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

by TJ Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:30 pm

First topic message reminder :

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 carpet baboon Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:09 pm

Heaf wrote: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?

Good point

by carpet baboon Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:18 pm

mountain man wrote:
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.

Feel free to trawl through all my posts, and I'm pretty sure that players for both Ulster and Ireland have been yellow and red carded, and cost us games and I think you will find I have never blamed ref or TMO of bias.

In fact when some of my Irish compatriots were accusing Barnes of being out to get us I was one of the ones saying he wasn't and it was the team that didn't adjust to the way he reffed.

You may not agree with all the calls but to claim that the ref, assistant or TMO are purposely not giving you/ giving only calls against you is just ridiculous.

And when you claim that is the case any other more valid points you may have just get looked over.

That's how I see it anyway

by doctor_grey Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:10 pm

Sharkey06 wrote: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.

Whoa, mate. Don't dump this sh!t on me! Don't put this in my category, I have enough issues deciding whether I am splinting someone's finger or his willy johnson. I'll probably just amputate anyway. Saves so much time.

I get why the Steward card causes some ruckus. I don't recall who said it here (I ain't as young as I used to be), but, I agree the referees and a lot of other people want this in b/w. Life ain't that way and is full of shades of....erm...shades of somewhere between off-white and dusk. And makes interpretations different.

I also understand why the red for Steward was given - the ref was crystal clear - though I think it is wrong. As soon as I saw the replay I thought Steward was done for the day. But Keenan didn't want contact there because he was picking up the ball and trying to figure out what to do next. Steward clearly didn't want the contact because he was turning his back, and that was a classic involuntary avoidance response. So what to do.

Here is some context which I always find amusing. The NFL has one zillion officials at each game, each with very specific assignments to watch. And they have one zillion camera angles, to boot. And they still miss some calls and get others wrong. We can't expect a single ref to get it right all the time - especially on those days when the TMO appears to be on the sauce. But we have to empower them to use laws and temper them with judgement. I think some dude named Moses said that - I wasn't there but I read it in a book. So let it be written.....

by eirebilly_01 Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:26 am

Well, that was some 6N and i am only just back to life now after a heavy weekend.

On the Steward Red Card, I am not fully understanding of the laws and how they are interpreted but my view is:

I am not sure that Steward could do much more than what he did, watching in real time he had zero time to react differently. I think his reaction was purely instinctive so I felt the Red Card was very harsh. Watching in slow motion replays does not tell the correct story for me. If the shoe was on the other foot, I am pretty sure I would feel the same and think it was a harsh Red Card for an Irish player and I would not be happy with the sending off. So, for me, this is more of an accidental collision and play on with no sanction (as said, not fully aware of the laws and how to interoperate them) which is my view correctly or incorrectly.

I also feel that Bundee Aki was incredibly lucky not to have been pulled during the game or have a TMO intervention as I think he could quite easily have seen a Red Card.

All that said, I personally feel that the laws need to have a review as it appears (basing on comments here and disagreements from experienced pundits) that they are not as clear cut as they possibly should be.

by Recwatcher16 Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:08 am

I too thought Aki's hit was worse than Ryan's and that is saying something.
The wider trend for me is that it doesnt matter whether it is Dublin, Cardiff or Murrayfield, English players don't get the same consistent level of protection by SH refs and by the same token, the crowd sees something from an english player and the ref reacts accordingly. Curiously it doesn't seem to happen in either Paris or Rome.

I remember a few years back in Cardiff Moriarty making a fantastic tackle on Farrell who got smashed to the ground, only problem it was about 5 minutes late off the ball. The Welsh commentators just laughed it off, mainly because somehow Farrell got back up on his feet - and didn't remonstrate the ref.

To demonstrate the nonsense Steward incident perhaps Kinghorn should have been red carded for the reckless using of his hipbone with massive momentum as he ran into and smashed Ringrose's head, who was out cold before he hit the ground.

No-one one that I can see has mentioned why Keenan having shaped to kick then lurched to pick up the ball anyway, given he would have seen it had travelled forward in that millisecond instance, which ultimately created the scenario and Steward gets the blame. Frustrating.
Unsurprisingly I see there are no citings and Stewards disciplinary hearing and subsequent ban should be interesting.

by mountain man Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:43 am

carpet baboon wrote:You may not agree with all the calls but to claim that the ref, assistant or TMO are purposely not giving you/ giving only calls against you is just ridiculous.

I haven't said this! However you haven't given opinion on Ryan smashing into Ludlam which is what I asked.

You seem to think we should blindly accept refs and TMO decisions, why is there a forum to discuss such matters then? Why do so many respected pundits disagree with Steward red, eg Heaslip, Wood, Warburton, Barclay. None of those are English by the way.
Are you saying they shouldn't have say on matter?

by Heaf Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:29 am

Actually in Jonker's case it's difficult to see how it's not clear bias (even if not conscious) as there is so much previous and at least one example (Eng v Aus) where it can't be explained away as a genuine mistake, as nobody seeing what was on screen in front of him could possibly come to the conclusion he did - including the ref who clearly couldn't believe what his TMO had told him when he looked for himself.

And contrary to what has been suggested before, it's not my bias against Jonker that's coloured my view of his history, it's his history that has created my view of him.

by Pete330v2 Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:15 pm

Can someone point me to the Bundi incident that could have been a red card. I can't recall it and I've not had a chance to watch it again.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:48 am

I've heard and seen quite a few takes from the pundit class now. The split isn't entirely Irish vs non-Irish. Tom Shanklin, for instance, says he came round to the idea that red was the right decision, while Alan Quinlan suggested yellow might have been a fairer outcome.

On the Times podcast, Alan Dymock says he spoke off the record with current elite officials, and they mostly told him Peyper had no real choice but to give a red. They explained that World Rugby has become very hard on referees who stray from their guidelines.

As everyone wants to be selected to officiate big games at the World Cup, referees are heavily incentivised to stick to the script. Dymock's contacts seem to be implying that Peyper would have had to use discretion not to award a red, which would have risked getting on the wrong side of World Rugby assessors. It was notable that none of the other three officials tried to steer Peyper in a different direction.

By and large, pundit opinions seem to fall in three categories

1. Red card, no debate. Steward had a duty of care, and that's what the law is for.
2. Red card by the letter of the law. However, it shouldn't be (the law is wrong in this case) or else Steward is very unlucky (them's the breaks).
3. Not a red card. Some argue the current law straight out doesn't support a red card. Other say the framework can get to red but the referee had the discretion to mitigate. There are also those who think it was an accident, so play on.

Whatever the disciplinary panel's decision, World Rugby might want to use the opportunity to address the question TJ has asked in this thread. We all know there are considerably more red cards in the game these days. Planet Rugby has a list of all Six Nations red cards (not including later citing panel reds), and two thirds were issued in the most recent four rounds of the tournament

Italy’s Walter Cristofoletto v France – 2000
Italy’s Alessandro Troncon v Ireland – 2001
Scotland’s Scott Murray v Wales – 2006
Italy’s Michele Rizzo v France -2014
France’s Rabah Slimani v Italy – 2014
Scotland’s Stuart Hogg v Wales – 2014
England’s Manu Tuilagi v Wales – 2020
France’s Mohamed Haouas v Scotland – 2020
Ireland’s Peter O’Mahony v Wales – 2021
Scotland’s Zander Fagerson v Wales – 2021
France’s Paul Willemse v Wales – 2021
Ireland’s Bundee Aki v England – 2021
Scotland’s Finn Russell v France – 2021
England’s Charlie Ewels v Ireland – 2022
Italy’s Epalahame Faiva v Ireland – 2022
Scotland’s Grant Gilchrist v France – 2023
France’s Mohamed Haouas v Scotland – 2023
England’s Freddie Steward v Ireland – 2023

It's unlikely World Rugby wants to start handing more discretion to referees. There's also not time to tweak the laws, or HCP, not least because we are too close to a World Cup. It's possible more people will be on board with the Super Rugby trial which starts at yellow, and leaves it to the TMO to decide over the next 8-10 minutes whether the player stays off.

by Sharkey06 Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:07 am

Steward's red card has been rescinded per the BBC.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:20 am

Sharkey06 wrote:Steward's red card has been rescinded per the BBC.

Apparently it should have been a yellow as there was mitigation........who'd have thought eh Whistle

by mountain man Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:25 am

But that's just a face saving exercise for Peyper and Jonker giving a yellow.

by TJ Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:32 am

Perverse decision and clearly against the guidance to the refs

Its either rugby incident - play on or red card as no mitigation can be applied

If they had said its a rugby incident - play on I could have accepted that as I would have done at the time

by nathan Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:34 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
Sharkey06 wrote:Steward's red card has been rescinded per the BBC.

Apparently it should have been a yellow as there was mitigation........who'd have thought eh

To be honest, most sensible people could see enough mitigation in that. The outcome mentions the last second changing dynamics of the situation.

And for those people with the whole, he knew what he was doing character assassination.... its disappointing to hear (my polite response).

by nathan Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:35 am

TJ wrote:Perverse decision and clearly against the guidance to the refs

Its either rugby incident - play on or red card as no mitigation can be applied

If they had said its a rugby incident - play on I could have accepted that as I would have done at the time

Is it though?

They are told to look for mitigation and they do all the time. I.e player drops his height.

The reffing team in this instance didn't take into consideration the last second changing dynamics.

by TJ Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:41 am

because thats what the guidance says - mitigation can only be applied in some circumstance and those circumstances did not apply. I put the link to the full guidance algorithm on another page.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play

basically they have fudged it because the punishment here did not fit the crime - I think we all agree on that. But to fudge it like this is poor and makes the process even more confusing. they would have been much better to just have ruled it accidental - play on

by Heaf Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:41 am

TJ wrote:Perverse decision and clearly against the guidance to the refs

Its either rugby incident - play on or red card as no mitigation can be applied

If they had said its a rugby incident - play on I could have accepted that as I would have done at the time

No mitigation can be applied if it's deemed "intentional or highly reckless" - both subjective judgements ...

by eirebilly_01 Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:43 am

Again, no even sure it was a yellow card offence. As I said before, I hate using slow motion replays to determine incidents as it paints a completely different picture altogether.
For me, as an Irishman, I thought it was accidental collision so the game should have gone on with no sanction. Very sorry for Keenan getting injured but that's what happens.

Glad the the Red Card has been removed from Steward's name though.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:44 am

It's a rugby incident; it shouldn't have been a penalty. It's semi protection to the ref and tmo. Obviously incorrect at the time so at least they acknowledge that bit. But WR have (or should have) a bit of unpicking now. I suspect there will be a tweak to the wording of the laws etc.

I agree with TJ if they are going down the route (of protection of the ref, I'll be hammering that home!) mitigation is not possible as it wasn't a tackle. See Tuilagi vs Wales.

by mountain man Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:56 am

I'd love to hear what Peyper and Jonker think after reviewing incident and the subsequent rescinding. Do they stick with original decision of red or would they ever admit it shouldn't have been. We'll never know of course but would be interesting.

by Heaf Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:09 am

I'd just hope they never let those jokers near an England match again - especially Jonker - but knowing how perverse WR are we'll probably get them more ...

by TJ Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:11 am

Out of interest which refs would you have Heaf?

by Pete330v2 Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:25 am

So they've said that Steward was guilty of foul play but lowered the sanction to a yellow which is fair enough. They also amended the law being applied from 9:13 to 9:11 so that it's befitting of the incident which it is.
It really has been a bit of an anomaly for everyone to argue over and goes to show how interpretations can vary.

by Heaf Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:31 am

Well yes that's a tricky one TJ - Shame Nige has retired as I generally liked him and none of the current bunch fill me with much confidence - it's probably more a case of which are the ones I'd least want.

I'd said previously I could live with Peyper, although his performance last weekend was dire, and I've never been impressed with O'Keefe either, but the one official I really think should never be involved with an England match is Jonker.

I've had this view re Jonker for some time and his performance on Saturday just added to the picture - there have been multiple incidents mentioned about potential foul play by Ireland that he should have at least brought to the ref's attention but remained silent ...

by mountain man Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:35 am

Craig Evans of Wales is good, doesn't seem to get many Int matches though. More often on touch line than in middle.

by nathan Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:45 am

Pete330v2 wrote:So they've said that Steward was guilty of foul play but lowered the sanction to a yellow which is fair enough. They also amended the law being applied from 9:13 to 9:11 so that it's befitting of the incident which it is.
It really has been a bit of an anomaly for everyone to argue over and goes to show how interpretations can vary.

Which also goes to show how hard it is for refs.

Should also be a new law where they have to view all incidents at full speed aswel as the usual slow mo. Also zoomed out. They need more context of a situation

by TJ Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:58 am

I like Barnes as a ref. Joy Adamson as well tho since pregnancy she seems to be mainly a TMO. Evans is another good one. Pierce as well.

by nathan Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:01 pm

I get frustrated with Dickson, but then again I'm a Tigers fan.

by Heaf Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:01 pm

Don't think we'd be allowed Barnes or Pierce Wink

by Heaf Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:01 pm

nathan wrote:I get frustrated with Dickson, but then again I'm a Tigers fan.

It's not just Tigers fans ...

by Poorfour Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:30 pm

Heaf wrote:Well yes that's a tricky one TJ - Shame Nige has retired as I generally liked him and none of the current bunch fill me with much confidence - it's probably more a case of which are the ones I'd least want.

I'd said previously I could live with Peyper, although his performance last weekend was dire, and I've never been impressed with O'Keefe either, but the one official I really think should never be involved with an England match is Jonker.

I've had this view re Jonker for some time and his performance on Saturday just added to the picture - there have been multiple incidents mentioned about potential foul play by Ireland that he should have at least brought to the ref's attention but remained silent ...

You're not the only one - Jonker's handling of incidents in England matches has been ropey since 2018. He's got a record of overreaching his authority as a TMO and finding clear and obvious justification from things that are neither, and the controversial ones seem to be to the detriment of England rather than their opponents.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:09 pm

I think the English refs are the best around currently (minus Dickson).....we need to be good at something.

The reffing in the AP is not notch most weeks.

by Poorfour Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:41 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think the English refs are the best around currently (minus Dickson).....we need to be good at something.

The reffing in the AP is not notch most weeks.

England's declne is all an RFU/LSRFUR conspiracy to ensure that Wayne Barnes gets the RWC Final before retiring. You read it here first.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:01 am

TJ wrote:Perverse decision and clearly against the guidance to the refs

Its either rugby incident - play on or red card as no mitigation can be applied

If they had said its a rugby incident - play on I could have accepted that as I would have done at the time

Nigel Owens shares your view. From The Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/03/22/freddie-steward-sending-jaco-peyper-did-nothing-wrong/

There are a couple of things from the Freddie Steward decision which leave me scratching my head. A lot of referees I have spoken to are split: Was it reckless? Was there foul play? Was there mitigation? Or was it just an unavoidable "rugby collision" and play on. It comes down to your view on the day as a referee.

I couldn't argue if a red or yellow card had been given to Steward, but here is where I feel there is plenty of confusion.

If you do not believe Steward has done anything wrong, that it was a complete accident, a rugby collision, then there is no foul play and it's play on. Or, you can say Steward was careless but apply mitigation to apply a yellow card. But if, as the panel have found, you think Steward was reckless and there was foul play, then you are talking about a red-card offence.

My understanding was, and is, that if you have foul play and a reckless action, then the mitigation doesn't play a part in the process. Which is why the outcome of the hearing is a surprise. They haven't decided it was an accident or just a rugby collision, they have said that Steward was reckless and there was foul play. I am not sure, therefore, how they can apply mitigation.

I have used this scenario before: if you are driving and meeting the 30mph speed limit and someone runs out in front of you who you can't avoid, it's an accident and out of your control. If you are going 40mph – over the limit – and that happens, you are being reckless and don't have a leg to stand on.

I could understand if Steward had not been sent off. But I cannot understand the panel's verdict to reduce the punishment if they felt he was being reckless.

Watching it happen, I felt that if Steward had stood his ground and braced himself for impact, then he would have done nothing wrong. But the fact he was still moving forward and turned to not make a legal tackle... I feel he could have done something different to avoid that. And that's where the foul play comes in. In those conversations I have had with other referees, some are on a red card, some on yellow and some are just play on – and the reason some view it only as a sin-bin offence is because there is no reckless foul play in the first place by Steward, not because of any mitigation. Something about the committee's outcome does not add up.

Former players also divided

Hugo Keenan is not going in upright, he's down towards the chest level of Steward, and that would have counted as mitigation if Steward had done everything he could to avoid a collision. But I'm not sure he did, which is why I felt it was closer to a red card. There is almost a half skip or a jump forward into the contact. Ex-players I have spoken to are also divided, with those leaning toward red doing so because of how Steward comes in. Whereas others are saying they don't know how Steward can do anything different.

Jaco Peyper in that situation is following the framework because he views the incident as reckless and foul play - as have the judiciary – and Jaco has therefore rightly ended up with a red card. You can't be in a position where you think you're going to give a yellow card, but if a player goes off for a head injury assessment you then increase the sanction. Jaco, in terms of following the framework, has done everything right.

I think the judiciary needs to look at their wording, at why they are applying mitigation when they say it's reckless and foul play. Or, the framework needs to be adjusted so referees can apply mitigation. But if you do that, you are on dangerous ground.
Referees should always use a final real-time replay

I once gave a red card to Iain Henderson in a game between Ulster and Munster, and then saw it again on review after the match and thought "b----- hell, Nigel, that's not a red card", and it was quite rightly overturned – but because the foul play was not a red-card offence in the first place.

The Steward incident looks a lot worse in slow-motion, but slowing it down can help you see exactly what has happened. I would always base my ultimate decision though on a final real-time replay, which I think officials need to make sure they do before deciding on a call.

Finally, there is an ongoing trial in Super Rugby in which players can be shown yellow cards and then the incident is reviewed off-field and potentially upgraded to a red card. The Steward example would not fit with that. You have a 60-40 split among referees I have spoken to between it not being a red card and Steward being sent off.

There are four people and the TMO in the box who should be able to make the right decision after a few replays. I don't see the benefit of the TMO having a further eight-minute window to review it. The best officials are appointed for these games for a reason. We need to trust them to make the right calls on the field.

by mountain man Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:30 am

So in others words Owens and other refs all have differing views and think it could be nothing, a penalty, a yellow card or a red card.

The telling thing he does say is "Something about the committee's outcome does not add up".

That's cleared that up then.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Mar 23, 2023 8:05 am

He too inserts himself on the fence. I still have no idea how Steward is expected to do anything which would be deemed acceptable in the (literal) fraction of a second he had to make a decision. I would have been really interested to hear what Owens would have liked to see from Steward there; I would imagine it would have been make a legal tackle which highlights he was going to get done no matter what course of action he would have taken....hence it's a rugby incident.

Re his last paragraph though, it's not about more time and the TMO being able to come to a correct decision more easily but about restarting the game asap so as to not bore the spectators. For me they should just put the conversation on the tannoy so that the crowd know what's happening. This would still have seen the wrong decision upheld for Steward.

by Heaf Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:22 am

I like Nige but I think he's missed a couple of points here ...

Firstly the guidance for no mitigation says highly reckless - which is clearly subjective, but the panel just said they thought it was reckless, so maybe that's their point of difference ...

Secondly he says if Steward has just stopped and stood his ground it would have been OK - so that just ignores the the laws of physics as his momentum made that impossible ...

by dummy_half Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:37 am

Have rewatched the Steward incident at full speed - it's not obvious what else he could have done in the moments immediately before the collision, in that he is trying to slow and move out of the way rather than commit a tackle. You can maybe argue that prior to that he got himself into a bad position to make the defensive play (he is quite upright), but were his actions reckless?

I wonder if there might be some modification to the directives about mitigation following this. The issues start with the breakdown in play by Irenald, with the pass forward and to ground, so Keenan's objective goes from being a potential attacker to being the player who clears up the loose ball and prevents England turning it over and countering. At that point Steward goes from being the potential tackler to what? Can't beat Keenan to the loose ball, but could try to block a kick ahead (which he doesn't do) or he can try to move out of the way, which is what he does try but doesn't succeed. Certainly there was no intent to hit Keenan hard or high, but the situation made it happen.

A couple of things that make this an unusual incident are:
1 - Steward was coming forward from quite a way back to supplement the defensive line, rather than being a drifting defender, meaning any collision was going to be harder - players mostly moving towards each other head on rather than from the side.
2 - Keenan drops quite low to collect the ball, and is actually coming up at the time of the impact. When you see the still image, he's barely above Steward's waist when they collide, but from the video from behind it looks like he was more at chest level, making it look like a much worse incident.
3 - Stwerard does jump a bit as he's trying to turn away, but that looks like a natural reaction in his attempt to avoid rather than any sort of intent to deliver a high shoulder; indeed Steward's arms are low at the time of contact.

BTW, I have no issue with the red card from last year's England v Ireland game - while not intentional, Ewells was definitely reckless in not lowering his height. That's precisely the sort of incident the protocols are supposed to identify.

by Poorfour Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:53 pm

Another thing that isn't obvious from the video is that the forward pass was from a player screened from Steward by the defensive line. He would not have been able to see it until it bounced past the last defender, by which point Keenan is already reacting. So Steward would have had even less time to adapt and adjust.

I find it hard to understand how Jonker described it as "clear line of sight" unless he was only considering whether Steward could see Keenan rather than what was happening with the ball.

by dummy_half Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:41 pm

I'll also note, from my rewatching, that when viewed in slow motion and a tight view, it does look a pretty bad challenge. Losing the context of the wider situation, and with it less obvious how Keenan's position changed in response to the ball hitting the floor, it does look like Steward jumped into the collision with a leading elbow and hip in the vicinity of Keenan's head. It isn't apparent int he close view that Steward is attempting to get away from the collision.

I know the NFL have some guidance on viewing incidents both in real time / at sufficient distance to understand the context, and from closer / slower to understand the details. They also accept there are what is called 'bang bang' plays, where two incidents happen so close together that an accidental but dangerous bit of play occurs. I think that, or the rugby equivalent, should have been called in this case, and that some mitigation should be applied because of the changing dynamics of the play in this case, where the ball was passed inaccurately and forward.

by TJ Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:28 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:........................ still have no idea how Steward is expected to do anything which would be deemed acceptable in the (literal) fraction of a second he had to make a decision. I.............................

I think he could have put his hands out in front of himself rather than jumping and turning. Dead easy of course from my armchair. If he had enough time to jump, turn and drop his arms he had enough time to put his hands in front of him. that way its ( even if it ends up a high tackle) its a low or moderate degree of danger so starting point is yellow and mitigation can be applied so its just a pen.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:43 pm

TJ wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:........................ still have no idea how Steward is expected to do anything which would be deemed acceptable in the (literal) fraction of a second he had to make a decision. I.............................

I think he could have put his hands out in front of himself rather than jumping and turning. Dead easy of course from my armchair. If he had enough time to jump, turn and drop his arms he had enough time to put his hands in front of him. that way its ( even if it ends up a high tackle) its a low or moderate degree of danger so starting point is yellow and mitigation can be applied so its just a pen.

So in your case he would also be giving up a pen. So to confirm even in this case there was absolutely no way it was possible for him to avoid this....hence a rugby incident.

by TJ Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:54 pm

Not necessarily He might not have clouted the head at all.

by TJ Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:54 pm

But to rule it unavoidable and play on is perfectly withing the grounds of plausibility

by formerly known as Sam Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:43 am

https://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/hugo-keenan-i-felt-for-freddie-steward-after-that-red-card-his-high-challenge-wasnt-reckless-42400381.html

by **Rugby Fan** Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:00 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:He too inserts himself on the fence.

In his World Rugby whistle watch video, Owens denies he's sitting on the fence, and says that's just the way rugby is.

by mountain man Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:12 am

Owens says lots of things and yes he was a good ref but the myth he is infallible is just that. Plus he is very biased towards Wales, understandably maybe seeing as he's Welsh but as an ex ref I would expect him to be impartial.(obviously not relevant to Steward card but in general).

by geoff999rugby Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:22 pm

Until a card is based on actions and not outcomes this farce will continue.

We had the most ridiculous Red Card I have ever seen away to Sale.
Andy Warwick was struggling and instinctively moved into a position behind the line of the rest of the team.
Manu set off at full tilt break a tackle between two Ulster plays and hit Warwick.
I don't believe Warwick even saw him coming.

Clash of heads - Red card.

As I say farce because its outcome not actions

by cb Fri Mar 24, 2023 8:32 pm

I think the current problem is that giving a red-card is a cliff edge whereby the player would miss the rest of the match and may get a ban for several weeks. So the penalty difference (to both club and player) is vast whereas in many cases the difference in action may be very marginal or not always discernable.

by mountain man Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:54 am

With the Steward card though most of us said immediately that was wrong decision and so it's been proved by having red rescinded.
Fudged though by saying it is now yellow.
The impact on that game was massive, I'm not saying England would have won but they'd have been much better placed with 15 on field.

That's why it's crucial correct decisions are made and refs/TMOs apply common sense,

by Sponsored content