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

[BobbyM]

@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.)

Thank you for responding!

We can agree to disagree on our interpretation. I view it as a tackle by Coles on Hooper which was in progress at the point of impact. As the tackle was in progress Hooper was being pulled to the ground. At full speed (again I recommend people watch it like that as opposed to the slow motion TMO approach) it results in what I would call a sudden change in body height.

You'll of course recognise that the mitigating circumstances are not cumulative; you don't need lots of them to call it "mitigation", so I am unclear what your reference to "didn't use arm" means? That is not the topic of my contention and is not one of the "factors against mitigation".

I appreciate that something being clear and obvious is subjective (you'll struggle to find unanimous agreement on many decisions) but one has to only glance at twitter and the likes of Ross Tucker who concedes that it is not "red all day" and actually alternative interpretations of the situation are reasonable. To be clear I'm not trying to flog anything. I've said several times I recognise people view this decision differently and don't begrudge them for it.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Thank you for responding!

We can agree to disagree on our interpretation. I view it as a tackle by Coles on Hooper which was in progress at the point of impact. As the tackle was in progress Hooper was being pulled to the ground. At full speed (again I recommend people watch it like that as opposed to the slow motion TMO approach) it results in what I would call a sudden change in body height.

You'll of course recognise that the mitigating circumstances are not cumulative; you don't need lots of them to call it "mitigation", so I am unclear what your reference to "didn't use arm" means? That is not the topic of my contention and is not one of the "factors against mitigation".

I appreciate that something being clear and obvious is subjective (you'll struggle to find unanimous agreement on many decisions) but one has to only glance at twitter and the likes of Ross Tucker who concedes that it is not "red all day" and actually alternative interpretations of the situation are reasonable. To be clear I'm not trying to flog anything. I've said several times I recognise people view this decision differently and don't begrudge them for it.

The issue is that by not using his arms to wrap around the player he essentially doesn't qualify for mitigation. As he's in essence doing a shoulder charge on hooper due to the lack of his arm wrapping the player.

Your contention of height is also not a point of contention for mitigation, as Barrett's point of contact (his shoulder) is would have made contact on the upper part of Hooper even if Hooper wasn't falling due to Coles' tackle, as Barrett was coming from a higher position to a lower position. While Hooper was at all times lower than Barrett. It's extremely unlikely that another outcome would have been reached in that instance. Even if Mitigation was qualified. Which it was not.

 

[TheOvalBall]

It will be very sad situation if the World Cup is won or lost by a dodgy ref call.

 

[BobbyM]

The issue is that by not using his arms to wrap around the player he essentially doesn't qualify for mitigation. As he's in essence doing a shoulder charge on hooper due to the lack of his arm wrapping the player.

Your contention of height is also not a point of contention for mitigation, as Barrett's point of contact (his shoulder) is would have made contact on the upper part of Hooper even if Hooper wasn't falling due to Coles' tackle, as Barrett was coming from a higher position to a lower position. While Hooper was at all times lower than Barrett. It's extremely unlikely that another outcome would have been reached in that instance. Even if Mitigation was qualified. Which it was not.

I think "not qualifying for mitigation" would be if both Hooper and Barrett were both in open space, which doesn't apply here.

On your second paragraph, I do like the rationale you put forward; effectively although Hooper did drop in height from the Coles tackle where Barrett's shoulder would've have hit had he not dropped would still have been high, if I have interpreted it correctly?

Looking at the tackle and the height at point of contact, I'm estimating it would've been collarbone, neck or shoulderblade as point of contact if Hoopers position hadn't been altered by the tackle, but that is very subjective.

Ultimately I can understand the decision that was made (despite Garces not articulating the agreed framework in his explanation), but disagree with the application of the framework in this case due to the mitigating circumstances of sudden change in body height. I do this whole acknowledging your point that there is a chance that had the tackle by Coles not occurred, the point of contact may have still been high.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think "not qualifying for mitigation" would be if both Hooper and Barrett were both in open space, which doesn't apply here.

On your second paragraph, I do like the rationale you put forward; effectively although Hooper did drop in height from the Coles tackle where Barrett's shoulder would've have hit had he not dropped would still have been high, if I have interpreted it correctly?

Looking at the tackle and the height at point of contact, I'm estimating it would've been collarbone, neck or shoulderblade as point of contact if Hoopers position hadn't been altered by the tackle, but that is very subjective.

Ultimately I can understand the decision that was made (despite Garces not articulating the agreed framework in his explanation), but disagree with the application of the framework in this case due to the mitigating circumstances of sudden change in body height. I do this whole acknowledging your point that there is a chance that had the tackle by Coles not occurred, the point of contact may have still been high.

I hear ya, but Garces didn't have to look at mitigating factors because of Barrett's actions in 1. not using his arm to wrap the Ball Carrier, and 2. went in with the shoulder with the intention to make a tackle. Therefore Barrett carries the burden. For once I'm going to back a french referee. Barrett's actions was ticking all the boxes for a red card, and there was no need to look at mitigating circumstances. The TMO could also have persuaded the referee had the TMO felt there were mitigating circumstances, but the entire referee panel were ad idem in the final decision made.

 

[87Dreamer]

Even Owen would cop it if it was shoulder/upper arm to head. Its textbook.

Did Owen even get penalised?? Lol

 

[mania]

It will be very sad situation if the World Cup is won or lost by a dodgy ref call.

u mean like warburton being red carded in WC2011?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I think "not qualifying for mitigation" would be if both Hooper and Barrett were both in open space, which doesn't apply here.

On your second paragraph, I do like the rationale you put forward; effectively although Hooper did drop in height from the Coles tackle where Barrett's shoulder would've have hit had he not dropped would still have been high, if I have interpreted it correctly?

Looking at the tackle and the height at point of contact, I'm estimating it would've been collarbone, neck or shoulderblade as point of contact if Hoopers position hadn't been altered by the tackle, but that is very subjective.

Ultimately I can understand the decision that was made (despite Garces not articulating the agreed framework in his explanation), but disagree with the application of the framework in this case due to the mitigating circumstances of sudden change in body height. I do this whole acknowledging your point that there is a chance that had the tackle by Coles not occurred, the point of contact may have still been high.

but barrett is pretty much on his knees too....if anything it means he knew hooper was being tackled and still dropped the shoulder, if barrett had just gone in at normal height he probably would have gone straight over the top...makes it worse in my eyes

 

[Hulk Hogan]

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

They told David Pocock to toughen up when he complained about the constant neckrolls from the All Blacks, perhaps the NZHerald should take their own advice?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

reports he's been given 3 weeks

 

[mania]

reports he's been given 3 weeks

cool. only misses the bled2 game. can play Tonga and WC
he's lucky. this is a small price to pay for massive stupidity

 

[Kiwiwomble]

cool. only misses the bled2 game. can play Tonga and WC
he's lucky. this is a small price to pay for massive stupidity

Hemepo to play this week? here's the quesiton, if Hemepo (or someone else) shines this week...does Barrett come straight back in when he's free again or was that his shot other than an injury or something?

 

[mania]

Hemepo to play this week? here's the quesiton, if Hemepo (or someone else) shines this week...does Barrett come straight back in when he's free again or was that his shot other than an injury or something?

if barretts the best, and imo he is, then he gets back in.
he's allowed to show he's learnt. but d4m he better be on his best behaviour

 

[Derpus]

reports he's been given 3 weeks

Doesnt it effectively mean 3 matches?

If its legit just three weeks then that is not very punitive.

 

[Larksea]

Doesnt it effectively mean 3 matches?

If its legit just three weeks then that is not very punitive.

I dont know if its counted or not but technically he is missing three matches it likely includes an ITM cup game he probably wouldn't have played, but some AB's who are short on match time are playing ITM cup.

three matches isn't a big fine I think shows its on the lower end of the scale. I honestly think its harsh considering it already cost the All Blacks a match the harshest penalty has already been given.

 

[Larksea]

but barrett is pretty much on his knees too....if anything it means he knew hooper was being tackled and still dropped the shoulder, if barrett had just gone in at normal height he probably would have gone straight over the top...makes it worse in my eyes

yeah this pic shows how unlucky it was, seriously how low is he, got his knee on the ground fcol! and he attempted to wrap with his left arm.

Goes back to the point I made earlier. These contacts happen all the time and the main factor is ball carriers charging forwards less than 3 feet off the ground head first. The first point of contact is the head and the ball/chest/hips are protected from contact by the head/neck/shoulders.

anyway, not intentional, didn't cause injury, unlucky, sure its all those things. Careless? Maybe but even if he didn't change his technique he may never get a red card again but this will force him to adjust his technique. maybe he is still protecting his broken hand? At least that will be a lot better next time he takes the field as well. he certainly wouldn't have started this game if Retalick hadn't been taken out and injured deliberately in an indecent that didn't even get a penalty.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Doesnt it effectively mean 3 matches?

If its legit just three weeks then that is not very punitive.

It's 3 weeks where he can play matches, whether it's Club/union matches, SR, or International matches. So technically it is 3 calendar weeks, as there's pretty much rugby every weekend for the next couple of weeks until the WC starts, in the form of International warm-ups, ITM Cup etc.

 

[MikeTheNative]

The more I see it the more I think it's a red card. Posters talking about Coles tackle being a mitigating factor, look here
Coles tackle does nothing to change the body height of Hooper, it's the same as when he picked the ball up.

 

[SomeOke]

The more I see it the more I think it's a red card. Posters talking about Coles tackle being a mitigating factor, look here
Coles tackle does nothing to change the body height of Hooper, it's the same as when he picked the ball up.

This first three seconds of this video are absolutely key, it clearly shows Hooper was low from the beginning of his carry.
Case closed, /thread.

 

[rugga658]

It's a simple solution:

If you commit foul play for your club side you miss X number of games for your club side

If you commit foul play for your national side you miss X number of games for your national side