[2025 Six Nations] France vs Scotland - 15/3/25

[Reiser99]

How's it Carleys fault? Sorry it was sent to bunker it's the officials there that need examining.

In a tackle ruck in game time its a yellow. The fact it's afters with whistle blow ln is what upgrades it. He has no business doing what he's doing.

Depends what powers the bunker has? Are they able to upgrade to a full red for deliberate foul play? I thought that was still only a decision the ref can make.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yeah Carley spoke to them as if it was a tackle situation, "head contact, YC threshold etc...". Never once was foul play off the ball mentioned.

I just don't see the TMO upgrading it to something beyond what was discussed, they've just never really worked like that.

 

[Jimbo]

It was a red card offence. He deliberately launched himself at Ben White and whether or not he "meant" to make head-to-head contact, he did. The fact he probably didn't know whether White instigated the incident in the first place is utterly irrelevant. What is disappointing and is the main talking point, imo, is the way the yellow card decision was reached in terms of applying mitigation which should not apply in instances of foul play like this incident.

I think your missing the point I am trying to make, I don't necessarily think it's a red though I wouldn't argue it wasn't, it was dangerous and certainly lucky the contact was minimal, that aside I don't think it does anyone any favours to automatically initiate a witch hunt and say oh it was deliberate and as bad as a blatant intentional head butt or punch, once again this happens in most games as in a player launches themselves at another if someone was to make this a red card offence, I have no real issue but the very act of 'launching yourself' at another player after the whilst needs to be punished consistently (not with the same punishment for head contact or not) but punished in some way automatically.

 

[odw26]

I think your missing the point I am trying to make, I don't necessarily think it's a red though I wouldn't argue it wasn't, it was dangerous and certainly lucky the contact was minimal, that aside I don't think it does anyone any favours to automatically initiate a witch hunt and say oh it was deliberate and as bad as a blatant intentional head butt or punch, once again this happens in most games as in a player launches themselves at another if someone was to make this a red card offence, I have no real issue but the very act of 'launching yourself' at another player after the whilst needs to be punished consistently (not with the same punishment for head contact or not) but punished in some way automatically.

I'm not saying the head contact was deliberate, and I think any notion of a "witch hunt" is exaggerated- the complaints aren't with the player but with how the officials handled the incident. And you're right, it's not as bad as an intentional headbutt, but just because there are more serious offences to commit, it doesn't mean it's not a red card.

However, Mauvaka definitely "launched" himself at White- and because there was also head contact, that deliberate action makes it foul play. If there was no head contact, it's just a talking to, and at most a penalty. You're right, these types of incidents do happen, and captains are usually given a warning, which is generally sufficient for those situations.

What differs this incident from other acts of players "launching" themselves at others is the fact there was head contact. That escalates the punishment. There's no real argument to make over whether Mauvaka meant to make head contact as it's fundamentally irrelevant to the situation- he did make head contact, he deliberately put himself into that position- it's a red card.

 

[McTallshort]

It was a flying headbutt. Should have been a red

 

[ncurd]

Depends what powers the bunker has? Are they able to upgrade to a full red for deliberate foul play? I thought that was still only a decision the ref can make.

I thought the bunker was empower to look at the incident that at least met a YC threshold and determine what it was.

 

[ncurd]

I thought the bunker was empower to look at the incident that at least met a YC threshold and determine what it was.

At worst they give a 20min red

 

[Lé Ddanno]

It was a flying headbutt. Should have been a red

I don't know how it can be described any other way

 

[General Melchett]

I don't know how it can be described any other way

Yup. Focus should be on the action rather than the outcome although it's often the other way around.

 

[Jimbo]

I'm not saying the head contact was deliberate, and I think any notion of a "witch hunt" is exaggerated- the complaints aren't with the player but with how the officials handled the incident. And you're right, it's not as bad as an intentional headbutt, but just because there are more serious offences to commit, it doesn't mean it's not a red card.

However, Mauvaka definitely "launched" himself at White- and because there was also head contact, that deliberate action makes it foul play. If there was no head contact, it's just a talking to, and at most a penalty. You're right, these types of incidents do happen, and captains are usually given a warning, which is generally sufficient for those situations.

What differs this incident from other acts of players "launching" themselves at others is the fact there was head contact. That escalates the punishment. There's no real argument to make over whether Mauvaka meant to make head contact as it's fundamentally irrelevant to the situation- he did make head contact, he deliberately put himself into that position- it's a red card.

That's basing it on outcome though which I think is in itself half the problem with the sport and a big turn off to those that don't actively watch the game outside of these international windows, there were plenty calling it deliberate on this thread alone.

 

[odw26]

I would argue that having identical punishments when one incident has lead to being headbutted and one hasn't would be more of a turn off for those who don't actively watch many rugby games due to the inconsistency and illogical nature of the punishment.

 

[Lé Ddanno]

And again, it's while the ball is out of play, the whistle has gone and everyone should just be picking themselves up.

I'd have given Ramos and White yellows for being dicks and Mauvaka red for being reckless

 

[Jimbo]

I would argue that having identical punishments when one incident has lead to being headbutted and one hasn't would be more of a turn off for those who don't actively watch many rugby games due to the inconsistency and illogical nature of the punishment.

Ffs at what point have I said the punishment should be identical….. I've said that just because an act that's always illegal results in head contact shouldn't be the only way it's punished, it should be consistently punished, or the after the whistle stuff not taken into account to any extent, can't have it both ways.

 

[odw26]

or the after the whistle stuff not taken into account to any extent, can't have it both ways.

Absolutely illegal acts should always be penalised, not sure I understand that statement, though. Guess I was just tripping up over sitting on the fence in what should have been a red card offence haha. Surely though the punishments being escalated (head contact or no head contact) means that we'll always be refereeing outcome to an extent, though?