Slim margins

[Dickie E]

If the rule is, if you are illegal, there is no mitigation for head contact, then apply that.

But that's not the rule. The rule is there is no mitigation if the act was "always illegal" which is effectively a shoulder charge. Ie there are no circumstances where a shoulder charge is legal

 

[crossref]

I think we do. The hierarchy is unavoidable, accidental, careless, reckless, deliberate

I always like a framework, and I like that one

On that scale .. I would tend to place both Kolisi and Cane as careless but Frizell as reckless

What do you think ?

 

[Dickie E]

I always like a framework, and I like that one

On that scale .. I would tend to place both Kolisi and Cane as careless but Frizell as reckless

What do you think ?

I'd rate Frizell as careless. He was focussed on dragging the SA player out of the breakdown. In fact, when they decided to review, I initially thought it was for a neck roll.
The high tackles are reckless, in that the tackler should have a reasonable expectation that head contact may be an outcome.

To your OP, I agree with the 20 mins RCs

 

[shebeen]

I always like a framework, and I like that one

On that scale .. I would tend to place both Kolisi and Cane as careless but Frizell as reckless

What do you think ?

I still can't believe people are putting the Cane and Kolisi tackles in the same whatsapp group.

Cane incident is quite simple. He is the only tackler and always higher than the ballcarrier. There is a wrap attempt but all the force is direct shoulder on head. Mitigation? He lines him up for the tackler, change is not that late, and Kriel is slightly dropped. If he tackled lower then no issue, Cane was in full control of his actions here.

Kolisi is the second tackler, always lower than the ballcarrier and he contacts with arms, shoulder and head on ball before it rides up to head contact. Obviously watch it on video rather than a screenshot, but this is all before the head contact.


so the real question - who had bad tackle technique between these two?


speaking of slim margins, the final two passes for the Barret try were very close to forward. Satisfied the Tele'a one had enough momentum to be a backwards from the hand, but surprised the TMO didn't want to check that under closer scrutiny. Maybe under pressure from the disallowed try two minutes earlier (that had 3 knock ons)?

 

[Dickie E]

but surprised the TMO didn't want to check that under closer scrutiny. Maybe under pressure from the disallowed try two minutes earlier (that had 3 knock ons)?

maybe he did. He may have used the "live referral" process as shown below (from Television Match Official (TMO) Protocol). Clear & obvious is a requirement:

"Live referrals:
Where any member of the T04 is able to make an accurate call without having to formally refer to the TMO.
This referral is intended to only be used where an incident occurs, in line with the provisions contained in Section 3: Protocol Detail
relating to live referrals, where it is clear that the on-field team have missed a clear and obvious incident/decision that does
not need formal referral.
This may be a live call by the TMO after reviewing a video assisted replay or delay screen."

 

[crossref]

Here's a good article from Owen Slot in the Times about the issue, making my point at some depth

£ I am afraid

Baffling complexity of cards is making rugby messier, not safer

Debatable decisions are marring the sport’s greatest occasions and there is little evidence to suggest that complex rules are solving concussion problem

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[Shelflife]

Yup its all about slim margins, Kolisi goes 3-6 inches higher and its a red card.

Yes its a bit of a lottery, change of direction, sudden drop, direct, indirect, bent, not bent, wrap, no wrap. If you go high you buy a ticket into the what card will I get lottery and yes its all about the slim margins at that stage.

But here's the kicker, you are under no obligation to enter the lottery, in fact you are encouraged not to buy a ticket, it wont end well you are told.

If you want to make a big dominant tackle by remaining high you are automatically entered into the draw, you don't have to but you cant complain if you do.

If you bend at the hip and go low, there will be no entry into the lottery.

Its simple really.

 

[crossref]

.

Its simple really.

But given its a lottery, the discrepancy between the two sanctions is too wide

 

[Shelflife]

But given its a lottery, the discrepancy between the two sanctions is too wide

Always is in a lottery Crossref, you either win or you lose.

 

[crossref]

Always is in a lottery Crossref, you either win or you lose.

Exactly.
But we don't want games determined by lottery
So we need the 20 min replacement .. which is proportionate given the element of luck inovled

 

[shebeen]

Exactly.
But we don't want games determined by lottery
So we need the 20 min replacement .. which is proportionate given the element of luck inovled

Lottery is probably the wrong analogy, but you do get his point.

The reason why players tackle high is to prevent an offload. Go low and the ball is free to be passed.
Trying to detangle this incentive is the issue the lawmakers will battle to achieve.

 

[crossref]

Not really arguing about the protocol. It's probably as good as any other protocol

Arguing that the sanctions between those two dangerous tackles were two wide. They weren't that different.

 

[Shelflife]

Exactly.
But we don't want games determined by lottery
So we need the 20 min replacement .. which is proportionate given the element of luck inovled

Lottery is probably the wrong analogy, but you do get his point.

The reason why players tackle high is to prevent an offload. Go low and the ball is free to be passed.
Trying to detangle this incentive is the issue the lawmakers will battle to achieve.

Im happy with the word lottery, because once you go high you leave yourself open to conditions outside of your control.

Crossref, the game wont be decided by a lottery but by a player who takes a chance on his tackle choice, this is what it all comes down to, player choice/decision all of which are in the end game deciding. Go low and its a legal challenge, go high and you take your chances.

 

[Shelflife]

Not really arguing about the protocol. It's probably as good as any other protocol

Arguing that the sanctions between those two dangerous tackles were two wide. They weren't that different.

I agree with you there, they weren't that different, but they were different, 6 inches lower and Kolisi has a perfectly legal tackle, 6 inches higher and its direct to the head and a red card. Its only 6 inches either way.

 

[crossref]

I agree with you there, they weren't that different, but they were different, 6 inches lower and Kolisi has a perfectly legal tackle, 6 inches higher and its direct to the head and a red card. Its only 6 inches either way.

Correct decisions, no doubt
But sanctions not proportionate

 

[Stu10]

Not really arguing about the protocol. It's probably as good as any other protocol

Arguing that the sanctions between those two dangerous tackles were two wide. They weren't that different.

I disagree... Kolisi is clearly hinged at the hip and his back is almost horizontal, parallel with the ground; whereas Cane was upright... we know how these different pictures are judged by officials. I think the picture for the officials was made worse for Cane by the fact he was even more upright going into the tackle, just before impact.

Rugby World Cup news | New Zealand captain Sam Cane cops red card for high shot

New Zealand captain Sam Cane was sent off just short of half-time in the Rugby World Cup final for a high shot, which was upgraded to red.

wwos.nine.com.au

Rugby World Cup news | Moment Springboks captain Siya Kolisi cops yellow card

South Africa's captain Siya Kolisi was sent off after he made head-on-head contact with fill-in All Blacks captain Ardie Savea.

wwos.nine.com.au

 

[crossref]

I disagree... Kolisi is clearly hinged at the hip and his back is almost horizontal, parallel with the ground; whereas Cane was upright... we know how these different pictures are judged by officials. I think the picture for the officials was made worse for Cane by the fact he was even more upright going into the tackle, just before impact.

I guess it depends witter kant you are coming from

 

[shebeen]

I guess it depends witter kant you are coming from

If you can't see how different they are, you are only confirming your inner bias for everyone to see.

 

[crossref]

I feel slightly side tracked
I fully accept one was a YC on was a RC
although both were declared high degree of danger

My issue was that I think
- 10 mins for one
- 53 mins plus a 2 week ban for the other

Is not a fair reflection of the comparative seriousness of the offences

I think a 20 min replacement would have made them a fairer pair of outcomes

 

[Dixpat]

speaking of slim margins, the final two passes for the Barret try were very close to forward. Satisfied the Tele'a one had enough momentum to be a backwards from the hand, but surprised the TMO didn't want to check that under closer scrutiny. Maybe under pressure from the disallowed try two minutes earlier (that had 3 knock ons)?

Perhaps he did check and was satisifed that the Barrett pass was not c&o forward and therefore had no need to intervene again