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

[Flish]

Re: Head clash, with force, "accidental" = no card? women's 6N

there may be nunaces that you are aware of that I'm not, but I'm not seeing a low degree of danger here. its a direct head clash. what higher danger can there be ? (including to the tackler themself!)

I'm assuming - and could be wrong - that degree of danger correlates to the force of the impact - in that the impact in the ladies game was lower than that in the RC example

 

[didds]

well... I would respectfully suggest that we are now entering a subjective area whereby potentially the only likely real impact of stopping head collisions howsoever happening will be made at the male elite level as nobody else can "probably" provide any real force. I fail to see how such an approach can send a message to NOT get near the head, across the game. Back to square one.

didds

 

[crossref]

for me - under current guidelines - that looks like a card

 

[Rich_NL]

Found it. Indeed, It v E - apologies

67th minute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrweZTwpSI8&t=5440s

Just seen it - looks like a red to me, by current framework.

 

[Zebra1922]

RC for me. I understand all the arguments about a relatively low degree of force. But the player went into a tackle high, had time to lower and chose not not, direct impact to the head, no mitigation. RC.

 

[Flish]

There’s and RFU webinar doing the rounds with Wayne Barnes, walking though a lot of examples, talking through the process, considerations, degrees of danger etc - long, but worth a watch https://jwp.io/s/LMstgeFX

Summary from that, the ita vs eng ladies game was the wrong decision for me, RC. We have a society meet tomorrow so be interesting how this is presented

 

[Flish]

As an aside, I think the Italian player (if it’s Maria Magazzi) has been cited, outcome not yet known

 

[Treadmore]

As an aside, I think the Italian player (if it’s Maria Magazzi) has been cited, outcome not yet known

Outcome was on Tuesday:

Ms Magatti did not accept that she had committed an act of foul play. On review of the video footage and other evidence, and after hearing from Ms Magatti, the Disciplinary Committee determined that there had been an act of foul play (ie a dangerous tackle). The Disciplinary Committee went on to determine, after referring to World Rugby’s Head Contact Process document, which was issued in March 2021, that the foul play had involved reckless contact with the head but that it had not warranted a red card. The Disciplinary Committee found, in particular, that while the degree of danger had been sufficiently high for it to have amounted to a red card, as there was direct contact with the head at relatively high force, there were mitigating factors present (ie a sudden change of direction by Ms Dow, and an effort by Ms Magatti to wrap/bind with limited time to adjust). Accordingly, the Disciplinary Committee determined that the act of foul play would have warranted no more than a yellow card, and so the citing complaint was dismissed.

 

[Dickie E]

there were mitigating factors present (ie a sudden change of direction by Ms Dow,

the only change of direction that I saw was bracing for impact.

 

[SimonSmith]

Outcome was on Tuesday:

...and an effort by Ms Magatti to wrap/bind with limited time to adjust). Accordingly, the Disciplinary Committee determined that the act of foul play would have warranted no more than a yellow card, and so the citing complaint was dismissed.

If that had been a shoulder charge, I can understand that mitigation.
I'm not sure I understand how attempting to wrap mitigates a head to head collision. This seems to me to be a cop out.

 

[Dickie E]

If that had been a shoulder charge, I can understand that mitigation.
I'm not sure I understand how attempting to wrap mitigates a head to head collision. This seems to me to be a cop out.

maybe the attempted wrap takes it from "reckless" (unguided missile with no consideration for outcome) to "careless" (got timing wrong)

 

[Flish]

Not convinced on the mitigation either, however that’s subjective - at least we know now that it should have been a sanction on the framework

 

[SimonSmith]

maybe the attempted wrap takes it from "reckless" (unguided missile with no consideration for outcome) to "careless" (got timing wrong)

Any half decent lawyer in a disciplinary hearing is going to quote that.m "yes, we admit there was contact to the head, but my client was trying to wrap. Following the recent decision, the card should be dropped to a yellow..."

 

[Flish]

It's the most obvious way out, if considered deliberate or reckless then there can be no mitigation. If you can get mitigation to apply then it's not a red therefore citing doesn't apply (at least as I understand it)

 

[didds]

agree with the recent comments (#43 onwards).

How frankly that isnt a RC is beyond me. But then I don;t sit on a 6N discisplinary panel. I thouroughly agree with Dickie - that wasnt a change of direction, and what tiny movement there was made no difference to the height of Magatti's head etc. Unless she was suddenly going to drop to a knee height tackle in the final FOOT of her approach - yeah right.

I smell bullshit.

didds

 

[didds]

And while we may have queries over the panel's view of changing direction etc the bigger query is surely how the ref and in particular TMO got that so wrong - TMO particularly as the ref didnt have a visual display available . Including use of terminology ("accidental") that doesnt appear in the protocols and frameworks?

didds

 

[thepercy]

Not convinced on the mitigation either, however that’s subjective - at least we know now that it should have been a sanction on the framework

So the Referee, ARs X2 and TMO thought not even a PK, the Citing Officer thought RC, and the Disciplinary Committee thought YC. Glad that this framework has brought consistency to officiating.

 

[Rich_NL]

So the Referee, ARs X2 and TMO thought not even a PK, the Citing Officer thought RC, and the Disciplinary Committee thought YC. Glad that this framework has brought consistency to officiating.

Exactly this.

 

[Phil E]

I didn't see any change of direction from White, and the Blue player was still rising as she hit, so it was never going to be anything other than a head on head contact.

The TMO cannot have followed the protocol map or they would never have come to the decision they did. Unless by accidental they meant it wasn't foul play?

 

[didds]

"accidental" is still not a word in the protocol, and was repeated as an explanantion by the ref (alebit accpeting this isnt her first language).

I thought the ref had a good game overall. But this To4 interaction was bloody woeful. Well... To3 ... I'd accept one AR was at least 60m away so probably didnt have any input that was really valid.