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

[Larksea]

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

so does that mean that you can go and play for your club while you are mission games for your national team?
Or you can play for your national team while you are under suspension from a club game?

 

[Larksea]

I know this is being gone over and will continue to be hustled for a while
After watching it to death, letter of the law you can easily argue that its a red card. but..
initial main force of the contact was not to the head it was to the upper back then slid over the neck and head as Coles pulled Hooper down, the main reason why Hooper was unhurt and didn't even need a HIA.
There is an initial tackler involved which changed the angle of hooper before contact.
replays from Scotts left show Scott did actually attempt to wrap his left arm.
This all happened well less than three feet off the ground. Barrett got so low his Knee was on the ground.
Contacts like this or worse happen more often than they should and they very rarely result in even a penalty. The main factor is a ball carrier going so low and leading with his head where the defender doesn't have access to make contact with the ball, chest, legs or hips. The first point of contact is going to be the head, neck or shoulders.
If Rugby is going to get serious about reducing head injuries the next rules have to be on ball carriers. If a ball carrier does not reasonably allow a tackler to make safe contact with the ball, chest hips or legs then the chance of a dangerous contact skyrockets and you have to say that the blame for dangerous contact becomes less the fault of the defender and more in the ball carriers hands.
It seems to me majority of unsafe contact now happens either in situations like this where a ball carrier is leading with the head close to the ground making it hard for a defender to make a safe tackle or where a tackler gets their head in the wrong position when attempting to make a tackle.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

you right that barrett had a bad angle to make a tackle without touching the head....but as you also point out, coles is already tackling him so you could argue his impact was unnecessary

obviously you can then come back and say we cant expect players to assume the tackle is going to be completed, especially that close to the line, they need to be sure...and then i could probably come back with something else

Long and short is you get in the weeds VERY quickly when talking about mitigation, and anticipations and anything else other than the surface facts, he's gone for a shoulder charge which is illegal in rugby, straight away a penalty and sometimes interpreted as a yellow...it ended contacting the head...normal escalation of these things suggests Red shouldn't be a surprise to anyone

The problem for my point of view is there are two arguments, i can completely agree there could and should be a discussion about if the rules are fair and just...this instance thought, with current interpretations, seems pretty clear cut...and the players need to play the game to the current interpretations...not how they feel the rules should be implemented

 

[mania]

this instance thought, with current interpretations, seems pretty clear cut...and the players need to play the game to the current interpretations...not how they feel the rules should be implemented

zackery. from a coaching point of view im telling my kids dont even go anywhere near the head. its a send off offense and eventually you will get carded.

 

[Five Meters Out]

Coles tackling Hooper means he's in the way, so Barrett can't wrap with right arm in the tackle. Hooper falling so point of contact likely to be the head. It's either 1. Let Hooper fall into you (Unlikely), 2. Brace with arm and shoulder and continue to go forward (that's what he did), or 3. Pull out of the impact (that's what he should have done and what I feel players need to learn to do.)

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Coles tackling Hooper means he's in the way, so Barrett can't wrap with right arm in the tackle. Hooper falling so point of contact likely to be the head. It's either 1. Let Hooper fall into you (Unlikely), 2. Brace with arm and shoulder and continue to go forward (that's what he did), or 3. Pull out of the impact (that's what he should have done and what I feel players need to learn to do.)

you are more generous than I, looks like a straight up shoulder charge to me

 

[TRF_heineken]

I might be playing devil's advocate here, but shouldn't this be an alarm bell for everyone going into the World Cup, especially the All Blacks. It seems likely that the referees will be extremely strict at the World Cup, and won't shy away from dishing out the harshest sentence for an offence.

Plus, going by NZ's track record, your next red card will only be in a couple of year's time.

 

[Derpus]

Coles tackling Hooper means he's in the way, so Barrett can't wrap with right arm in the tackle. Hooper falling so point of contact likely to be the head. It's either 1. Let Hooper fall into you (Unlikely), 2. Brace with arm and shoulder and continue to go forward (that's what he did), or 3. Pull out of the impact (that's what he should have done and what I feel players need to learn to do.)

lol yeah his 'only' option was to drive his arm and shoulder into Hoopers head. K.

Is there a match thread for Bled 2?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Is there a match thread for Bled 2?

Just made one now for you.

 

[BobbyM]

I think ultimately if the ref had rationalised it as a yellow there'd be a similar amount of disagreement as there clearly is here, as both calls could and can be justified.

I remain sceptical as to whether we will actually achieve consistency on this during the World Cup, and no doubt now this has transpired commentators and analysts will be crawling over the many similar situations to point out inconsistencies in the approach adopted. Best we can hope for is that refs rationalise their decisions properly at the time using the actual step by step process, and not the false one put forward by Garces on Saturday.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Garces made the correct decision, I know it's hard to be completely neutral when these decisions affect their team but Barrett being banned for 3 weeks shows that is was a red card offence.

 

[rugga658]

so does that mean that you can go and play for your club while you are mission games for your national team?
Or you can play for your national team while you are under suspension from a club game?

Yes

You can call it "The Scott Barrett Clause"

 

[RedruthRFC]

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.

You can think what you like. If you read the judgement, you will see that in accordance with the disciplinary structure that is in place, it was judged to be a mid range offence (6 weeks) which in accordance with tradition was reduced because he once bought flowers for his mum and was kind to a dog.

 

[ncurd]

You can think what you like. If you read the judgement, you will see that in accordance with the disciplinary structure that is in place, it was judged to be a mid range offence (6 weeks) which in accordance with tradition was reduced because he once bought flowers for his mum and was kind to a dog.

When was the last time the good behavior clause wasn't invoked but the 'this guy repeatedly kicks puppies' clause wasn't?

 

[RedruthRFC]

When was the last time the good behavior clause wasn't invoked but the 'this guy repeatedly kicks puppies' clause wasn't?

That evil biscuit eater Brendan Venter?!?

I'm going over ground we've covered before, but the whole mitigation thing is nonsense. Unless a player and his management are mind numbingly stupid, they are going to apologise to their opponent and the referee and behave well at the hearing, it's daft to treat this as mitigation, rather failure to do any of these things should result in a harsher sanction than the sanctions prescribe. In reality, making this change would mean lower sanctions for most offences, but would be preferable in my opinion as it's more transparent / straight forward. I suspect that World Rugby like this added level of obfuscation as it enables them to appear that they are taking foul play more seriously than they actually are to the uninitiated.

The question of repeated foul play is a fair one, can anyone think of any player who has had their ban increased based on their track record? Given the number of times that he has been before the beak, if it hasn't happeded to Dylan Hartley, surely it can't have happened!

 

[TRF_heineken]

That evil biscuit eater Brendan Venter?!?

I'm going over ground we've covered before, but the whole mitigation thing is nonsense. Unless a player and his management are mind numbingly stupid, they are going to apologise to their opponent and the referee and behave well at the hearing, it's daft to treat this as mitigation, rather failure to do any of these things should result in a harsher sanction than the sanctions prescribe. In reality, making this change would mean lower sanctions for most offences, but would be preferable in my opinion as it's more transparent / straight forward. I suspect that World Rugby like this added level of obfuscation as it enables them to appear that they are taking foul play more seriously than they actually are to the uninitiated.

The question of repeated foul play is a fair one, can anyone think of any player who has had their ban increased based on their track record? Given the number of times that he has been before the beak, if it hasn't happeded to Dylan Hartley, surely it can't have happened!

Just remember that mitigation in-game is different to that at a hearing. Any judicial proceeding allows parties to raise points of mitigation and/or aggrevation with regards to sentencing.

In this case they would look at Barrett's record of foul play incidents and if he's a habitual offender or not. If this was his first red card offence, then surely he would qualify for mitigation as a first time offender.

 

[Five Meters Out]

you are more generous than I, looks like a straight up shoulder charge to me

You're saying premeditated. I completely disagree with this.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

You're saying premeditated. I completely disagree with this.

if by premeditated you mean consciously decided to go for a big hit then yes....if you mean he went in to the game looking for hooper then of course not.

There is some middle ground between completely innocent and conspiracy to take out a particular player where players just make stupid decisions in the moment

 

[mania]

You're saying premeditated. I completely disagree with this.

i am saying deliberate and sBarrett couldve pulled out at any stage. pointless and unnecessary

 

[rugga658]

S Barrett arm tucked in at a "sling angle" indicates he was going for a big hit
For that reason alone his actions were stupid and reckless

Deducing intent is a tricky game None of us are mind readers

Barrett screwed himself and the team with poor technique
Dane Coles said as much himself with his comments on the send off