[2019 Rugby Championship] Round 3: Australia vs. New Zealand (10/08/2019)

[TRF_heineken]

This^^^

It's feeling like a burglar suing the owner of a house that shot at him...first and foremost...shouldn't have been committing the crime to start with! Everything else is kind of beside the point...shoulder charges aren't allowed in rugby

Dude, if you use that argument in South Africa, your client will be found guilty of so many offences it's not even funny.

 

[ncurd]

Dude, if you use that argument in South Africa, your client will be found guilty of so many offences it's not even funny.

Pretty much the same in most countries, using lethal force without a threat to ones own life or others is usually considered a big no no.

Mike'as original point is fair though it doesn't matter so much what Hooper does if Barrett's tackle was never going to be legal he only has himself to blame when it turns to go horribly wrong.

To take analogy further if you shoot a guy and your intent is to disable rather than kill and you end up killing someone you're still going down for murder.

 

[Derpus]

Pretty much the same in most countries, using lethal force without a threat to ones own life or others is usually considered a big no no.

Mike'as original point is fair though it doesn't matter so much what Hooper does if Barrett's tackle was never going to be legal he only has himself to blame when it turns to go horribly wrong.

To take analogy further if you shoot a guy and your intent is to disable rather than kill and you end up killing someone you're still going down for murder.

The definition of manslaughter is killing with the intent to injure or otherwise without the necessary intent to kill.

I agree that the tackle was illegal regardless and so the mitigating factor does not come into play. The point of the law is to protect heads. The more shoulders being thrown around, the more often one will accidentally end up hitting someone's head.

I think mitigation should only come into play when the tackle would otherwise be legal but for the circumstance.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The definition of manslaughter is killing with the intent to injure or otherwise without the necessary intent to kill.

I agree that the tackle was illegal regardless and so the mitigating factor does not come into play. The point of the law is to protect heads. The more shoulders being thrown around, the more often one will accidentally end up hitting someone's head.

I think mitigation should only come into play when the tackle would otherwise be legal but for the circumstance.

Recklessness and/or Negligence can provide the mens rea (guilty mind) for a murder conviction, as would be the case in the vast majority of cases like ncurd's example. It's more or less the same with Barrett (negligent and reckless that is!), he's angled himself in such a way that his shoulder is the most exposed it could possibly be and that it's very likely that it'll be the only point of contact with the opposition. Once that point of contact is the head or neck it could only be a red.

It's often telling in these arguments that you get comments like "you didn't watch in the 80s", "it wouldn't have been a penalty 10 years ago" and shite like that. We know how common concussions are in rugby and now we know the potential devastating effects of concussions, if anyone can't accept the changes that are resulting because of this they don't belong anywhere in the sport in my opinion because even those opinions from the couch, pub or stand are holding the safety of the sport back.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Pretty much the same in most countries, using lethal force without a threat to ones own life or others is usually considered a big no no.

Mike'as original point is fair though it doesn't matter so much what Hooper does if Barrett's tackle was never going to be legal he only has himself to blame when it turns to go horribly wrong.

To take analogy further if you shoot a guy and your intent is to disable rather than kill and you end up killing someone you're still going down for murder.

True. Hooper had no obligation to be of a certain height or position when the tackle attempt was made on him. The onus was purely on Barrett.

But what I was aiming at is that the taller guys will always be at a negative position when tackling shorter/falling/lower ball-carriers. So they have to take extra precautions when attempting the tackles.

The definition of manslaughter is killing with the intent to injure or otherwise without the necessary intent to kill.

I agree that the tackle was illegal regardless and so the mitigating factor does not come into play. The point of the law is to protect heads. The more shoulders being thrown around, the more often one will accidentally end up hitting someone's head.

I think mitigation should only come into play when the tackle would otherwise be legal but for the circumstance.

That's also why many countries don't use the term manslaughter and rather use negligent homicide for the same offence. But also the definition of manslaughter isn't solely focused on intent, but also looks at omission or negligence.

To use Ncurd's analogy of the gun and disabling. That will also not fly well in SA. As seen in the Oscar Pistorius trial. The purpose of a gun is to kill. The purpose of a stun-gun is to disable.

Nonetheless, Barretts negligence and recklessness is the common denominator here, and everyone agrees that he should be sanctioned.

And is now only the 4th All Black to ever be sent off.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Dude, if you use that argument in South Africa, your client will be found guilty of so many offences it's not even funny.

Yeah but in America (Insane states) it's encouraged

 

[ncurd]

Yeah but in America (Insane states) it's encouraged

Yes but America should never be used in analogy like this because we all know your relationship with firearms is terrible.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

...I might have picked the wrong analogy...it seems to work in my head but also seems to distract from the point

 

[Groundhog]

Shame the Barrett thing is dominating a great win for Oz, but it's fair enough. For me it's a red at any speed. There was no best case scenario or legal outcome from that tackle attempt to my mind. He's hitting a falling player with his shoulder and no possibility to wrap his arms. If it hits the head or not it's illegal. I'm glad that this was blown up because no matter how innocuous it looks in real time, head injury doesn't have to look bad to be harmful. World Rugby have set their stall out in the Under 20 world cup even. No tolerance for contact to the head. Not saying Barrett was malicious or dirty, and it's unfortunate for him, but he has to be more careful.

 

[Derpus]

Sums it up really. Kind of unlucky but also defo red.

Mitigating circumstance: 'i closed my eyes before i went flying in with my shoulder, sir'

 

[BobbyM]

Sums it up really. Kind of unlucky but also defo red.

Mitigating circumstance: 'i closed my eyes before i went flying in with my shoulder, sir'

Also shows that hooper was going down at a rate of knots from the tackle from Coles => mitigation.

To be clear, my rationale for suggesting it should be a yellow and not a red doesn't include following:

- it happens all the time
- it wouldn't have been penalised in the past
- Barrett closed his eyes
- it is/isn't like murder/manslaughter in the US/SA/wherever

I repeat again, following the guidelines set out by world rugby, I think a yellow card would've been a more appropriate outcome.

 

[Derpus]

Then they ought to be changed. That should be a red.

 

[Hulk Hogan]

Jones will be shifted out for Pocock soon.

Higginbotham and Cooper? No thanks.

Cooper I can understand, but why not Higginbotham? Not having a crack at you I just wanna know your reasoning?

In my eyes, he's a tough, mobile number 8 or number 6 who scores tries, gets intercepts and is strong in defence and in the lineout, he's not afraid to get up in players faces as well. He'd be a good impact of the bench. Which is what we lack right now.

 

[Derpus]

Cooper I can understand, but why not Higginbotham? Not having a crack at you I just wanna know your reasoning?

In my eyes, he's a tough, mobile number 8 or number 6 who scores tries, gets intercepts and is strong in defence and in the lineout, he's not afraid to get up in players faces as well. He'd be a good impact of the bench. Which is what we lack right now.

I think hes great at Super level but its rarely translated to test performances.

 

[Dai Perk]

Any traction to these comments about illegal neck rolls by the Wallabies? Just sour grapes, or a real issue?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12257778

 

[Groundhog]

I see multiple neck rolls in any given pro game. They've completely.gone off the boil calling them these days.

 

[BobbyM]

It is pretty consistent and defined these days, I'm not sure why anyone is acting surprised or confused;

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines

Using these guidelines we are looking at a red card and I don't think there's enough clear and obvious mitigation to lower it to yellow. If you're not happy with the laws then blame them not the referee for seemingly doing his job in this case.

I don't think anyone is acting surprised or confused. I fully understand the rationale put forward by the ref (which actually didn't align to the picture you posted or the decision making framework but hey-ho) but I disagree with his assessment of the mitigating circumstances. You say you don't think there is clear and obvious mitigation to lower it to a yellow. Could you perhaps address the points on mitigation I've made that you felt the need to dislike?

 

[Rinkadink]

@BobbyM No.

(Really none of them apply, he knew the player was being tackled and there was no sudden change of body position. Even then he didn't use arm. No CLEAR AND OBVIOUS mitigation. Red all day errday under current laws and framework. You're starting to look a bit daft flogging this.)

 

[Gavin]

Any traction to these comments about illegal neck rolls by the Wallabies? Just sour grapes, or a real issue?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12257778

Sour grapes from Kiwis when discussing a loss by their national team? Never!!!

*Obviously sour grapes

 

[Rinkadink]

Sour grapes from Kiwis when discussing a loss by their national team? Never!!!

*Obviously sour grapes

NZHerald is a pretty scummy rag from what I've read in the last week. Slated Wales saying they're undeserving of the #1 spot, 6Nations teams ruining international rugby, 6N teams ruining the world league proposal, etc...

Perhaps that's why some of their supporters are so myopic and tired incorrect cliches regarding inferior NH rugby and the like persist.