Aviva Premiership Round 18

[Thingimubob]

Does Hughes need to be anywhere near North though? I mean its fairly clear he didn't mean to knock him out, but he doesn't have any reason to make contact with him. He caused a pretty serious injury with very very clumsy, unnecessary contact, so there is a shout for a red there.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Eh?

So he should get a red for "clumsy running" ? - you're definitely judging that based on outcome.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Apparently the ref was in my year at the other secondary school in my town.
Facebook's gone a bit mental at him :lol:


Just seen a clip of the incident on Facebook, not sure how I feel about it.
The ref did talk through his interpretation of the events, and how he came to his conclusion, which is always good to see.
However I would question whether he went to kick the ball, or whether he was just slowing down (as the commentator, Healy was it?, said - North had no idea Hughes was there so turned his head round and caught the knee as he did it.
Yellow for reckless play, I'd say. But then I'm no the professional referee.

 

[Karr]

I know we have to get new refs into the system at some point, but could we at least make sure they are competent before we start paying them to completely ruin game at this level. The TMO should have corrected him on this one and would have avoided this whole forum post line.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Thingimubob]

Eh?

So he should get a red for "clumsy running" ? - you're definitely judging that based on outcome.

As per the BBC live feed:

Northampton Saints lock Tom Wood told BT Sport about Nathan Hughes' red card for dangerous play:*"From where I was stood it didn't look malicious but at the end of the day you've got to be in control of your legs. You can't be swinging them around near people's heads."

 

[Karr]

As it should be. They should also hit at the TMO who should have helped the kid out and corrected him.

 

[ratsapprentice]

As per the BBC live feed:

I'll repeat - you think reckless running should result in a red card?
That's what you're saying.

I think there is a yellow card there for reckless running/attempting to dislodge the ball/however you want to describe it... a red is completely disproportionate.

 

[Karr]

As per the BBC live feed:

So what we learned here is " just give up on the play, because the ball carrier might dive and you'll get a red card" that is terrible to teach young players. You can't kick at players but a runner diving puts his own head in the area of players feet and knee's and is just if not more responsible for what happens

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If the TMO didn't correct him then maybe.....the TMO agreed with him?
Referee asked him two or three times whether he agreed with the red card, and each time he said yes.

 

[Thingimubob]

I'll repeat - you think reckless running should result in a red card?
That's what you're saying.

I think there is a yellow card there for reckless running/attempting to dislodge the ball/however you want to describe it... a red is completely disproportionate.

If you run into someone's head when there's no need for you to be near it, then yes, there's argueably a case for a red. Not saying it 100% deserved a red, just saying there's a case for it.

Seen plenty of other clumsy incidents that have caused injuries that were given red cards, so why not this one.

A trained referee seemed to think so too, no matter how young he is.

EDIT: Also - he's arriving way too late to have any chance of dislodging the ball, making it reckless if that was his aim.

 

[ratsapprentice]

If you run into someone's head when there's no need for you to be near it, then yes, there's argueably a case for a red. Not saying it 100% deserved a red, just saying there's a case for it.

Seen plenty of other clumsy incidents that have caused injuries that were given red cards, so why not this one.

I don't think there is any legitimate case for a red in this instance unless you decide there was intent to kick/collide with North himself.

Which incidents are you referring to?

The referee thought it was a red based on his interpretation of Hughes trying to kick the ball out of North's control - not accidental contact.
Why are you skipping a yellow? A red card should be for extremely serious incidents caused by intentional or reckless actions - not clumsiness.

 

[Karr]

If you run into someone's head when there's no need for you to be near it, then yes, there's argueably a case for a red. Not saying it 100% deserved a red, just saying there's a case for it.

and I say if you dive to the deck that is you putting you head near other players feet, thats a risk you took and players should not be penalized for diving or ducking players and where they choose to put their head.l



A trained referee seemed to think so too, no matter how young he is.

3 games.. 3 thats nuff said

EDIT: Also - he's arriving way too late to have any chance of dislodging the ball, making it reckless if that was his aim.

Your making the assumption that he was trying to do that. only one person will ever know that for sure, and my opinion is that he was trying to stop.

 

[Rich Taff]

Was pretty sickening.
Dangerous play? Maybe.
Deliberate? Doubtful.
Fair play to the ref and the TMO for having the balls to make the decision though, based on their interpretation of events, and not worried about being slated by the media etc.

Also, does anyone have a link to Williams taking out Patchell in the Blues v Ulster game? Have just heard about it, but not seen it yet. (Apparently was far more worthy of a red)

 

[Thingimubob]

Your making the assumption that he was trying to do that. only one person will ever know that for sure, and my opinion is that he was trying to stop.

Not making any assumptions, hence why I'm using the word "if" just pointing out why I understand the officials going for the red.

Hughes has made reckless, unnecessary contact with North's head and has endangered his health. Makes for an argument for a red IMO.

I don't think there is any legitimate case for a red in this instance unless you decide there was intent to kick/collide with North himself.

Which incidents are you referring to?

The referee thought it was a red based on his interpretation of Hughes trying to kick the ball out of North's control - not accidental contact.
Why are you skipping a yellow? A red card should be for extremely serious incidents caused by intentional or reckless actions - not clumsiness.

Is intent always the factor when it comes to dishing out red cards? Its all well and good saying it should be (something I agree with to some extent), but the simple fact is that its not the deciding factor for the men making the decisions.

Take the infamous Warbs red from 2011 - the general consensus from what I remember is that there was no intent to hurt Clerc, or even to tackle him dangerously at all - but the way then tackle unfolded endes up in endangering Clerc. I remember people on here stating that intent didn't come into it as dangerous is dangerous - so that means it has to be a red.

I know its a completely different case, just trying to explain where I'm coming from. I just don't think Hughes needs to be anywhere near North's head - whether he's going for the ball or not.

With the other incidents, !most that come to mind are the ever contentious "man in the air tackle". Vast majority of them boil down to simply clumsy play from the tackler - yet they are still treated as reckless and dangerous, leading to red cards and bans (not without controversy).
The basics of Hughes' collision is comparable with those incidents - clumsy action by the defender endangers/injured the ball carrier. Hence why the option for a ref is there.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not ruling out that yellow was an option (definitely the better option when considering the spectacle of the contest), just explaining the case for a red - also have to add that it's ridiculous that Hughes got a red and Nick Williams only a yellow in the Ulster vs Blues game!

 

[91jmay]

Saints fan and not a red for me. Penalty and yellow as clumsy and dangerous but red harsh. Ref had little control on game and had made bad decisions throughout (Ashley Johnson's dive earlier after Lawes brushed him pathetic as well). Good win though, virtually a formality once red but scored some nice tries. Wood showing he is England's best 6 as usual.

Wade excellent though. Keeping out a lethal finisher when Watson is ordinary defensively not right call going forward.

 

[McTallshort]

It was clumsy, very clumsy and a player got knocked out because of it. It was yellow not a red for me but feet meeting a head when the player is prone on the floor is always going to carry the risk of a red. Hughes was unlucky but he didnt help himself.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Hughes runs into a man on the floor with his legs.

Red card all day, he deliberately runs into a man on the floor with his swinging leg.

A question would be if a knee makes contact with a players head, deliberate or not that would always be red? Or not?


Edit: maybe not a red....I can't really decide after re watching again

 

[ratsapprentice]

Hughes has made reckless, unnecessary contact with North's head and has endangered his health. Makes for an argument for a red IMO.

Is intent always the factor when it comes to dishing out red cards? Its all well and good saying it should be (something I agree with to some extent), but the simple fact is that its not the deciding factor for the men making the decisions.

It's only reckless if you take the position that Hughes was trying to make contact with the ball - and then the degree of seriousness should be decided by the action not the result.
He hasn't tried to break the ball land speed record - he certainly didn't draw his leg back as if he was punting the thing - but this isn't really about whether or not he did or didn't anyway.

If you accept that he wasn't trying to dislodge the ball and simply made contact accidentally then there was nothing reckless about his action at all, it was simply clumsy.
There is a very big difference between clumsy and reckless - and that is, IMO, a critical distinction to make in the context of penalising players.

Intent or recklessness - not clumsiness, are two qualifiers that should be taken into account when awarding a red.

 

[Thingimubob]

He's run into a players head after the ball isn't in play anymore - accidental as it might be, there's still simply nonreason for him to be running into North's head with that force - personally that counts as reckless.

 

[McTallshort]

It's only reckless if you take the position that Hughes was trying to make contact with the ball - and then the degree of seriousness should be decided by the action not the result.
He hasn't tried to break the ball land speed record - he certainly didn't draw his leg back as if he was punting the thing - but this isn't really about whether or not he did or didn't anyway.

If you accept that he wasn't trying to dislodge the ball and simply made contact accidentally then there was nothing reckless about his action at all, it was simply clumsy.
There is a very big difference between clumsy and reckless - and that is, IMO, a critical distinction to make in the context of penalising players.

Intent or recklessness - not clumsiness, are two qualifiers that should be taken into account when awarding a red.

Completley agree Rats but the trick is not to get yourself in the situation where a young ref who is already feeling the pressure of a ****ly game has to decide which one you have been.