RC - Bryce Heem (Wasps v Worcester)

[winchesterref]

No complaints on the outcome, but any thoughts on the line that Black 13 takes?

 

[beckett50]

No option.

There may be an argument that he was partially unsighted by the blocking run of the Wasps player, but Heem should/could have got out of the way.

 

[didds]

clearly a blocking line. That wasn't - obviously - very successful.
No mitigation though.

Would anyone have carded/had a word with black 13? I perceive it would just be ignored.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Setting aside the outcome momentarily. He changed his line ( is Line that the same as channel?) early on. However he also accelerated to adjust his speed to ensure he was effective at blocking protection and reduce the chance for any real contest for the ball.

There must be merit for more regular enforcement of penalties to "dissuade" such tactics when we are see many more outcomes such as this. Perhaps some sort of "safe zone" just as we get for half backs in rucks, albeit for different, and more serious reasons. If we can have a 10 metre zone for retiring players, why not something akin to this to be applicable to any player, either side, not prepared to contest the ball directly.

While it wouldn't have made a difference as the actual outcome would have overridden any initial penalty, it is in my view that this is one for coaches to sort this for the protection of their own players!

If I am shutting my eyes, not wanting to see the outcome of an issue of luck on the landing then there is something fundamentally wrong!

 

[didds]

i doubt that the coach thought his side would win a PK and a card for getting his 13 to run a blocking line.?

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

i doubt that the coach thought his side would win a PK and a card for getting his 13 to run a blocking line.?

didds

Perhaps coaches should do a bit more thinking in that case? They have some considerable duty of care.

I see nothing legitimate about running such a line and the consequences are becoming all too clear.

Hark back to the Anthony Watson incident, it's got its own thread ( I haven't read it) and Chris Ashton effectively eliminating any real possibility for AW to fairly contest the ball and resulting avoiding action that was to the detriment of AG. Much more sympathy for AW in that instance but still a RC.

If a coaches ethos is it is legitimate or ok to turn a blind eye to the actions of their players then they might want to again why they involve themselves in the game. not seeking to directly blame them but coaches set the tone for what goes on in the FoP.

Such things need to be "discouraged" from within let us say. Otherwise it will be more severely regulated from outside.

 

[didds]

I don;t disagree, but if refs started blwoing such C&O obstruction it would send a message etc.

I was asked top help introduce such a policy/tactic with an AG a few years ago now. I watched their practice for a few minutes and suggested to the coach involved I'd maybe return once the players could actually always catch the ball on the full to start with as practicing anything else would be a waste of time until then. (I never did get asked incidentally and had I been they wouldn;'t have got what the coach had initially asked me anyway ;-)

didds

 

[didds]

Perhaps coaches should do a bit more thinking in that case? They have some considerable duty of care. .

I suspect down in the weeds on the whole they do. Don;t confuse elite level managers with community level coaches (though I accept there are CLCs that see themselves as the next premiership coach ...)

didds

 

[winchesterref]

A Rugby Football Union disciplinary panel in Bristol stated that "the actions of Heem were reckless and in part affected by the running line of Wasps number 13 [Alapati Leiua]

2 match ban seem reasonable?