RWC Head Contact Consistency

[Stu10]

There are references to some of the weekend's controversial head contact incidents, but I thought it good to bring them together for discussion.

England v Argentina - red card

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1700591066712261107

Japan v Chile - yellow card

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1700845187902079343

Scotland vs South Africa - no penalty

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1700912575242797079

 

[Cross]

Thanks for bringing up the videos. I have a question regarding the comparison between Curry's and the Chilean player's case. These are my intuitions speaking so i guess my question is whether those are backed up by the laws or not. I don't think they are quite the same.

In Curry's case he is definitely going forward, towards the BC. In the Chilean player's case he seems to be virtually static. If you look at Red tackler it's as if he is more on the receiving end of the hit than on the delivery of it. Dont see the same with Curry.

Am i way off here? Or is that completely irrelevant?
Thanks in advance.

 

[didds]

is it

head contact
with force
and no mitigating factors (eg dropping height/BC knocked by other player)

?
thats the bottom line isnt it?
so its redundant whether the "tackler" was coming forwards oir static - if the contact is "with force"

???
FWIW I thought Curry's was a RC under these regs/laws etc

 

[Stu10]

Thanks for bringing up the videos. I have a question regarding the comparison between Curry's and the Chilean player's case. These are my intuitions speaking so i guess my question is whether those are backed up by the laws or not. I don't think they are quite the same.

In Curry's case he is definitely going forward, towards the BC. In the Chilean player's case he seems to be virtually static. If you look at Red tackler it's as if he is more on the receiving end of the hit than on the delivery of it. Dont see the same with Curry.

Am i way off here? Or is that completely irrelevant?
Thanks in advance.

I would say in both these instances the defender had clear line of sight and had to make a choice whether to position themselves in front of the ball carrier or not, and if they do position themselves in front of the ball carrier then the defender needs to be in a body position that avoids head-on-head contact.

Personally, I think these might both have been yellow following similar thinking to yours, but others will see this as a straight red. Whether you believe red or yellow, I do feel it should arguably be the same for both. Without a doubt, Kreil should be seeing a red card.

 

[didds]

there was also this still I saw last night..

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

The worse one of the 3 is the South African one without a doubt yet it went unsanctioned. Assume there will be a citing

 

[Stu10]

The worse one of the 3 is the South African one without a doubt yet it went unsanctioned. Assume there will be a citing

It would appear not

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1701253778186412249

 

[Locke]

World Rugby’s stated view is that a “passive” tackler can/should receive mitigation.

See the square in the bottom right of page 4 for details.

In my mind, this is the likely reasoning that led to the Chilean yellow card not being upgraded. The obvious counter argument is that he seems to be always upright and therefore, arguably, always illegal, and so not deserving of any mitigation consideration.

But I wanted to put out there that a “passive” tackle is an actual factor referees/bunker should consider for mitigation.

 

[Stu10]

World Rugby’s stated view is that a “passive” tackler can/should receive mitigation.

See the square in the bottom right of page 4 for details.

In my mind, this is the likely reasoning that led to the Chilean yellow card not being upgraded. The obvious counter argument is that he seems to be always upright and therefore, arguably, always illegal, and so not deserving of any mitigation consideration.

But I wanted to put out there that a “passive” tackle is an actual factor referees/bunker should consider for mitigation.

You're totally right... however, the issue is around consistency... arguably, Curry had more mitigation than the other three with trying to time a jumping player, there was some drop in height by Curry and he wrapped his arms... neither of the other two examples involved a drop in height or wrap, and there is no way you can argue the Kreil hit was passive (he was executing a rush defence).

 

[Cross]

head contact
with force
and no mitigating factors (eg dropping height/BC knocked by other player)

Thanks. If you dont mind, the follow-up question i have then is: hypothetically, say I am standing up straight, not moving, and the ball carrier comes at me and (purposedly or not) targets my nose with his head.
All of those three criteria you mention seem to apply. There is head contact, there is force, and there is no drop in height or movement caused by other players.
Isn't who inflicts the force relevant?

I would say in both these instances the defender had clear line of sight and had to make a choice whether to position themselves in front of the ball carrier or not,

Ok, i get your point but i am not convinced that is precisely what happened. How do you know from the clip that it was the defender who stood in front of the BC and not that the defender was already in his line and stood his ground?

Thanks both again. I'm a pain in the arse asking, don't take it personally. Just a curious bloke who wants to get a grip on what happened and understand the rationale behind it.

 

[didds]

he may taget your nose with your head. But if you have dropped your knees such that your shouilders are level with hip height with a standing player/BC then he has also dipped into it and you have mitigated likely head contact.

surely?
If not, I agree you can be RCd for being prone and the BC diving onto your knee

 

[didds]

Isn't who inflicts the force relevant?

TBH Im with you there.
But that isnt how WR view it clearly.

 

[shebeen]

The worse one of the 3 is the South African one without a doubt yet it went unsanctioned. Assume there will be a citing

Assumptions are dangerous. I could for instance assume without a doubt you made up your mind that clearly the south african would be the worst one without you even needing to view anything.

To lay out my stall here, (as a south african supporter) I think Kriel was lucky to get away without a penalty or a YC at least. BUT they are far from similar. Mitigation for Kriel is most of the force is shoulder to shoulder (transferred mainly through the ball). There is minimal head contact between the two, (please don't bring this "any contact no matter how minor is a red" rubbish, Nic White's moustache is still holding up that queue currently).
but definitely an upright and reckless tackle.

Needless to say all those trumping a massive head collision don't seem fussed that SCO8 played on without an issue and didn't go for HIA even though SCO players can be heard bringing the incident up on the ref mic.

the RWC media hounds seem to have chased most of these off my legal view, but I eventually found them packaged here in among a single video

Kriel

angle 2

Curry

Jap v CHI

You're totally right... however, the issue is around consistency... arguably, Curry had more mitigation than the other three with trying to time a jumping player, there was some drop in height by Curry and he wrapped his arms... neither of the other two examples involved a drop in height or wrap, and there is no way you can argue the Kreil hit was passive (he was executing a rush defence).

You guys should really take the blinkers out and see what you're writing sometimes. Mitigation because it's difficult tackling a player from the air is a new one. If you want to see the Kriel wrap, you actually need to watch the clips first. First one I posted has the right arm, second one has the left arm. You'll see all the force actually goes shoulder to ball


Now whilst we're all in a huff about the dirty springboks and their ugly supporters, lemme finish off by saying I thought there was enough mitigation for Curry to remain yellow (and expect the citing to reduce it), and in my mind another reason why 20min RC and replacement player returning are better for the game.

 

[Phil E]

You guys should really take the blinkers out and see what you're writing sometimes.

Pot - Kettle

 

[Stu10]

@shebeen first and foremost no one (at least not me!) is "in a huff about the dirty springboks and their ugly supporters". Neither am I upset with any of the players involved in these three incidents. The issue is the lack of consistency and transparency by the referees and above.

Most people believe all three of these incidents required review, but only 2 of them were reviewed. In fact there were multiple other incidents of head contact that weren't reviewed over the weekend.

With all the post-match questions about the Kreil incident, if the TMO believed there was no head contact, then why can't that be communicated post-match? There should also be more clear communication on how accidental vs intentional impact situations are being handled - e.g. Chile player was almost run into, more like a collision; whereas Kreil was coming forward in a rush defence and he was looking for the hit, but was in a terrible body position; Curry was looking for the hit but got his timing completely wrong and got messed up by a player almost landing on him, being somewhat accidental and somewhat intentional.

Then we have the Carreras hit on Ford than many would regard as equally dangerous and even more reckless than Curry's actions.

Are you really surprised that supporters, players and coaches feel frustrated and confused?

 

[didds]

@Stu10 are you living inside my head? ;-)

 

[Stu10]

@Stu10 are you living inside my head? ;-)

OMG, that's a scary prospect

 

[shebeen]

@shebeen

Most people believe all three of these incidents required review, but only 2 of them were reviewed. In fact there were multiple other incidents of head contact that weren't reviewed over the weekend.

With all the post-match questions about the Kreil incident, if the TMO believed there was no head contact, then why can't that be communicated post-match?

I suppose the corner the game has got itself into is that people now want every decision articulated.
I don't think it has been communicated publicly, but the Kriel incident looks fairly easy to decipher.
a)TMO = Ben Whitehouse, pretty sure he looked at the incident with all the angles he had, on first view live it looked problematic.
b)after reviewing all the angles, he probably concluded:
i - initial contact shoulder to shoulder, through ball
ii - arm wrap present
iii - minimal head contact during tackle.

point iii people will debate, especially when looking at a still frame, but it is clearly cheek to cheek and heads alongside each other.
So conclusion - "no foul play". Does he need to tell AG that there is no foul play?
Does WR need to communicate everytime there is "no foul play"?

obviously not, that would be ridiculous.
for those who still haven't looked at one of the other views available to the TMO, here is the reverse angle again

edit: doesn't seem to be many concerns over SCO8 Jack Dempsey not going for an HIA, he played the full 80 minutes.

 

[SimonSmith]

@Stu10 are you living inside my head? ;-)

"Nice little fixer upper with plenty of room. Don't be deceived by its battered facade, it's been well cared for inside. Ish"

 

[BikingBud]

I suppose the corner the game has got itself into is that people now want every decision articulated.
I don't think it has been communicated publicly, but the Kriel incident looks fairly easy to decipher.
a)TMO = Ben Whitehouse, pretty sure he looked at the incident with all the angles he had, on first view live it looked problematic.
b)after reviewing all the angles, he probably concluded:
i - initial contact shoulder to shoulder, through ball
ii - arm wrap present
iii - minimal head contact during tackle.

point iii people will debate, especially when looking at a still frame, but it is clearly cheek to cheek and heads alongside each other.
So conclusion - "no foul play". Does he need to tell AG that there is no foul play?
Does WR need to communicate everytime there is "no foul play"?

obviously not, that would be ridiculous.
for those who still haven't looked at one of the other views available to the TMO, here is the reverse angle again

edit: doesn't seem to be many concerns over SCO8 Jack Dempsey not going for an HIA, he played the full 80 minutes.

But that is outcome bias, if the clash had caused head wounds and claret as in the Curry incident then the bleats would be much louder. The absence of injury doesn't make the event safe it's just luck.

You are surmising the TMO's actions to fit your own rationalisation of the event!! How are you "pretty sure" and how can you say what "he probably concluded"?

Kriel is never lower and Dempsey is at a constant height, there is head contact, (please advise where minimal is described and considered acceptable or where contact doesn't count because they hit shoulder first). There is force, (Dempsey is knocked back and ends up 3-4 m inside his own half). That cannot be determined by looking at a still but by reviewing the video from multiple differing angles, those aspects can be ascertained as facts and then the questions start: