How the times have changed

First topic message reminder :

Well after taking things into account from over the weekend I just want to talk about the Stuart Hogg incident, I am sorry if it has already been debated to death, but what I want to point out is that about fifteen to twenty years ago that type of challenge would have been par for the course so to speak, now before I get a tattering off people on here, I do not condone it and for me the right call was made by the officials, but I remember rugby always having sinister moments, Christ, I even remember watching a Pontypridd V Cardiff game at Sardis where an eighty year old man wanted to run on the field and hit Mark Ring for something he done that the ref did not see and the crowd were seething all game, I just wanted to point out how things have changed from the days when you could give somebody a good roughing up to put him off his game, without the video ref Hogg would not have got a red card on Saturday, and Biggar could well have had his mind else where for the rest of the game, now we are seeing more and more things that go on with all the different camera angles and the what not, although things like try or no try are seeming to be working and the fact that they could use the TMO to send Hogg off does anybody think it has taken something out of the game ? For me it has a little, but since professionalism and the players being more athletic I suppose this can only be seen as a good thing because it deters foul play, but perhaps I am just an old romantic of the game.

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:Just remember, my opinion on the yellow card is a deliberate professional foul being late and no arms, my opinion is not a deliberate foul to injure or take out a player.

As I said, in my view if you were going to take a player out, I would have done a hell of a better job than the halfhearted jump he did.

But that is how I see it.

But the act was deliberate as in, he knew what he was doing, it was a reckless act that could have caused serious damage to Dan Biggar, or any deliberate foul play to any other player that is dangerous and could cause injury in your eye's warrents just a yellow ? Look, I am not wanting to nail you to the wall here I am just trying to wrap my head around your way of thinking.

The trouble here is you see the act as a deliberate act to injure Biggar, I don't see it as a deliberate act to injure, I see it as a deliberate professional foul.

There in lies the difference.

Ask yourself this. Imagine you were running onto biggar, what would you have done if you wanted to hurt him?

Jump in the air?

NO mate, I would ram into his chest bone with all the force I can muster, cracking a few ribs, giving him whiplash and likely a broken jaw.

That in my opinion is intent, look at the jump again, now ask Hogg to do that again, but this time at full pace, and the intent to cause damage.

BlueNote wrote:Biltong, I don't want to pick an argument with you, given that you seem to be on the receiving end of some unfair flak on this thread, but I don't find the line of argument very convincing that if Hogg had really been trying to hurt him he'd have done a better job of it.  Did you see the way Biggar's head was snapped back?  I don't suppose he was literally trying to take him out of the game, but he was certainly trying to rough him up good and proper.  Also, that he was hyped and trying to put in cheap shots was shown by the way he went into Liam Williams at the first Welsh try.  I don't know what was up with him, maybe its the frustration of a poor 6N for Scotland. He's not someone I've noticed before being dirty.

Bluenote, no problem mate, if you want to reason with me I have no issue, I will answer your questions, go to your last sentence, "He's not someone I've noticed before being dirty"

There is your answer.

O.k so now we are getting down to the bones of this, all you are saying is we must try and keep all players on the pitch as not to see an unfair contest over the 80 minute match length so as people get their rugby's worth out of that game. O.k that is very admirable of you, but would you please consider this, and please consider this as it is the point I am trying to get to.

An in his prime Shane Williams, or Dan Carter, Or Brian Habbana. Players of that ilk sell tickets on their own, these truly are "bums on seats" players, people go to rugby matches to see players of that calibre on their own, I remember during the 1991 world cup when my farther took me to Twickenham to watch the final just so that we could watch David Campese. Now, the contest of 15 V 15 is there for us all to see, but when you are playing against star players the contest should be a lot more one sided, now if a player was to take out a star player because they did not want the daunting task of having to play against them, then only get 10mins for it, not only has the crowd been robbed of the spectacle, but your whole 15 v 15 fairly contested theory is out of the window as the players that are replacing them are mot as good and the spectacle is ruined. Now, any act of deliberate foul play that ends up injuring a player, or potentialy injring a player needs to be stamped out of the game, I do not want to be in a place where all the best players only play about fifteen minutes of a game before they end up off the field because of some idiotic player loses his head for a minute and gets his "roughing up" wrong, and to rub salt in the wounds only gets a ten minute slap on the wrist, red cards are the only deterrant to this, there are no other alternatives, I remember Dafydd Jones stamping on a Biarritz player in the S/F of the HC at Stradey, he was red carded and Llanelli lost, he left the team down, the town down and the whole of Welsh rugby down, the Biarritz player was fine and finished the game, but it could have been worst, even though I doubt Dafydd would have meant it to be, but he had to go, and that was that. If players are not able to play rugby without giving cheap shots then they should not be on the pitch end of story.

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:Just remember, my opinion on the yellow card is a deliberate professional foul being late and no arms, my opinion is not a deliberate foul to injure or take out a player.

As I said, in my view if you were going to take a player out, I would have done a hell of a better job than the halfhearted jump he did.

But that is how I see it.

But the act was deliberate as in, he knew what he was doing, it was a reckless act that could have caused serious damage to Dan Biggar, or any deliberate foul play to any other player that is dangerous and could cause injury in your eye's warrents just a yellow ? Look, I am not wanting to nail you to the wall here I am just trying to wrap my head around your way of thinking.

The trouble here is you see the act as a deliberate act to injure Biggar, I don't see it as a deliberate act to injure, I see it as a deliberate professional foul.
There in lies the difference.

Ask yourself this. Imagine you were running onto biggar, what would you have done if you wanted to hurt him?

Jump in the air?

NO mate, I would ram into his chest bone with all the force I can muster, cracking a few ribs, giving him whiplash and likely a broken jaw.

That in my opinion is intent, look at the jump again, now ask Hogg to do that again, but this time at full pace, and the intent to cause damage.

And that is where YOU are wrong, I do not see it as a deliberate act to INJURE Biggar, I see it as a deliberate act that COULD have seriously injured Biggar, if Biggar had to leave the field becuase of it, then your fair 15 v 15 theory is gone, because Wales would have had an inferior player, in my eyes, playing at 10 instead, thus making the contest easier for Scotland.

Biltong wrote:

BlueNote wrote:Biltong, I don't want to pick an argument with you, given that you seem to be on the receiving end of some unfair flak on this thread, but I don't find the line of argument very convincing that if Hogg had really been trying to hurt him he'd have done a better job of it.  Did you see the way Biggar's head was snapped back?  I don't suppose he was literally trying to take him out of the game, but he was certainly trying to rough him up good and proper.  Also, that he was hyped and trying to put in cheap shots was shown by the way he went into Liam Williams at the first Welsh try.  I don't know what was up with him, maybe its the frustration of a poor 6N for Scotland. He's not someone I've noticed before being dirty.

Bluenote, no problem mate, if you want to reason with me I have no issue, I will answer your questions, go to your last sentence, "He's not someone I've noticed before being dirty"

There is your answer.

Every dirty player has a first time.Before they were paragons.With your logic everyone a first one for free. 

O.k so now we are getting down to the bones of this, all you are saying is we must try and keep all players on the pitch as not to see an unfair contest over the 80 minute match length so as people get their rugby's worth out of that game.

Yes.

Shane Williams, or Dan Carter, Or Brian Habbana. Players of that ilk sell tickets on their own, these truly are "bums on seats" players,

Agree.

if a player was to take out a star player because they did not want the daunting task of having to play against them, then only get 10mins for it, not only has the crowd been robbed of the spectacle, but your whole 15 v 15 fairly contested theory is out of the window as the players that are replacing them are mot as good and the spectacle is ruined

Now that is the conundrum we face with foul play or intention to injure a star player.

Consider the following, think about this as a long term solution to intent to commit injury. A player gets a red card and his team loses the match, he thereafter gets cited (or not) and may or may not receive a ban.

NOw consider this. A player commits the deliberate foul, he is sent off for ten minutes, then comes back, but under a new IRB ruling and foul play, ANY foul play is a citable offence, the judiciary committee then investigates the act by the player, the severity of the injury (if there is ) Influences the judiciary.

If the player was injured to an extent where the player had to leave the field, the case now becomes criminal, with severe punishment a possibility.

Would that not clean up foul play immediately and we will no longer have players commit these deliberate acts of foul play and not only face criminal charges, but stand to lose their careers over it?

Biltong, I have considerd it and I cannot agree, facing New Zealand with a prime Dan Carter is a lot more daunting than facing them without him, if he has had to go off because somebody has deliberatly injured him weather they ment it or not then that player walks and gets the punishment afterwards as well.

Well, then you have my thoughts, and it seems most disagree, thanks for the debate.

What are the likely outcomes of people running at pace and shouldering someone in the face?
I would not be surprised to see:broken jaw,fractured cheekbone or concussion if not all three.
Any player that does this is a dirty player be they Mother Teresa,Mugabe,Shane Williams or the Archangel Gabriel.Having no "previous" does not expunge the act of foul play.

There's no real black and white in this. At one end of the scale you have a deliberate act intended to injure a player (Schalk Burger gouging, Justin Harrison on Harry Ellis's knee, Umaga and St Kev on BOD) - but in at least one of those cases the citing commissioner saw no case to answer.
 
Somewhere in the middle it gets very grey (Hartley biting Ferris. Ferris's finger finding its way into Hartley's mouth. Both wrong, both deserving of equal punishment if you ask me. Not if you ask the citing commissioners).
 
The borderline of acceptability for most fans is the late hit. A player commits to a line, knowing he's likely to arrive after the has gone but expecting to make contact. It's potentially dangerous but in practice usually does little more than rattle the target. The offending player knows he is risking a yellow but will usually get away with a penalty. Seems a fair price for getting under his opponent's skin. Lots of players have done it, and most of us draw the line at different points. The shoulder barge into touch of a flying winger is often applauded; the very late hit on a kicker is generally decried.
 
Then there's the collisions that just happen. You're committed to the tackle before the ball leaves, and make contact afterwards. You're both in the air going for the ball. And stuff that's technically illegal but not dangerous: Hartley tackling the leaping Faletau, George North catching Nowell in the air and carrying him off the pitch (check the replay: that's what happened, and it should have been a pen against Wales, but instead the commentators were praising North's timing).
 
For my money, Hogg was somewhere in the middle in his intent. My guess is that he knew that Biggar would no longer have the ball, and he thought that if he pulled out of the tackle (no arms) but held his line he'd deliver a satisfying thump and probably get away with a pen at worst. What went wrong was that Hogg was moving upwards at the moment of contact and Biggar downwards, so that shoulder and chin connected. I don't think that that level of contact was intentional, because I don't think you can time such things deliberately.
 
Was a red card justified? I think it was. (Compare with Warburton's red at the RWC. Definitely not deliberate. Definitely dangerous. This was both more deliberate and ended up being more dangerous). It wasn't especially malicious, but it was dangerous play, and while it spoiled that game as a spectacle it serves to redraw the line. No red card, and the boundary of acceptability inches slightly further away from safety. I would rather see the issue dealt with in real time, and see one game reduced to one-sidedness, than see the whole game slip towards a point where more drastic action is needed to reset things.
 
Real time is important. Human brains being what they are, they respond far more strongly to immediate feedback than to feedback some time later. It is a game played on the edge and players have more options - if they want to - to seriously injure their opponents than in any sport short of boxing or maybe ice hockey. Without an immediate, strong signal to pull back from the edge, more players would cross it, especially in a game where it's already been crossed once. That's why I don't think we can rely on citing and bans and have more lenient in-game options.
 
Citing can only work for adjusting and correcting decisions later. I remember a game where de Wet Barry (for Quins) poleaxed Mat Tait (for Falcons, at the time) with a blatant high tackle. Instant red card and citing. Everyone in the stadium agreed.
 
Except it wasn't. The replays at the citing commission (not shown at the ground) made it clear that Tait had slipped badly going into the tackle and Barry - whose technique was otherwise legal - couldn't have done anything to avoid the contact. However, that was only clear after quite a bit of viewing. Barry was cleared, but the red card was still the right answer on the pitch. If it hadn't been issued, a very physical game could have turned much nastier. That's an example where the citing process was needed to correct an error, but it's not perfect - there are several examples above where things that should have been punished (in my view) were not addressed through the citing.
 
The red card is a fairly extreme sanction and a reset button for the game. I think we need it, even at the cost of occasional errors and spoiling the games in which it is issued.

Poorfour wrote:For my money, Hogg was somewhere in the middle in his intent. My guess is that he knew that Biggar would no longer have the ball, and he thought that if he pulled out of the tackle (no arms) but held his line he'd deliver a satisfying thump and probably get away with a pen at worst. What went wrong was that Hogg was moving upwards at the moment of contact and Biggar downwards, so that shoulder and chin connected. I don't think that that level of contact was intentional, because I don't think you can time such things deliberately.

Agreed. Hogg just wanted to leave one on Biggar; there was no intent to injure him, it was just reckless. The fact he got it all wrong and ended up with a red card quite aptly represents Scotland's 6N.

Totally agreed.The ref is the one that called it right.Hogg got it wrong.To find fault with the ref as some would have it is deplorable.
Player welfare is paramount.This is not cage fighting.Rugby is a tough physical contest and players particularly professional players must not cross the line.
Justice must be done and must be seen to be done.

To find fault with the ref as some would have it is deplorable

What?

Biltong wrote:

To find fault with the ref as some would have it is deplorable

What?

Saying that he should have given a yellow rather than red card.

I am not even going to respond further, it just isn't worth it.

Like your style.

My take on it was that the ref correctly applied the laws of the game in (finally) brandishing a red card. It was both dangerous and reckless from Hogg. He has put his hands up, acknowledged his mistake and apologised to all involved, including the ref.

I think it was the right call, and I'm happy that the laws of the game provide for a straight red for dangerous and reckless play.

But.....I'm perfectly comfortable hearing Biltong's views on this matter, and I do not interpret his opinion that a yellow should suffice as being in some way an endorsement of foul play. In the same vein (and to take an extreme example to make the point clearly) should the IRB ban Hogg for life, and were I to rightly suggest that such a ban would be completely inappropriate and disproportionate, I would also not be in any way endorsing or condoning foul play by believing a lesser punishment to be more appropriate.

What this debate is about is the appropriate sanction for such behaviour. No-one on here has suggested that what Hogg did was ok - we all agree it was wrong, as does Hogg himself.

So ,saying that reckless and dangerous play merits yellow card only,as Bilt did,one is left wondering what offence would merit a red card?

Some said Warburton didn't deserve a red in the semi final while some felt it reckless and dangerous.

You could, if you wanted, reserve the red card for abusive behaviour towards the referee. Or you could abolish the red card altogether.

The question being asked is not "what, if anything, should constitute a red card", but rather what is the appropriate sanction for the offence committed by Stuart Hogg.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I agreed with the decision and the sanction. However, is what Hogg did as bad as eye gouging for example, or deliberately and intentionally (rather than being reckless as to) breaking someone's leg? Or punching the referee?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some said Warburton didn't deserve a red in the semi final while some felt it reckless and dangerous.

As I recollect the reason that some felt that Sam deserved a yellow was based on how other players had been treated for similar offences prior to the match v France.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some said Warburton didn't deserve a red in the semi final while some felt it reckless and dangerous.

As I recollect the reason that some felt that Sam deserved a yellow was based on how other players had been treated for similar offences prior to the match v France.

I'm sure a few felt it wasn't that bad a foul.

Possibly.
A worse instance for me was Bradley Davies v Ireland when he upended a player.I would have red carded him if reffing and I would not have picked him again for Wales if I had the good fortune of being the Welsh Head Coach.

Just goes to show people can disagree with a ref on a pretty clear cut case though doesn't it? Warburton by the rules was red. Player welfare is paramount, were those calls deplorable or was that red less red than Hoggs?

Anyhow doubt Hogg will do it again.

Read this

Matchday thread Wales vs France RWC, the moment of the red card.

At the time.
Now people have had the chance to digest an learn the laws I te game and understand how it's reffed most hav accepted the decision and a lot of pundits have changed their tube an tried to worm out I what they said.
The reaction at the time was certainly not helped by some highly unprofessional and in some cases just plain incorrect stuff coming from the tv crews.

Good to see my memory is still ok!
A lot of folk referred to previous yellows in the tournament for worse/similar offences.

At the time I thought Warb's sending off was justifiable, and I can't stand Rolland.

Warbs isn't a dirty player either but what he did was dangerous. I have no doubt it wasn't meant to be since he isn't that type of guy.

He was clumsy and players can get hurt badly by this sort of stuff. Imagine if Clerc landed on his head.

His was a red and so was Hoggs.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:At the time I thought Warb's sending off was justifiable, and I can't stand Rolland.

Warbs isn't a dirty player either but what he did was dangerous. I have no doubt it wasn't meant to be since he isn't that type of guy.

He was clumsy and players can get hurt badly by this sort of stuff. Imagine if Clerc landed on his head.

His was a red and so was Hoggs.

What did you think of the earlier tip tackles that only got yellows?

As an aside,I would like to commend the quality of the postings on that old thread during a RWC Semi Final.Considering the events during a hugely important game things seemed pretty balanced ed.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:At the time I thought Warb's sending off was justifiable, and I can't stand Rolland.

Warbs isn't a dirty player either but what he did was dangerous. I have no doubt it wasn't meant to be since he isn't that type of guy.

He was clumsy and players can get hurt badly by this sort of stuff. Imagine if Clerc landed on his head.

His was a red and so was Hoggs.

What did you think of the earlier tip tackles that only got yellows?

IMO, they should be reds too. I think consistency is the issue here.

Pollock the Pillock ruined the Scotland vs France, the penalty that killed the game in the dying seconds was jackling that would have been fine had Poite, Owens, Barnes or any other NH ref running the show.

The rules are the rules and shouldn't be open to interpereatation.

I still think Warburton was expecting some big lump to come round at him, got caught out when it was someone much smaller, and didn't adapt quickly enough. Nevertheless, by the letter of the law as applied at the time, the red card was right.

So would it have improved the integrity of the tournament if what was adjudged serious and dangerous foul play had :
a)Gone unpunished
b)Been met with a 7 point penalty (losing Wales the game) and the offender allowed to stay on the field
c)Been penalised and then the conduct reviewed after with the British star Warburton banned for the final and following 6 nations
d)Led to the referee calling Clerc a big jessy and reminding him that in his day backs wouldve just been punched for getting that close to a forward, then Woodward reminding us all that England won the world cup

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So would it have improved the integrity of the tournament if what was adjudged serious and dangerous foul play had :
a)Gone unpunished
b)Been met with a 7 point penalty (losing Wales the game) and the offender allowed to stay on the field
c)Been penalised and then the conduct reviewed after with the British star Warburton banned for the final and following 6 nations
d)Led to the referee calling Clerc a big jessy and reminding him that in his day backs wouldve just been punched for getting that close to a forward, then Woodward reminding us all that England won the world cup

Red card to Warburton plus (d).

I never tire of Sir Clive reminding us all about 2003.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:At the time I thought Warb's sending off was justifiable, and I can't stand Rolland.

Warbs isn't a dirty player either but what he did was dangerous. I have no doubt it wasn't meant to be since he isn't that type of guy.

He was clumsy and players can get hurt badly by this sort of stuff. Imagine if Clerc landed on his head.

His was a red and so was Hoggs.

What did you think of the earlier tip tackles that only got yellows?

IMO, they should be reds too. I think consistency is the issue here.

Pollock the Pillock ruined the Scotland vs France, the penalty that killed the game in the dying seconds was jackling that would have been fine had Poite, Owens, Barnes or any other NH ref running the show.

The rules are the rules and shouldn't be open to interpereatation.

Agreed.The lack of consistency got our goat.Roland was correct but other refs had set a different precedent.Adhering to the Laws v how other sides had been treated in the same comp.

So people were venting at the wrong ref and game. The final was correct and anyone blaming that ref was out of order?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So people were venting at the wrong ref and game. The final was correct and anyone blaming that ref was out of order?

Semi Final.Wanting even handed fairness is hardly out of order,surely?

Having followed this thread with diligent interest, I had originally thought that the usually excellent Biltong had suddenly started posting some totally unjustifiable bum gravy, but I've changed my mind.

Thus, if SA pile on 20+ points against Wales in the first 20 mins of a test match, thus spoiling the game as a "spectacle", the boks should go down to 14 men to even things up a tad.

Can't believe the IRB haven't introduced this before.

As long as you're not finding fault with the ref Taff, it's fine.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So people were venting at the wrong ref and game. The final was correct and anyone blaming that ref was out of order?

Semi Final.Wanting even handed fairness is hardly out of order,surely?

I think consistency of in rugby will remain elusive all the while NH and SH rugby is so different.

Fairness and consistency aren't necessarily the same thing either.

Point is Biltong and his kinsmen view rugby differently. They still see it's unacceptable side as part of the contest, whereas the rest of the world has moved on.

Rugby, by it's very nature, is a violent contact sport. But it's violence is managed by laws that all players tacitly acknowledge and adhere to. It doesn't need the sort of mindless brainless violence that Doddy Weir's knee was subjected to, or that lead Burger to trying to tae a piece of eye as a trophy. That is not rugby, never will be again.

A ref cannot turn a blind eye to crooked feeds all game and suddenly penalise the offence.If refs had set the bar at yellow for an offence it is not surprising that umbrage is taken when somebody moves the goalposts and hikes it to straight red.

So he should have turned a blind eye due to previous mistakes by others? Fair enough. I mean it's reckless and dangerous to players. Some would say questioning that decision would be deplorable?

The going rate had been set.Coaches/captains/players establish whatever's of tolerance are being employed in a competition and expect to be treated the same as everyone else.The rights and wrongs are a separate issue.

So not deplorable in this instance but deplorable in the case of Hogg to disagree? Got ya. I mean we all know we can go from game to game with different refs and get the exact same interpretation.

Tip tackles are deplorable and should be red.Are you not understanding that tip tackles had only been awarded yellow cards in this tourney?I cannot make it clearer for you.
Here is a final attempt to get through to you.
Imagine that 2 or three other folk had done pretty much the same as Hogg did in earlier matches in the 6N's and had all received yellow.Scotland and Hogg would have every right to feel aggrieved even though the ref's decision was correct.
If that doesn't do it,I give up.

Yeah I get that refs had previously given yellows incorrectly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah I get that refs had previously given yellows incorrectly.

Brilliant!You get the coconut.  

So like I said anyone critising Rolland's correct decision is deplorable in your eyes? Or do you judge people who don't agree with the Hogg red and someone who doesn't agree with Warburtons red differently?

I feel my life force ebbing away!You don't get it.Life is too short.
Be happy.