Just a rugby Incident Sale v Stade Francais!

[Ciaran Trainor]

Watched the highlights and early on Manu Tuilagi caught a kick and was clattered by a Stade player who had to go off for a HIA after a clash of heads.
Ref and TMO said no foul play "just a rugby incident"
How they came to that conclusion is beyond me. Looked a nailed on yellow if lucky and probably a red.
By that definition any reckless head contact is just a rugby incident so looks like we can all ignore the protocols now

 

[Stu10]

15:35 on the YT video clock.

Ref said both were dipping into it... on second watch, could very easily have been a yellow card.

 

[didds]

They make it up as they go along.

Nobody now knows what the rules, regs and laws and interpretations are. They've given up making any sense of it all.

 

[crossref]

how can Dallaglio think that "no intent at all " is remotely relevant..

 

[jdeagro]

They make it up as they go along.

Nobody now knows what the rules, regs and laws and interpretations are. They've given up making any sense of it all.

I agree.

Just played in a game where both (tall) players dipped at the same time (similar to this), off kickoff, and knocked heads. Penalty and YC immediately to the tackler because "it's his responsibility to ensure they don't hit heads". Yet the ball carrier gets off free for dipping. And if the tackler didn't lower himself before making the tackle, it would've been a high tackle. Lose-lose I guess . Ref agreed it wasn't malicious / intentional, which is why he didn't give the tackler a red instead.

IMO, in a situation where neither player is malicious or intentional, and it's accidental, the ruling needs to be consistent. In the situation I saw, I wouldn't've carded at all. But I'd have been at least happy if the ref YC'ed both players, for consistency's sake.

 

[Stu10]

I agree.

Just played in a game where both (tall) players dipped at the same time (similar to this), off kickoff, and knocked heads. Penalty and YC immediately to the tackler because "it's his responsibility to ensure they don't hit heads". Yet the ball carrier gets off free for dipping. And if the tackler didn't lower himself before making the tackle, it would've been a high tackle. Lose-lose I guess . Ref agreed it wasn't malicious / intentional, which is why he didn't give the tackler a red instead.

IMO, in a situation where neither player is malicious or intentional, and it's accidental, the ruling needs to be consistent. In the situation I saw, I wouldn't've carded at all. But I'd have been at least happy if the ref YC'ed both players, for consistency's sake.

Ignoring the fact that this could be a "late and low" penalty against the ball carrier in England, was there foul play in this example... I don't think an accidental head-on-head collision when the tackler has done everything right constitutes foul play.

 

[jdeagro]

Ignoring the fact that this could be a "late and low" penalty against the ball carrier in England, was there foul play in this example... I don't think an accidental head-on-head collision when the tackler has done everything right constitutes foul play.

Agreed, no foul play. Just poor timing, and an accidental head-on-head collision. Again, I think should've been a consistent ruling, whether that's no penalties at all, or YC for both. But to pick and choose the tackler seemed arbitrary to me. This was one of those "just a rugby incident".

 

[Stu10]

Agreed, no foul play. Just poor timing, and an accidental head-on-head collision. Again, I think should've been a consistent ruling, whether that's no penalties at all, or YC for both. But to pick and choose the tackler seemed arbitrary to me. This was one of those "just a rugby incident".

Unless you are in a country that has adopted "late and low" then the ball carrier will never be sanctioned in this scenario. That means you either penalise the tackler or you decide no foul play (i.e. a rugby incident).

What is more bizarre is that your ref said it was a rugby incident and then gave a penalty plus YC. I think he has got carried away with the idea that it's the tackler's responsibility to ensure they don't hit heads no matter what.... not every head contact is foul play... if it's not foul play then it should not result in a penalty.

 

[jdeagro]

Unless you are in a country that has adopted "late and low" then the ball carrier will never be sanctioned in this scenario. That means you either penalise the tackler or you decide no foul play (i.e. a rugby incident).

What is more bizarre is that your ref said it was a rugby incident and then gave a penalty plus YC. I think he has got carried away with the idea that it's the tackler's responsibility to ensure they don't hit heads no matter what.... not every head contact is foul play... if it's not foul play then it should not result in a penalty.

The ref didn't explicitly say the words "rugby incident" but when it occurred I asked the ref for clarification and mentioned "I don't believe the player did it maliciously, it was accidental" and the ref's response was he agreed and "that's why it wasn't a red card".

 

[crossref]

I asked the ref for clarification and mentioned "I don't believe the player did it maliciously, it was accidental"

At grass roots rugby I think this is appropriate to consider

In professional rugby , as a TMO , it's completely irrelevant

 

[jdeagro]

At grass roots rugby I think this is appropriate to consider

In professional rugby , as a TMO , it's completely irrelevant

Fair enough, I play at a pretty grassroots level. Curious though, why is intentional vs accidental not considered at the professional level?

 

[chbg]

It is more pertinent whether either player was reckless. An "accident" in common parlance may be caused by reckless action - driving too fast, but risked leaving the road. Law 9 covers reckless as well as intentional actions. A pure 'rugby incident' should be something that could not be reasonably foreseen by those involved.

 

[jdeagro]

It is more pertinent whether either player was reckless. An "accident" in common parlance may be caused by reckless action - driving too fast, but risked leaving the road. Law 9 covers reckless as well as intentional actions. A pure 'rugby incident' should be something that could not be reasonably foreseen by those involved.

Gotcha, that makes sense.

My verbiage was meant to say there was no intent there. I imagine if an infringement is intentional / with malice, that's worth factoring in too, at all levels?