RWC Head Contact Consistency

[Volun-selected]

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.

 

[shebeen]

Apologies, if I remember correctly, are a specified mitigation criterion in Reg 17

Really? Do they have to be sincere, or is a sarcastic sorry (not sorry) good enough?!

 

[BikingBud]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Decorily]

....... commentators reckon certainly YC

Well that's that then!!

 

[crossref]

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]

Ok another one . Red this time, according to the commentators

 

[didds]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[pedr]

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?

 

[crossref]

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?

 

[BikingBud]

 

[didds]

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]

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]

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