Waratahs v Chiefs - Friday 11 April 2025

[Braveheart81]

Fair enough.

It's a tricky one in that I agree there is an arm involved but it's incredibly dubious whether it's actually an attempt to wrap.

At the ground the crowd were pretty stunned that it remained a yellow card after half time.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I reckon this is the moment of impact. His arm swung in straight, and is bent through impact on the body/shoulder of Sua'ali'i.

Like I said earlier - indirect contact is almost always the reason these end up being yellow, and we tend to miss it in the heat of the moment becuase the natural reaction is to focus on the head impact

 

[Braveheart81]

I still question this bit. Indirect contact to me is like the Lolesio tackle on the weekend. The bit of his body (his arm) that made the head contact initially contacted the shoulder.

Indirect contact in this example would be the shoulder clearly hitting Sua'ali'i's shoulder before bouncing up into the head. The mitigation being that the force is taken out of the hit in a legal place before the head contact.

If the initial contact is bicep on bicep (but that's not where the force of the impact is coming from) and then the shoulder makes direct contact with the head, I would question whether that should be considered indirect contact.

 

[LeCheese]

This can all be summed up by consistency and clarity - that's all we want, and not always what we get.

 

[Derpus]

Only in rugby could we find a way to define that as indirect lol. In any other sense of the word...

I think it is sufficiently reckless, leading with the elbow and at high enough force to warrant a red even if it was 'indirect' in their nonsensical use of the phrase.

 

[Major Tom]

What are we asking players to do? If we go back to the pasami one where there was mitigation and the tackling player actually got into correct body height technique. I’m still not sure what this chiefs player was trying to do other than rip JAS head off? To me it’s far more reckless and it looks by that screenshot chief shoulder is hitting head as the TMO would say “simultaneous”. I’ll have to watch it again. I’m no expert so it would be nice to have some explanation, rather than dismissing it as fine, move on.

 

[Major Tom]

https://passport.world.rugby/media/j5senlan/2303-update-head_contact_process_en.pdf

Mate I have read that. The problem is the interpretation of level of danger. This tackle has elements of YC and RC danger. But it’s unknown what overrules different dot points?

 

[Braveheart81]

What are we asking players to do? If we go back to the pasami one where there was mitigation and the tackling player actually got into correct body height technique.

This one was discussed a lot on the forum and whilst there was disagreement, my take is that while Paisami got his bodyheight low, he created the head contact rather than avoided it because the only way he could try and prevent a try was getting in front of the ball carrier which he was not in a position to do legally.

I don't think there was mitigation here. A player getting low to score a try isn't a sudden drop in body height.

 

[Major Tom]

Yeah I take your point but I actually think the mitigation is the pass back inside which I was not expecting when I watched it live. I think hunter was lining the bloke on the wing but that he popped the ball back inside and hunter got him instead. I know it’s the tacklers responsibility but at some point we gotta recognise that this game is hurling along so quickly and we’re asking players to do an awful lot. And often the tackler gets put in a vulnerable position trying to get into legal tackling position (Ikitau sat night). I’m not suggesting tacklers need to be protected. I just think that this chiefs player attempted a very thuggish tackle and got away with it. Heck if SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) came out and said it was indirect force but the player has been cautioned I would be happy. Tupou escaped sanction a few years back for a clean out but was cautioned.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Mate I have read that. The problem is the interpretation of level of danger. This tackle has elements of YC and RC danger. But it’s unknown what overrules different dot points?

If the ref/TMO/Judicial officer / Idiot like me are watching at home, and the words "indirect contact", "low force", "low speed' are used at all, then it's almost certainly going to start at a mid-range degree of danger, and a yellow card.

Heck if SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) came out and said it was indirect force but the player has been cautioned I would be happy.

He received a yellow card. That is the caution

I agree the comms, especially with people at the game, is still terrible for this stuff. The TMO comms with the ref was incredibly confusing - something about "dynamics"

 

[Major Tom]

Hmm interesting. Again how are they determining “low force” and “low speed”? Mouthguard data? Biomechanics? HIA? What if the player is susceptible to concussions / glass jaw?
I mean direct contact seems to be the real sticking point. I’ve just watched it again, I can’t see how that’s not direct contact. He’s lucky that JAS head swivels to with the contact. Tackler did everything wrong in this example and got off.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Do commentators get access to the discussion between refs and TMO?

As far as I know, the TMO during the match, and Citing commisioners after the match, are watching on TV with access to all broadcast angles.

They just make a judgement call based on what they see.

The factual data etc comes into it only for HIA assessments, and potentially days later during a judicial hearing.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I have no special knowledge here - I just read the judicial reports if and when they come out. The six nations do a really great job of sharing their decisions - https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/en/discipline

Foe World Rugby, "indirect contact" appears to effectively mean where did the tackler first make contact with the player being tackled.

If the first point of contact is the head it's "direct contact", if the first point of contact is anywhere else, and then the head is touched, it's 'indirect contact"

 

[Derpus]

I think you are right in that is how it's interpreted.

A better definition would be where the part of the body that makes contact with the head initially makes contact with some other part of the body (i.e. a glancing blow). Presumably the point is that some of the force has been absorbed by another part of the players body before the head is hit.

Not really the case here. I can't help but feel they are reading down the provisions to avoid cards or suspensions - which I think is probably what a lot of people would want them to do.

 

[cyclopath]

View attachment 21501

I reckon this is the moment of impact. His arm swung in straight, and is bent through impact on the body/shoulder of Sua'ali'i.

Like I said earlier - indirect contact is almost always the reason these end up being yellow, and we tend to miss it in the heat of the moment becuase the natural reaction is to focus on the head impact

That's the point. Head contact. That's what we should be focussing on. If we want to rely on microseconds and still shots then we are missing the point. This tackle started high, stayed high, and hit the head. Should be a red card every day.

 

[cyclopath]

Any degree of deceleration is dangerous. Hitting players high does this. That's what leads to brain injury. Unless JAS was literally falling over into the shoulder, it is all on the tackler.

 

[Tomthumb]

This photo shows Grampling's shoulder making direct contact to Sua'alii's head

 

[Dan54]

This photo shows Grampling's shoulder making direct contact to Sua'alii's head

Well no itdoesn't, it shows contact with head, but whether it came up off shoulder etc is guesswork. I abhor seeing 1 photo being used as evidence (as shown in disputed try), and I thought it was a RC. Just don't show one frame to prove point is what I suggest.

 

[Tomthumb]

Well no itdoesn't, it shows contact with head, but whether it came up off shoulder etc is guesswork. I abhor seeing 1 photo being used as evidence (as shown in disputed try), and I thought it was a RC. Just don't show one frame to prove point is what I suggest.

Well good thing I watched the game then. It was direct head contact, there is no 2 ways about it. There is no "guess work". Watch the reply, his shoulder 100% hit's Suallii's jaw and only his jaw

There was zero attempt to make a legal tackle, it should have been a straight red and he should be on the sidelines for a number of weeks. The fact that he isn't just proves that these refs and TMO's make this shit up as they go along

 

[Dan54]

Well good thing I watched the game then. It was direct head contact, there is no 2 ways about it. There is no "guess work". Watch the reply, his shoulder 100% hit's Suallii's jaw and only his jaw

There was zero attempt to make a legal tackle, it should have been a straight red and he should be on the sidelines for a number of weeks. The fact that he isn't just proves that these refs and TMO's make this shit up as they go along

Mate, I thought it was a RC and said so, and that was while I was watching game. I also think MacMillan (Chiefs coach) may of thought so too, and why he replaced Wrampling.. I just think picking a frame from a video just skews argument. It's like the non try call, we have seen 2 pics on here both giving different results.
See I also had impression (and read) it may of been a shoulder charge, but if that pic is first contact, you can obviously see it wasn't, as arm is already wrapped legally. I will also say, perhaps I got it wrong as noone including Tahs have cited him? I was convinced they would.