Is it time to review the whole cards and sanctions issue?

by TJ Sun 19 Mar - 22:30

To me it is. the row over Stewards red which seems to me to be pretty cast iron under the laws and guidance but hellish harsh for what clearly was accidental / a poor split second decision highlights this. So many cards now and sometimes what is a clear red under the laws seems very harsh in the circumstances

I think its time to go to 3 levels of cards.

Yellow - same as now. I have no issues.

then a "orange" card that would be given for the dangerous but accidental things like Stewards. The team plays 20 mins a player down but then a substitute but not the offending player can come on

Red card for the deliberate foul play - the shoulder charge to the head, the trip, the tip and drive tackle, straight arm tackles etc. Sent off and th eteam plays th erest of the game a man down

It would mean the ref would have to make a subjective judgement call on whether it was deliberate or not which might be tricky

thoughts?

I also wonder about with yellow cards playing them like ice hockey in that the suspension period ends when a certain number of points has been scored or 10 mins whichever is sooner

by Heaf Sun 19 Mar - 23:52

Without thinking it through too much I think I'd stick with the 20 minute version with a replacement and leave the hearing to deal with tricky subjective stuff with longer bans for deliberate etc ... put more punishment on the offending player than the team and paying punters. Maybe also let the offended against team put a previously subbed player back on if required.

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 20 Mar - 0:44

The Times says the RFU may look to have Steward's card rescinded.

While it might not be a good move for the player, as punishment is usually lighter if you don't challenge decision, it would be probably be good for the game. In the ITV studio, Rory Best and BOD had no doubts it was red, and neither has a reputation for being one-eyed. And yet, there are a number of reasonable voices taking the other side too.

A surprising one, is the Irish sports lawyer, Tim O'Connor, who is a strong advocate of harsher penalties for head contact. He thinks the decision was wrong, as penalties are designed to improve player behaviour, and Stewards's red does the opposite. He tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1637167013461209089

I am not exactly averse to the liberal use of the black cap on head contact and it suits my team down to the ground, but I think this is an actively bad decision because it creates a perverse incentive.

First, Steward does not jump. 100kg moving at speed doesn’t just stop. There’s momentum when you suddenly stop the forward impulse. Second, more crucially: there is nowhere to go. When Keenan goes that low, that close, as he’s entitled to do, going straight on means head contact.

Note the Head Contact Protocol recognises this [his tweet includes an image]. No time to adjust, significant drop in height, and attempts to avoid. That is because what the HCP aims for is behavioural change; to create an incentive structure to choose to avoid the dangerous and avoidable. It is not pure strict liability.

The problem in a case such as this is that there is only one option that might avoid head contact: bail out, turn aside and hope he steps you. Go straight on, you’re upright and making head contact by choosing the more dangerous choice (hitting his head square with your hip).

What you then want is the player to try to choose the less-dangerous option. That’s the behavioural incentive. You reward that choice with mitigation. If there is no mitigation, there is no incentive in that split-second to try to bail out and avoid.

If it’s red if you bail out and red if you don’t, what’s your incentive if you’re going off anyway, faced with one of their best players? Any rugby player there has ever been knows the answer to that: might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, so hit him full-blast.

That, then, is the perverse incentive: by failing to recognise the incentives in the HCP to drive behaviour change, you are actively incentivising the exact behaviour you want to get rid of - “If I’m going off, you’re coming with me.” Hence my view: this is *not* helpful.

And I would add: if we give this a red but let slide the sort of “passive”, just-standing-here-while-your-face-runs-into-my-head-or-shoulder tackles, we’re getting our incentive structure wrong if we want to change behaviour. And it’s not “want to”; we *have to*.

You can see a reply from Gordon D'Arcy, disagreeing with O'Connor, and O'Connor referring him to the text of the HCP.

A disciplinary panel decision supporting, or rescinding, the card might help officials and players understand their obligations under the law in a situation like this.

Then again, speaking to your wider point, we've seen other red cards rescinded in recent years, and they haven't really improved understanding. A quick google check shows red cards get overturned more often than I thought:

Marika Koroibete - July 2021 (Aus vs Fra)
Jordie Barrett - September 2021 (NZ vs Aus)
Gary Graham - April 2022 (Prem)
Sazi Sandi - October 2022 (URC)
Cian Healy - December 2022 (URC)
Ben Earl - December 2022 (Prem)
Henry Slade - January 2023 (Champions Cup)
Robin Hislop - March 2023 (Prem)

A red card influencing a World Cup game, only to be rescinded afterwards, would be a terrible look for a sport which already shoots itself in the foot too often. World Rugby can't afford to be too light on head contact, so perhaps some changes along the lines of your suggestions, would provide a small measure of insurance against red cards which are later overturned.

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 6:15

I do not agree with O'Conner. Steward did jump and to avoid a red card all he had to do was put his arms out - then its an attempt at a legal tackle and mitigation can apply. With him turning and tucking his arms it is not an attempt at a legal tackle so mitigation cannot apply.

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 6:37

I have seen discussed ( trialed in the SH?) that every card is initially a yellow and during the ten mins the TMO checks it again and upgrades to red if needed

the problem with that for the Steward incident is I can see no way that it could be a yellow under the laws as when there is no attempt at a legal tackle then mitigation cannot be applied. So with Steward its either "rugby incident play on" or "illegal tackle, high degree of danger, no mitigation applied, red card" I just do not see how it can be a yellow under the laws.

by mountain man Mon 20 Mar - 8:11

I thought Best and O'Driscoll were ridicuously over the top. If you hadn't seen incident you'd swear Steward had ran full speed and shoulder charged Keenan in face on purpose.
Very disappointed by them and I'm afraid they showed their very evident bias.

On R4 just now Keith Wood says not even a penalty, his opinion was purely a rugby incident.

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 20 Mar - 8:53

TJ wrote:...So with Steward its either "rugby incident play on" or "illegal tackle, high degree of danger, no mitigation applied, red card" I just do not see how it can be a yellow under the laws...

This came up on the BBC podcast with Sam Warburton and John Barclay joining hosts Ugo Monye and Chris Jones. None of four thought it was a red card offence. Monye was inclined to see it as only a rugby incident but added he "could be talked into a yellow". However, either Monye himself, or one of the others, pointed out it was hard to end up at yellow. (From his tweet comments above, Tim O'Connor would obviously disagree, as he says the HCP provides the text to justify mitigation in this case). Warburton said he would have tried to get in Peyper's ear before the TMO call, as it's hard to get heard once that conversation starts. John Barclay doubted whether captains have any real influence these days, saying the officiating group likes to seal itself off from players when making decisions like this. Barclay pointed out the way Jamie Ritchie couldn't get a word in with Luke Pearce.

The Breakdown show in NZ (available as podcast, and on YouTube) also looked at the incident. Again, none of their panel thought it warranted a red card. Their main focus, though, was trying to work out what action or law tweaks would have led to a better outcome. Short discussion starts at the 41:30 mark.

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 9:14

Tim O'Connor would obviously disagree, as he says the HCP provides the text to justify mitigation in this case)

He would be wrong. laws are clear. Mitigation can only be applied if there is an attempt at a legal tackle. This incident is not that. Its either a no arms tackle or a rugby incident. No sanction at all or red card are the only options

yes a yellow would have been fair perhaps - but thats not possible in the laws and decision making framework fort this incident

by Pete330v2 Mon 20 Mar - 9:20

Tim O'Connor's comments are inaccurate from the off. If Steward didn't jump then how come he was in the air? Can he levitate? OK we'll say he levitated. He still led into the tackle area with his hips and elbow. He had eyes on Keenan through the entire incident so for me, he know what he was doing but misjudged Keenan's height which led to head contact.
The fact remains that when there's head contact it's either foul play or not. If not then play on, get over it even if Keenan has to be removed from play. If there is foul play and in this case I firmly believe there was then a sanction is needed. Unfortunately for Steward there could be no way this could be talked down to a yellow. There is no mitigation for jumping into a tackle area in that way. If he'd not meant to tackle Keenan there were other choices he could have taken other than jumping into Keenan in the manner he did. It was careless and clumsy but sometimes, unfortunately, careless and clumsy gets you sent off. A lack if maliciousness and intent means nothing (although I do believe there was intent in this case) and whether it was an accident or not means nothing.

by mountain man Mon 20 Mar - 9:32

A lack if maliciousness and intent means nothing (although I do believe there was intent in this case)

You believe there was intent? Intent to do what exactly and how have you come to that conclusion? So you think there was intent for Steward to hit Keenan in the head, is that it?

by formerly known as Sam Mon 20 Mar - 9:44

https://twitter.com/neilfissler/status/1637440378319122434?s=19

I've posted this elsewhere already. Keenan initiates the contact after a knock on. It is reasonable for the players to expect the whistle to go. Keenan isn't intending to barrell into Steward and Steward has already stopped before bracing for impact.

It quite clearly comes under involuntary collision which is clearly covered in the laws and is play on. That part of the law is included to cover situations exactly like this. Steward's arm is not high, he's not moving to intentionally towards Keenan. It was really poor officiating and if the roles were reversed then the Irish media and public would be out for blood.

I'd say Keith Wood is actually entirely correct, by the letter of the law.

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 9:46

Lets discuss the overall issue not the Steward incident

by Pete330v2 Mon 20 Mar - 9:48

mountain man wrote:
A lack if maliciousness and intent means nothing (although I do believe there was intent in this case)

You believe there was intent? Intent to do what exactly and how have you come to that conclusion? So you think there was intent for Steward to hit Keenan in the head, is that it?

Yes I think there was intent, it's just an opinion rightly or wrongly so untwist your knickers.

Fristly:
What should Steward have done to avoid a collision and possible sanction?
1. Definately do not jump into contact turning your body to smash into the oncoming player with your hips.
2. Make an attempt to legally make contact with a tackle.
3. Pull up, hold your hands in the air and try to avoid the contact.

So in answer to your question, yes I believe there was intent as there were eyes on the entire time. Yes I believe he fully intended to body-check Keenan with some force but no I don't believe he intended to smash into Keenan's face with his elbow. His intent was clumsy and as Woodward said, to the letter of the law a red card. Officials can only make their judgements to the letter of the law, there are no 'buts' or 'ifs' when a player has to be removed from a game through head injury due to the carelessness and recklessness of another player.

by doctor_grey Mon 20 Mar - 9:49

mountain man wrote:
A lack if maliciousness and intent means nothing (although I do believe there was intent in this case)

You believe there was intent? Intent to do what exactly and how have you come to that conclusion? So you think there was intent for Steward to hit Keenan in the head, is that it?

A couple of points: Firstly, if we all see this differently, how difficult it has to be for a referee to make a decision with 80,000 noisy people in the crowd plus millions on tv in a matter of moments? And, again as we see here the referee is already wrong, too.

I am not sure how anyone can see intent in this play. Steward clearly screwed up and was looking at the ball carrier and not the dude outside him, which would have been his man and the right play. Only when he sees he messed up and with the ball on the ground he appears to realise he is in the wrong place, appeared to try to check his movements and essentially froze and tried to gird for the contact.
O'Connor, whom I generally don't care for, to me, actually got this right - and he is right the laws are there tp change behaviours. I think the attention and sanctions regarding head trauma have improved the safety of Rugby significantly (not truly quantifiable because of the under reporting in the past). But we seem to struggle with tackling techniques of people like Farrell and Biggar who still seem to stand up when tackling. And we cannot eliminate mistakes, for lack of a better term.

By rule Steward's contact was a red. Assuming this thread is whether the referees should (*do?) have the latitude to look at a play and apply context, then that is a god idea for me. Though to be fair to the referees, just look at this thread and no matter what, the referee will be wrong with some people, perhaps stridently so. Is it fair to pile more pressure on the referees?

by TAFKA The Oracle Mon 20 Mar - 10:20

I wonder if we should sanction players for putting their heads in the wrong place too?! I jest, but the more I think about it the more i wonder if more should be done to discourage players potentially doing themselves a mischief. E.g. I know it's probably human nature to a certain extent, but we often see players running into contact bent at the hips with the ball and arms tucked in to the belly and the head leading and exposed. I'm thinking specifically when players are looking to dive over from close to the line or when they've been popped a low pass. The opposition player then needs to get lower than that to make a fair and legal tackle. Should the attacking player not be discouraged more from leading with his head?

by dummy_half Mon 20 Mar - 10:34

I think there were a couple of issues to consider with the Steward incident:
1 - The TMO review focussed on the slow motion, which tends to make incidents look worse in giving the impression that there was more time for the player to react. Looked at in real time, it's more obvious that Steward is trying to avoid a significant impact.
2 - There seemed to be a lack of consideration by the officials that the attacking play had gone wrong, meaning Keanan was not in the position that Steward was anticipating. Should be included within the scope of mitigation (actually should be with regards to change of direction and height, which I think the TMO ignored; at the point of contact Keanan's head was barely above Steward's waist).

by No 7&1/2 Mon 20 Mar - 10:47

TJ wrote:
Tim O'Connor would obviously disagree, as he says the HCP provides the text to justify mitigation in this case)

He would be wrong. laws are clear. Mitigation can only be applied if there is an attempt at a legal tackle. This incident is not that. Its either a no arms tackle or a rugby incident. No sanction at all or red card are the only options

yes a yellow would have been fair perhaps - but thats not possible in the laws and decision making framework fort this incident

You just keep ignoring the actual laws though.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 20 Mar - 10:52

I have a feeling this is going to go the same way as the match thread...........

by mountain man Mon 20 Mar - 11:09

get it locked.

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 11:18

No 7&1/2 wrote:
TJ wrote:
Tim O'Connor would obviously disagree, as he says the HCP provides the text to justify mitigation in this case)

He would be wrong. laws are clear. Mitigation can only be applied if there is an attempt at a legal tackle. This incident is not that. Its either a no arms tackle or a rugby incident. No sanction at all or red card are the only options

yes a yellow would have been fair perhaps - but thats not possible in the laws and decision making framework fort this incident

You just keep ignoring the actual laws though.

You keep repeating that (probably heard it on the TV?) but that's not what the laws actually say? And it wasn't an attempt at a tackle anyway ...

by thebandwagonsociety Mon 20 Mar - 11:22

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I have a feeling this is going to go the same way as the match thread...........

I think you're probably correct.
A lot of passion around the issue, which just shows that people care about the game.

To throw a cat amongst the pigeons a bit. Rugby has laws, not rules. They are meant to be interpreted by the referee. In a drive to distill a law into a black & white checklist, you remove (or at the least severely limit) from the referee the ability to interpret. The amount of times a referee is apologising to a player as they are giving a red card shows how limited their authority to interpret the laws has become.

The fans, the players, the journo's et al (the mob) have eroded an officials ability to bring their judgement to the pitch and call things in the spirit of the game and interpret the rules. We question every call made. So congratulations to me and everyone around me, because checklist derived calls are the eventual result.

Over two days, there were two red cards for English players. Steward by the 'checklist' was a red (...not a legitimate tackle... elbow contacts head..... trouble), when everyone really knows it's probably too harsh.
While the second red card, by the checklist, should have been a yellow (... tackler tipped player above horizontal..... player lands on back/side.... you even had the TMO going through the checklist to try and make it a yellow), but that referee stepped away from the checklist and called the incident as he saw it, giving out a red card.

by Pete330v2 Mon 20 Mar - 11:32

I think Carpet Baboon says it best on the other thread which has been locked.

I think some people are missing the fact that the whistle hadn't been blown.
Play was still live, and Steward did not attempt to tackle or play the ball, but he did through his actions make contact with his elbow to the head of a player who was in fact playing to the whistle.
Was that his intention? No it wasn't.
Was it a conspiracy between the SH ref and TMO? Again no it wasn't.
Should it have been a yellow? Possibly
Should it have been waved off as a Rugby Incident? No

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 11:37

Heaf wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
TJ wrote:
Tim O'Connor would obviously disagree, as he says the HCP provides the text to justify mitigation in this case)

He would be wrong. laws are clear. Mitigation can only be applied if there is an attempt at a legal tackle. This incident is not that. Its either a no arms tackle or a rugby incident. No sanction at all or red card are the only options

yes a yellow would have been fair perhaps - but thats not possible in the laws and decision making framework fort this incident

You just keep ignoring the actual laws though.

You keep repeating that (probably heard it on the TV?) but that's not what the laws actually say? And it wasn't an attempt at a tackle anyway ...

I put the procedure up - it makes it quite clear that only if there is an attempt at a legal tackle can mitigation be appplied

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 11:42

Still an involuntary collision between two moving players for me ...

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 11:44

TJ wrote:
Heaf wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
TJ wrote:
Tim O'Connor would obviously disagree, as he says the HCP provides the text to justify mitigation in this case)

He would be wrong. laws are clear. Mitigation can only be applied if there is an attempt at a legal tackle. This incident is not that. Its either a no arms tackle or a rugby incident. No sanction at all or red card are the only options

yes a yellow would have been fair perhaps - but thats not possible in the laws and decision making framework fort this incident

You just keep ignoring the actual laws though.

You keep repeating that (probably heard it on the TV?) but that's not what the laws actually say? And it wasn't an attempt at a tackle anyway ...

I put the procedure up - it makes it quite clear that only if there is an attempt at a legal tackle can mitigation be appplied

I'm looking at this https://twitter.com/neilfissler/status/1637440378319122434?s=19 one - do you have a different link?

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 12:11

Thats a part of it and only a part missing the important first steps. I'll see if I can find it again

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 12:15

Here you go
https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2021/03/10/e597c9c8-e852-4e19-875f-18e02e7f7e24/Head_Contact_Process_EN_v1.pdf

Note the part in red on the first page:
Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play.

When yo hear the refs running thru this they use phrases like " attempt at a wrap" for tackles ie did they lead with the shoulder / elbow or were the hands out

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 12:19

The critical question on the Steward tackle is the second one "was there foul play?" If yo answer yes to that then Red becomes the only option. In the refs view the jump and turn towards Keenan with arms down by his sides made it foul play as it was highly reckless

Edit - for judging degree of danger:

High danger
• Direct contact
• Lack of control
• High speed
• Upright and dynamic
• Leading head / shoulder / elbow / forearm
• Swinging arm
• No mitigation for intentional or highly reckless act
of foul play

so on that criteria it can only be red.

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 12:24

OK so the "attempt at a legal tackle" is someone's interpretation - doesn't actually say anything like that that in the laws?

So in Steward's case it's a subjective opinion on whether it was an "involuntary collision" or "intentional or highly reckless act of foul play"

by carpet baboon Mon 20 Mar - 12:32

Pete330v2 wrote:I think Carpet Baboon says it best on the other thread which has been locked.

I think some people are missing the fact that the whistle hadn't been blown.
Play was still live, and Steward did not attempt to tackle or play the ball, but he did through his actions make contact with his elbow to the head of a player who was in fact playing to the whistle.
Was that his intention? No it wasn't.
Was it a conspiracy between the SH ref and TMO? Again no it wasn't.
Should it have been a yellow? Possibly
Should it have been waved off as a Rugby Incident? No

Aaahhhh shucks Pete I'm all embarrassed now

by No 7&1/2 Mon 20 Mar - 12:33

Heaf wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
TJ wrote:
Tim O'Connor would obviously disagree, as he says the HCP provides the text to justify mitigation in this case)

He would be wrong. laws are clear. Mitigation can only be applied if there is an attempt at a legal tackle. This incident is not that. Its either a no arms tackle or a rugby incident. No sanction at all or red card are the only options

yes a yellow would have been fair perhaps - but thats not possible in the laws and decision making framework fort this incident

You just keep ignoring the actual laws though.

You keep repeating that (probably heard it on the TV?) but that's not what the laws actually say? And it wasn't an attempt at a tackle anyway ...

Me? Sam has posted the link.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 20 Mar - 12:35

I don't get why people get defensive when talking about decisions. The result won't change, there were plenty more errors in the game. There is no need to pretend it was a good decision to somehow justify the result.

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 12:38

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Heaf wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
TJ wrote:
Tim O'Connor would obviously disagree, as he says the HCP provides the text to justify mitigation in this case)

He would be wrong. laws are clear. Mitigation can only be applied if there is an attempt at a legal tackle. This incident is not that. Its either a no arms tackle or a rugby incident. No sanction at all or red card are the only options

yes a yellow would have been fair perhaps - but thats not possible in the laws and decision making framework fort this incident

You just keep ignoring the actual laws though.

You keep repeating that (probably heard it on the TV?) but that's not what the laws actually say? And it wasn't an attempt at a tackle anyway ...

Me? Sam has posted the link.

Sorry 7.5 - I used your reply to reply to TJ - sorry for the confusion ...

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 12:39

Heaf wrote:OK so the "attempt at a legal tackle" is someone's interpretation - doesn't actually say anything like that that in the laws?

So in Steward's case it's a subjective opinion on whether it was an "involuntary collision" or "intentional or highly reckless act of foul play"

Yes. the guidance does not form a part of the laws to be pedantic. ONce you decide ( in Stewards case) its reckless then the rest follows

The "attempt at a wrap" is the way of deciding "leading with head / elbow / shoulder"

by No name Bertie Mon 20 Mar - 12:42

Is it time to review the whole cards and sanctions issue?

The answer is yes - there is enough debate and difference of opinion to warrant some sort of review, assessment and suggestions moving forward. I liked the Tim O'Connor thoughts for discussion - I don't know whether it 100% applies to this situation (some debate as to whether he jumped or did not jump or did something in between) but last moment attempts to avoid some particular type of likely painful and damaging collision seems worthy of assessment. At some point the body goes in self-protection mode.

ps: ultimately professional sports is part of the entertainment business and it is through its entertainment value that it is able to bring in money to pay for everyone involved. As always a balance must be had between playe safety and the fact this is part of the entertainment business.

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 12:43

Also in the link:

The process can be applied to:
• High tackles - NOPE
• Shoulder charges - NOPE
• Dangerous cleanouts - NOPE
• Head-to-head collisions - NOPE
• Leading elbow / forearm - NOPE (see below)

No fault
• Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier • Player had no time to readjust
• Passive action
• Involuntary collision
• No leading arm when close to the body

by Sharkey06 Mon 20 Mar - 12:44

In a contact sport there are surely going to be decisions and interpretations of the law which are not black or white? I would put Steward's red card in the grey category - for some people it was red and for others it was 2 players unavoidably colliding. If all the rules were applied to the 'letter of the law' with no common sense we would presumably be looking at multiple red cards every game and effectively the end of the game.

by Pete330v2 Mon 20 Mar - 12:44

Heaf wrote:OK so the "attempt at a legal tackle" is someone's interpretation - doesn't actually say anything like that that in the laws?

So in Steward's case it's a subjective opinion on whether it was an "involuntary collision" or "intentional or highly reckless act of foul play"

Intention has no bearing on the judgement, the most important decision that the act is reckless can be made entirely objectively.
Was it a reckless act? Yes.
Was it intentional? Hope not but you've need to ask Steward that one.

As TJ has said repeatedly, if the ref decides that there has been foul play unfortunately in this case there can only he one outcome as mitigation doesn't even come into it.

Was it the right decision? We will all differ but as a passionate Irish fan I can assure you I didn't want him sent off. However, if he hadn't been sent off social media would still be imploding because there was a genuine head injury in this incident that simply cannot and should not be ignored. Peyper would have had even more negative press fired in his direction if he had just played on with an English scrum whilst Keenan was being led off to fail a head injury assessment. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't but to err on the side of player welfare is always the right call.

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 12:45

TJ wrote:
Heaf wrote:OK so the "attempt at a legal tackle" is someone's interpretation - doesn't actually say anything like that that in the laws?

So in Steward's case it's a subjective opinion on whether it was an "involuntary collision" or "intentional or highly reckless act of foul play"

Yes. the guidance does not form a part of the laws to be pedantic. ONce you decide ( in Stewards case) its reckless then the rest follows

The "attempt at a wrap" is the way of deciding "leading with head / elbow / shoulder"

But I'm not seeing the wording "attempt at a legal tackle" anywhere in the guidance even?

by TJ Mon 20 Mar - 12:45

so what do you guys think about the 3 card idea? Can we move on from discussing the Steward incident?

The problem with the 3 card idea is it means another subjective judgement but it would allow some differentiation between the reckless and the deliberate

by No name Bertie Mon 20 Mar - 12:55

I like the two card + review idea a) yellow and b) 20 minutes with a different player coming on. c) Case reviewed and if intentional etc further penalties applied to that player.

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 12:55

Pete330v2 wrote:
Heaf wrote:OK so the "attempt at a legal tackle" is someone's interpretation - doesn't actually say anything like that that in the laws?

So in Steward's case it's a subjective opinion on whether it was an "involuntary collision" or "intentional or highly reckless act of foul play"

Intention has no bearing on the judgement, the most important decision that the act is reckless can be made entirely objectively.
Was it a reckless act? Yes.
Was it intentional? Hope not but you've need to ask Steward that one.

As TJ has said repeatedly, if the ref decides that there has been foul play unfortunately in this case there can only he one outcome as mitigation doesn't even come into it.

Was it the right decision? We will all differ but as a passionate Irish fan I can assure you I didn't want him sent off. However, if he hadn't been sent off social media would still be imploding because there was a genuine head injury in this incident that simply cannot and should not be ignored. Peyper would have had even more negative press fired in his direction if he had just played on with an English scrum whilst Keenan was being led off to fail a head injury assessment. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't but to err on the side of player welfare is always the right call.

Intentional is not my wording - that's a direct lift from the guideline - although I agree with you that I'm unsure how you judge intent in most cases. It also says "highly" reckless - which is again subjective, not objective. Basically it's a bit of a buggers muddle. If it's all so crystal clear how did Ryan escape any sanction at all for a shoulder to the face of Ludlam - that seemed to tick pretty much all the boxes for a card? Leading shoulder, foul play, direct head contact etc ....

by Duty281 Mon 20 Mar - 12:56

No to three cards. It just further confuses things and adds another layer for officials to deal with - and officials are currently struggling with the present layers.

You either have a system of permanent reds or 20 minute reds, but not both.

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 12:58

No name Bertie wrote:I like the two card + review idea a) yellow and b) 20 minutes with a different player coming on. c) Case reviewed and if intentional etc further penalties applied to that player.

Yep I'd go with that - too many issues trying to decide between two cards now, let alone 3 with subjective decisions to be made on the field - leave that bit to the panel afterwards

by carpet baboon Mon 20 Mar - 14:37

There is one thing we could do it's a bit far out so I understand some won't agree at all but......

We could accept that the whole game day officials are as capable of making mistakes as any of us, and are doing an incredibly hard job in a very fast moving environment, and therefore just accept that sometimes we don't get calls we think we should, and other times we get dicisions we shouldn't.

I know it's a bit of a wild one but I think it may just work

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 15:03

Fair point - and accepting mistakes are going to be made it probably supports attempts to mitigate the impact of any mistakes with some of the alternatives suggested?

I've always thought if we're trying to change behaviour then the offending players should be the ones suffering the consequences of their actions - maybe with longer bans - rather than impacting the teams and supporters.

by dummy_half Mon 20 Mar - 15:32

carpet baboon wrote:There is one thing we could do it's a bit far out so I understand some won't agree at all but......

We could accept that the whole game day officials are as capable of making mistakes as any of us, and are doing an incredibly hard job in a very fast moving environment, and therefore just accept that sometimes we don't get calls we think we should, and other times we get dicisions we shouldn't.

I know it's a bit of a wild one but I think it may just work

I have plenty of sympathy for the on field officials - only so many pairs of eyes on the game, with things happening at speed and often amongst a tangle of limbs. I have less sympathy for the Video Referee making a glaring error. While much of this discussion has centered on the Steward incident (which I don't think was a glaring error, more a question of interpretation of the level of rixk), there have been incidents like the Ireland try v France where the player was clearly in touch (and I recall one from years ago where Johnny Wilkinson was gifted a try when similarly in touch). Also, some high tackles have been subject to intense scrutiny while others not (apparently) looked at.

by carpet baboon Mon 20 Mar - 16:40

Heaf wrote:Fair point - and accepting mistakes are going to be made it probably supports attempts to mitigate the impact of any mistakes with some of the alternatives suggested?

I've always thought if we're trying to change behaviour then the offending players should be the ones suffering the consequences of their actions - maybe with longer bans - rather than impacting the teams and supporters.

I agree that the offending player needs to the one who suffers, but I also see why the team should also, as it's a team game, and, as a wise man once said to me, "what you permit you promote"
If you pick players who aren't willing to change there actions then maybe the team should suffer.

I do genuinely feel bad when a red is used and you can see it's not intentional but as has been said we can't judge intent.

But that's just me and I can see the merit of some of the suggestions, but I think some would just make what is a complicated game even more complicated

by Heaf Mon 20 Mar - 16:54

But any players who aren't willing to change will inevitably pick up bans, and if you hand out longer bans to the repeat offenders they won't be as available to be picked anyway?

by mountain man Mon 20 Mar - 17:31

carpet baboon wrote:There is one thing we could do it's a bit far out so I understand some won't agree at all but......

We could accept that the whole game day officials are as capable of making mistakes as any of us, and are doing an incredibly hard job in a very fast moving environment, and therefore just accept that sometimes we don't get calls we think we should, and other times we get dicisions we shouldn't.

I know it's a bit of a wild one but I think it may just work

In that case why bother with a TMO? Why then wasn't Ryan shoulder charging Ludlam at ruck even looked at?

I rather suspect as was said on BBC Rugby Union podcast if Steward/Keenan incident was reversed and Keenan controversely sent off and denied Ireland GS then you might look at things a bit differently.

by Sponsored content