[Tackle] Russia vs Samoa - High Tackle Yellows

[Flish]

Firstly good to see them going through the framework, but thoughts after the second yellow. For the first I think RP was going Red, but then TMO suggested mitigation of the player dropping, which I can buy, just I think.

The second yellow, RP called it the same, player dropping as mitigation so yellow, I'm not convinced on this one, yes the player was low with bent knees, but I think he was already there when the Blue player flew in, I think it should be Red.

What's the collective view?

 

[Cross]

First one is borderline. He is dipping. We could argue how much, granted. YC/RC. I can see a case for both cardss. Forced to chose i'd say yellow.

I do have a problem with the second one not being a red becaus the height of the BC was constant. It's not as if the tackler didnt have enough time to adjust to the BC's change in height. He was low and remained low. Red card for me.

 

[Rich_NL]

With dipping, the question is whether without the dip the contact would still have occurred at the head or not.

Disappointing, right after WR have put out a statement pledging to get the match officials aligned with regulations.

 

[Pablo]

We have an emerging consensus, to which I also subscribe.

For me the first had just about enough mitigation that I can accept yellow, as the ball carrier's head wasn't just low, it was in the act of descending.

The second, I think RP got wrong - the ball carrier had a somewhat low body position, but was definitely not descending. In further contrast to the first incident, the tackler in the second had clear line of sight to the BC, arm was too wide to wrap. Disappointed that it wasn't a red.

 

[Phil E]

For me the first one should have been Red. It met the criteria for an aggravating factor, which means you cannot apply mitigating factors, so it stays at red.

[LAWS]Aggravating factors :
• If the tackler and BC are in open space and the tackler has
clear line of sight and time before contact[/LAWS]

The second one I could accept Red or Yellow.

 

[nhughes]

Watching in the Tokyo fanzone the Japanese fans love those big hits, I thought the first was a good decision as the ball carrier was low and the tackle was mostly good but with head contact. 2nd definite red, Samoan threw himself at the Russian so reckless and dangerous.

 

[TheBFG]

both now cited

 

[tewdric]

Both red according to the flowchart. The second one was particularly clear cut.

My guess is the refs have been urged to err on the side of caution and let the citing commissioner sort it out - to avoid games hinging on these decisisons and lots of bleating from coaches and pundits.

 

[crossref]

Both red according to the flowchart. The second one was particularly clear cut.

My guess is the refs have been urged to err on the side of caution and let the citing commissioner sort it out - to avoid games hinging on these decisisons and lots of bleating from coaches and pundits.

That's not what WR told us they had said

 

[belladonna]

Both red according to the flowchart. The second one was particularly clear cut.

My guess is the refs have been urged to err on the side of caution and let the citing commissioner sort it out - to avoid games hinging on these decisisons and lots of bleating from coaches and pundits.

Not sure if it was communicated or not, but I also have the feeling that no one wants a repeat of last time, where there was one high-profile red card drawing a lot of attention, and the rest were all yellows going to citation and bans after the matches, which caused a perception of unfairness. It could have been communicated or it might just be something everyone feels, subconsciously.

 

[crossref]

Not sure if it was communicated or not, but I also have the feeling that no one wants a repeat of last time, where there was one high-profile red card drawing a lot of attention, and the rest were all yellows going to citation and bans after the matches, which caused a perception of unfairness. It could have been communicated or it might just be something everyone feels, subconsciously.

I can't find the place in the flow chart where it says to leave it to the citing commissioner ?

 

[Flish]

I can't find the place in the flow chart where it says to leave it to the citing commissioner ?

That's in the Elite flow chart, not the one us muggles get :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

That's in the Elite flow chart, not the one us muggles get :biggrin:

Watching Italy v Canada I have torn up my flow chart and thrown it away. If WR refs aren't using it I don't see why I should

 

[SimonSmith]

Well, Nic Berry got his decision right at least.

 

[crossref]

Well, Nic Berry got his decision right at least.

Yes, but why is it almost always the the Tier 2 player , playing against Tier 1 oppo who gets made an example of ?

I guess it's easier to RC someone when it makes no difference at all to the end result

 

[OB..]

Yes, but why is it almost always the the Tier 2 player , playing against Tier 1 oppo who gets made an example of ?

I guess it's easier to RC someone when it makes no difference at all to the end result

This incident was hardly a good example of bias. It was a C&O textbook case.

 

[crossref]

This incident was hardly a good example of bias. It was a C&O textbook case.

Of course it was the right decision.

But why was this the only case?

I am explaining all the wrong decisions....in the other games.

 

[BikingBud]

Well, Nic Berry got his decision right at least.

One might say he got one of them correct. What about the incident in the first minute?

 

[crossref]

One might say he got one of them correct. What about the incident in the first minute?

I missed the first few minutes .. what happens ?

 

[didds]

Yes, but why is it almost always the the Tier 2 player , playing against Tier 1 oppo who gets made an example of ?

I guess it's easier to RC someone when it makes no difference at all to the end result

and its a nailed on RC

didds