• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Waratahs v Chiefs - Friday 11 April 2025

Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Wilson said:
Possibly, but I doubt we'll be told. I'm not sure how public they make the non-decisions, all I saw was the report that it wasn't cited.
Click to expand...
Probably fair not to have to make non-decisions, because they are just that. You could get to stage where every player who isn't cited would have to have a report. I thought it would be, but obviously something we didn't see from other angles. I pretty sure if there was something else to see, someone from Tahs etc would of leaked something to press.
According to report on ROAR the same with non-try, seem Leckie is saying he pretty happy he got that right.
 
Wilson

Wilson

John Eales (66)
Dan54 said:
Probably fair not to have to make non-decisions, because they are just that.
Click to expand...
For tackles generally that's true, but I don't think it's unreasonable to release a citing commissioner report for everything that was a yellow card or above. Can't hurt to have those incidents explained to the fans so it's clear how the guidelines and frameworks are intended to be applied.
 
The Ghost of Raelene

The Ghost of Raelene

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Derpus said:
Is the argument that initial contact shoulder to shoulder, i wonder?
Click to expand...
Wilson said:
Possibly, but I doubt we'll be told. I'm not sure how public they make the non-decisions, all I saw was the report that it wasn't cited.
Click to expand...
Really shit part is I bet they would have made a call if it shattered his jaw. Just because he eats the contact like it's nothing has surely changed their judgement.

We have levels of the game where above sternum is going to be policed but we let what is a reckless shot that make contact to the head of a bloke standing upright at 6'5 slide. Boggles the mind.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

David Codey (61)
They will always fall back on the process. So run through it.

Head contact. Yes
Foul play. Yes
Degree of Danger? Mid. Indirect contact (first point was arm on Sua'ali'i's shoulder). Low force (no broken jaw!)
Mitigation? None

That's a yellow card.

I've noticed it's the indirect contact one that gets most people off, and pisses offthe average punter at home the most
 
M

Major Tom

Watty Friend (18)
It’s all over the place. It looked like shoulder to head, high degree of danger, absolutely no mitigation = very close to red.
But earlier in the season Paisami does pretty much all he can to make a legal tackle with mitigating circumstances and gets found guilty. Is anyone clear on what constitutes “high degree of danger”?
 
Wilson

Wilson

John Eales (66)
I don't have an issue with the process (and don't necessarily think they got this one wrong), but it's very opaque at the moment, particularly to the average fan. A big part of that is on the commentary teams not fully understanding or explaining it, but it also comes back to the competition level communications - there's a clear process that the citing commissioner has followed to make his decision here, publish those results so fans have really clear real world examples on things like indirect vs direct contact, degree of force, applicable mitigation, etc. As it stands it's often a guessing game how various tackles (at least from the average viewers perspective) have been assessed at each step on the process and it leads to problems where two seemingly identical tackles are assessed completely differently.

I can accept it won't be on every tackle, but surely anything that warranted a yellow card merits further explanation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

David Codey (61)
Absolutley agree. The part of the process I most disagree with is Judicial officers are discouraged from issuing more warnings (which are the equivalent of yellow cards)

They should be done for every warranted incident for every match instead of just ignored.

But agree on the comms side. If they even just looked at the indirect contact they would get a lot further on aligning with what the refs/TMO are going to decide following the process
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

David Codey (61)
Major Tom said:
Is anyone clear on what constitutes “high degree of danger”?
Click to expand...
From the WR (World Rugby) Head Contact Process

PK YC "Low danger"
  • Indirect contact
  • Low force
  • Low speed
  • No leading head / shoulder / forearm / swinging arm

RC "High danger"
  • Direct contact
  • Lack of control
  • High speed
  • Dynamic
  • Leading head / shoulder / elbow / forearm
  • Swinging arm
  • Reckless
  • Intentional or an always-illegal act of foul play
 
Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
As I said, I thought it looked RC, but reading the above the low force one must come into play? JAS never left the field for HIA.
I be honest when it happened I thought it was going back to look at the fend that JAS used, and was telling the tv to f*** off.
 
M

Major Tom

Watty Friend (18)
How many do you need to tick off?
looked pretty “reckless” to me. What does dynamic even mean? If it’s not direct contact does that over rule everything? It’s not well explained at all imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top