RWC Head Contact Consistency

[didds]

meanwhile to more mundane matters and the TMO (rather than the bunker)... TMO seemed very adamant that the portuguese forward had dropped the ball in the act of scoring - but the repeated video didnt show anything but his bandaged arm and an aus defender obscuring the ball ?

Im more than happy to be wrong!

 

[crossref]

meanwhile to more mundane matters and the TMO (rather than the bunker)... TMO seemed very adamant that the portuguese forward had dropped the ball in the act of scoring - but the repeated video didnt show anything but his bandaged arm and an aus defender obscuring the ball ?

Im more than happy to be wrong!

I had the sense Niku had much the same view as you

 

[didds]

"You can see the ball has clearly been lost forward over the try line"

Not from that clip I can't.

 

[didds]

I had the sense Niku had much the same view as you

aye. ISTR he asked several times about proof of a clear loss of control or words to that effect.
I guess when the TMO just repeats the same mantra in the end he is stuffed into having to go with that call.

 

[Stu10]

Can someone please explain how Etzebeth's direct shoulder-to-head contact on a player coming down from a catch differs to Curry's red card?

 

[didds]

Can someone please explain how Etzebeth's direct shoulder-to-head contact on a player coming down from a catch differs to Curry's red card?

I've given up trying to make any sense of any of these rulings.
Maybe I need to somehow find a way to turn the bunker/TMO referrals into some sort of random number generator to come up with winnig lottery numbers?

 

[kudu314]

Can someone please explain how Etzebeth's direct shoulder-to-head contact on a player coming down from a catch differs to Curry's red card?

Firstly, the Curry red card should never have been. But comparing the direct head to head contact between Curry and Mallia and Piatau hitting Etzebeth's clavicle with his chin is not remotely the same and if someone thinks it is then they don't know their ass from their elbow.

A much more interesting comparison from a law and inconsistency perspective would be the Pulu on Mapimpi incident compared to Deysel on Du Pont. Deysel gets max entry point of 12 games because of "scale of seriousness of offending, having regard to the degree of recklessness involved in the offending, the vulnerability of the victim player and the significant injury to him.”

That punishment reduced to 6 game ban taking into account Deysel’s disciplinary record and very public apology to Dupont. Further down to 5 if Deysel completes tackle school.

Pulu on the other hand has one red card on his record, I think a yellow and he's known for "hard" tackles that can be seen as borderline. So if his tackle is referred before the cut off, since there was no card or bunker involved, would the judiciary punish him harshly based on his record and the OUTCOME considering Mapimpi's injury?

 

[didds]

Pulu on the other hand has one red card on his record, I think a yellow and he's known for "hard" tackles that can be seen as borderline. So if his tackle is referred before the cut off, since there was no card or bunker involved, would the judiciary punish him harshly based on his record and the OUTCOME considering Mapimpi's injury?

Who knows?

TMIUATGA.

 

[Jz558]

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

It met WR's "passive" tackle threshold as the tackler went backwards in the contact therefore was deemed to be low force even though it clearly wasnt.

 

[didds]

All head contact is equal, but some head contact is more equal than others

 

[shebeen]

Firstly, the Curry red card should never have been. But comparing the direct head to head contact between Curry and Mallia and Piatau hitting Etzebeth's clavicle with his chin is not remotely the same and if someone thinks it is then they don't know their ass from their elbow.

A much more interesting comparison from a law and inconsistency perspective would be the Pulu on Mapimpi incident compared to Deysel on Du Pont. Deysel gets max entry point of 12 games because of "scale of seriousness of offending, having regard to the degree of recklessness involved in the offending, the vulnerability of the victim player and the significant injury to him.”

That punishment reduced to 6 game ban taking into account Deysel’s disciplinary record and very public apology to Dupont. Further down to 5 if Deysel completes tackle school.

Pulu on the other hand has one red card on his record, I think a yellow and he's known for "hard" tackles that can be seen as borderline. So if his tackle is referred before the cut off, since there was no card or bunker involved, would the judiciary punish him harshly based on his record and the OUTCOME considering Mapimpi's injury?

interesting here is that TMO:
* agreed with LP(Ref) for no YC for the mapimpi/pulu incident (very dynamic change in direction, and tackler had knee on ground).
LP:"just a penalty, head contact but didn't see as high danger"
*etzebeth challenge, he talks LP down from his YC minimum, and I think his reasoning is the blocking by Tonga 3 in the challenge.

what we know for sure is they are not consistent with what we have seen elsewhere in tournament.

 

[shebeen]

All head contact is equal, but some head contact is more equal than others

and the corollary:
All cheekbone fractures are equal, but some cheekbone fractures are more equal than others.

 

[didds]

I suppose looking at all of this in another way...

WR wants to grow the game globally. This means amongst other things attracting new audiences.
Having multiply differing outcomes to what appears to be the "same thing" is not conducive to selling a game to new comers, who understandably must surely end up being very confused over the whole thing. After all - everybody here is "inside" the game, some with many decades in it... and many of these calls don't add up to us - what chance has a new watcher to the sport got?

 

[kudu314]

I suppose looking at all of this in another way...

WR wants to grow the game globally. This means amongst other things attracting new audiences.
Having multiply differing outcomes to what appears to be the "same thing" is not conducive to selling a game to new comers, who understandably must surely end up being very confused over the whole thing. After all - everybody here is "inside" the game, some with many decades in it... and many of these calls don't add up to us - what chance has a new watcher to the sport got?

While I agree with WR's approach to growing the game globally, I also think WR haven't done enough with what they've got. The most dissapointing thing this past weekend was the absolute capitulation and implosion of Italy. Considering their involvement at International level in the 6 Nations for 20 (or more) years. Their club sides being exposed to high tier competition and the money they earn from that, the result against the AB's is frankly a disgrace.

With that in mind. Drawing a wider audience to the game could be achieved if the focus is on growing the tier 2 nations. The Pacific Island teams, Namibia, Kenya and Uganda with Chile, Uruguay and Argentina as well as Canada and the USA could increase the global footprint extensively by building up competitive sides that take part in local comps and having the opportunity to join Chammpionship competitions later on. Focussing oin grassroots rugby and club development by WR could boost the game tremendously.

Considering how unfathomably complicated the rules of NFL is, how each decision needs to be interpreted by multiple officials at once and the overwhelming popularity and income generation from that one sport, I think the issue is how amateurish Rugby is adaministrated globally more than how confusing certain referee calls can be.

 

[Volun-selected]

Maybe a way out is to adopt the high-low split made clear by role in France for their domestic game - tacklers must go low, and ball carriers cannot deliberately drop?

Tacklers can tackle knowing if they are above (belly/sternum/nipples/4th rib down or whatever) they are always illegal and in trouble with a PK at least, and the BC will need to offload knowing if they drop to bounce off a tackle they’re conceding a penalty.

(And no jumping into players… personal bugbear)

 

[SimonSmith]

Focussing oin grassroots rugby and club development by WR could boost the game tremendously.

New here? That's the absolute opposite of what WR are doing. WR and NGBs concentrate on the Elite level and the NGBs push Community rugby on to other players in their country.

 

[kudu314]

New here? That's the absolute opposite of what WR are doing. WR and NGBs concentrate on the Elite level and the NGBs push Community rugby on to other players in their country.

I know, I know, it beggars belief what WR think is important to the game as opposed to what actually IS important.

 

[belladonna]

Mapimpi is out of the RWC with a fractured eye-socket, and it didn't even get a YC

You try telling SA fans it's not rigged againt them

South Africa’s Makazole Mapimpi out of World Cup with fractured eye socket

South Africa wing Makazole Mapimpi has been ruled out of the remainder of the World Cup with a fractured eye socket

www.theguardian.com

 

[crossref]

any clip ?

 

[Stu10]

Mapimpi is out of the RWC with a fractured eye-socket, and it didn't even get a YC

You try telling SA fans it's not rigged againt them

South Africa’s Makazole Mapimpi out of World Cup with fractured eye socket

South Africa wing Makazole Mapimpi has been ruled out of the remainder of the World Cup with a fractured eye socket

www.theguardian.com

Was this the tackle in which the Tongan player had a knee on the ground in the tackle? Tackler definitely lowered height. This is why late and low is being sanctioned in RFU land. (Apologies if I've mixed up with a different incident.)