[RWC2023] South Africa vs Scotland (10/09/2023)

[AlRums]

We are a victim of the new colour blind laws, Our kit is darker and in most cases will need to be changed. only two of our games are confirmed to be in the original kit. I have read reports that SA rugby and NZ will challenge the decision in court at some point as it represents a loss of income due to the brand being potentially damaged by not getting to play in your main kit, teams with darker kit will be most affected and with that said no reason Nike could not just design a plain white kit, which has historically been used.

Since no sponsorship is allowed on the kit at the world cup, loss of income is a non starter

 

[saulan]

Since no sponsorship is allowed on the kit at the world cup, loss of income is a non starter

I don't think he is referring to just the World Cup. I believe World Rugby have intentions for this to be the requirement from now on, so you would never see the All Blacks and Springboks clashing in both playing in their home kits, one would always have to switch to their alternative kit. Think the argument is that their main brand of a dark green springbok kit or a black All Blacks kit gets diluted

 

[Jer1cho]

No citing for Jesse Kriel following review of tackle

Springboks centre Jesse Kriel has not been cited following his side's victory over Scotland at the Stade Velodrome in Marseille.

www.rugbypass.com

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Ridiculous

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

We are a victim of the new colour blind laws, Our kit is darker and in most cases will need to be changed. only two of our games are confirmed to be in the original kit. I have read reports that SA rugby and NZ will challenge the decision in court at some point as it represents a loss of income due to the brand being potentially damaged by not getting to play in your main kit, teams with darker kit will be most affected and with that said no reason Nike could not just design a plain white kit, which has historically been used.

It's decided by coin flip. France had to change against New Zealand and England against Argentina.

 

[Becca]

No citing for Jesse Kriel following review of tackle

Springboks centre Jesse Kriel has not been cited following his side's victory over Scotland at the Stade Velodrome in Marseille.

www.rugbypass.com

Absolute nonsense

 

[Jer1cho]

It was a kiss on the cheek.

 

[General Melchett]

Ridiculous decision. Hope this doesn't lead to players going down clutching their heads just to mitigate the risk of the officials not doing their job.

Will be interesting to see how Curry's hearing goes in light of this.

 

[Jer1cho]

It's not a ridiculous decision. It's the right decision. The Curry decision was the ridiculous one, but wanting Kriel banned or red carded, means you want those bad calls to carry on for 'consistency'. If the Curry incident didn't happen, no one would have batted an eye at this, and this one was WAY LESS contact than the Curry one in any case.

 

[Which Tyler]

Or, you can read what people have written, now and over the last few years.

I don't necessarily want Kriel (or Biggar, or Sigren) banned, I want them cited, and to have it gone through properly with published results of the process.

It IS possible to have a difference of opinions, without one side or the other putting up a fake opinion (it can't be genuine, it disagrees with ME), or just doing so to get one back at someone else.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Anyone have the clip? Haven't seen it. RWC removing all videos from the site formerly known as twitter so tricky to find.

 

[Jer1cho]

Anyone have the clip? Haven't seen it. RWC removing all videos from the site formerly known as twitter so tricky to find.

04:20 shows the other angle.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If the Curry incident didn't happen, no one would have batted an eye at this

Disagree, head lashes have been reds for a while - remember one in an Argentina vs Wales ago several years ago

I don't necessarily want Kriel (or Biggar, or Sigren) banned, I want them cited, and to have it gone through properly with published results of the process.

This is it - I want to hear the explanation as to why these all get such varied punishments

Three games in a row had head clashes and one was red, one was yellow, one was play on

 

[Jer1cho]

Disagree, these have been reds for a while - remember one in an Argentina vs Wales ago several years ago

Sometimes there are bad ones, yes, blood and concussions happen. Willemse was pinged vs the ABs for this and carded also. This one was so borderline imo.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Hmmmm... I don't love it, slow Mo I'd be looking at red to be honest. If it was low speed impact yellow only. Terrible tackle posture in any case.

 

[Jer1cho]

Hmmmm... I don't love it, slow Mo I'd be looking at red to be honest. If it was low speed impact yellow only. Terrible tackle posture in any case.

This is the biggest thing. Slow mo's make things look waaaay worse, and then what the hell are these guys doing always tackling this high? Ball hunting or what? Terrible technique is taking over.

 

[General Melchett]

That's the thing. Head on head could have been avoided with a better tackle technique and body position. Kriel has to take responsibility.

 

[Jer1cho]

That's the thing. Head on head could have been avoided with a better tackle technique and body position. Kriel has to take responsibility.

Then why was he not cited? Clearly no one knows whats what in any case it seems.

 

[General Melchett]

Then why was he not cited? Clearly no one knows whats what in any case it seems.

That's the million dollar question. Protecting the TMO? Who knows. A lack of citing for a poorly executed tackle that led to head on head sends the wrong message and does nothing for player welfare.

 

[saulan]

Neutral in this.

For me, the second is better because it doesn't show head to head contact, because the camera's on the wrong side. Not showing foul play always looks better than showing foul play.
For me, I could always tell that there was collision with the ball between the players, that amount of bounce simple doesn't happen without some form of compression-release between the players - but that's me, can't comment on other people's opinions.
From the first angle, we know that head on head contact happened, and that there was a reasonable degree of force, and the the tackle was entered into with force.

From the text "Not that I have to educate you on this, but we all know that if it isn't direct head contact – which it wasn't, because he made contact on the ball and then moved up after he tackled on the ball – then it is not an issue." to the best of my knowledge, that's what we call gaslighting. Its not true, it's a lie, and one that's aimed to have us all believing Rassie over the evidence of the last few years and the written law.
"Direct head contact" = one head hits another head =/= first contact is between heads.
The debate is the colour of the card, not whether it was a legal tackle or otherwise. In the WR framework we' going down route 3. There is a very fall for the final point noted for potential mitigation (contact is indirect), but that's mitigation of sanction, not legality.

FTR, SA were well deserved winners, and I suspect would still have won, even had the card been red (I suspect that a TMO would have seen that as a starting point of red, mitigated down to yellow, based on the initial contact)
View attachment 17658

I realize I haven't actually given my opinion on this, I've skirted around it. But I guess I'll give my perspective, but I think it's similar to @Quel Carreleur . I'll explain it through the framework:

Was there a high tackle: Yes
Was there head contact: Yes
Was there a high degree of danger: debatable - given the whiplash was more from the tackle of first contact on the ball and the head contact was more glancing then a head smashing that we saw in Curry's situation. But let's just say yes and so red
Do any of the mitigating factors apply: Yes, the last point on the list - contact was initially on the chest/ball with most of the force taking place there, with subsequent riding up and head contact, mitigating from red to yellow.

Did the TMO get it right? No, I don't think so. It was at least a penalty and a yellow. Do I think it's a ridiculous outcome that he wasn't cited? No, I think they followed a similar logic to my points above getting to a yellow and since citings only happen for red card offenses, it's not a surprise.

Is there something else I think should be done differently? Yes. Communicate World Rugby! Explain in Game after Bunker decisions are made very clearly why decisions were made not to penalize something, and then in situations where things are controversial and the world is watching, clearly explain why you decided it shouldn't be a citing, even if it means saying your TMO made a mistake in not giving a penalty/yellow card.