 15 metre run ups into stationary players, whether they use their arms or not.

 

[cyclopath]

From looking at the video/text posted by Slim. Hooper is guilty of not grasping the pommy player. Using your arms (or one arm) doesn't make charging into a ruck ok by itself. Hard to argue with that. But why is it a red card offense, which is what the citing says? A yellow card would seem on the harsh side, but be understandable. But a red? Thats seems wrong.

This is one inconsistency. It's hard to recall players being red-carded for this in the past 5 years (I'm sure there's a few odd instances, but these cleanouts happen a lot). Which, despite the link to the law posted by Slim above, suggests that most refs don't know it is supposed to be considered as "red", or are wilfully not enforcing it as such. Plus, players yellow-carded for it seldom seem to be cited or actually suspended.
None of which makes what Hooper did OK, but these inconsistent applications of laws do the game no favours.

 

[Ballboy]

Faboulous win , but whilst not wishing to pee on the parade too much we should put this in context , if it was the Blacks we were palying it would have been muh different , recall the occasions England had big overlaps out wide and bungled it , NZ wont do that , the first half was perhaps the best half i have seen Oz play for many years , our lineout will be better tested by the Boks and the Blacks , hopefullt Cheik has that in hand , though he seems to not be very good at remembering things lately ( yeah right ! )

 

[Dan54]

From looking at the video/text posted by Slim. Hooper is guilty of not grasping the pommy player. Using your arms (or one arm) doesn't make charging into a ruck ok by itself. Hard to argue with that. But why is it a red card offense, which is what the citing says? A yellow card would seem on the harsh side, but be understandable. But a red? Thats seems wrong.

I agree mark, a red would be harsh, especially in a case like this, but if someone is pinned with head exposed and someone takes a potshot with shoulder?? This is where it can be a red card offence, so perhaps it does come under the red card threshold hance the citing. I honestly think an off field YC would be ok, or a warning, but even a week I wouldn't think is tooo harsh.

 

[aeneas]

Is burgess also cited for his tackle around the ears on Hooper when he wasn't even carrying the ball?

According to this http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/106514 Burgess received a warning for that and is free to play.

Sam Burgess (England) has received a Citing Commissioner Warning from independent Citing Commissioner Steve Hinds (New Zealand) for a breach of Law 10.4(e) (dangerous high tackle) in the 71st minute of the Rugby World Cup 2015 Pool A match between England and Australia at Twickenham on Saturday, 3 October.
Under the Rugby World Cup 2015 disciplinary programme, a Citing Commissioner Warning equates to a yellow card for the purposes of sanction. A combination of three yellow cards or Citing Commissioner Warnings accumulated during the tournament will result in a hearing. Burgess is therefore free to play in England’s final Pool A match against Uruguay.

My italics added.