British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[smartcooky]

"The offences in World Rugby law 10.4 do not require mens rea ... they create offences of strict liability ... An offence is committed if the prohibited act occurs. The definition of recklessness is derived from World Rugby Regulation 17 ... it serves to penalise players whose conduct is other than purely accidental and is designed to prevent the risk of injury to other players"

"A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway."

So, keeping these fine words in mind...

Sonny Bill Williams: Shoulder charges an opponent, making direct contact to the opponent's head with force.
Outcome: The opponent is unhurt (passes HIA) and plays on
Referee decision: Red Card so player is cited automatically
Judicial decision: Four weeks suspension

Sean O'brien: Commits a swinging arm on an opponent, making direct contact to the opponent's head with force.
Outcome: The opponent is knocked unconscious, has to leave the field, fails the HIA and is ruled out of play the following week.
Referee decision: Nothing (and ignores TMO call to have review) but player is cited
Judicial decision: Nothing

What happened to "offences of strict liability"?

What happened to "the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway"?

So much for outcome-driven officiating and Judicial decisions!

So much for all World Rugby's chest-beating about protecting players' heads"

Have I spelt "duplicitous" correctly?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

What happened to "offences of strict liability"?

What happened to "the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway"?


So much for all World Rugby's chest-beating about protecting players' heads"

Have I spelt "duplicitous" correctly?

The exact same thing could be said about the Sam Cane thing the week before when he drove his elbow into Davies head.

 

[smartcooky]

The exact same thing could be said about the Sam Cane thing the week before when he drove his elbow into Davies head.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Davies was knocked unconscious, had to leave the field, failed the HIA and was ruled out of play the following week....

Oh wait.. he wasn't

 

[anderton46]

"A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway."

This wording is so vague. Because every single tackle attempt there is always a risk of making head contact because ball carriers lower the head to hit at the best angle.

That aside, are you suggesting the incidents are similar?

How to tackle - use your arms. SBW - no arms, shoulder to the head (on a player falling).

SOB - standard tackle with arms to a player falling.

To me, the key here is similar outcomes but one player was attempting to tackle legally, the other not.

Moving on.

 

[anderton46]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Davies was knocked unconscious, had to leave the field, failed the HIA and was ruled out of play the following week....

Oh wait.. he wasn't

You can't judge someones actions on the outcome of a head injury.

If SBW had done what he did to George North, North would probably be still unconscious and people asking for him to retire (again). It is just unfortunate.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Did Naholo fail the HIA and out for next week? I read Hansen said he passed it, but did not want to risk bringing Naholo back on. So he may still be available for next week.

And also the Judicial panel would have had access to all of the camera angles in the SOB case, which we may not be privy to and may have shown SOB was not reckless i.e. He did not know or should have known Naholo's head was there, as Naholo was ducking when contact with his head was made. Daly may well have impeded SOB' s sight of where Naholo's head was. Same argument (in terms of having access to all of the camera angles) made when Owen Franks had his sticky fingers near Kane Douglas's eyes.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Davies was knocked unconscious, had to leave the field, failed the HIA and was ruled out of play the following week....

Oh wait.. he wasn't

Sorry......

Neither was Naholo according to your head coach

"Naholo was forced off the field for a head injury assessment and didn't return. All Blacks coach Steve Hansen said on Sunday Naholo could have gone back on but they decided to take a cautious approach, which means the dynamic wing is likely to be cleared for Saturday's third test."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...s-scrutiny-for-swinging-arm-on-waisake-naholo

 

[smartcooky]

That aside, are you suggesting the incidents are similar?

No

SOB - standard tackle with arms to a player falling.

So. a swinging arm to the jaw is a standard tackle?

To me, the key here is similar outcomes but one player was attempting to tackle legally, the other not.

Similar outcomes? Really?

One player is unhurt and carries on, the other is knocked unconscious, concussed, and has to leave the field\, and these are similar to you?

The point I am making is WR have been very clear that intent is not be be taken into consideration, and that decisions will be made based on outcomes, except that in this case, they seem to have taken intent into consideration, and ignored the outcome.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

No



So. a swinging arm to the jaw is a standard tackle?



Similar outcomes? Really?

One player is unhurt and carries on, the other is knocked unconscious, concussed, and has to leave the field\, and these are similar to you?

The point I am making is WR have been very clear that intent is not be be taken into consideration, and that decisions will be made based on outcomes, except that in this case, they seem to have taken intent into consideration, and ignored the outcome.

You're conflating outcome with event.

The judgment should be on the event not the outcome.

The event was a player getting a forearm to the head during a clear out.

The outcome is dependent not only on the event but a million other factors.

Btw, the outcome was a player passing an HIA so either the New Zealand medical staff is incompetent or you are being extremely hyperbolic and factually incorrect.

 

[ncurd]

"Naholo was forced off the field for a head injury assessment and didn't return. All Blacks coach Steve Hansen said on Sunday Naholo could have gone back on but they decided to take a cautious approach, which means the dynamic wing is likely to be cleared for Saturday's third test."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...s-scrutiny-for-swinging-arm-on-waisake-naholo

thanks Tigs I'm just going to quote this every time now someone says he was forced out the game by the hit...or he's not playing this week because of it.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Outcome: The opponent is knocked unconscious, has to leave the field, fails the HIA and is ruled out of play the following week.

Wrong. See above.

Referee decision: Nothing (and ignores TMO call to have review) but player is cited

Didn't you post elsewhere today that rain effected the referee's comms so he didn't hear the TMO?

If you're going to make things up to support your agenda, you'd be more credible you you could be consistent and for what you present as fact to not be easily disproved.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

2. a player landing after a jump is much easier to tackle than a player running full speed

Depends on the situation. If you are against your in goal line that jump might give you the edge you need to get through. Why bother throwing everything but the sink to get through a closed defense when all you need to do is jump.
I can see a few ways in which this rule can be exploited the wrong way. Most involved provoking penalties in the last minutes or getting through a close defense. Basically the message is, while you are in the air, you are untouchable. With the goal line at 4-5 meters, how is the defense supposed to stop a guy with his feet off the ground?

 

[The Jones Boy]

This is far from the most controversial incident due to tackle in the air laws nobody was YC'd or RC'd for it. Its also one where I have little sympathy for the tackler. AB's 18 committed to the tackle well before the Lions player had received the ball that runs a risk.

I couldn't agree with you less.
It was a very big deal.
The penalty decision gifted the lead to the Lions in a tightly fought test match that was almost finished.
It doesn't get much bigger than that.
It turned an exciting ending into a damp squib.

Secondly, the AB tackler didn't make contact until after the attacker had recieved possession of the ball. It doesn't matter how early a tackler makes his decision to commit to the tackle, it only matters they they do not hit before the attacker receives the ball.
Cooky has a valid point. If you are going to get a penalty from what was a perfectly legal tackle, against a player jumping into a tackle, why not try it every time you're out in front of the opposition posts. This is a viable option for gamesmanship.

Thirdly, unless there's a try line in reach, is it legal to jump into a tackle and potentially endanger the tackler?

 

[Five Meters Out]

I couldn't agree with you less.
It was a very big deal.
The penalty decision gifted the lead to the Lions in a tightly fought test match that was almost finished.
It doesn't get much bigger than that.
It turned an exciting ending into a damp squib.

Secondly, the AB tackler didn't make contact until after the attacker had recieved possession of the ball. It doesn't matter how early a tackler makes his decision to commit to the tackle, it only matters they they do not hit before the attacker receives the ball.
Cooky has a valid point. If you are going to get a penalty from what was a perfectly legal tackle, against a player jumping into a tackle, why not try it every time you're out in front of the opposition posts. This is a viable option for gamesmanship.

Thirdly, unless there's a try line in reach, is it legal to jump into a tackle and potentially endanger the tackler?

I never even knew this was a law. I needs to be done away with. It's like the attacking team receives a penalty for throwing a poor pass.

 

[ncurd]

I never even knew this was a law. I needs to be done away with. It's like the attacking team receives a penalty for throwing a poor pass.

The law is you can't tackle the player in the air...they've been pretty hot on for a year or two now. There have been far worse occasions of it being correctly applied but red or yellow cards.

The law needs looking at....but have to be careful. I think it need to go down the tip tackle route and the nature of the landing mattering.

 

[Five Meters Out]

The law is you can't tackle the player in the air...they've been pretty hot on for a year or two now. There have been far worse occasions of it being correctly applied but red or yellow cards.

The law needs looking at....but have to be careful. I think it need to go down the tip tackle route and the nature of the landing mattering.

There will be plenty of law I've never seen officiated on. This incident has expanded my knowledge of the game.
He seemed to land OK, but was clearly upset. He got up ready to debate the issue, until his mates grabbed hold of him.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Fielding a kick, that is a fair call, the ball is often coming straight down and the fielding player has to look up in the air, players know the jumper is protected until he hits the ground.
Fielding a pass, that is never going to be on the same trajectory as a kick is an entirely different situation.
Now any receiving player who is concerned the pass is not going to be ideal, can jump in the air on receiving the ball, and if they get contacted before they land again, Boom, penalty.

What a crock.

Your half back gives you a wobbly old pass from the base of the ruck, you see your opposite number lining you up for a tackle, so you jump off the ground when you receive the ball and he hits you in the air.
You get a penalty because you worked the rules effectively and made an advantage out of a bad pass.
Wow, thats going to be fun to watch.... not.
What a crock.

 

[TRF_heineken]

@smartcooky I saw you mention in the match thread that you think Mako should have gotten a red card for his "clearout" of BB (I'm staying out of that discussion because I can't remember it well enough to judge, I thought yellow was fine at the time but I'm, obviously, biased towards Mako), just to play devils advocate do you think this challenge is cardable? I've gotta say I'm surprised it's not been cited, it's a pretty clear cut elbow/forearm to the face.
From my memory of the Mako incident, and this, they're pretty similar - both attempting to clearout a guy that didn't need to be cleared out, really, and doing it recklessly making contact with the head.

If you want to talk about clearing out recklessly, then may I remind you of the 2009 B&I Lions tour to SA, and the whole Justice4Bakkies incident....

On the past weekend's match, I thought Garces was mostly good, but he did have a couple of bad decisions too, and mostly on the penalties which resulted into points. There was knock-on by a Lions player in the air in front of the posts where he gave a penalty against the All Blacks which was an easy 3 points, and just after that, he gave a penalty against the Lions on the other side of the field but there was a forward pass by the All Blacks which he again missed.

As for the Sanctioning, I think he was spot on with the SBW incident, but I do feel that Vunipola should have gotten a red card too.

My biggest gripe about Garces' performance was how little advantage he played. Felt a bit like he didn't want the game to flow. But hey, that's more a personal issue I have than anything else. Overall he was pretty good, just like Peyper was in the first half. Hope Poite can live up to the standards...

Speaking of which, I was absolutely dumbstruck that a French referee can give a red card for a tackle where no arms were used involving the All Blacks...

 

[Penne Rara]

If you want to talk about clearing out recklessly, then may I remind you of the 2009 B&I Lions tour to SA, and the whole Justice4Bakkies incident....

On the past weekend's match, I thought Garces was mostly good, but he did have a couple of bad decisions too, and mostly on the penalties which resulted into points. There was knock-on by a Lions player in the air in front of the posts where he gave a penalty against the All Blacks which was an easy 3 points, and just after that, he gave a penalty against the Lions on the other side of the field but there was a forward pass by the All Blacks which he again missed.

Those things should have been mentioned by the touchline refs. The ref is already busy watching 30 players on the field, and his point of view doesn't necessarily allow him to assess forward passes. This should have been much more easily spotted by the touchline, but Jaco and Romain went missing on those points. Garcès reffed well on that occasion, and his performance is clean overall, even though he still missed a few calls.

I agree with you on advantages. But the test didn't allow for such a free flowing game anyway, partly due to the weather unfortunately, and the players' resolve to win at all costs.

It took Jérôme big balls and good common sense to draw that red card. While this shouldn't be an extraordinary feat because this was the only correct decision, the consequences were so crucial that anyone would have thought twice before making that call.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The law is you can't tackle the player in the air...they've been pretty hot on for a year or two now. There have been far worse occasions of it being correctly applied but red or yellow cards.

Correct, but the difference in this particular case is that until now, the overwhelming majority of the cases there was a kick involved. Most of them were cases where team A kicks, player from team B jumps, catches the ball and the players from A have to wait till B lands to tackle him. In most cases, he is untouchable while in the air. The big if here, is that there was a kick, which generally gives all players enough time to assess the situation.
In this particular case i see two big problems: First, you are allowing a team to create a situation for which the defense has little to no response. They either had to anticipate the pass (very risky) or let the guy land and then and ONLY then tackle him. I know some might say "that's only a meter or two". That's all you need.
Second, timing. The rule was put there with kicking in mind. That gives you time. The timing for the tackler for this play is completely different. Put yourself in this mind: he charges 3/4 speed, sees the ball leave the passer, has to assess whether the pass is going to the guy he is charging (otherwise it'd be a penalty against him) and if it is, he commits, 100%. He has to do this in less than a second.

Asking him to ALSO assess at the same time if for a split second both of the attackers feet are of the ground is unrealistic.
Hopefully this is a 1/100 scenario and we won't see much of it. I can see how it can ruin games.