RWC Head Contact Consistency

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
555
Post Likes
305
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Maybe part of the issue is that there is no simple way (that I know of) to look up recent disciplinary decisions with a breakdown of law(s) cited, weeks suspended, aggravating and mitigating factors, etc. so it’s difficult to compare if WR are consistent with other RFUs or even with themselves.

If the various disciplinary panels had to provide that for each decision into some sort of database then that could be used to see if guidelines are being enforced consistently.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Apologies, if I remember correctly, are a specified mitigation criterion in Reg 17
17.19 Mitigating Factors
17.19.1 Having identified the applicable entry point for consideration of a particular incident, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall identify any relevant off-field mitigating factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of suspension and subject to Regulations 17.19.2 and 17.19.3 the extent, if at all, by which the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors include the following:​
(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of the commission of foul play by the offending Player;​
(b) the Player’s disciplinary record;​
(c) the youth and/or inexperience of the Player;​
(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing​
(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his/her conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and​
(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.​

If the player does not agree that the red card threshold has been met how can any remorse or claim of contrition be seen true and deserving of any mitigation?

See #51
 

Locke


Referees in America
Joined
Jan 23, 2022
Messages
241
Post Likes
148
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
17.19 Mitigating Factors
17.19.1 Having identified the applicable entry point for consideration of a particular incident, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall identify any relevant off-field mitigating factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of suspension and subject to Regulations 17.19.2 and 17.19.3 the extent, if at all, by which the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors include the following:​
(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of the commission of foul play by the offending Player;​
(b) the Player’s disciplinary record;​
(c) the youth and/or inexperience of the Player;​
(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing​
(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his/her conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and​
(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.​

If the player does not agree that the red card threshold has been met how can any remorse or claim of contrition be seen true and deserving of any mitigation?

See #51
A player could genuinely be sorry and apologize to another player for making head contact while maintaining that it didn’t meet the criteria for foul play and/or for a red card.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
A player could genuinely be sorry and apologize to another player for making head contact while maintaining that it didn’t meet the criteria for foul play and/or for a red card.
Most RC nowadays seem to be for accidents so the player may well be very genuinely sorry
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Japan #2 in the bunker, anyone like to speculate on the result?
I really have no idea , just as I was thinking RC the commentators reckon certainly YC
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Well that's that then!!
Well they were right.
No mitigation
Direct head on head contact but nevertheless somehow the level of danger was low

I thought head to head was the most dangerous type contact there is?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Ok another one . Red this time, according to the commentators
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,057
Post Likes
1,788
well I am not a FRPO/whatever its called - but I cant see why the 1st wasnt red. (jap c Sam).

Low degree of danger ? He's still clobbered the bloke in the head! Its wot CR said!
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,353
Post Likes
1,455
A player could genuinely be sorry and apologize to another player for making head contact while maintaining that it didn’t meet the criteria for foul play and/or for a red card.
This. And this has been done before.
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
190
Post Likes
57
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Georgia -Fiji. Tuisova yellow(bunker) card in the 78th minute. Not upgraded, but had a late change in direction from ball carrier and was already quite bent (even if ref said he was upright) as mitigation.

This would be a very harsh citing in my mind.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Well, I was expecting the Portuguese YC to be upgraded to red
This one was a shoulder to head, so destroys the theory that shoulder is viewed as more dangerous than head to head

A shoulder but stil, "Low degree of danger" they said

Queue didds, "they make it up as they go along"

Has there perhaps been a decision from on high to lay off with the RC that are spoiling the tournament
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Well, I was expecting the Portuguese YC to be upgraded to red
This one was a shoulder to head, so destroys the theory that shoulder is viewed as more dangerous than head to head

A shoulder but stil, "Low degree of danger" they said

Queue didds, "they make it up as they go along"

Has there perhaps been a decision from on high to lay off with the RC that are spoiling the tournament
And now forearm to the head, also apparently can be low danger .

I guess we are getting some consistency at least
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
I am getting the sense that WR have had a panic over the number of RC issued, and have told the bunker to dial it down a bit?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,057
Post Likes
1,788
Has there perhaps been a decision from on high to lay off with the RC that are spoiling the tournament
I'm coming to the conclusion that WR has realised that despite its will intentioned move to "head contact with force" = RC, this does not actually stop head contacts, with force occurring most games (elite level at least) and possibly more than once. Then faced with the potential of 12 v 13 after an hour their has been a behind-the-scenes call to find all and any mitigation to keep cards as YCs ... whether that be his knee bent a millimetre, the BC moved off line by the width of his toe, a fly went through his field of vision and the tackler was momentarily distracted, his socks weren't quite rolled up fully, his mum likes ovaltine... and of course the seemingly increasingly used "low degree of danger". Im so glad that somebody weighing 100 kgs and running into somebody's noggin with their own noggin is a "low danger" - i feel so much better when cutting tree branches now! [ NB Not sycamores... ]

Cosif its not that... they ARE just making it up as they go along!
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,057
Post Likes
1,788
If anything could have been a red on field, surely it was that leading arm? Isn’t that something that’s been a red card even before the head contact protocol?
well that's just ANOTRHER level of oddity altogether.

TAMIUATGA....
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
If anything could have been a red on field, surely it was that leading arm? Isn’t that something that’s been a red card even before the head contact protocol?
Surely that was an an example of "always illegal" no mitigation

I suspect that the bunker applied the wrong protocol
 
Top