Test Match 2: All Blacks v British & Irish Lions (Wellington)

[Skylinerd1]

Both deserve a ban. There was likely no malicious intent whatsoever in both cases but these two deserve some time off the field because the fouls were reckless and they've got to work on their discipline. As for SBW, I'd be happy with a permanent ban. Other talented, humble and younger players need to see more ball.

If I was the citing commissioner though, I'd have Vunipola cited too. His dangerous cleanout on Beauden was worth a red card, at least.

Permanent Ban? Jesus wept some of you people are a laugh.

He lost us the game from that one move and will earn universal condemnation from it and you reckon he should be permanently banned? What a absolute idiotic thing to say!

All we are seeing is that shoulder charge at super slow mo. To me at the height SBW went into the tackle he may not of been expecting the guys head to be at that height and I'll repeat my previous thing about it is that I still think Teo getting off his tip tackle led to this incident. I pretty much predicted it after the first test.

The inconsistency of rugby refereeing strike again.

 

[Truth]

O'Brien hit the HEAD. SBW hit the HEAD. Thats what happened but one was obvious and the other was too crowded to be seen at the time. Both need to be punished, although I think SBW has served his.

 

[Truth]

As for SBW, I'd be happy with a permanent ban. Other talented, humble and younger players need to see more ball.

Hold up here. You do realise head highs or contact to the head happens in the game of rugby right? I've seen worst than what SBW did by players whom are not as good and is still playing today without a 'permanent ban'. Maybe you see SBWs as worse than Umagas tackle on O'Driscoll?

LOL permanent ban for that? Really? you probably just don't like the guy who many of the All Black PLAYERS have respect for and so many felt had a big role in NZs winning of the RWC.

 

[Skylinerd1]

Shoulder charges like that use to be part and parcel of any good game of rugby or league. Hardly anyone has ever been seriously injured from a hit like that and as bad as that one was the Lions player still saw out the game. The camera angle and slow motion has not been kind to SBW at all in this particular incident. Its way to easy to judge with the slow motion replays and holier than thou attitude to everything these days. Played at full speed at the original angle its almost an innocuous as the SOM swinging arm at naholo.

I dont like SBW but I dont think he's ever gone into a shoulder charge looking to kill anyone.

 

[GoTheNaki]

It was the first time an All Black had been sent off in 50 years, the first time it had ever happened at home. This says less about the morality of the men in black and more about the effect of an aura and the reluctance of referees to break it.

British sports media is really below par tripe on the best of days. Theyre really up there with the baddest of winners.

 

[smartcooky]

I keep reading a lot of stuff here about "malicious" and "intent" etc. None of it is relevant. Here is the wording on this from WR back in Janury 2017...

"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 ... Thus, again by way of illustration, where a player intends to tackle an opponent by contact with his chest, but the opponent ducks just before contact is made so the contact is with the neck, an offence contrary to law 10.4(e) will have been committed. In assessing the relevant entry point for sanction it would be appropriate to decide that this offending was reckless because there was a risk that the opponent would duck into the tackle, or that the tackler might misjudge the point of contact. It could not be said in these circumstances that the contact with the head was purely accidental."

Reckless tackle
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 sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders.
Minimum sanction: Yellow card
Maximum sanction: Red card

Accidental tackle
When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent's head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle.
Minimum sanction: Penalty

 

[smartcooky]

"It was the first time an All Black had been sent off in 50 years, the first time it had ever happened at home. This says less about the morality of the men in black and more about the effect of an aura and the reluctance of referees to break it."

British sports media is really below par tripe on the best of days. Theyre really up there with the baddest of winners.

Yep.

That is a load of arrogant, sanctimonious claptrap, but its no more than I have come to expect from the arrogant, sanctimonious British Media. Morons one and all!!!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

SC, I think we've moved past quoting the rules, pretty sure everyone accepts what's happening as in line with the rules

People are taking about intent and malice on a personal level

And on a more general level, can we stop grouping everyone into groups based on where they're from?

Every time one of us says everyone from here or there thinks this or that people who haven't been involved up until that point gets offenened and piles on

Maybe if we want to disagree with someone we should call them out specifically rather than having at go at their race/creed/geographic location or the team they support

 

[smartcooky]

SC, I think we've moved past quoting the rules, pretty sure everyone accepts what's happening as in line with the rules

I haven't!

People are taking about intent and malice on a personal level

That's not how I'm reading it

And on a more general level, can we stop grouping everyone into groups based on where they're from?

Every time one of us says everyone from here or there thinks this or that people who haven't been involved up until that point gets offenened and piles on

Maybe if we want to disagree with someone we should call them out specifically rather than having at go at their race/creed/geographic location or the team they support

Stop brown-nosing. You're pathetic (there, I'm calling you out, see?)

This a rugby forum not a bloody child-care centre!

 

[Bluemoon]

Sean O'Brien has been cited for this

My take on this one is that it's all about the focus on any contact with the head which could be deemed a red card. Is that enough to trigger a citing?

I think it raises the interesting debate around ,not so much intent, but whether SOB was doing all he can to safeguard the attacking player whilst still allowing for the fact that it is a contact sport.

There in lies a grey area. How do you make a decision on that? Naholo ducks down, SOB use his swings his arm in. Do you go with bad and unlucky timing by both, or that SOB was dangerous in throwing his arm in like that in the first place? Hard to be objective here.

 

[galumay]

All elite players must surely realise that rugby at their level is no longer a game officiated by one referee who only gets one look from one angle at full speed.

Its an interesting point I was talking with a mate about after the game, its not just SBW or the 4 or so stupid choices made by players last night, its nearly every game you watch. The coach can only do so much with coaching the players about their on field decision making. We all know the rules about contact with the head, taking players in the air and other foul play. Also as players they not only know the rules but are well aware that the scrutiny of actions on field is much more comprehensive. Maybe team managements need to take more responsibility with disciplining players themselves who make really bad choices.

Its actually a life skill, and there are plenty of really hard and competitive players at the highest level who never make those bad choices so its pretty obvious its possible to modify ones behaviour. I have learnt in life that success is not so much governed by how many really good decisions you make, but more so how well you avoid the poor ones. I know I am drifting into philosophy and psychology but I suspect thats where the answers really lie.

 

[Skylinerd1]

My take on this one is that it's all about the focus on any contact with the head which could be deemed a red card. Is that enough to trigger a citing?

I think it raises the interesting debate around ,not so much intent, but whether SOB was doing all he can to safeguard the attacking player whilst still allowing for the fact that it is a contact sport.

There in lies a grey area. How do you make a decision on that? Naholo ducks down, SOB use his swings his arm in. Do you go with bad and unlucky timing by both, or that SOB was dangerous in throwing his arm in like that in the first place? Hard to be objective here.

I just dont think in this instance SOB had any business swinging an arm in there like that weather it was to get at the ball or not alot are assuming he was going for the ball and I guess we have to give him the benefit of the doubt but it looks pretty dodgy to me. The way Naholo was held and his grip on the ball theres no way he was gunna knock the ball out.

The attrition rate of AB's in the two matches in this series is a bit of a concern and almost all of them seem to be coming in these grey area plays where a player is either in the air or in the tackle and theres a collision.

Quite frankly if Naholo is out for the next game and SOB gets off I'l be pretty ****** off.

 

[Skylinerd1]

Its an interesting point I was talking with a mate about after the game, its not just SBW or the 4 or so stupid choices made by players last night, its nearly every game you watch. The coach can only do so much with coaching the players about their on field decision making. We all know the rules about contact with the head, taking players in the air and other foul play. Also as players they not only know the rules but are well aware that the scrutiny of actions on field is much more comprehensive. Maybe team managements need to take more responsibility with disciplining players themselves who make really bad choices.

Its actually a life skill, and there are plenty of really hard and competitive players at the highest level who never make those bad choices so its pretty obvious its possible to modify ones behaviour. I have learnt in life that success is not so much governed by how many really good decisions you make, but more so how well you avoid the poor ones. I know I am drifting into philosophy and psychology but I suspect thats where the answers really lie.

I think it would be interesting to do an anonymous player survey to see what they think of these rules. Obviously players like Mako, Teo, Franks or SBW will say they want shoulder charging back in the game (within reason im sure). I still think SBW was out to make a statement after the Teo tip tackle and I think he might of thought he may have gotten away with a sneaky one here and there but that one was just to blatant.

I dont care what the PC among us think I think they have gone to far with these Red card rulings. Red cards should be for absolute unjustified savage foul play. I personally dont think SBW was on that scale.

 

[Bluemoon]

I just dont think in this instance SOB had any business swinging an arm in there like that weather it was to get at the ball or not alot are assuming he was going for the ball and I guess we have to give him the benefit of the doubt but it looks pretty dodgy to me. The way Naholo was held and his grip on the ball theres no way he was gunna knock the ball out.

You see my point about being it being very difficult to be objective.

Going for the ball is the intent bit, it doesn't matter what he was intending to do in some ways. He quickly moved his arm in to the situation and caught the Naholo in the head, it wasn't in line with safeguarding the player, therefore it could be a ban. However, contact with the head happens all the time in the tackle and in the ruck by accident. The question is whether the player could have tried to avoid hitting the head, but then we are circling back to intent. It's no surprise hearings are so inconsistent as each area is so debatable.

 

[McTallshort]

Yep.

That is a load of arrogant, sanctimonious claptrap, but its no more than I have come to expect from the arrogant, sanctimonious British Media. Morons one and all!!!

Chris Rattue

 

[galumay]

I dont care what the PC among us think I think they have gone to far with these Red card rulings. Red cards should be for absolute unjustified savage foul play.

I think you are completely missing the point of the rules, they are simply about player safety and particularly protecting the head of players. There are plenty of contact sports where these sort of incidents simply dont occur and to dismiss it as "PC" is very naive. The telling thing is that even with the increased penalties for such offences, we are still seeing this sort of reckless contact with the head as happened a number of times in this game. We have seen a number of players both in rugby and diet rugby suffer terrible, long term brain damage from reckless tackles like these, do you really think its responsible for the game' administrators to ignore the potential repucussions on player's health and well being?

If anything the current situation suggests the sanctions need to be stronger if anything. As I said, it all comes down to player choices and some players are making very poor ones despite the increased sanctions.

 

[Bluemoon]

I think you are completely missing the point of the rules, they are simply about player safety and particularly protecting the head of players. There are plenty of contact sports where these sort of incidents simply dont occur and to dismiss it as "PC" is very naive. The telling thing is that even with the increased penalties for such offences, we are still seeing this sort of reckless contact with the head as happened a number of times in this game. We have seen a number of players both in rugby and diet rugby suffer terrible, long term brain damage from reckless tackles like these, do you really think its responsible for the game' administrators to ignore the potential repucussions on player's health and well being?

If anything the current situation suggests the sanctions need to be stronger if anything. As I said, it all comes down to player choices and some players are making very poor ones despite the increased sanctions.

Whilst I agree and the wellbeing and health of the players is paramount, it's about balancing it with the fact we play a collision sport. I assume everyone here has had some experience of playing, and some idea of how pace of the game impacts upon decision making and the need to act on instinct a lot of the time.

Player choices in very fast or pressured circumstances mean that there will always be accidents and automatic reactions that lead to uncontrolled contact. The brain isn't wired to be able think about every movement decision the body makes, particularly in stressful situations for the brain. If someone throws something at you in a room, you have an automatic reaction. If you touch a hot plate you quickly move your hand without thinking. There can also be a mix of conscious and automatic reactions. Certain instinctive reactions are not a completely conscious choice. Again the really hard part is judging whether a player was able to make a choice or not in the context they were in.

I fully believe SBW didn't choose to hit Watson in the head because he reacted instinctively to go into the tackle. The lack of arms and the leading of the shoulder was a choice for me, therefore a red.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40472057

SOB has been cited for his swinging arm making contact with Naholo's head.

 

[Ground We Won]

"It was the first time an All Black had been sent off in 50 years, the first time it had ever happened at home. This says less about the morality of the men in black and more about the effect of an aura and the reluctance of referees to break it.

Who the bloody hell wrote that?

The Lions have been lucky not to receive red cards this series themselves.

 

[Skylinerd1]

I think you are completely missing the point of the rules, they are simply about player safety and particularly protecting the head of players. There are plenty of contact sports where these sort of incidents simply dont occur and to dismiss it as "PC" is very naive. The telling thing is that even with the increased penalties for such offences, we are still seeing this sort of reckless contact with the head as happened a number of times in this game. We have seen a number of players both in rugby and diet rugby suffer terrible, long term brain damage from reckless tackles like these, do you really think its responsible for the game' administrators to ignore the potential repucussions on player's health and well being?

If anything the current situation suggests the sanctions need to be stronger if anything. As I said, it all comes down to player choices and some players are making very poor ones despite the increased sanctions.

Exactly, the rule changes have done NOTHING other than practically criminalize the players. These incidents happen and will always happen. The slow mo and camera angles killing some players and not others is another major problem. IMO it should be mandatory say for SBW incident that the slo mo has to be played after the incident at original speed atleast once. Replaying a slo mo of these incidents 10 times does not give as true a picture as some might think and can make certain things appear worse than they are with the crowd going bezerk.

A red card for what SBW did imo is over the top in any major match of rugby. I still think they had it close to right when they had yellows and then citings and no such thing as red cards. Reds are being overused. Not saying there isnt a place for Reds I just dont think this should be the case for one. The only good thing to come out of the whole thing is it has made this particular series interesting and imo its a pretty **** way of making up for a team thats clearly out of their depth. Next time something like this happens it wont be in a test series and will ruin the game as it always does. It was hard to watch atleast half of this match after the send off as it just didnt have the same feeling about it.