[Tackle] Head clash, with force, "accidental" = no card? women's 6N

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
In one of the women's 6N games alst weekend (I _think_ it was Ireland v Wales ) there was a head clash incident reviewed by TMO.

I unfortunately cannot find it on any video available online - if anybody can Id be grateful becasue obviously its difficult to discuss this without such :-( ISTR it was around ten 60-70 minute mark but I might be horribly wrong! )

Anyway, which ever it was...

there was a tackle which was reviewed by the TMO. It was very upright, no obvious mitigation. Head clash. With force in the impact.

The TMO and ref agreed it was "accidental" so there were no cards due.

Understandably maybe, women's rugby doesnt have the same level of "force" on the whole that men's rugby does. But then again nor would U14 lads and i cant see that that would be a distinguishing difference?

So is the protocol different in the women's 6N ? Cos i can't see why frankly it wasnt a RC?

anybody else see it?

didds
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
well iw as - and i meant to raise this before but I forgot to and now i cant recall which game it was.
 

Lee Lifeson-Peart


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
7,798
Post Likes
999
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
well iw as - and i meant to raise this before but I forgot to and now i cant recall which game it was.

It sounds like it's time for your medicine and your afternoon nap. Matron will put the Perry Como tape on for you.
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
well iw as - and i meant to raise this before but I forgot to and now i cant recall which game it was.

Don’t think it was I v W. I’ve just checked (at double speed) and couldn’t see any review of a head clash.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
i left a commentary on YT running in the background today and didnt pick up and similar conversation either.

so maybe (?!) It v E then!

didds
 

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,556
Post Likes
423
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
For me it's an accidental rugby collision.
I don't agree that it should have been a red card.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
If you follow the new flowchart, and decide no foul play, then it’s play on (which I agree with here) but has there not been cards for similar head on head clashes in the prem?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
I suppose it depends when the new flowchart appeared/came online?

I do recall you chaps discussing it now.

didds
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
If you follow the new flowchart, and decide no foul play, then it’s play on (which I agree with here) but has there not been cards for similar head on head clashes in the prem?


So if there's no foul play aka accidental and the ball carrier ends up with severe concussion, a brain haemorrage and a career ending scenario ... it IS just a rugby incident ? That could have been avoided if the tackler had not targetted so high and the accidental head clash occurred?

Asking for a devil's advocate friend ... ;-)
 

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,556
Post Likes
423
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
For me it's an accidental rugby collision.
I don't agree that it should have been a red card.

Having viewed past the few seconds that the TMO appeared to have been assessing I believe that the head to head was an accidental collision but in my opinion it should have been a penalty for the subsequent 'high tackle'!

On a side note......the body language /reaction of the Ref after consulting with the TMO was 'comical'!!!
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
So if there's no foul play aka accidental and the ball carrier ends up with severe concussion, a brain haemorrage and a career ending scenario ... it IS just a rugby incident ? That could have been avoided if the tackler had not targetted so high and the accidental head clash occurred?

Asking for a devil's advocate friend ... ;-)

Well, this one was a red card - because he targeted a upright tackle https://www.rugbydump.com/news/refe...er-who-is-off-the-field-for-hia-and-stitches/

Am I missing a significant difference?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If you follow the new flowchart, and decide no foul play, then it’s play on (which I agree with here) but has there not been cards for similar head on head clashes in the prem?

for me that was reckless, no mitigation, with force. Red card.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,335
Post Likes
1,440
Straight red. Do not pass Go. Do not collect Match Bonus.

She leads with her head. I don't believe it's deliberate, but that isn't the point. Head to head, with no mitigating factors I can see.
Subjectively, and not part of my decision making process: very avoidable.

I agree there isn't as much force in much of the Women's game, but I'm not sure that's a factor worth considering. As I said - offski.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
'accidental' is when 2 players inadvertently clash heads - both chasing a ball, getting up off ground, etc

I'd go as far as to say that an 'accidental' head clash (as opposed to deliberate, reckless or careless) is very unlikely by a tackler.
 
Last edited:

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
So, again using the flowchart, are we supposed to classify a tackler arriving in an upright position as foul play? Player at fault, is the secondary wording on the flowchart? Therefore wrong decision in the ladies game?

My common sense approach to that is play on, number of factors involved, none of them illegal, or dangerous, but head contact happened, hope everyone’s ok - please try to tackle lower.

My framework approach looks like, tackler was upright, therefore at fault, sanction ....
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
So, again using the flowchart, are we supposed to classify a tackler arriving in an upright position as foul play?

if a head clash occurs then yes (IMO). It is reckless. Sanction will then depend on mitigation and/or degree of force
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Well, this one was a red card - because he targeted a upright tackle https://www.rugbydump.com/news/refe...er-who-is-off-the-field-for-hia-and-stitches/

Am I missing a significant difference?

“He’s always high. He’s got clear line of sight to run into the tackle, and he makes direct head contact with the Wasps player… No attempt to dip. I don’t think there’s any way we can mitigate that. So it’s got to be a red card"

And that is what Ive been hearing all season at least. The incident in the Ita v Eng game fits that description to a tee.

So either the Italy player got lucky and the TMO/Ref there were totally wrong ... OR Carley got the Glos decsion totally wrong.

So when did the new protocols come in?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
I agree there isn't as much force in much of the Women's game, but I'm not sure that's a factor worth considering. As I said - offski.

indeed. there isn't much probably in an U14s match either - but I can't believe head clashes from avoidable upright tackles are just ignored because "he didnt hit him VERY hard" ?

As for " I don't believe it's deliberate, but that isn't the point" - this is entirely it. Of the RCs Ive seen this season none of them I'd say were a deliberate targetting of the head. So they are ALL accidental.

so its back to this new framework - and if that says an accidental clash is play on then there will ne no RCs for any such incicent. I'm not saying that is right or wrong but it seems to say that "we" have gone from one exterme to another.
 
Last edited:
Top