Aviva Premiership Round 18

[goodNumber10]

Outcome has nothing to do with it, the crux of the whole situation is he enters the Tackle area of his own accord, therefore he is responsible for his and everyone else safety in that area.

The fact he is slowing down has nothing to do with it he put himself in a position he had no right or need to be in, he was not going to effect a tackle, he was not going to kick the ball out of Norths hands so why was he there? He had no need to be there and by being there he put himself in a situation where he made contact with someones head with his legs.

That is reckless, and it's not much different to people dropping on the try scorer etc....

Haskell can do one as well.

And I'm a Wasps fan, i don't want to see Hughes banned but i really do think he was stupid being there.

 

[Raggs]

What?

If Loz had failed to tackle North, what's Dai going to say to Hughes if he only jogged across, allowing North to run it under the posts? If Loz had slowed North down enough for Hughes to bundle them into touch?

Hughes can't just give up the chase on the assumption that North is going to dive into the corner, for the same reason that Lawes is allowed to tackle Plisson since he cannot assume that Plisson will not dummy it.

Hughes had every right to be sprinting back there, and as soon as North goes to ground he starts hitting the brakes to try and avoid a collision.

 

[goodNumber10]

What?

If Loz had failed to tackle North, what's Dai going to say to Hughes if he only jogged across, allowing North to run it under the posts? If Loz had slowed North down enough for Hughes to bundle them into touch?

Hughes can't just give up the chase on the assumption that North is going to dive into the corner, for the same reason that Lawes is allowed to tackle Plisson since he cannot assume that Plisson will not dummy it.

Hughes had every right to be sprinting back there, and as soon as North goes to ground he starts hitting the brakes to try and avoid a collision.

Don't agree.

Hughes is not on a line to stop North jogging around behind the posts, he's not really even on a tackle line, to me it looks like he's just trying to get back in the hopes he gets stopped short and he can get in on the ruck early.

Count how long between north Hitting the deck and sliding to Hughes making contact with him it's well over a second, Hughes is not in shot at any point until after the ball is grounded (including the wide angles), North breaks steps Loz and rides the tackle over, the ball is placed, the momentum of North sliding is finished then Hughes takes two large steps into the tackle area and connects with Norths head.

He was never going to make a tackle, he was not going to stop him scoring, ergo he had no right to be there that late after the try was scored.

 

[Raggs]

https://twitter.com/JudgeRugby/status/581555431350366209

If Loz slows North down, Hughes can smash him out. If Loz tackles North short of the line, then Hughes can get into the ruck (and he's allowed to run for that I assume?), if North stays on his feet and escapes Loz, Hughes is absolutely in a position to force him to touch it down.

- - - Updated - - -

North hits the deck after the clock on that vid turns 1sec, Hughes has collided with him before it turns 2, judging purely by length of the video bar, aroudn 1.5-1.7secs

- - - Updated - - -

You can also see that Hughes starts slowing down as North is being taken down.

 

[goodNumber10]

https://twitter.com/JudgeRugby/status/581555431350366209

If Loz slows North down, Hughes can smash him out. If Loz tackles North short of the line, then Hughes can get into the ruck (and he's allowed to run for that I assume?), if North stays on his feet and escapes Loz, Hughes is absolutely in a position to force him to touch it down.

- - - Updated - - -

North hits the deck after the clock on that vid turns 1sec, Hughes has collided with him before it turns 2, judging purely by length of the video bar, aroudn 1.5-1.7secs

- - - Updated - - -

You can also see that Hughes starts slowing down as North is being taken down.

*gives up*

 

[Raggs]

What? You say there's no camera angles with Hughes in shot. There's one. You say it's well over a second between North hitting the deck and Hughes hitting him, clearly it isn't. This clearly shows Hughes taking 2 far smaller steps than he had done when he was sprinting back, and definitely not large steps.

Haskell was clearly never going to stop the first try by France against England, but he forced the player to dot it down out wide and Plisson missed the conversion. Youngs shouldn't have had a chance at stopping the French try from being scored, but he was fractions of a second away from doing precisely that (and arguably succeeded). Why are they allowed to chase back and Hughes isn't?

 

[goodNumber10]

What? You say there's no camera angles with Hughes in shot. There's one. You say it's well over a second between North hitting the deck and Hughes hitting him, clearly it isn't. This clearly shows Hughes taking 2 far smaller steps than he had done when he was sprinting back, and definitely not large steps.

It's not the broadcast footage (which is what i'm referring to and have attached below), that's a secondary angle shown after the game and not made available to the TMO - it's irrelevant to the process of them making the red card decision at the time, it's only relevant to the ban.

In regards to our discussion here, it does nothing to prove what you're claiming "that he would have bundled him into touch" or "headed him off before he runs around". The still shot from 0 shows he is significantly behind the play and is no position to make a tackle and is not on an angle to do so... in fact it makes it worse because at 1.30 seconds it clearly looks as though Hughes is trying to connect with the ball.

On that footage the Tackle by Lozowski is made at 0 north is falling and grounds before 1, at 1 he is sliding over the try line - it is clear he will score - Hughes then connects.

I think anyone claiming otherwise is blind, we can talk about this all day but i think it is reckless and he has no right being in that position.



at 1:01 north is placing the ball and you can see Hughes Knee in shot, at 1:02 Hughes connects with his shin and lower leg.

Why is his leg extended like that, why did he not on entering that area shorten his step and trip over North which would have caused far less damage?

He leads with his leg into someones head, that's reckless even if not intentional, and is at least a yellow card and i think on this occasion a red.

Haskell was clearly never going to stop the first try by France against England, but he forced the player to dot it down out wide and Plisson missed the conversion. Youngs shouldn't have had a chance at stopping the French try from being scored, but he was fractions of a second away from doing precisely that (and arguably succeeded). Why are they allowed to chase back and Hughes isn't?

Completely different situations with no comparison to this.

Besides who's saying he can't chase back, i'm saying he had no hope of doing anything.

 

[ncurd]

My problem with this situation is less to do with your analysis which is perfectly fair but more of a lack of detailed explanation from RFU themselves. We have to argue it out as fans why they've come that decision. I've posted these before but the NHL has the right idea when it comes to dishing out bans in a contact sport to make it clear to fans what their thinking is.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=759917&navid=DL|NHL|Microsite-PlayerSafety

With the 'reckless' law I think we're going to see far more suspensions for behavior of that type and it's probably gonna get worse with people having no clue what why they've made that decision. Stuff like this helps a long way.

 

[goodNumber10]

My problem with this situation is less to do with your analysis which is perfectly fair but more of a lack of detailed explanation from RFU themselves. We have to argue it out as fans why they've come that decision. I've posted these before but the NHL has the right idea when it comes to dishing out bans in a contact sport to make it clear to fans what their thinking is.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=759917&navid=DL|NHL|Microsite-PlayerSafety

With the 'reckless' law I think we're going to see far more suspensions for behavior of that type and it's probably gonna get worse with people having no clue what why they've made that decision. Stuff like this helps a long way.

Completely agree, I really like that NHL video you posted and I really think the process should be transparent, and for a number of reasons:

A: so the players themselves understand the limitations and expectations placed on them.
B: so the fans can understand how fair and just the process is.
C: so it influences players, refs and coaches in the lower leagues.

 

[Raggs]

He's trying to stop, hence straightening his legs. Take quick run and try to stop as quick as possible without crashing into something. Now run forward and try and get your foot to hit a ball as soon as it can.

For me at least, I straighten my legs in the last couple of steps, lean right back (as Hughes is doing) and hit hard down on my heels. When trying to kick, I'm leaning far more forward, and my toes and heel are hitting the ground together (or toes first since I'm pointing them to try and hit my target first).

- - - Updated - - -

NFL video is very nice indeed, would be good to see something like that with full description. Would love to get the opinion of a biomechanics expert on what Hughes body movement suggests he was doing, trying to stop, or trying to get a boot into/under the ball.

 

[goodNumber10]

He's trying to stop, hence straightening his legs. Take quick run and try to stop as quick as possible without crashing into something. Now run forward and try and get your foot to hit a ball as soon as it can.

For me at least, I straighten my legs in the last couple of steps, lean right back (as Hughes is doing) and hit hard down on my heels. When trying to kick, I'm leaning far more forward, and my toes and heel are hitting the ground together (or toes first since I'm pointing them to try and hit my target first).

People stop like that when they have a free run in, if they are about to hit someone they normally wouldn't be taking big long full extension strides. Normally they will be shortening their strides to get better traction and stop quickly and maintain control.

You may sit like then when you're aiming to kick static ball or a free rolling ball, but in close contact people tend to just poke their lower leg out ala a football tackle.

- - - Updated - - -

He's trying to stop, hence straightening his legs. Take quick run and try to stop as quick as possible without crashing into something. Now run forward and try and get your foot to hit a ball as soon as it can.

For me at least, I straighten my legs in the last couple of steps, lean right back (as Hughes is doing) and hit hard down on my heels. When trying to kick, I'm leaning far more forward, and my toes and heel are hitting the ground together (or toes first since I'm pointing them to try and hit my target first).

People stop like that when they have a free run in, if they are about to hit someone they normally wouldn't be taking big long full extension strides. Normally they will be shortening their strides to get better traction and stop quickly and maintain control.

You may sit like then when you're aiming to kick static ball or a free rolling ball, but in close contact people tend to just poke their lower leg out ala a football tackle.

NFL video is very nice indeed, would be good to see something like that with full description. Would love to get the opinion of a biomechanics expert on what Hughes body movement suggests he was doing, trying to stop, or trying to get a boot into/under the ball.

i don't think he's trying to kick the ball free it just looks that way.

 

[Raggs]

You think they were full extension strides at the end?

 

[goodNumber10]

You think they were full extension strides at the end?

No, I'm referring to your explanation of how you said you stop.

He is stopping (well slowing down which is different) but not in a manner fit for the proximity of the tackle area, and that is where the reckless angle comes into it he's strides are the reason he makes contact - he has no right to run through that line with that stride.

Do you really want to keep this discussion going all day? We don't agree, Wasps are appealing lets see what comes up.

 

[Raggs]

Happy to let it go. Don't know if they're appealing, waiting for the full report from what I understood.

 

[Raggs]

No mention of trying to kick the ball clear by the disciplinary panel (mentioned solely by the ref). No intent, he was trying to slow down and stop, but didn't manage to stop in time, but he should have known the collision was going to happen.

They decide that he wasn't going back to make the tackle (he needs to know that Loz is going to succeed apparently, whereas Lawes doesn't need to take that into account when it comes to passes), and the idea that he may have been chasing back to prevent North (if Loz fails to tackle him) from running it further infield doesn't enter their minds.

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...t-Tuesday31March2015-NathanHughes_Neutral.pdf

My issue with it is that he apparently should be expected to know before running that line that Lozowski is going to be successful in his tackle, and that North is going to dive for the line. If Loz had failed, and Hughes hadn't sprinted, North could have easily run that under the posts.

How is that significantly different to Lawes clattering any number of 10s who have just made a pass? We defend Lawes, saying he's committed and that he cannot know if the fly half is going to actually pass. Here Hughes is committed to getting back, bit it for a ruck or to keep North further out, and yet he is expected to know whether North will dive/be tackled/ or stay on his feet.

 

[goodNumber10]

No mention of trying to kick the ball clear by the disciplinary panel (mentioned solely by the ref). No intent, he was trying to slow down and stop, but didn't manage to stop in time, but he should have known the collision was going to happen.

They decide that he wasn't going back to make the tackle (he needs to know that Loz is going to succeed apparently, whereas Lawes doesn't need to take that into account when it comes to passes), and the idea that he may have been chasing back to prevent North (if Loz fails to tackle him) from running it further infield doesn't enter their minds.

My issue with it is that he apparently should be expected to know before running that line that Lozowski is going to be successful in his tackle, and that North is going to dive for the line. If Loz had failed, and Hughes hadn't sprinted, North could have easily run that under the posts.

Their point is that he was not in a field or body position to execute and effective tackle - which is the exact point I've made above. As the Referee says, he is not at the same height as North so he's not going to execute a legal tackle, and he had no reason to be there.

How is that significantly different to Lawes clattering any number of 10s who have just made a pass? We defend Lawes, saying he's committed and that he cannot know if the fly half is going to actually pass. Here Hughes is committed to getting back, bit it for a ruck or to keep North further out, and yet he is expected to know whether North will dive/be tackled/ or stay on his feet.

It's completely different in that Lawes is in a position to execute an effective tackle had Plisson dummied and gone whereas Hughes never gets near North until he kicks him in the head - he's never near enough to stop him scoring, as you say at best he could stop him coming around behind but that's never on.

 

[Raggs]

But Hughes can legitimately be trying to get back in order to force North to either ground the ball or get tackled by him in the dead ball area? That's allowed. Until North is actually tackled, Hughes is doing nothing wrong running that line for me. But that is exactly what they are saying. And if North hadn't been twisted by the tackle of Lozowski, Hughes wouldn't have made any contact running that line anyway.

http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/18/92/60/15/hughes10.jpg

Hughes cannot be sure that North is going to dive or be successfully tackled by Loz until it's already too late, he slows as soon as North is successfully tackled, what more was he supposed to do, apart from not be running back to cover North whatsoever?

 

[goodNumber10]

But Hughes can legitimately be trying to get back in order to force North to either ground the ball or get tackled by him in the dead ball area? That's allowed. Until North is actually tackled, Hughes is doing nothing wrong running that line for me. But that is exactly what they are saying. And if North hadn't been twisted by the tackle of Lozowski, Hughes wouldn't have made any contact running that line anyway.

http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/18/92/60/15/hughes10.jpg

Hughes cannot be sure that North is going to dive or be successfully tackled by Loz until it's already too late, he slows as soon as North is successfully tackled, what more was he supposed to do, apart from not be running back to cover North whatsoever?

 

[Raggs]

Feeling the same way . So lets just call it a day.

 

[michaelbolton]

Feeling the same way . So lets just call it a day.

100% agreed with Raggs the entire with through your 2s little argument.. He was covering across same as about 3 or 4 other players in all these shots, he slowed down as soon as North was clear of the tackle and grounding the ball. Sheer bad luck that North got twisted into his path and the leg shows he was slowing at the maximum rate possible for his size