TRC2021 - Wallabies v Boks @ Suncorp 18/09

[Blue]

No, I think accidental head clashes are relevant.

They are dealt with under the law application guidelines e.g. some of the examples here: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

If Swinton had wrapped his right arm and made a legal tackle and then the two had clashed heads I don't think it is foul play at all and no card or penalty should ensure.

If Swinton had made a no arms tackle that had started below the head and then it was the shoulder that slipped up into Vermuelen's head with significant contact it would have been a red card in my view because that isn't sufficient mitigation.

The fact that it was a head clash is relevant.

Exactly.

But we can only hope for consistency.

I fear we will not get it.

 

[Bullrush]

No, I think accidental head clashes are relevant.

They are dealt with under the law application guidelines e.g. some of the examples here: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

If Swinton had wrapped his right arm and made a legal tackle and then the two had clashed heads I don't think it is foul play at all and no card or penalty should ensure.

If Swinton had made a no arms tackle that had started below the head and then it was the shoulder that slipped up into Vermuelen's head with significant contact it would have been a red card in my view because that isn't sufficient mitigation.

The fact that it was a head clash is relevant.

It seems to me that the Laws only talk about accidental contact in determining whether the head contact happened due to ‘foul play’. It then talks about what is considered ‘accidental’

‘Accidental contact with the ball-carrier tackled into the defender’

‘Friendly fire’ as the two defenders clash heads

‘Absolutely accidental head clash between white 15 and red 14 - both competing for the ball at the same height’

It seems that there is no consideration for ‘accidental’ if you are actually in the act of making a tackle. Basically you intentionally went into contact and so any contact to the head is not considered ‘accidental’

So if you follow the guidelines for the Swinton tackle:
Was there head contact? - Yes
Was there foul play? (not accidental as per above) - Yes
Was the danger high? Yes
Sanction - Red Card
Mitigating Factor - Head contact was secondary
Sanction - downgraded to Yellow Card.

Going by the same guidelines, Weiss should have received a Red Card as there were no real
mitigating factors. This is probably what the citing commissioner has seen.

 

[John S]

It seems to me that the Laws only talk about accidental contact in determining whether the head contact happened due to ‘foul play’. It then talks about what is considered ‘accidental’

‘Accidental contact with the ball-carrier tackled into the defender’

‘Friendly fire’ as the two defenders clash heads

‘Absolutely accidental head clash between white 15 and red 14 - both competing for the ball at the same height’

It seems that there is no consideration for ‘accidental’ if you are actually in the act of making a tackle. Basically you intentionally went into contact and so any contact to the head is not considered ‘accidental’

So if you follow the guidelines for the Swinton tackle:
Was there head contact? - Yes
Was there foul play? (not accidental as per above) - Yes
Was the danger high? Yes
Sanction - Red Card
Mitigating Factor - Head contact was secondary
Sanction - downgraded to Yellow Card.

Going by the same guidelines, Weiss should have received a Red Card as there were no real
mitigating factors. This is probably what the citing commissioner has seen.

And this is why some people have been questioning the Refs calls - the lack of consistency even within the same game.

 

[Derpus]

And Wiese was cleared. How in the fuck? WR (World Rugby) needs to get its shit in order.

 

[Dan54]

And Wiese was cleared. How in the fuck? WR (World Rugby) needs to get its shit in order.

I don't necessarily agree with decision, but seems consistent to me. I said earlier in thread , it looked very very similar to the RC that Swinton had overturned in Super rugby, even slightly less as he didn't have 2 goes.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't necessarily agree with decision, but seems consistent to me. I said earlier in thread , it looked very very similar to the RC that Swinton had overturned in Super rugby, even slightly less as he didn't have 2 goes.

Swinton's red card in Super Rugby was overturned because he only brushed against the Chiefs player's chin. The contact was minimal before the main contact was against the chest.

Wiese's looked like the full force of the contact was against Kerevi's head.

It seems SANZAAR have gone pretty substantially against World Rugby directives in recent hearings and should probably be called out.

Bringing intent into it is not relevant but they keep doing it.

 

[Bullrush]

I really don’t like the language around it being intentional or not. It doesn’t matter.

I also can’t see how it can’t be reckless.

If you have to smack into the head of the opposition to clean them out then players need to learn that the ball is already lost. Better to have it turned-over than to get carded.

 

[Dan54]

Swinton's red card in Super Rugby was overturned because he only brushed against the Chiefs player's chin. The contact was minimal before the main contact was against the chest.

Wiese's looked like the full force of the contact was against Kerevi's head.

It seems SANZAAR have gone pretty substantially against World Rugby directives in recent hearings and should probably be called out.

Bringing intent into it is not relevant but they keep doing it.

Listen I not agreeing with Wiese getting off it ( I personally thought he should of copped a suspension), as I not sure how decision was made. But I do think they have to stick to the laws, and as you say rightly Swinton actually didn't hit Chiefs player's head with much force, but the if the law doesn't allow for intention, can it then allow for how hard the hit was?
All I know is when teams go into these things they have lawyers etc, and so everything would I imagine have to be done to letter of the law.
I wonder if it too easy for us who aren't privy to wording and how laws of game have to be applied at these hearings are in the position to say courts(which is what they are) should rule.

 

[Braveheart81]

Listen I not agreeing with Wiese getting off it ( I personally thought he should of copped a suspension), as I not sure how decision was made. But I do think they have to stick to the laws, and as you say rightly Swinton actually didn't hit Chiefs player's head with much force, but the if the law doesn't allow for intention, can it then allow for how hard the hit was?
All I know is when teams go into these things they have lawyers etc, and so everything would I imagine have to be done to letter of the law.
I wonder if it too easy for us who aren't privy to wording and how laws of game have to be applied at these hearings are in the position to say courts(which is what they are) should rule.

Yes, of course it can. The amount of force is mentioned at every step in the framework.

 

[Bullrush]

Yes, of course it can. The amount of force is mentioned at every step in the framework.

Is it?

The framework talks about direct contact and danger but I'm not sure it mentions force? I might be wrong.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is it?

The framework talks about direct contact and danger but I'm not sure it mentions force? I might be wrong.

It is the main determinant of whether it is considered a high or low degree of danger.

You don't recall referees regularly discussing whether the impact was "with force" when determining the card severity for a high tackle?

 

[Dan54]

Yep well regardless, I thought he was lucky to only get a YC, but I do think it is probably not as easy as we all think, especially for the refs!

 

[TSR]

Out of interest - am I the only one who thinks Tupou probably got in the shit during the game review for his one hand flick to Koroibete when he should have just passed normally?

Or am i just getting that grumpy and miserable as I age?

 

[cyclopath]

Out of interest - am I the only one who thinks Tupou probably got in the shit during the game review for his one hand flick to Koroibete when he should have just passed normally?

Or am i just getting that grumpy and miserable as I age?

Yes.
You work out which question I am answering!

 

[dru]

Out of interest - am I the only one who thinks Tupou probably got in the shit during the game review for his one hand flick to Koroibete when he should have just passed normally?

Or am i just getting that grumpy and miserable as I age?

Grumpy. Look he's enjoying his rugby and having a devastating effect on the back of it. It's not like his scrum work is failing. He really could make an interesting forward pod to back link man - like Dane at his best. Could Tupou have got the second hand to the ball in the middle of going into contact? Maybe, but his solution worked fine.

In terms of the game review, if Rennie was looking to sober the boys up, that's possibly not the moment to pick.

 

[TSR]

Yes.
You work out which question I am answering!

Haha - I appreciate you at least leaving a shade of grey, even if I’m pretty certain I know which one you were responding too.

Dru wasn’t so kind.

 

[Sully]

Re Tupou, yeah sure he holds a scrum up very well and is great trucking it up but he needs to do more work with out the ball.

 

[dru]

Haha - I appreciate you at least leaving a shade of grey, even if I’m pretty certain I know which one you were responding too.

Dru wasn’t so kind.

Bah humbug. I feel I understand grumpy.

 

[dru]

Re Tupou, yeah sure he holds a scrum up very well and is great trucking it up but he needs to do more work with out the ball.

Hey Sully. I'm intrigued. What are your thoughts here - expand a little.

 

[Sully]

Hey Sully. I'm intrigued. What are your thoughts here - expand a little.

78 minutes two tackles one missed tackle.lots of standing at first man off the ruck.