red card decision Canada v Scotland [MERGED]

[RobLev]

Are you sure you're watching the same video as me? ...

Apparently not.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Harsh IMO.

The injury brought the TMO into play. I didn't see if there was a flag in.

I'm not convinced it even merited a PK?

It certainly didn't pass the Fred Howard test even after watching it half a dozen times.

 

[Womble]

The call is just plain wrong, the tackler got himself in the wrong position, simple as that

 

[Drift]

Apparently not.

Rob, you've got it wrong. That clip is play on everyday of the week.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Sorry, but I just can't see this. Red #5 takes the ball, transfers it to his left hand and immediately starts swinging his shoulders right to left as he goes into the tackle; as he does so, his right elbow moves away from his body and strikes the tackler on the jaw. The elbow is then pushed back by the impact into his side, and then he uses the arm as a lever, but the elbow strike had already taken place by then.

The more I look at the video, the more I think it was not even a penalty. I see his arm come away from his side as a natural consequence of him running. If that is the RC standard to be adopted, then most games would be called off when they get to eight a side after all the RCs

...and I understand that the IRB has declined to take further disciplinary action on grounds of no intent to injure, but hasn't reversed the card. That is said from reports of what the IRB said.

I have read nothing about this at all, but hang on! Mike Fraser said "deliberate elbow to the head" and now the iRB says "no intent to injure". Something stinks and it ain't in the state of Denmark. It would be a cop-out by the iRB. It also means his suspension from rugby lasted 4 minutes and 12 seconds, and even that is unjust IMO

If I was his coach/manager, I would be appealing this card if its not overturned.

 

[FlipFlop]

For me - not even a PK. Bad technique from the tackler. If everyone who does that got a red card, most the players would be sitting in the stands.

Leading with the elbow looks completely different, and this is not leading with the elbow. There was no leading with a point of the elbow, presenting a hard point for the contact. The tackler goes head first into the arm/elbow, and is fended away. The movement forward of the arm before contact (and ball transfer) is good skill - protecting the ball, and then bracing for contact. At no point was the elbow pointing forward.

Very bad call. And a game changing decision (Canada has a PK that was overturned due to this, that could have won them the game).

 

[Dixpat]

Never knew my forearm was in fact my elbow!!

 

[TheBFG]

Agree with the half of the posts that say the ref got it wrong! It would appear he's reacted to the outcome, if the Sco player had got up looking sheepish for a bad attempted tackle we'd have heard no more about it.

I believe this is what happens when you have refs that are taught to ref like robots, no empathy for the game and what players are trying to achieve.

 

[Dixpat]

This is leading with the elbow

It is from the NRL but the player was determined to have no case to answer

 

[Daftmedic]

Penalty maybe. Card if it's not the first time in the game. RC certainly not.

 

[RobLev]

Rob, you've got it wrong. That clip is play on everyday of the week.

Do you see one or two moves forward with the elbow?

 

[leaguerefaus]

Re: red card decision Canada v Scotland

Nailed-on RC for me. I must humbly disagree with those saying that he kept his arms/elbow by his side; he didn't, andthe follow-through is evident. Stop the video at 0:42 as Red #5 receives the ball and transfers it to his left hand. Note the position of the right elbow, level with his body, pretty much tucked in; as he goes into contact, Red #5 swings his right shoulder forward, and his arm lifts so there is 6 inches of daylight between the elbow and his side as he hits the Blue tackler flush on the jaw with the elbow. As Blue falls to the floor, the arm is now pointing forward and down from the shoulder at 45 degrees.

For me, Red #5 lines the tackler up and deliberately strikes him with his elbow as they make contact. As the ref says, he had no choice but to RC him.

Umm, Red 5 isn't the one sent off...

 

[RobLev]

Re: red card decision Canada v Scotland

Umm, Red 5 isn't the one sent off...

Umm, my next comment read:

Oops: #5 = #6.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Re: red card decision Canada v Scotland

Umm, my next comment read:

You're clearly confused or you wouldn't be suggesting a RC for anyone

 

[damo]

Not even a PK. Just a rugby incident.

 

[Browner]

A leading forearm /pushed forearm /driven elbow or any other shielding 'swat away' action meets the offence of using the arm in 10.4(a)

If it doesn't then what "arm" action are lawmakers banning????

What we do know is that this incident doesn't meet the definition of a bonafide hand off....so what is it ??

Like most of us ex-players I admit to using a driven forearm as a way to twack an opponent, but I will also say that when I carried the ball into a head on tackler then most of my forearm thrust was deliberate.

Personally I believe that if clear ground is re-established between bonafide handing off attempts and use of the forearm, then its to be welcomed as generally for the good of the game.

More evasion less bash .

 

[ddjamo]

play on all day

 

[Dixie]

Re: red card decision Canada v Scotland

For me its more of a head butt to his elbow then anything.

:wink: "I never 'it 'er, yer honour. She walked into my fist then threw 'erself dahn the stairs".

 

[RobLev]

Rob, you've got it wrong. That clip is play on everyday of the week.

Drift; it's not the eventual pushing the tackler away that I see as a problem. If that was all there was, I'd entirely agree; it's the equivalent of a correctly executed hand-off - contact with bent arm, then straighten is OK, but straighten the arm through the contact and you're in trouble. But it wasn't that fend-off that did the damage; it was a swinging elbow immediately before. Slowing it down, I see the BC's right shoulder swinging forward exaggeratedly as he prepares for contact. It's not part of his normal running action - he's stepping forward with his right foot into the attempted tackle; you try running with right foot and right shoulder swinging forward at the same time, and let me know how many times you fall over. I've seen someone march like that, but running is a different kettle of fish. The elbow is away from the body at the point of contact with the tackler's head.

In executing that action, the BC almost loses control of the ball in his other hand.

The elbow is then driven back into the BC's body by the contact, and then follows the fend-off.

The contact is made with the outside of the elbow; which is hard, believe me. I broke a rib falling onto my left elbow - if you feel your bent elbow, there are two bony surfaces, one on the inside, one on the outside, with no give between them. and the fall onto the outside of the elbow drove the inner point into the rib hard enough to break it.

The first 4 comments on the thread, including Simon T, all agree (or at least don't disagree) that the BC should be off, but differ on the colour of the card putting him there.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think you're all missing the bigger picture here.

Once again a rugby minnow struggled against all the odds to victory, and was the lucky beneficiary of a very rare dubious call going in their favor.