Hislop RC rescinded

[crossref]

well, I am quite surprised ...

lesson : be sure to remain passive when committing an upright tackle, likely to result in head contact.

verdict

Saracens prop Robin Hislop off the hook for red card

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) have rescinded a red card given to Saracens prop Robin Hislop on the weekend.

www.rugbypass.com

incident

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632419894993072129

 

[chbg]

Forensic analysis of whether there was a real "step forward into the tackle", as seen by the referee. Different panels may well decide differently.

 

[crossref]

Forensic analysis of whether there was a real "step forward into the tackle", as seen by the referee. Different panels may well decide differently.

I am not clear why it should make a difference?
We are saying you can execute an upright tackle , high risk of head to head contact , and if you take care not to step forward it's not a RC ?

 

[didds]

They make it up as they go along.

 

[belladonna]

But if the bc runs into an upright, stationary defender, who braces himself for impact... Should the bc be rewarded?

 

[crossref]

But if the bc runs into an upright, stationary defender, who braces himself for impact... Should the bc be rewarded?

That wasn't what happened though, he was making a tackle

 

[Volun-selected]

But if the bc runs into an upright, stationary defender, who braces himself for impact... Should the bc be rewarded?

Following the law, yes. Assuming the defender is attempting a tackle - active or passive - and not dropping their height then the law gives an advantage to the bc to essentially reward their possession.

If the defender is stepping into the bc path and not tackling them, then that is obstruction so bc can try to get through.

The law that “Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball” only applies to a player without the ball implies the bc can hold, push, charge or obstruct

Beyond the general prohibition of “reckless or dangerous to others” the bc gets a lot of leeway.

 

[crossref]

A RC should never be a "reward" for the play of the other team
If that's the case we have seriously lost our way. A RC should be for egregious dangerous play

 

[Decorily]

If the defender is stepping into the bc path and not tackling them, then that is obstruction so bc can try to get through.

Obstruction? Really?

 

[chbg]

I am not clear why it should make a difference?
We are saying you can execute an upright tackle , high risk of head to head contact , and if you take care not to step forward it's not a RC ?

Did you read the report?

"The panel, having heard evidence from the club and player, found that the player was entitled to mitigation under the Head Contact Process (HCP) having deemed that he was “passive” in the tackle whereas the match officials had decided that there was no mitigation available to the player under the HCP as the player had been “dynamic” in the tackle."

 

[crossref]

Did you read the report?

Yes, of course. Did you read my post ?

my question is why is the HCP written like that ? Why should being "passive" allow you to escape RC?

 

[Balones]

So to clarify the protocol WR will now have to define ’passive’ and ‘dynamic’?

 

[crossref]

So to clarify the protocol WR will now have to define ’passive’ and ‘dynamic’?

And why it should make any difference to the RC decision

 

[Balones]

I have often thought that a ball carrier should be sanctioned for head-butting a ‘static’ player.
(Now WR will need to define the difference between a static and a passive defender!)

 

[Decorily]

I have often thought that a ball carrier should be sanctioned for head-butting a ‘static’ player.
(Now WR will need to define the difference between a static and a passive defender!)

If WR are really serious about player protection then the same protection needs to be given to all players wheter or not they are in possession of the ball.

 

[Volun-selected]

Obstruction? Really?

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I was envisioning them being offside and deliberately impeding the bc but was in a rush to get back to the IT v WA game stream.

 

[Decorily]

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I was envisioning them being offside and deliberately impeding the bc but was in a rush to get back to the IT v WA game stream.

Fair enough....thanks.

 

[didds]

I read passive tackle as a soak up tackle ie falling backwards with the advancing BC with a wrap to bring them to ground - that wouldnt require any forward step by the tackler - the tacjler just waits for the BC to arrive and falls over backwards hoilding them.

 

[Volun-selected]

A RC should never be a "reward" for the play of the other team
If that's the case we have seriously lost our way. A RC should be for egregious dangerous play

And yet we sometimes find ourselves sanctioning a player due to the action of another player (and cue my usual rant about players who jump into a player waiting to catch a ball who the get a PK or more awarded against the static player….)

 

[chbg]

Yes, of course. Did you read my post ?

my question is why is the HCP written like that ? Why should being "passive" allow you to escape RC?

Why would anyone in this group know why it was written like that?