World Rugby Head Contact

by bsando Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:59 pm

As there have been numerous cases of head contact during the World Cup so far. I thought a dedicated thread to such incidents might help to ensure we can debate it more objectively and free up other threads for rugby related chat.

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2023/03/22/932e873f-afc4-4fcc-a769-bae0ac660689/2303_Head_Contact_Process_EN.pdf

The above link outlines the protocol to be undertaken taken by world rugby officials when head contact occurs.

https://passport.world.rugby/match-day-staff/citing-commissioner-training/red-card-decision-making/

And the second link is the red card decision making process.

by Duty281 Fri Sep 15, 2023 5:14 pm

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2023/03/22/932e873f-afc4-4fcc-a769-bae0ac660689/2303_Head_Contact_Process_EN.pdf

You should link to this one as it's the most up to date.

I think what's going on is World Rugby have instructed their referees, TMOs and Foul Play Review Officers to only get the red card out in the most egregious of circumstances. Otherwise, try and let things go to a yellow maximum, so as to not spoil games on the biggest stage.

Clearly this wasn't adhered to with the Curry incident, so they all got a sharp reminder. Then Kriel and the French player last night got away with what would usually be reds, if it were a standard game.

At least, I hoped that's what happened, otherwise it's just grossly incompetent.

by Heaf Fri Sep 15, 2023 6:55 pm

I'm not seeing how the Argentinean challenge on Ford is not a red based on the protocol? Head contact, reckless, high level of danger. The argument used around direct versus indirect contact only seems to be relevant when considering the level of danger, and I can't see how any initial contact with Ford's shoulder meant there wasn't still a high level of danger when smashing him in the head and knocking him to the ground.

by Poorfour Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:34 pm

Heaf wrote:I'm not seeing how the Argentinean challenge on Ford is not a red based on the protocol? Head contact, reckless, high level of danger. The argument used around direct versus indirect contact only seems to be relevant when considering the level of danger, and I can't see how any initial contact with Ford's shoulder meant there wasn't still a high level of danger when smashing him in the head and knocking him to the ground.

Quite. And the mitigation of indirect contact should only be applied if the action was otherwise legal. But a jump into a kicker that late always has a degree of recklessness about it.

by **BigGee** Sat Sep 16, 2023 11:27 am

A pretty clear cut RC jn the NZ v Namibia game last night.

Clumsy NZ prop leading with the shoulder all day long and did not get away with it this time.

A very silly tackle really, in a game they were winning by miles and for which he will miss the next 2 or 3 games.

Not very smart.

by Heaf Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:34 pm

100% ... still not sure how the French bloke got away with it ...

by **Rugby Fan** Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:54 pm

NZ Herald says the All Blacks plan to appeal de Groot's red, claiming the impact was on the shoulder.

by **BigGee** Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:34 pm

They are kind of missing the point really.

These tackles are all getting penalised because they they are high and are hitting other players heads.

In my opinion whether they first graze a shoulder or touch the ball is beside the point.

If they just tackled lower, then we would not be having this conversation.

These tackles did not really exist when I played many years ago. They have been coached into the game and need to be coached out of it!

by Heaf Sat Sep 16, 2023 3:54 pm

BigGee wrote:They are kind of missing the point really.

These tackles are all getting penalised because they they are high and are hitting other players heads.

In my opinion whether they first graze a shoulder or touch the ball is beside the point.

If they just tackled lower, then we would not be having this conversation.

These tackles did not really exist when I played many years ago. They have been coached into the game and need to be coached out of it!

Bang on - you keep hearing this discussed as if it's mitigation but if my reading of the protocol is correct this is only something to consider when deciding the level of danger - and if you end up smashing someone hard in the head, whether it's direct or indirect it's still dangerous ... this is why I can't understand how the Argentinian challenge on Ford wasn't red.

by **Rugby Fan** Sat Sep 16, 2023 4:09 pm

Simon Shaw made a good point about the state rugby has got itself into.

Inconsistent refereeing decisions on head injuries are sending a confused message to youngsters playing grassroots rugby, World Cup winner and former England second row Simon Shaw has said.

Speaking on the eve of the new grassroots season this weekend, the three-time British and Irish Lion branded the varied approaches to referring head-on-head collisions during the opening round of the World Cup matches “incomprehensible”.

His comments come after Tom Curry’s red card for a high tackle in England’s match against Argentina split opinion last weekend, while comparable incidents involving South Africa’s Jesse Kriel and Chile’s Martin Sigren were not met with the same punishment.

Kriel’s tackle on Scotland’s Jack Dempsey was neither penalised at the time nor cited. ITV froze a replay of the collision during their half-time coverage to illustrate that head-on-head contact had been made, with John Barclay, the former Scotland captain, insisting Kriel should have been sent off.

“The inconsistency of decision making means that it’s an incredibly confusing environment which youngsters don’t understand,” said Shaw. “The whole area is muddied by these kinds of decisions.

“When young players see their heroes on TV hitting players around chest height, invariably it’s something they want to repeat.

“Until there’s a consistency of decision making around it, players will continue to go high instead of hitting someone in the gut – it’s a lot more difficult, but that has to be the goal.”

Since retiring in 2013, Shaw, 50, has co-founded Love of the Game, a charity whose aim is to reduce concussion-related issues across sport. The charity has worked with the government to develop the first concussion guidelines for grassroots sports.

“The reason for the grassroots guidelines is to highlight that concussions are going to happen, and when they do, you have to do the right thing,” the former Wasps and Toulon lock said. “You need to give it more credence, you need to have youngsters playing in a safe environment, and if in doubt, sit it out.”

Despite Shaw’s emphasis on recognising the risks of concussion, he argues that changes in the laws which have led to a dramatic increase in the number of red and yellow cards for high tackles have “completely missed the mark”.

Under the laws, direct contact with the head of an opposition player deemed intentional, reckless or avoidable is deemed an automatic red card unless there is mitigation.

“The commentators and everyone in the public are talking about whether or not it should be a red card. They should be talking about whether the players are concussed – if so, they should be receiving treatment,” he said.

Rather than penalising players for inadvertently clashing heads, Shaw – no stranger to concussion, having fractured two eye sockets over a playing career that spanned three decades – would prefer the focus to be on risk-reduction.

“People have always clashed heads and sustained concussions as long as the game has been played. I don’t think any rule change is going to ever change that,” he said. “It’s about understanding what concussion is, trying to prevent it from a skills and musculoskeletal perspective, then properly diagnosing it when it happens, removing players from the pitch and treating it.

“Unfortunately in society, the opinion has become fairly polarised. You have on the one side people in grassroots rugby continuing to gloss over the risk of concussion. And then you have a group that goes, ‘no, my little Johnny is not playing rugby anymore.’

“If we are to expect thousands of kids to take up rugby, the professional game needs to be leading the way in sport safety. If we don’t do that, there’s no hope for any future generations playing contact sport because the risks are deemed to be too high.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/09/15/rugby-world-cup-head-injuries-grassroots-red-card-shaw/

by **BigGee** Sat Sep 16, 2023 4:12 pm

Hard to disagree with any of that!

by Poorfour Sat Sep 16, 2023 11:02 pm

World Rugby is almost certain to extend the belly tackle laws to the pro game as soon as it can after the RWC. My guess would be next season, but if we have a lot of red cards in the remainder of the tournament they may try to get the unions to do something mid-season.

by **BigGee** Sat Sep 16, 2023 11:07 pm

It may be the only answer

Non of the other directives seem to be working!

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:46 pm

Not a head contact one but in the spirit of not jamming match threads hope you don't mind. This is a bit filthy.

https://twitter.com/LinebreakRugby/status/1705917387080372629?t=NF6YRU4Da6XMupbaVseZYg&s=19

by Heuer27 Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:49 pm

The whole clip would show Van dear Flier holding him in by his leg. It was a bit of old school justice

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:51 pm

Heuer27 wrote:The whole clip would show Van dear Flier holding him in by his leg. It was a bit of old school justice

Yeah I'm aware of that. Retaliation generally not a defence though?

by neilthom7 Sun Sep 24, 2023 10:24 pm

Heuer27 wrote:The whole clip would show Van dear Flier holding him in by his leg. It was a bit of old school justice

This, this is the kind of attitude that needs to go from rugby. Willfully injuring someone is okay because they held your leg. Having someone grab your leg is justification for standing full weight onto someone's hand. It's a bizarre take.

Show the ref that he is holding your leg, draw attention to it, don't stand on the guys hand, with studs and all on too, the damage that could be done with that.

What was the TMO doing on this one, I actually remember the Ireland players complaining to the ref about this, he obviously wasn't lsitening last night on repeated occassions when palyers where trying to make him aware of things but the TMO should have been.

by Heuer27 Sun Sep 24, 2023 10:47 pm

I didn’t justify it. I just pointed out the whole story. Don’t be so butt hurt

by Heaf Sun Sep 24, 2023 10:56 pm

Back to head contact - do we know who all the FPROs are that are making all these disparate decisions - today's example was another one that's just bamboozling - rising shoulder direct to face and it's deemed yellow - apparently not dangerous enough for red???

by neilthom7 Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:05 pm

Heuer27 wrote:I didn’t justify it. I just pointed out the whole story. Don’t be so butt hurt

Yes you did. The bit at the end where you said 'it was a bit of old school justice' is you justifying it

by Heuer27 Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:15 pm

neilthom7 wrote:
Heuer27 wrote:I didn’t justify it. I just pointed out the whole story. Don’t be so butt hurt

Yes you did. The bit at the end where you said 'it was a bit of old school justice' is you justifying it

At no time did I justify it. That is your wrongful interpretation . You are projecting
What the South African player did was old school justice. Approving of his conduct is a different matter altogether.
Is that clear enough.

by **Galted** Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:19 pm

That was absolutely ferocious. Van der Flier's lucky he didn't lose his arm.

Not sure I can even bring myself to watch it again. Brutal.

by **BigGee** Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:20 pm

Probably best to agree to disagree on this one guys!

by neilthom7 Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:28 pm

You're probably right Big Gee, I shall leave it there

by TJ Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:51 pm

I think a lot of the issues here is people like Barclay not understanding the protocols and how decisions are arrived at. Kreil was worth a yellow only. Missed in the match but nothing ( which is poor) can be done afterwards. Why only yellow - attempt at a legal tackle so mitigation can be applied, contact was indirect. Yellow is the right result.

This is rapidly turning into one of those rugby myths like " no one understand the dark arts of the front row" The protocols have been tweaked to try to eliminate inconsistencies but these decisions will allways be subjective.

As for who is doing the reviews? Highly skilled international refs. Joy Neville seems to be doing a few and she is rules based to the point of being pernickety but I really rate her as a ref

by No 7&1/2 Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:46 pm

TJ wrote:I think a lot of the issues here is people like Barclay not understanding the protocols and how decisions are arrived at. Kreil was worth a yellow only. Missed in the match but nothing ( which is poor) can be done afterwards. Why only yellow - attempt at a legal tackle so mitigation can be applied, contact was indirect. Yellow is the right result.

This is rapidly turning into one of those rugby myths like " no one understand the dark arts of the front row" The protocols have been tweaked to try to eliminate inconsistencies but these decisions will allways be subjective.

As for who is doing the reviews? Highly skilled international refs. Joy Neville seems to be doing a few and she is rules based to the point of being pernickety but I really rate her as a ref

https://passport.world.rugby/media/j5senlan/2303-update-head_contact_process_en.pdf

Direct contact is 1 thing to consider when assessing the degree of danger but not the only aspect so you're incorrect when stating that it can only be a yellow at that point. Also the citing officer can cite anything that he deems a red even if decided otherwise in the match. In terms of the reviews have you a list? I've seen that the TMOs are always named but the bunker reviews are completed by 3 separate people and I've never seen the list.

by Poorfour Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:11 pm

Interesting that one part of the commentary in that doc does not seem to be being applied consistently:

WR Head contact process wrote:There needs to be an understanding that tacklers stay up to allow them to ‘adjust and react’
- dropping quickly into the low tackle entry position - using their ‘eyes and feet’ to get their timing right.

In several cases the refs have clearly referred to the tackler being "always upright" and therefore not eligible for mitigation - but if there should be an understanding that tacklers need to drop to the correct height late in positioning for a tackle, I would have expected there to be more leniency for a tackler misjudging a dynamic situation (as with Curry, who in real time looked partially blindsided and surprised by where Mallia landed)

by Heaf Wed Sep 27, 2023 2:51 am

I'm still struggling with how a direct rising shoulder to the face gets a yellow when there's good line of sight and no sudden change in height or direction ...

by TJ Thu Sep 28, 2023 3:49 pm

In terms of the reviews have you a list? I've seen that the TMOs are always named but the bunker reviews are completed by 3 separate people and I've never seen the list.

No - My statement was an error I am afraid. Confusing TMOs with the bunker. My mistake

by TJ Thu Sep 28, 2023 3:51 pm

Direct contact is 1 thing to consider when assessing the degree of danger but not the only aspect so you're incorrect when stating that it can only be a yellow at that point..

correct - but in this case once it was deemed indirect then yellow is the right answer

Also the citing officer can cite anything that he deems a red even if decided otherwise in the match

Again correct. But this did not meet the threshold for a red card

by Heaf Thu Sep 28, 2023 5:48 pm

TJ wrote:
Direct contact is 1 thing to consider when assessing the degree of danger but not the only aspect so you're incorrect when stating that it can only be a yellow at that point..

correct - but in this case once it was deemed indirect then yellow is the right answer

Why?

I may be wrong but the way I read it the direct/indirect thing is just something to consider when assessing the level of danger - not automatic mitigation? So indirect but still high degree of danger should still be red?

Otherwise it seems to make no sense as skimming someone's shoulder before nearly knocking their head off doesn't make the potential injury less serious.

by TJ Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:44 pm

Indirect contact is given as yellow in the protocol listed above. Read the whole thing thru

LAW APPLICATION GUIDELINES
Trigger words for match officials
Match officials may wish to use the non-exhaustive list of trigger words below to help
them identify whether a player is at fault, the degree of danger involved and whether any
mitigation should be applied.
PLAY ON
No fault
• Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier
• Player had no time to readjust
• Involuntary collision
• No leading arm when close to the body
PK YC
Low danger
• Indirect contact
• Low force
• Low speed
• No leading head / shoulder / forearm
/ swinging arm

by Heaf Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:10 pm

You see I'm not reading it as indirect automatically = yellow. If you follow that logic then direct = red automatically, which clearly isn't the case.

I see that list as a suggested 'menu' of trigger words used as part of the overall consideration of all factors when deciding sanction, I don't see them as absolutes. What if a head contact ticks most of the trigger words in the red box, but happens to graze the shoulder first? If it's a high degree of danger it should stay at red surely?

I think the idea of the list is to help in the consideration process, and they need to look at which 'triggers' carry most weight in any given situation.

The idea that a reckless, high impact, highly dangerous contact to the head should be downgraded to yellow simply due to indirect contact just doesn't seem to make sense if we're trying to protect players ...

by No 7&1/2 Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:35 pm

TJ wrote:
Direct contact is 1 thing to consider when assessing the degree of danger but not the only aspect so you're incorrect when stating that it can only be a yellow at that point..

correct - but in this case once it was deemed indirect then yellow is the right answer

Also the citing officer can cite anything that he deems a red even if decided otherwise in the match

Again correct. But this did not meet the threshold for a red card

It was deemed indirect so lacking in force. Didn't appear to be the case at all. Bizarre decision.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:36 pm

Heaf wrote:You see I'm not reading it as indirect automatically = yellow. If you follow that logic then direct = red automatically, which clearly isn't the case.

I see that list as a suggested 'menu' of trigger words used as part of the overall consideration of all factors when deciding sanction, I don't see them as absolutes. What if a head contact ticks most of the trigger words in the red box, but happens to graze the shoulder first? If it's a high degree of danger it should stay at red surely?

I think the idea of the list is to help in the consideration process, and they need to look at which 'triggers' carry most weight in any given situation.

The idea that a reckless, high impact, highly dangerous contact to the head should be downgraded to yellow simply due to indirect contact just doesn't seem to make sense if we're trying to protect players ...

You are correct.

by TJ Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:23 pm

Your arguement then is with how the protocols and process works rather than inconsistencies because apart from the Kreil one I have seen nothing inconsistent at all in. Everything has followed the process and protocols and the correct decisions according to those protocols and process reached. The issue here is a total lack of understanding of the protocols and process from the commentators

IN yesterdays game one commentator was saying " no intent - should be yellow"! Intent has nothing to do with it

by Poorfour Fri Sep 29, 2023 1:18 pm

TJ wrote:Your arguement then is with how the protocols and process works rather than inconsistencies because apart from the Kreil one I have seen nothing inconsistent at all in. Everything has followed the process and protocols and the correct decisions according to those protocols and process reached. The issue here is a total lack of understanding of the protocols and process from the commentators

IN yesterdays game one commentator was saying " no intent - should be yellow"! Intent has nothing to do with it

I see a lot of inconsistency in the decision making, especially given it is apparently one team that are doing all of it.

One of the most egregious examples was in the Uruguay - Namibia game.
- Namibia 7 is in a legal tackle position and the ball carrier ducks into the tackle at the last moment = yellow
- Uruguayan tackler starts low but drives up into the head of the Namibian ball carrier = yellow.

I can just about see how these overlap, but like the Curry and Carreras incidents in the England Argentina game, the framework seems to have been set up in a way that penalises unreadiness more harshly than dangerous or reckless technique on very fine technicalities.

by Heaf Fri Sep 29, 2023 3:51 pm

And as I've mentioned before, I'm still not clear how the framework supports a yellow card for a player driving upwards with a direct shoulder to the face? Direct, high force etc ...

by Geordie Sun Oct 01, 2023 12:53 am

Yet more inconsistent decisions on head contact.

It's pathetic how this world Cup has been managed in that regards. Amateur is not the word.

by doctor_grey Sun Oct 01, 2023 12:59 am

I wonder if for the RWC if World Rugby could implement a tv review system like the NFL with the 'bunker' people all located in their NY office. The point is to ensure consistency. I don't hear any significant complaints so it must be OK.

by Heaf Sun Oct 01, 2023 1:01 am

Curry should ask for his card to be wiped from his record and an apology for being treated unfairly based on shoulders to the face now being acceptable ...

by Geordie Sun Oct 01, 2023 1:06 am

Yeah I agree Heaf...its a farce that he's been red carded with all these yellows being upheld.

by neilthom7 Sun Oct 01, 2023 1:06 am

At this stage if they just flipped a coin for the red or yellow card they would probably get more of them right.

This will all eventually come back to bite world rugby, as these court cases proceed for the concussions and stuff all this could potentially show negligence

by Geordie Sun Oct 01, 2023 1:33 am

My issue is they have set the standards. Head contact has meant red.

But all of a sudden through this world Cup its a lottery...and cases where its genuinely shoulder smashing into someone's head is now just a yellow or possibly a red, So it totally goes against what world rugby has instructed.

Honestly it's pathetic

by Geordie Sun Oct 01, 2023 1:35 am

In fact its almost like they've had second thoughts and are trying to change it.

Head contact means red....

Lots of games ruined because players sent off in every game...

Oh sh%t what have we done.

by neilthom7 Sun Oct 01, 2023 2:41 am

I mean they had it right to begin with, it wasn't perfect with all the red cards but the any head contact without real mitigation and it's a red card way was the right way and it was then on players to lower themselves or run the risk of a red, it was clear. This is just a mess.

This isn't the way to lower head contact and concussion issues in rugby.

by TJ Sun Oct 01, 2023 11:48 am

There is no significant inconsistencies. What there is is stupid commentators not understanding the process and protocols and sewing confusion in fans.

Read the effing protocols. Listen to the refs giving the decisions ( if the commentators stop talking over them)

There will allways be subjective elements in decisions. But no decisions have been made which are not clearly within the framework

Its funny how some teams manage to tackle legally and others seem unable.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Oct 01, 2023 2:59 pm

You're not on the BBC tj most people here have at least watched some club rugby and aren't just fans who have wandered in for the WC.

by TJ Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:35 pm

Perhaps not but they are listening to commentators who do not understand the process and who are claiming inconsistencies that are not there because of this lack of understanding. One recent game the commentator said - "there was no intent, just a clumsy challenge no foul play!" FFS intent is not a part of the prcess. Your actions are

by neilthom7 Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:50 pm

I understand the process perfectly well thanks TJ, I've watched rugby for many years and played for many years up until covid as well.

The process is wrong, it's idiotic and it's a mess if you can't see that I would suggest you need to understand why the head injury protocols are there in the first place.

by Sponsored content