Hartley red card - Saints v Leinster

[Ian_Cook]

I really dislike this outcome driven decision making, it takes away common sense approaches.

Defenders have to anticipate
a) jumping (Thompstone)
b) ducking (Luamanu)
c) team mate successfully tackling (Hartley)
d) flying (Bigger/Russell)

Attacking players have to
a) take care that defenders are not in a crap tackle position, and
b) if they are, carry the ball in 2 hands and run a bit slower

No there should not have been a swinging arm, but had it connected mid back would JG have given it a second glance? Doubt it very much. That it connected to the head was solely because Wood completed his tackle half a second too early. The replays were all slow mo which make it look bad, real time I didn't even notice, it was that fast.

Rugby absolutely doesn't need serious and deliberate foul play, but the onus cannot be 100% on outcome, because so many incidents are not dependent on just singular illegal actions, rather a series of unfortunate events that happen so quickly in a sequence such that someone can't react quick enough and someone else gets hurt.

I'm happy to see that you seem to have changed your position somewhat since the Sam Cane/Robbie Henshaw collision a few weeks back.

(No patronizing here. I'm genuinely surprised given your previous stance on the issue of intent and reaction times)

 

[ChrisR]

From the two stills I don't see a red card. The BC is tackled and on the way down and Hartley is going in for a body high tackle. Without seeing the whole action in motion (I'm on dial-up) I can't comment on the "swinging arm" other than to ask how else is Hartley going to wrap the BC.

PK maybe, YC coz of previous warnings, RC no.

 

[The Fat]

Just watched part of the game.
RC

 

[OB..]

Moral: don't use a swinging arm.

 

[didds]

Right now we have a specific problem with collisions in the air, the but in general terms sanctions have always been a mixture of outcome and intent, and realistically, how could it be otherwise.

Punching - there is nothing that happens in a game of rugby where a punch can start legitimately and end up otherwise.

I honestly see no problem with all punches being a RC, whether it connects or not. I appreciate that is not how guidance provides for sanctions.

If someone swings a haymaker and misses and isn't dismissed it just leaves him on the pitch whether this week or next week to repeat the action, and maybe next time he will connect and seriously damage somebody. I'm sure the guy with a broken eye socket is fine with the idea that the perpetrator wasn't dismissed for his previous attempt because he got lucky and missed instead.

didds

 

[crossref]

Has anyone ever been sent off for a punch that missed? It's not a punch..

And a RC for an intent to commit an offence... It's a bit minority report

 

[SimonSmith]

*shrug* this is the ultimate end of outcome driven sanctions.

I swing a punch

- misses, maybe a PK
- just clips a shoulder - maybe a YC
- connects with head - RC.


All the time the sanction is not determined by the action but the outcome we will always get this arguments and anomalies.



didds

The bottom two are RC, probably. I'll let the DC handle the sanction.

As always though, the precise circumstances and mood of match is a critical input.

 

[L'irlandais]

The bottom two are RC, probably. I'll let the DC handle the sanction.

As always though, the precise circumstances and mood of match is a critical input.

in the case of DH, two 2 minutes after he got on the pitch, Sean O'Brien made a bullocking run up the pitch. I strongly feel Saint's No 16 targeted the Irish player to "quiten him". The sooner this sort of cynical foul play is removed from top flight rugby the better, even his own coach refused to defend his actions. No way it was an accident, or simply targeting the other player's back. Stupid act from a incredibly silly player, who could have captained England, but hopefully is no longer in the running for that.

 

[OB..]

Has anyone ever been sent off for a punch that missed? It's not a punch..

Paul Ringer.

(IIRC it was the fifth PK against him ... and in the days before cards)

 

[crossref]

Nowadays he would have a YC sometime earlier, and Ten minutes to cool down!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Punching - there is nothing that happens in a game of rugby where a punch can start legitimately and end up otherwise.

I honestly see no problem with all punches being a RC, whether it connects or not. I appreciate that is not how guidance provides for sanctions.

If someone swings a haymaker and misses and isn't dismissed it just leaves him on the pitch whether this week or next week to repeat the action, and maybe next time he will connect and seriously damage somebody. I'm sure the guy with a broken eye socket is fine with the idea that the perpetrator wasn't dismissed for his previous attempt because he got lucky and missed instead.

didds

A great example of how players should be sanctioned, by their action rather than by the outcome, although I would rather see a YC for a swing and a miss on a similar basis to the Law that regards an "attempted assault" as an act that intends to physically harm the victim, but fails or falls short. It is a lesser charge than "assault"

 

[menace]

Has anyone ever been sent off for a punch that missed? It's not a punch..

And a RC for an intent to commit an offence... It's a bit minority report

Yes....a few times. But it was juniors. ...and it is an ARU rule. Zero tolerance.

 

[menace]

Moral: don't use a swinging arm.

Moral 2: don't go "in for a body high tackle".

 

[winchesterref]

Moral 2: don't go "in for a body high tackle".

I don't disagree with many of the sentiments in this thread, and not really this one if by body high tackle you mean shoulders?

Otherwise, the laws allow body tackles; how can we honestly expect someone who is in the process of arriving to hit a player from behind to connect mid back, to react within 0.1 to 0.125 seconds? We simply cannot, but the laws are mandating they must.

Should there have been an initial swinging arm? No.

Would the referee have looked again if it had connected mid back? Very much doubt it as there would have been contact, wrap and tackle complete.

Would it have connected with the head if the tackle from Wood was successful just 0.3 seconds later? No.

I've seen calls for an 11 or 12 week ban, through to end of the season. Is this appropriate? No, of course it isn't. It was purely as a result of unfortunate circumstances happening in this exact sequence (with the note that if he had not swung the arm, we might not have this happen, but if he gone in with his shoulder then we could be looking at a shoulder charge to the head instead).

I would be arguing for sending off sufficient.

 

[Pegleg]

... It was purely as a result of unfortunate circumstances happening in this exact sequence (with the note that if he had not swung the arm, we might not have this happen,,,

There's what I see as the fault in your thinking.

There is nothing "unfortunate" when you swing an arm. Ok He got "unlucky" in that other event conspired against hi. But Hartley was the CAUSE of the problem. His record and attitude has now to speak very loud and clear. Wa the offence it self worth the time scales being discussed? Prossibly not. However, his appauling record, his "previous", demands a long ban.

 

[menace]

I don't disagree with many of the sentiments in this thread, and not really this one if by body high tackle you mean shoulders?

Otherwise, the laws allow body tackles; how can we honestly expect someone who is in the process of arriving to hit a player from behind to connect mid back, to react within 0.1 to 0.125 seconds? We simply cannot, but the laws are mandating they must.

Should there have been an initial swinging arm? No.

Would the referee have looked again if it had connected mid back? Very much doubt it as there would have been contact, wrap and tackle complete.

Would it have connected with the head if the tackle from Wood was successful just 0.3 seconds later? No.

I've seen calls for an 11 or 12 week ban, through to end of the season. Is this appropriate? No, of course it isn't. It was purely as a result of unfortunate circumstances happening in this exact sequence (with the note that if he had not swung the arm, we might not have this happen, but if he gone in with his shoulder then we could be looking at a shoulder charge to the head instead).

I would be arguing for sending off sufficient.

I hear what you're saying...but on my viewing he started relatively high at the shoulders. And although player slipped down he ended on the neck/head. He used a high risk tackle zone and paid the price for that action.

Im just not feeling any sympathy for it.

 

[didds]

Has anyone ever been sent off for a punch that missed? It's not a punch..

sorry CR - You know a punch when its made. Just because it doesn't land? Nahh.

what about kicking and sstamping then? I take it a kick to the head that misses is not a kick then?

Good job this landed then ?

http://www.rugbydump.com/2016/04/49...-kick-to-the-head-by-club-player-in-argentina

didds

 

[didds]

Has anyone ever been sent off for a punch that missed? It's not a punch..

The sanctions as set out do not permit a RC for a punch that misses. them's the rules. So no, nobody has been sent off for a missed punch. Because refs are told not to do it.

I have already said I appreciate that them's the rules.

That doesn't make them rules "right".

I equally accept I am totally alone in this viewpoint. And I thought it was coaches that were the ones that made excuses.

didds

 

[The Fat]

The sanctions as set out do not permit a RC for a punch that misses. them's the rules. So no, nobody has been sent off for a missed punch. Because refs are told not to do it.

I have already said I appreciate that them's the rules.

That doesn't make them rules "right".

I equally accept I am totally alone in this viewpoint. And I thought it was coaches that were the ones that made excuses.

didds

I've never sent anyone off for a swing and a miss didds

 

[Dickie E]

I've never sent anyone off for a swing and a miss didds

Ditto. Same as I've never awarded 2 points for a conversion that missed :biggrin: