Steward RC

[crossref]

Well, if we are going to give a RC for that (and I completely understand why we are) we do need to bring in the 20 minute thing.

 

[Flish]

I understand and accept the logic in the process, but if that contact was reversed (imagine Steward was the ball carrier) no separation between arm and body, and same contact happened - would it be red?

With one look in my game it’s probably a play on with both teams getting momentarily grumpy and then forgetting about it a phase of play later

 

[crossref]

With one look in my game it’s probably a play on with both teams getting momentarily grumpy and then forgetting about it a phase of play later

With one look in that game it was play on
jP palyed on

That's a TMO RC

 

[Zebra1922]

I’m all for protecting players and generally have no challenge against RC issued for high tackles, however I don’t agree with this RC. For me Steward is going for a loose ball, realises he will not get there first and attempts to turn to protect himself and not run into the Irish player. It is then unfortunate there is head contact but it’s accidental.

 

[BikingBud]

We're returning to extreme slow motion replays and forensic analysis of a game that has many variables that change at great speed.

What was the actual time between the knock on and impact?

Ball was knocked on, Steward flinched and the player hit him.

How quickly are we expecting players to react?

No malice and no intent.

If Steward had remained square on and been hit in the stomach by the opposition player's head hitting from a crouched position, would that be play on?

If Steward had bent to try and retrieve the knock on and heads had clashed, how would that be decided?

An unfortunate outcome, part of the game, not even a rugby incident definitely not a red card.

 

[SimonSmith]

If it's not a red card, you have to show how the Head Contact protocol was incorrectly applied.

 

[Dickie E]

If it's not a red card, you have to show how the Head Contact protocol was incorrectly applied.

following the protocol, the first question is "has head contact occurred?" to which the answer is yes.

The second question is "is there foul play?" with these considerations: intentional, reckless, avoidable.

I don't think it was intentional or reckless, so the only question is : was it avoidable?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

following the protocol, the first question is "has head contact occurred?" to which the answer is yes.

The second question is "is there foul play?" with these considerations: intentional, reckless, avoidable.

I don't think it was intentional or reckless, so the only question is : was it avoidable?

I think that contact between the players was unavoidable unless we want to stop tackling altogether and the Irish player dropping their head made head contact unavoidable for the tackler. I think the Poms were hard done by with this call, lead by the TMO, but JP needs to take some responsibilty.

 

[Flish]

following the protocol, the first question is "has head contact occurred?" to which the answer is yes.

The second question is "is there foul play?" with these considerations: intentional, reckless, avoidable.

I don't think it was intentional or reckless, so the only question is : was it avoidable?

Every contact is avoidable, but then you don’t get picked to play again

Will be interested to see if they appeal the decision, I think there will be a lot of backing for it

 

[didds]

Well, if we are going to give a RC for that (and I completely understand why we are) we do need to bring in the 20 minute thing.

I'd rather "we" just donet give RCs for that sort of thing in the first place.

I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time with friends and family explaining why this stuff happens "by the laws", who makes them etc - and also not defending players who contnue to tackle upright with force . But cases like this do make the sport look stupid. The To4 had no choice in the matter - i am not blaming them at all, and I would point a finger at Farrell who it seems from reports Ive read was incraedulous - HE should know, no matter how stupid the enforced decision why, that it was "correct" by law.

Thing is, WR have now painted themselves in a corner - in a similar way they have with kick and chases a la Biggar/Russel - and there is no way out of the corner now.

 

[BikingBud]

Every contact is avoidable, but then you don’t get picked to play again

Will be interested to see if they appeal the decision, I think there will be a lot of backing for it

Yep every contact is avoidable, thing is it's then called tiddly winks.

 

[BikingBud]

I'd rather "we" just donet give RCs for that sort of thing in the first place.

I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time with friends and family explaining why this stuff happens "by the laws", who makes them etc - and also not defending players who contnue to tackle upright with force . But cases like this do make the sport look stupid. The To4 had no choice in the matter - i am not blaming them at all, and I would point a finger at Farrell who it seems from reports Ive read was incraedulous - HE should know, no matter how stupid the enforced decision why, that it was "correct" by law.

Thing is, WR have now painted themselves in a corner - in a similar way they have with kick and chases a la Biggar/Russel - and there is no way out of the corner now.

One might even suggest that these protocols came around, in part, due to Farrell's persistent dangerous tackle technique.

 

[didds]

One might even suggest that these protocols came around, in part, due to Farrell's persistent dangerous tackle technique.

thats doing a lot of heavy lifting to put the entire head contact in tackle thing on one person!

 

[BikingBud]

Did you see the "In Part" bit?

 

[shebeen]

One might even suggest that these protocols came around, in part, due to Farrell's persistent dangerous tackle technique.

I wonder how many times he had to see his own tackles in the course material at tackle school he did recently?!

I totally agree that this is killing the game, 20 minute RC seems like the obvious option to mitigate the effect while still have a punishment. Hopefully now that England have been affected directly something might actually be done.

 

[crossref]

So ..

I totally agree that this is killing the game, 20 minute RC seems like the obvious option to mitigate the effect while still have a punishment. Hopefully now that England have been affected directly something might actually be done.

They won't change anything before the RWC now, and I fear that a large number of games will be heavily impacted by RC

 

[Ian_Cook]

We're returning to extreme slow motion replays and forensic analysis of a game that has many variables that change at great speed.

What was the actual time between the knock on and impact?

Ball was knocked on, Steward flinched and the player hit him.

How quickly are we expecting players to react?

No malice and no intent.

If Steward had remained square on and been hit in the stomach by the opposition player's head hitting from a crouched position, would that be play on?

If Steward had bent to try and retrieve the knock on and heads had clashed, how would that be decided?

An unfortunate outcome, part of the game, not even a rugby incident definitely not a red card.

There is this thing called "Slow Motion Intentionality Bias". When you are watching something being replayed in slow motion, your brain is still funtioning in real time and this leads to the perception that reaction time is longer than it really is.

Back in 2016, I wrote a short post linking to a scientific study titled "Slow motion increases perceived intent" which examines the use of repays in criminal courts, but it has relevance to sport as well. IMO, its worth revisiting this...

(FWIW, I thought the Steward RC was a crock of shite!)

Can slow motion replays really make things look worse than they are?

The recent furore over the Sam Cane v Robbie Henshaw collision in the second test between Ireland and New Zealand got me to thinking about the merits of using slow motion video to make judgements about potential foul play incidents in rugby. I think we have all heard the meme that sometimes...

forum.rugbyrefs.com

 

[Dickie E]

It appears to me that the whole "was there foul play?" question is skipped and they go straight from "was there head contact?" to "was it with force?, etc"

 

[crossref]

It appears to me that the whole "was there foul play?" question is skipped and they go straight from "was there head contact?" to "was it with force?, etc"

Yes I thought that

 

[Stu10]

IMHO there was enough mitigation to reduce to a yellow. Green dropped his height significantly just before contact and I don't think it was a high level of danger, but these are subjective, especially the level of danger.

See in the photo how close the players were when Green collected the ball. Steward had no time to change course. Arguably he should have followed through with a normal tackle, but he clearly tried to pull out in response to the knock on.



Most players watching would not have expected that to result in a red (or even a yellow)... I think that tells something.

What do others think about the ref starting his explanation with "in the current climate..." ?
Is rugby politics impacting decision making?