[November Tests 2016 EOYT] Ireland vs. New Zealand (19/11/2016)

[smartcooky]

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/spo...-cane-cleared-dangerous-tackle-robbie-henshaw

[TEXTAREA]"The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play. The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately."[/TEXTAREA]

Those of us who said that Sam Cane would not suspended because Robbie Henshaw's injury was the result of an accidental collision.....

The Irish manager now needs to stop whinging and take a trip down to his local Mr Handyman store, buy some cement, timber and nails, and use them to build a bridge, then get over it!

And speaking of whingers, its a bit rich reading Alan Quinlan ranting on about other team's dirty play when he was, without doubt one of the dirtiest, filthiest players to ever disgrace the Irish jersey!

 

[Makos]

This whole episode has completely changed my opinion of the Irish sadly.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/spo...-cane-cleared-dangerous-tackle-robbie-henshaw

[TEXTAREA]"The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play. The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately."[/TEXTAREA]

Those of us who said that Sam Cane would not suspended because Robbie Henshaw's injury was the result of an accidental collision.....

The Irish manager now needs to stop whinging and take a trip down to his local Mr Handyman store, buy some cement, timber and nails, and use them to build a bridge, then get over it!

And speaking of whingers, its a bit rich reading Alan Quinlan ranting on about other team's dirty play when he was, without doubt one of the dirtiest, filthiest players to ever disgrace the Irish jersey!

Never disagreed with a disciplinary committee? Very scary decision for anyone playing the game or who has connections to anyone playing it.

This whole episode has completely changed my opinion of the Irish sadly.

We'll live happily, with brain injuries potentially...

 

[smartcooky]

Very scary decision for anyone playing the game or who has connections to anyone playing it.

Not really.

The implications of a guilty verdict would have had absolutely dire consequences for the game. It would mean that WR was effectively saying that there is no such thing as an accident when it came to any contact with the head

► Player falls over and bashes his head on the knee of an opponent - the opponent gets red card

► Player gets pushed onto an opponent, and as he falls his head contacts the opponent's shoulder - the opponent gets a red card

You cannot have a situation where ALL of the responsibility for what happens in a tackle is always on the tackler. Rugby is a dynamic contact/collision sport, its game play involves a lot of kinematics. Both the ball (because of its shape) and the players do unpredictable things, you cannot hold players responsible if they fail to predict the unpredictable.

Sometimes, an accident is just an accident, and no-one is to blame.

Perhaps corny can come on now and tell everyone who the disciplinary panels are not support to take intent into account

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Not really.

The implications of a guilty verdict would have had absolutely dire consequences for the game. It would mean that WR was effectively saying that there is no such thing as an accident when it cane to any contact with the head

► Player falls over and bashes his head on the knee of an opponent - the opponent gets red card

► Player gets pushed onto an opponent, and as he falls his head contacts the opponent's shoulder - the opponent gets a red card

You cannot have a situation where ALL of the responsibility for what happens in a tackle is always on the tackler. Rugby is a dynamic contact/collision sport, its gameplay involves a lot of kinematics. Both the ball (because of its shape) and the players do unpredictable things, you cannot hold players responsible if they fail to predict the unpredicatble.

Sometimes, an accident is just an accident, and no-one is to blame.

Well no, the consequences are that a if player enters a tackle area high enough that he/she connects shoulder to head with another player, in this case an inch and a half taller than him/her, he/she has not committed an act of foul play if the attacking player 'moves into it'. I love the game of rugby, it's killing me right now that I can't play but despite this I would give up the game if I ever got a serious concussion. If my playing career was ended by a reckless tackle like Cane's because that's borderline legal with the awful precedent set here, I'd be majorly ****** off at World Rugby.

I don't argue that this incident was accidental, but Cane was to blame for entering the tackle area too high.

 

[smartcooky]

From a memo a few years back......"The specific provisions of Law 10.4(e) in relation to High Tackles are as follows:.........Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle."

Unmitigated horse cock? Answers on a postcard?

You missed this bit

There are TWO and only two edicts from WR where intent is specifically not to be considered in assessing and applying sanctions

1. Tip/Spear tackling
2. Tackling a player whose feet are off the ground.

You could actually try reading the posts you quote from.

Your quote is from paragraph seven of the Spear Tackle memorandum....

View attachment Spear Tackle Memorandum.pdf

....issued 8th of June 2006, which is one of the TWO (and only two) instances where WR has issued an edict saying that intent was not to be considered as mitigation.

Try doing some actual research sometimes instead of just using Googleversity!

 

[The Jones Boy]

I thought Fekitoa got off lightly

 

[smartcooky]

I thought Fekitoa got off lightly

Once the DC decided it was LE (2 weeks) there was always going to be mitigation (first hearing, clean record etc) so technically, one week is correct under those circumstances

However, I agree with you. It was probably worth a couple of weeks actual suspension as I thought it was MR not LE.

 

[Five Meters Out]

I thought Fekitoa got off lightly

Yeah the Irish boy probably didn't stay down long enough. He'll know to next time. It's already starting to look like soccer and will only get worse.

 

[Gavin]

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/op...-world-rugby-must-cane-the-dublin-headhunters

What are Kiwi's views on this article by Mark Reason? Is he trying to be different from the other NZ journalists?

 

[smartcooky]

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/op...-world-rugby-must-cane-the-dublin-headhunters

What are Kiwi's views on this article by Mark Reason? Is he trying to be different from the other NZ journalists?

First mistake you have made is saying that he's Kiwi journalist; he's not, he English.

Reason is an asshole just like his asshole father John, and he has inherited his father's anti-New Zealand bias, so I no longer bother reading his gutter trash.

If he ever decides to move back to where he came from, I will be fully supportive of that decision

 

[TRF_Olyy]

First mistake you have made is saying that he's Kiwi journalist; he's not, he English.

Reason is an asshole just like his asshole father John, and he has inherited his father's anti-New Zealand bias, so I no longer bother reading his gutter trash.

If he ever decides to move back to where he came from, I will be fully supportive of that decision

We don't want the odious toad.

 

[munstermuffin]

I'm ok with outcome as I'm still unsure on Cane incident. I think Henshaws bounce off first tackle was cause of alot of the mistiming. Can did hit Henshaw shoulder on shoulder first before impact caused him to fly up.
The Fekitoa call is more interesting now as it argubally confirms what alot of us thought a while. If someone is found guilty the punishment is deemed by the reaction of the player and not the offence. If Zebo was ruled out for 4 weeks because of that I'd nearly guarantee it'd be a 6 week ban.
This isn't an attack against New Zealand or Fekitoa as I'm sayimg across board it's judged outcome and not intent. And the more times someone does do an offence thats worth 2 weeks (obviously not a major deterrent) then someone will eventually get a very serious if not life changing injury at a high level.

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah the Irish boy probably didn't stay down long enough. He'll know to next time. It's already starting to look like soccer and will only get worse.

I don't really think that is fair in this case.

What Fekitoa did was a genuine coathanger. One week is at the bottom end of what I think was fair for what he did.

 

[corny]

Perhaps corny can come on now and tell everyone who the disciplinary panels are not support to take intent into account

Disciplinary panels? Never mentioned those. I said ref and citing officer. I think i said Feki would be the only one getting a ban too a couple of pages back. Not news to me.

You're literally wrong everytime you challenge me mate. Stop baiting me. Its the 2011 Dangerous tackle memo and actual law book i was quoting from. Where you got that spear tackle stuff i don't even want to know http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=3&language=EN

Anyway, World Rugby sent out a memo earlier in the week saying there'd be zero tolerance on high shots. They didn't follow through. They didn't follow through because of the media storm. The Kiwis rather than accept things got out of hand in the game had a go at the whining Irish. No ones happy but can we still have your vote for 2023?

 

[Larksea]

have to say I completely disagree with the Fekitoa & Cane sanctions.

Fekitoa - first contact with shoulder, grab rather than a hit. Low to no risk of concussion or even injury with tackles like that, as I said before anyone who has played rugby or league has been a victim of tackles like that at some stage - they look dramatic but they don't hurt. Even the on field yellow was harsh that is penalty only IMO.

Cane - while it was clearly accidental and more of a case of the players colliding rather than a tackle cane was still too high. I would say this was more worthy of an on field yellow and a week off.

the sanctions that get handed out very rarely make any sense...

- - - Updated - - -

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/op...-world-rugby-must-cane-the-dublin-headhunters

What are Kiwi's views on this article by Mark Reason? Is he trying to be different from the other NZ journalists?

I think its fairly safe to say Reason is almost unanimously loathed by NZers. I think his job is to basically get people ****** off because that generates clicks and commenting on his articles.

 

[smartcooky]

You're literally wrong everytime you challenge me mate. Stop baiting me. Its the 2011 Dangerous tackle memo

... which came as a result of the 2006 Spear Tackle memo from the IRB. Download the PDF attachment I posted and read it for yourself

Where you got that spear tackle stuff i don't even want to know

Never heard of it huh!? It figures!

- - - Updated - - -

I think its fairly safe to say Reason is almost unanimously loathed by NZers. I think his job is to basically get people ****** off because that generates clicks and commenting on his articles.

Which is why I refuse to read his articles, it gives credence to his biased writing.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

have to say I completely disagree with the Fekitoa & Cane sanctions.

Fekitoa - first contact with shoulder, grab rather than a hit. Low to no risk of concussion or even injury with tackles like that, as I said before anyone who has played rugby or league has been a victim of tackles like that at some stage - they look dramatic but they don't hurt. Even the on field yellow was harsh that is penalty only IMO.

Cane - while it was clearly accidental and more of a case of the players colliding rather than a tackle cane was still too high. I would say this was more worthy of an on field yellow and a week off.

the sanctions that get handed out very rarely make any sense...

- - - Updated - - -



I think its fairly safe to say Reason is almost unanimously loathed by NZers. I think his job is to basically get people ****** off because that generates clicks and commenting on his articles.

I agree here, while Fekitoa looked ridiculous it wasn't as dangerous and was punished adequately on the pitch. Cane on the other hand was too high, led with an exposed shoulder and hit with a straight arm, you can only get suspended for red card offences though so I think red and minimum possible ban was the answer. A lot of talk of intent here which in my opinion is a bit stupid, intent should be taken into account when considering the suspension but not a players innocence or guilt. The decision by the committee stinks of trying to appease both Irish and NZ media by dishing out a ban to a New Zealander but not over the contentious and more important decision, it ultimately is worse for both unions in my opinion.

 

[kesh]

From a neutral perspective, I really didn't see anything in that, especially at normal speed. It looks like Cane wasn't expecting the spin out from Henshaw and Henshaw didn't expect there to be anyone in the space he was spinning in to. Result was the two of them smashing into each other what seems like head first, but Cane was at least prepared for the contact since he was going for a tackle, Henshaw probably wasn't and was taken by surprise. In fact I'm not sure if Cane made head contact. It looks like Cane moved his head away to avoid clashing heads and Henshaw ducked his head into Cane's shoulder. I think it was an unfortunate incident, but there really doesn't seem to be anything malicious in it and all. I feel like a penalty was probably warranted, but nothing more than that.

From a neutral perspective that isn't taking into account the new high tackle laws.

To to make it easy for officials, any contact that results in a player becoming unconscious should be a straight yellow at least.

 

[The Jones Boy]

I can't agree with that Kesh.
At international level if two big lads are charging at each other and the ball carrier ducks into the tackle and one of them comes off second best and gets dazed from a legitimate tackle and has to go off to be assessed you would have the chap left on the field, who hasn't done anything wrong, cop at least a yellow?
Big hits are part of the joy of rugby and tackling is a key part of the game.
It's a collision based game.
I can remember when Sebastian Chabal broke Ali Williams jaw with a charge. Williams was shaken up and fully dazed. Ref was fine with it. No penalty. No card. No citing. Should Chabal be yellow carded for that?
Absolutely not.
It was a shame for Williams but I would argue he should have gone lower against the big hairy beast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B75dWGzJP-M

At junior ages no tackling above the waist is fine but at senior level players are going to want to try for ball and all tackles at some stage to smother an attack. That means they will have to go above the waist toward the shoulder.
No kesh, I can't agree with that.
Next you will have us shedding the use of arms in rugby and we'll be playing soccer.