RWC RC counter

[Dickie E]

there was a shoulder hit to Koreobete by a Fijian player that wasn't even looked at. Does anyone know how to upload a .mp3 file?

 

[crossref]

Without digging out the flowchart I think the officials got these right. The head-on-head clash was worth a YC and the shoulder to head worth a RC. IMO.

Isn't head on head more dangerous than shoulder on head ?

(this is very much the message of RFU in their training on the new DLV .. it's about making sure we dont have two heads in the same space)

 

[Dickie E]

Isn't head on head more dangerous than shoulder on head ?

(this is very much the message of RFU in their training on the new DLV .. it's about making sure we dont have two heads in the same space)

I'm no trauma doctor, but I would have thought the shoulder is more likely to cause injury. It wasn't long ago that head-on-head was just treated as a rugby incident.

 

[crossref]

Who knows, but the RFU are definitely emphasise head on head as the worst in their training

 

[didds]

Yes. Coaches and players have to do better.

After the Warburton red, the spear disappeared. Players and coaches can, therefore, adjust tackle technique.

In this case, they are choosng not to. They bear the consequences.

As a coach ... I cant disagree at all.
I would add though that the spear hasn't disappreaed - we still see reds for it - but I would agree there are very few and far between now.

The head clash problem is simply twofold.

1) As Simon says
2) then when head clashes occur WR need to sort out what means what. because at the moment whilst never doubting the FRPO's fairness etc whatsoever, it still seems an absolute lottery as to whether a bunkered head clash yellow is upgraded or not. At the very elast the distinctions being used are unclear, and seemingly not universally equally applied.

So yes - if 1) was adhered to then 2) would never be a problem. But 2) is still a major problem until such time as 1) becomes the norm.
Maybe lets look at it another way... 1) is felt doesn't have to be applied by coaches and players because 2) isn't necessarily a red or a ban - the system creates a chance for upright tackled accidentally (and I do think in this context they are accidental - not calculated head clashes ) to only warrant a YC - or as we saw in the first weekend no action at all/missed completely.

So what WR have to do then in order to create the Sam Warburton effect is to make ANY head clash a RC, every time, no wiggle room. The DP can offer no ban if it was a BC dropping into a knee high tackle ;-) Though poliking of what a "ruck" really is woluld also be needed to leave genuine defensive options for defenders arriving at a flopped pile of bodies laughingly named a ruck these days.



...

 

[didds]

Who knows, but the RFU are definitely emphasise head on head as the worst in their training

presumably because there are double concussion risks? ie two heads.?

(rhetorical question - I don't expect CR to know )

 

[crossref]

So what WR have to do then in order to create the Sam Warburton effect is to make ANY head clash a RC, every time, no wiggle room. The DP can offer no ban if it was a BC dropping into a knee high tackle ;-) Though poliking of what a "ruck" really is woluld also be needed to leave genuine defensive options for defenders arriving at a flopped pile of bodies laughingly named a ruck these days.

i think it's simpler than that - it's impossible to accidentally spear tackle someone it only happens when players mean it, and so was easy to stop.

sometimes players can accidentally create some of the components of the spear - sometime the ball carrier might end up raised in the air, especially if several players involved -- but when that happens referees clearly distinguish it - 'no lift' and don't penalise when no intent.

 

[didds]

well it seems some players accidentally create the components of a head clash - here's one apparently.

That's a YC only. Apparently.

 

[Jz558]

My understanding of why some are upgraded and some not lies with the passive/active scenario. So, simplistically, as a defender if you initiate a stand-up tackle and fall backwards, thats passive and yellow card only. Same offence but ball carrier goes backwards, active tackle and stand-by for a red. Seems to be the default position of the bunker. Last nights reviews all followed this path.

 

[crossref]

My understanding of why some are upgraded and some not lies with the passive/active scenario. So, simplistically, as a defender if you initiate a stand-up tackle and fall backwards, thats passive and yellow card only. Same offence but ball carrier goes backwards, active tackle and stand-by for a red. Seems to be the default position of the bunker. Last nights reviews all followed this path.

interesting theory.. you might be right.

I'd love to see a video compilation of ALL of the incidents referred to the bunker, and what the result was.

It's the sort of thing that squidge rugby might make - and World Rugby would immediately force to be taken down due to copyright infringement.

 

[Decorily]

My understanding of why some are upgraded and some not lies with the passive/active scenario. So, simplistically, as a defender if you initiate a stand-up tackle and fall backwards, thats passive and yellow card only. Same offence but ball carrier goes backwards, active tackle and stand-by for a red. Seems to be the default position of the bunker. Last nights reviews all followed this path.

Yes and the language sometimes used in this neck of the woods is 'dominant' or 'absorbing' tackles.

 

[Jz558]

It isn't new though as I seem to remember premiership referees taking this into account at the back end of last season. The received equations seem to be passive = low force and dominant = high force.

 

[crossref]

It isn't new though as I seem to remember premiership referees taking this into account at the back end of last season. The received equations seem to be passive = low force and dominant = high force.

which basically ignores physics. If a small player tackles a big player, coming at speed realtively upright.... then its the small player who is going to go backwards cos of physics. and if its head on head then both players are going to feel a lot force.

 

[Stu10]

and who/how is "intentional" decided?

I would say all of these head contact RCs have intentional upright tackles.
I doubt any of these head contact are intentional.

Totally agree. WR have created a mess, and have no way of fixing it, or getting out of it.
Its there to reduce head contact presumably. It is manifestly not reducing accidental head contact.



japan v samoa tonight. Two bunkers for head contact.

One ends up yellow, one red. The reasoning on the YC was something about njo hiugh level of danger.
Frankly, that's a cop out. Head contact is either dangerous or its not. permitting head contact because "that wasn't REALLY dangerous" creates an environment whereby head contact can still be accepted. But its still head contact.

If my memory is working, I think these two examples somewhat demonstrate the accidental vs intentional, and explains the outcome. For the yellow against Japan, I felt like the attacker had run into the defender, who was stood upright but stationary; whereas the Samoa tackle was intentional, upright and reckless... that was a clear indication that refs in this RWC are not going to give a straight red rather than refer to the bunker, because that was clearest red I've seen this tournament.

 

[crossref]

If my memory is working, I think these two examples somewhat demonstrate the accidental vs intentional, and explains the outcome. For the yellow against Japan, I felt like the attacker had run into the defender, who was stood upright but stationary; whereas the Samoa tackle was intentional, upright and reckless... that was a clear indication that refs in this RWC are not going to give a straight red rather than refer to the bunker, because that was clearest red I've seen this tournament.

could be it, or part of it...
.... but wasn't the reason given for the YC : which was : 'low degree of danger'.

 

[Stu10]

could be it, or part of it...
.... but wasn't the reason given for the YC : which was : 'low degree of danger'.

I think it was considered a low degree of danger because the "tackler" was stationary and passive... the force of the collision was all generated by one player rather than two (this appears to be a clear factor differentiating low and high danger).

 

[Volun-selected]

Wonder how long before someone comes up with the idea of all pro players wearing a scrum cap with an accelerometer in the back? Attach that to a live Hawkeye-type arrangement to gauge level of force and drop in real-time and we can have a new gizmo on screen - the Braindamageometer - followed by another set of law changes.

 

[DocP]

Wonder how long before someone comes up with the idea of all pro players wearing a scrum cap with an accelerometer in the back? Attach that to a live Hawkeye-type arrangement to gauge level of force and drop in real-time and we can have a new gizmo on screen - the Braindamageometer - followed by another set of law changes.

This is already happening in one aspect or another. Harlequins, here in blighty, are currently wearing a gum shield with a chip in it that measures the force of collisions with the head. This, IIRC, is to go towards concussion study etc. All they would have to do is get that to link to the GPS doo-dah on their back and you'd be able to get real time data (he says as if that is easy)

 

[crossref]

I think it was considered a low degree of danger because the "tackler" was stationary and passive... the force of the collision was all generated by one player rather than two (this appears to be a clear factor differentiating low and high danger).

i wonder at what point you'd penalise a ball carrier for running into a stationary defender and causing a heah to head contact.

 

[Decorily]

i wonder at what point you'd penalise a ball carrier for running into a stationary defender and causing a heah to head contact.

At the point it becomes dangerous!