• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England vs Wales - 12/08/23

Watching the Steward incident in real time I thought he had realised Adam's was in the air and hesitated, but then completed the tackle by taking his legs away. I think the nature and circumstances of the tackle should be taken into consideration, not just the outcome. Does the ref have to request a review or can the bunker official decide?
 
Jimbo said:
All the angles I sore were on side initial contact and impact (his head did look to get a bit of whiplash though), I personally wouldn't object to a red or yellow for Steward there, but it wasn't a clear cut red, based on similar instances 7 - 8 out of 10 that's probably a yellow (going by similar), no point in us getting into a heated debate on this we will have our views, I will say Steward has found himself in a few situations recently and does need to be a bit more aware this could have been significantly worse and all concerned should be happy it wasn't, I do have a question for you though, how if to your mind the head/neck contact was so obvious was Adams allowed to play on without a HIA? Surely any doubt the medics shouldn't take risks, friendly or not shouldn't have an influence but human nature being what it is probably would make them less likely to pull him off in a meaningful game, this was only a friendly.
Click to expand...
A bump/thump on the head/neck is not necessarily a mandate for HIA, if it were most players would spend time off for HIA

Mandatory HIA removal is explained here

World Rugby Passport - HIA Procedures, Frequently Asked Questions

passport.world.rugby passport.world.rugby
 
George Ford says about OF "great him getting away with" today in radio 5

 
Its pretty telling when not one England follower supports Farrell's actions and the rescinding of the red card.
Everyone and his dog bar the disciplinary committee thought it a red.

However, I think Steward was extremely lucky. On another day that was a red card.
 
Gotta wonder what WR the IRB* make of that decision with the lawsuits still hanging over the game.

Be interesting to see how they'd talk that away in front of a judge/jury when its put to the court along the lines of "as lately as August 2023, the officials at the highest level in rugby showed scant regard for its players when deciding to rescind what the overwhelming majority of experts agreed was a dangerous tackle making direct head contact at high speed. It appears that viewing figures matter more than player health and wellbeing"


Madness.


*and its really still the IRB in my world. The WR moniker is pathetic.
 
AlRums said:
A bump/thump on the head/neck is not necessarily a mandate for HIA, if it were most players would spend time off for HIA

Mandatory HIA removal is explained here

World Rugby Passport - HIA Procedures, Frequently Asked Questions

passport.world.rugby passport.world.rugby
Click to expand...
Pretty interesting and not sure I fully understand it but I'd assume it would come under hia 2 as below, surely direct head contact with the ground from a height and a player holding his head at one stage warrants an off field more thorough assessment if players health is the main priority.
  • Event witnessed with potential to cause a concussion
 
Jimbo said:
Pretty interesting and not sure I fully understand it but I'd assume it would come under hia 2 as below, surely direct head contact with the ground from a height and a player holding his head at one stage warrants an off field more thorough assessment if players health is the main priority.
  • Event witnessed with potential to cause a concussion
Click to expand...
While the procedure state pretty clearly the steps required for a Criteria 1 assesment there is nothing for a Criteria 2, in fact Criteria 2 is only mentioned as a list of possible of indicators and is not referred to again in the entire procedure docment
 
Did anyone really think Farrell, or Sexton for that matter, would be banned for the world rugby showpiece?
 
AlRums said:
While the procedure state pretty clearly the steps required for a Criteria 1 assesment there is nothing for a Criteria 2, in fact Criteria 2 is only mentioned as a list of possible of indicators and is not referred to again in the entire procedure docment
Click to expand...
maybe I'm confused or missing something here, the way I understand it is pretty simple if we concede that landing on your head from a height is an event with potential to cause concussion he should have had a HIA or his head didn't actually make contact with the ground until after his the initial impact had mainly been absorbed by his side which is reasonably consistent with the majority of yellows in similar situations.
 
Fair go! That decision is unbelievable in light of many previous cases.
I feel the issue here is a lack of consistency. I can think of any number of red carded, no arms, high tackles that could have been mitigated by a "change of dynamics in the contact area."
Does this case now set a precedent, by which future high tackles are measured? I hope so, because there'll be a lot less red cards ruining games.
 
Jimbo said:
maybe I'm confused or missing something here, the way I understand it is pretty simple if we concede that landing on your head from a height is an event with potential to cause concussion he should have had a HIA or his head didn't actually make contact with the ground until after his the initial impact had mainly been absorbed by his side which is reasonably consistent with the majority of yellows in similar situations.
Click to expand...
Yes, but according to Criteria 1 of the HIA you basically have to display outward sign of an issue. Like I said earlier if we did an HIA for every perceived knock there wouldn't be anyone on the pitch.

I see where you are going, I just don't see a definitive answer.
 
Lest we not forget Angus Ta'avao got 3 weeks for his head clash red card lol.

Lest we not also forget that 1 week later Andrew porter broke Brody Retalliks cheek bone with his head, yellow card, NO Ban, lmao.

Now launching upwards with no arms = NO BAN too

Absolute f*#&ING ******** as usual
 
Last edited:
saulan said:
Not from him, from World Rugby saying "No, no, take a look at that again" or from another union. I recall once before World Rugby stepping in after a decision was made, but I can't recall the case/situation.
Click to expand...

Ah, found reference to that precedent of World Rugby appealing. It was 2013:

World Rugby must therefore step in and appeal the decision, just as it did when former Wallabies captain James Horwill was cited for stomping during the first Test against the British & Irish Lions in 2013.

While Horwill was cleared for a second time, it demonstrated that the game's global stewards felt strongly enough that the incident required a second independent hearing at the very least.
Click to expand...

www.espn.co.uk

COMMENT: 'Astounding' Farrell decision must be reopened by World Rugby

The decision to overturn Owen Farrell's red card beggars belief and has rendered World Rugby's claims that player safety is its No. 1 priority as baseless. The governing body must step in an reopen the case -- Sam Bruce writes.
www.espn.co.uk
 
Apparently (according to a Rugby Journo I saw on twitter this morning) World Rugby can't step in on this as it was done under the Six Nations umbrella, or something like that, so it'd have to be the 6N that steps in
Not sure if that makes it more or less likely, on the one hand the 6N isn't getting sued left right and centre, on the other the Aussie citing panel have nothing to do with them so they wouldn't mind as much challenging them
 
TRF_Olyy said:
Apparently (according to a Rugby Journo I saw on twitter this morning) World Rugby can't step in on this as it was done under the Six Nations umbrella, or something like that, so it'd have to be the 6N that steps in
Not sure if that makes it more or less likely, on the one hand the 6N isn't getting sued left right and centre, on the other the Aussie citing panel have nothing to do with them so they wouldn't mind as much challenging them
Click to expand...
Sounds like it's getting complicated so any faint chance of it being challenged seems pretty much 0 now.
 

Similar threads

TRF_Olyy
France vs Scotland - 12/08/23
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
4K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
W
Wales v England - 05/08/23 5:30 KO
17 18 19
Replies
373
Views
13K
retired9
R
Don't Skip Leg Day
England vs Fiji 26th August 23
29 30 31
Replies
604
Views
20K
Zed
Z
TRF_Olyy
[RWC2023] England vs Chile (23/09/2023)
21 22 23
Replies
455
Views
14K
LIONSxv
LIONSxv
TRF_Olyy
Argentina vs South Africa (05/08/23)
Replies
9
Views
722
Johnny Storm
J

Latest posts

Top