Aviva Premiership Round 18

[ratsapprentice]

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.

You say that as if North's head was there long before he arrived - it wasn't - they arrived at practically the same time.
There was a very legitimate reason for him to running in the general direction of North.

Again - if there was no intent to go for the ball then there isn't any recklessness on Hughes' part.
Unless of course, you are saying that running itself is reckless - which is plainly ridiculous.

For something to be described as reckless there has to be an element of intention, you can't have something be completely accidental and reckless.

So if you're going to describe Hughes' actions as reckless then you are necessarily stating that he intentionally made contact with North.

 

[Thingimubob]

You say that as if North's head was there long before he arrived - it wasn't - they arrived at practically the same time.
There was a very legitimate reason for him to running in the general direction of North.

Again - if there was no intent to go for the ball then there isn't any recklessness on Hughes' part.
Unless of course, you are saying that running itself is reckless - which is plainly ridiculous.

For something to be described as reckless there has to be an element of intention, you can't have something be completely accidental and reckless.

So if you're going to describe Hughes' actions as reckless then you are necessarily stating that he intentionally made contact with North.

Found a decent angle on twitter:
EDIT: Embed doesn't seem to have worked - direct link:

[video]https://twitter.com/JudgeRugby/status/581555431350366209[/video]

For me this shows North touching down before Hughes reaches him (they definitely don't arrive at the same time) - I reckon it also shows that Hughes is trying to kick the ball away with his left, and in the process makes contact with North's head with his right. Personally, I believe it's reckless as the try is already scored and it looks like Hughes is kicking at it in a very fruitless last ditch attempt to stop an already scored try - he simply doesn't need to be risking the contact imo.

As I said before - could easily have been a yellow, but I can definitely see the reasoning behind going for the red.

Happy to agree to disagree either way.

<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="display: none;"></iframe>

 

[ratsapprentice]

I agree that I think he tried to dislodge the ball and that it was, as such, reckless - although not enough to be a red.

That's not what I'm angling at though... you said that he potentially deserved a red for causing "a pretty serious injury with very very clumsy, unnecessary contact, so there is a shout for a red there."
I personally don't think that there should ever be a case for a red card for something entirely accidental, no matter the seriousness of the outcome, which is what it seemed to me that you were suggesting.

 

[j'nuh]

I agree that I think he tried to dislodge the ball and that it was, as such, reckless - although not enough to be a red.

That's not what I'm angling at though... you said that he potentially deserved a red for causing "a pretty serious injury with very very clumsy, unnecessary contact, so there is a shout for a red there."
I personally don't think that there should ever be a case for a red card for something entirely accidental, no matter the seriousness of the outcome, which is what it seemed to me that you were suggesting.

But what about tip tackles? A lot of the time, it is for an accidental loss of control that a tip tackle occurs, but a tip tackle is an automatic red these days. I think that players have a duty of care too. If they do not take an active awareness of their surroundings and what their actions may lead to, coupled with dangerous foul play, then that may be worthy of a red, even if the foul play is completely accidental.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Tip tackles are not entirely accidental though - they are reckless because your intent is to tackle the player.

I don't think you're seeing the distinction I'm trying to make between clumsy and accidental and reckless and accidental.

 

[j'nuh]

I think we're basically angling the same line with different semantics. Carry on.

 

[goodNumber10]

Wasps fan here, and my view is: Red card, and he should get a ban.

Makes contact with the head with his leg - intentional or not that's reckless and a red card.

He was never going to stop him and he could have done a number of things to avoid making that contact, clumsy runner is a frankly ridiculous excuse it's his responsibility to enter that area safely and keep his legs out of the that contact zone - if he was trying to stop the try he should have dived in, he has not right to play the man with his legs.

I'll also add that i'm sick and tired of seeing people clattered after the try is scored/dived on top, so i really hope World Rugby start to take a stand on this stuff.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think we're basically angling the same line with different semantics. Carry on.

Yeah - absolutely, I'm just trying to make sure people understand that "reckless" implies intention, no matter how marginal.

Makes contact with the head with his leg - intentional or not that's reckless and a red card

Incorrect.

 

[goodNumber10]

Incorrect.

at the risk of dredging it all up again, how is it incorrect?

I mean fair enough, if someone tripped him up did a wild somersault and clipped North on the head i'd say no red card accidental collision, but he is on his feet in control and enters the tackle area of his own accord he's responsible for the other peoples safety at that point.

I'll say i think the ref gets the trying to kick the ball thing wrong, but i do think his legs shouldn't be there.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Because "reckless" implies intent.

I agree he was very clumsy to make contact with North, and if he was trying to dislodge the ball then it was reckless.

 

[goodNumber10]

Because "reckless" implies intent.

You need a new dictionary my friend... Reckless doesn't imply intent.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It does in a legal context - which is what this is.

And even in regular usage it does - because it means you are actively disregarding a particular outcome, so you are aware that your actions are highly likely to lead to you contravening a law.

 

[goodNumber10]

It does in a legal context - which is what this is.

And even in regular usage it does - because it means you are actively disregarding a particular outcome, so you are aware that your actions are highly likely to lead to you contravening a law.

Well surely that would be reckless intent?

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's just recklessness.

Here's the best, most concise description I can find:

The precise definition of recklessness has been contested and has evolved. It generally involves a person pursuing a course of action while consciously disregarding the fact that the action gives rise to a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

 

[j'nuh]

Yeah - absolutely, I'm just trying to make sure people understand that "reckless" implies intention, no matter how marginal.

I disagree with this though. Using an example outside of rugby, if a driver doesn't react fast enough to someone stepping out into the road because they were texting whilst driving, it would be reckless driving but I wouldn't say there was intention to cause harm. I think it's an important distinction which stops this driver being sentenced in the same way that a driver which wilfully knocked someone over would be sentenced.

I think it's important to highlight what the intention is:
Acting recklessly is an intention to not provide due safety, but not intention to cause harm
Acting wilfully harmful is an intention to commit harm

The latter is significantly worse than the former.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I disagree with this though. Using an example outside of rugby, if a driver doesn't react fast enough to someone stepping out into the road because they were texting whilst driving, it would be reckless driving but I wouldn't say there was intention to cause harm.

The intent of the driver is to use his mobile, which means he is disregarding the very serious dangers of doing so.

In the same way that speeding down a road and hitting a pedestrian is reckless - the driver isn't intentionally hitting the pedestrian, but they were intentionally speeding and thus disregarding the dangers that speeding pose.
If the same driver is driving down the road under the speed limit and they hit a pedestrian simply because they don't see or don't react fast enough to brake/avoid said person, then that is accidental - because we accept that the speed limit rules out unjustifiably dangerous (reckless) speeds.

I think it's important to highlight what the intention is:
Acting recklessly is an intention to not provide due safety, but not intention to cause harm
Acting wilfully harmful is an intention to commit harm

The latter is significantly worse than the former.

Acting recklessly is the intention to do something regardless of the known dangers of doing so.

Tip tackling isn't necessarily willfully harmful, but it is necessarily reckless if it is done intentionally.
However tip tackles can occasionally happen entirely accidentally and as a result of no recklessness whatsoever, although it is rare.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Great start.

- - - Updated - - -

Slapping the ball down isn't a yellow but holding on to prevent a quick tap is?

Surely they're equally cynical?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Also... was Sinckler not given a ban for that sort of tackle a couple of weeks ago.

Surely that was the precedent they set?

 

[Tony Manx]

The only thing I would say on this, other than it was a 50:50 red, is that I am totally fed up with the scorer being late hit with an elbow or a leg when the ball is already down. It happens far too often and because the try is scored the ref feels that that is enough. The defender is usually venting his anger/disappointment rather than really believing he is going to stop the try being scored.

If this were, and unfortunately do not think it is, an attempt to curb this unnecessary action, then I am all in favour of the red AND the subsequent penalty form half way!!

A word on the ref, as only watched a quarter of the game, he is young and experienced but we all have to start somewhere and you do not get Premiership experience but reffing in the North West league 45 South!!!

 

[TheSaffycen]

Yes they both are, I think they thought the strettle one was in the tackle. Also these no arm leg tackles are awful. Sinkler did one on Billy and now Burger on him.