AUS vs ARG

[winchesterref]

I thought the scrum was for the Arg knock on in the tackle (noting that the Arg player was unconscious by that time).

There certainly appeared shoulder contact with the chin and that is foul play irrespective of accidental or not.

Absolutely. I think Peyper got it right - there was contact - and I also think Creevy got it right but can be less sure about that, looked for all the world like a strip on the floor (2nd round of replays). Not sure what MR and TMO were watching!

 

[winchesterref]

There are a heap of legal tackles where the tacklers shoulder makes contact to the BC's head in every game. A taller player tackling a shorter player is almost certainly going to make some contact with the head in a ball and all wrap tackle, but these are still entirely legal unless the tackler fails to wrap, hits high with the arm or slides up.

If protection of the BC's head in a tackle is critical I can't see why we continue to allow the BC to fend above the chest unless somehow the BC's head is more important than the tackler.

Bit in bold - the differential here is not a "head clash" but a shoulder to the head. If the ball carrier has the ball at chest height, and the defender contacts attacking player's head with their shoulder, then it's really clear in law that tackler is at fault. We all said it before - tackle lower.

The second part, there's a difference between a fend as defined, and what we see:
[LAWS]Hand-off: An action taken by a ball carrier to fend off an opponent by using the palm of the hand.[/LAWS]
Palming off is hugely different to being hit with a shoulder/elbow/head. Time for referees to dial back their law interpretation to allowing appropriate fends only?

 

[Pegleg]

[LAWS]Reckless Tackle
A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during
other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was
a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even
if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and
rolling/ twisting around the head/ neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the
shoulders.
To decide an appropriate sanction (PK, YC or RC), referees should be considering:
• Contact point – where did the tackle start/finish, was contact with hand, arm or shoulder?
• Action – was the tackling action accidental, reckless or deliberate?
• Degree of force – severity of impact, does the tackler ‘carry on’ through the tackle, e.g.
around the neck?
Referees should use common sense – but player safety is paramount.[/LAWS]

Extract from WR document. Accidental, with force, is at least a PK.

Not quite Please take the whole of the piece you quote into consideration not just selctive bits. A few bold bits to help.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Not quite Please take the whole of the piece you quote into consideration not just selctive bits. A few bold bits to help.

The problem with the "the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway" part of the WR document is that in almost any tackle there is a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent (apart from a very low tackle) so any tackle where any contact with the head of the BC is a PK. Is this really what we want? I'm sure a lawyer could argue that in almost every tackle a player should expect that there was a risk of making contact with the head, it is a contact sport after all.

Deliberate or reckless high shots, shoulder charges and dangerous tackles need to be removed from the game, but I think the mention of the shoulder in the first point needs to make a distinction between the point of the shoulder and the collarbone area. I don't know many people who would think that a tackle using the point of the shoulder should be encouraged, but I'd find it difficult to properly tackle a player without using the collarbone/chest front area without risking a dislocated shoulder or AC joint.

I still think that there is a double standard in demanding that a tackler not make contact with the BC's head, but allowing the BC to fend an opposition player in the head/neck. What would you call if a tackler ran up to the BC and made a head height fend against the BC? I realise that they are dealt with differently in the law set, but its rhetorical.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Bit in bold - the differential here is not a "head clash" but a shoulder to the head. If the ball carrier has the ball at chest height, and the defender contacts attacking player's head with their shoulder, then it's really clear in law that tackler is at fault. We all said it before - tackle lower.

The second part, there's a difference between a fend as defined, and what we see:
[LAWS]Hand-off: An action taken by a ball carrier to fend off an opponent by using the palm of the hand.[/LAWS]
Palming off is hugely different to being hit with a shoulder/elbow/head. Time for referees to dial back their law interpretation to allowing appropriate fends only?

The bit in bold - there is a huge difference between a shoulder to the head (ala Sonny Bill's hit in the Lions series) and a players head contacting a shoulder due to momentum in (what I think) was a solid wrap tackle. Was Koroibete aiming to make contact with the Puma's head? I don't think so. Was there incidental contact - certainly - but was it penalty worthy when compared to some of the lazy high shots we see regularly which don't result in a card?

 

[winchesterref]

The bit in bold - there is a huge difference between a shoulder to the head (ala Sonny Bill's hit in the Lions series) and a players head contacting a shoulder due to momentum in (what I think) was a solid wrap tackle. Was Koroibete aiming to make contact with the Puma's head? I don't think so. Was there incidental contact - certainly - but was it penalty worthy when compared to some of the lazy high shots we see regularly which don't result in a card?

Yes I think so;
It ended high, his positioning was poor (not "solid" at all!) and his shoulder impact was with the ball carrying player's head.

Just because someone might miss a lazy high shot doesn't mean this one should be ignored too.

 

[Cross]

One factor that should be included on any review is the obstruction by ARGie (white skinned, retreating player at KO with white tape on both wrist, taped lift thighs: I can't identify by number)

The ARGIE obstructor is just commonplace overlooked rugby, but it contributed to his teammates headache

Are you ignorant about how that is a derogatory term or are you trying to pick up a fight.

Thoughts on this interpretation?

I see contact between shoulder and chin. I can understand the argument for PK/YC/RC, but not for scrum.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Are you ignorant about how that is a derogatory term or are you trying to pick up a fight.

Really? No mention of it being derogatory here... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Argie

If you are English then you might be somewhat sensitive to its use after the British tabloids used it extensively during the 1982 Falklands War, but that doesn't apply anywhere else in the world.

"Argie" is no different than "aussie" for Australian, "kiwi" for New Zealander or "canuck" for Canadian. They are all just nicknames, more endearment than anything.

http://www.goinglocaltravel.com/2010/11/08/argy-affectionate-or-offensive/

We have several ex-pat Argentinian lads playing rugby here. They refer to themselves as "Los chicos de Argies" (The Argie Boys).

 

[Pegleg]

The problem with the "the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway" part of the WR document is that in almost any tackle there is a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent...

Exactly so we need to use a bit of sense as per the conclusion fo the quote ("Referees should use common sense – but player safety is paramount.)

 

[Dickie E]

but not for scrum.

well, if the ref decided there was no penalty for either foul play or tackler not releasing/playing ball on ground, then the only other outcome I can see is a knock on by the Blue player. Or he decided that Gold was going forward at time of stoppage.

Not saying I agree with him, mind, just that if there is no penalty and play is stopped for a serious injury, then scrum is only option.

 

[Cross]

Really? No mention of it being derogatory here... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Argie

If you are English then you might be somewhat sensitive to its use after the British tabloids used it extensively during the 1982 Falklands War, but that doesn't apply anywhere else in the world.

"Argie" is no different than "aussie" for Australian, "kiwi" for New Zealander or "canuck" for Canadian. They are all just nicknames, more endearment than anything.

http://www.goinglocaltravel.com/2010/11/08/argy-affectionate-or-offensive/

We have several ex-pat Argentinian lads playing rugby here. They refer to themselves as "Los chicos de Argies" (The Argie Boys).

I don't like it, but i admit some argentines do not care, thou most of them probably ignore how the term was coined. Even some who do know don't care. Some actually might embrace it, but it is not uncommon for slur to be actually adopted by the people they are intended to insult.

Regarding comparisons to terms like "aussie", the difference is not minor and lies in both in its origin and the intent with which it was used. As far as i understand aussie was never intended as a slur nor insult. There is no baggage associated with it. The term argie was coined by the Sun after 300 of argentines drowned.

I'd say it lies way closer to paki (another diminutive, yet clearly a slur) than aussie. If i were to give you an advice, i'd say don't use it. Some might not care, some will.

Given the use of caps Not kur weaver used, i'd say he knew exactly what he was doing.

YOu made me second guess myself so i googled it, just in case. First google result when i searched for "argie definition"

Dicitonary.com:

Argie or Argy
[ahr-jee]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun, Chiefly British Slang: Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive.
1.
a term used to refer to an Argentine.

Bold is mine

Hope this clarifies my reaction.
Best

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Are you ignorant about how that is a derogatory term or are you trying to pick up a fight.


.

Just ignorant, please do not read too much into it.

My real fight, and no one was concerned, is the obstruction by the ARG player in video.

My capitalization of ARGIE is just a combination of poor typing skills with shift key and overuse of three letter identifiers. i.e. MON, SAT, OCT, NZL, LAX please disregard my waspy intentions

 

[ChrisR]

My real fight, and no one was concerned, is the obstruction by the ARG player in video.

Perhaps that's because nobody has any idea what you're talking about. All I saw was players retiring to the ball.

 

[Pegleg]

My real fight, and no one was concerned, is the obstruction by the ARG player in video.

Perhaps that's because nobody has any idea what you're talking about. All I saw was players retiring to the ball.

Agreed,

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

My real fight, and no one was concerned, is the obstruction by the ARG player in video.

Perhaps that's because nobody has any idea what you're talking about. All I saw was players retiring to the ball.

All I saw was 2 players retiring to a teammate waiting to catch the ball. Actually, All I saw was two pumas (PC) retiring to a puma #8 teammate by remaining directly between him and the AUSSIE #12. So much so the puma #8 could even see the yellow #12 and actually toward into him at the tackle.

The two pumas in essence provided a covering shield for the would be high tackler.

 

[ChrisR]

They may not change direction into the path of the opponent but they have every right to retire directly back to support a teammate and get onside. That's what can happen when you kick it deep.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Here's the thing with obstruction. No-one has to get out of anyone's way, but they must not move to get themselves in the way if they aren't already.

► Gold player chips over white player's head. White player turns and runs directly towards where the ball is. If he is between the Gold player and the ball, tough... play on

► Gold player chips over white player's head. White player turns and runs directly towards where the ball is. If he is not between the Gold player and the ball, but as the Gold player approaches him, he changes direction to get between the Gold player and the ball... PEEP. Obstruction.

► Gold player chips over white player's head. White player stops dead in his tracks, and Gold player runs into him. Tough... play on

► Gold player chips over white player's head. White player stops then steps sideways into the path of the Gold player who then runs into him. PEEP. Obstruction.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

They may not change direction into the path of the opponent but they have every right to retire directly back to support a teammate and get onside. That's what can happen when you kick it deep.

Yep, no matter how you look at it with your description above or mine as borderline obstruction, this tactic backfired, The puma #8 was knocked out and a contributing factor was his teammates position relative to the tackler.

His teammates blocked the #8 field of view. #8 caught the ball and turned unprepared to contact.

I believe the pumas 2nd row chose the running angle to affect the aussie #12 route. He did his teammate no favors and his effort was not firstmost support.