Steward RC

[belladonna]

If you are able to find the phrase ‘rugby incident’ in the law book then please let me know. Referees do not have the option to deal with the majority of what were once considered unavoidable collisions as accidental no-blame collisions.

If you think this seems ludicrous in a contact sport then I am 100 per cent in agreement with you, but most of us don’t have 200 cases of early-onset dementia and potential damages which could reach tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds to worry about.

The one aspect of this about which I am 100 per cent clear is that Jaco Peyper plus TMO Marius Jonker and touch judges Christophe Ridley and Ben O’Keeffe handled this situation exactly as they are instructed. When you read social media hysteria please bear this in mind.

Indeed, from Peyper’s perspective the phrase which springs to mind is “don’t shoot the messenger” since – as I never tired of telling players during my time refereeing – he doesn’t write the laws, he just applies them.

Ref Watch: Peyper was right to send Freddie Steward off

Referee Jaco Peyper provided his fellow officials and the listening TV audience with a word-perfect summary of how match officials...

www.rugbypass.com

 

[crossref]

they invented a new type of offence and shoe horned it into the RC bucket, previously reserved for serios acts of foul play. It's taking people a long time to realise.

 

[Phil E]

If you are able to find the phrase ‘rugby incident’ in the law book then please let me know. Referees do not have the option to deal with the majority of what were once considered unavoidable collisions as accidental no-blame collisions.

If you think this seems ludicrous in a contact sport then I am 100 per cent in agreement with you, but most of us don’t have 200 cases of early-onset dementia and potential damages which could reach tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds to worry about.

The one aspect of this about which I am 100 per cent clear is that Jaco Peyper plus TMO Marius Jonker and touch judges Christophe Ridley and Ben O’Keeffe handled this situation exactly as they are instructed. When you read social media hysteria please bear this in mind.

Indeed, from Peyper’s perspective the phrase which springs to mind is “don’t shoot the messenger” since – as I never tired of telling players during my time refereeing – he doesn’t write the laws, he just applies them.

Ref Watch: Peyper was right to send Freddie Steward off

Referee Jaco Peyper provided his fellow officials and the listening TV audience with a word-perfect summary of how match officials...

www.rugbypass.com

I would suggest you don't take refereeing guidance from rugby pass.

 

[Decorily]

Referees do not have the option to deal with the majority of what were once considered unavoidable collisions as accidental no-blame collisions.
/URL]

Of course referees have the "option".

If no foul play then that's the end of it!

 

[BikingBud]

If you are able to find the phrase ‘rugby incident’ in the law book then please let me know. Referees do not have the option to deal with the majority of what were once considered unavoidable collisions as accidental no-blame collisions.

If you think this seems ludicrous in a contact sport then I am 100 per cent in agreement with you, but most of us don’t have 200 cases of early-onset dementia and potential damages which could reach tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds to worry about.

The one aspect of this about which I am 100 per cent clear is that Jaco Peyper plus TMO Marius Jonker and touch judges Christophe Ridley and Ben O’Keeffe handled this situation exactly as they are instructed. When you read social media hysteria please bear this in mind.

Indeed, from Peyper’s perspective the phrase which springs to mind is “don’t shoot the messenger” since – as I never tired of telling players during my time refereeing – he doesn’t write the laws, he just applies them.

Ref Watch: Peyper was right to send Freddie Steward off

Referee Jaco Peyper provided his fellow officials and the listening TV audience with a word-perfect summary of how match officials...

www.rugbypass.com

Hence my consideration:

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

The referee was content, until many, very slow motion replays and the hysteria of the crowd forced him into a different decision.

Shall we replay all games at very slow motion, over the citing window period following the game, to ensure that there were no other collisions that might be deemed, under the forensic scrutiny of the slow motion microscope to be dangerous?

Or shall we assess those actions that are clear and obvious foul play or malicious intent, penalise appropriately, and enjoy the rest of the game.

They will come out: Dangerous and deliberate hit on helpless Ludlum!

Interestingly, in another game over the weekend, sorry cannot remember which, the defender on his own try line was called for no arms tackle. It was fairly obvious he had gone in low and collided head to knee with the attacker and gone to ground. I think he went off for HIA but is that aggressive use of the knee or poor tackling technique?

 

[Locke]

Of the three plausible outcomes to the Freddie steward incident, I rank them based on my opinion from most defensible to least defensible as such:
1. Red card
2. Play on
3. Yellow card

Explanation:
1. The explanation for the red card is obvious enough in my mind and was provided on the day by Jaco Peyper.
2. To get to this outcome while working through the head contact process, question 2 asks “was there foul play” with the criteria to consider being intentional, reckless, avoidable. I don’t consider FS’s actions to be intentional and labeling them “reckless” feels harsh. I do consider them avoidable which is why I support the red card. However, I can see how other rational minds would find them unavoidable and conclude that foul play has not occurred and that no sanction was required aka “a rugby incident”.
3. This is the least sensible outcome of the three, in my mind. I’m not clear what mitigation could be applied to bring it from RC to YC and it’s not a straight yellow in any world, from my perspective.

This leaves me with red card or no sanction at all, two very different outcomes. I think FS demonstrates the nature of the contact was avoidable by turning his body to present his side in less than one step. I think he rushed in, which is fine, and then the play/ball went differently than he expected and, in his surprise, he instinctively protected himself and not Hugo Keenan. I feel for FS because it wasn’t malicious but he messed up and made contact at high force to another player’s head. It’s a red card.
Some people are saying “red cards should only be for intentional, malicious, clear and obvious, etc acts of foul play”. Maybe they should be. But that isn’t what world rugby’s directive has been. Under the current guidelines, following the head contact process, it’s a red card. If you want it to not be a red card, WR needs to change the criteria.

 

[BikingBud]

I understand the panel may be occurring now, is the alleged offence:

Law 9.13 - A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.​

Have they alleged an appropriate offence?
Did Steward attempt to tackle?
Did he stand his ground and Keenan hit him?

 

[Phil E]

3. This is the least sensible outcome of the three, in my mind. I’m not clear what mitigation could be applied to bring it from RC to YC and it’s not a straight yellow in any world, from my perspective.

So you don't consider the ball carrier dropping his height quickly and unexpectedly, to collect a knocked on ball off the floor as mitigating circumstances?

 

[Phil E]

News just breaking that the RC has been rescinded. Awaiting official written confirmation.

Panel, "there were sufficient mitigating factors including the late change in the dynamics and positioning of the opposing player which should have resulted in the issue of a YC rather than a RC".

 

[kudu314]

So you don't consider the ball carrier dropping his height quickly and unexpectedly, to collect a knocked on ball off the floor as mitigating circumstances?

It's not a mitigating factor as Steward went from running toward the ball to seeing Keenan go low and turning to brace for impact. If he had kept his body going low as well then you could argue mitigation, but he went upright. And you could say he did that instinctively or on purpose, but it is irrelevant, he went upright while seeing his opponent go low. You could clearly see on the day that when the pass goes forward to Hansen, Steward is about 10 meters away and as the ball hits the deck he steps to his right to go for the ball with Keenan already hunched over and in FS's direct line of sight. After FS's step he goes upright. It happens fast, and in those few seconds, like any other professional sports player, FS makes decisions, he made the wrong one and paid the price as the laws are written. Red Card was the right outcome and the To4 all agreed to the facts as they were. If the RC is rescinded then it's another case of WR throwing officials under the bus.

 

[crossref]

- it was foul play, but should have been a YC

didn't expect that.

Freddie Steward cleared after red card for England in Ireland overturned

England’s Freddie Steward has had the red card he received in the Six Nations clash with Ireland at the weekend rescinded

www.theguardian.com

 

[kudu314]

Sends the wrong message in my opinion having the card rescinded. Depending on the assesment, Keenan could be out for a minimum of 7 or 12 days. So he gets a brain injury, can't play for two weeks and people are still worried that Steward "didn't have bad intention", "couldn't do anything else" and actually "Keenan dropped in height". I coach U/7 and U/8 kids and the biggest reason parents don't want their kids to play is because of head and spine injuries. I think FS is a fantastic player and a good person all around, but if you really want to kill the game, you make parents think that head injuries aren't taken seriously in the sport. Using the word "tiddlywinks" and saying "the game is going soft" or "it's a contact sport" aren't going to kill the game. Loosing future players from U/7 and up WILL kill the game.

 

[crossref]

The Red Card was issued as a result of the Referee concluding that the Player had acted contrary to Law 9.13 (A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders),

The independent Disciplinary Committee consisting of Nigel Hampton KC – Chair (New Zealand), Frank Hadden (Scotland) and John Langford (Australia) heard the case, and considered all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles and submissions from the Player and his representative.

After hearing the submissions, the Disciplinary Committee formally amended the Law which was breached to Law 9.11 (Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.)

The player denied that he had committed an act of foul play worthy of a red card as described in Law 9.11. Having reviewed all the evidence, the Committee decided that: (i) head contact with an opposing player had occurred; (ii) there had been an act of foul play in breach of Law 9.11 in that the Player had been reckless in his actions and in his upright positioning as he approached and came into highly dangerous contact with the other player; and (iii) there were sufficient mitigating factors including the late change in the dynamics and positioning of the opposing player which should have resulted in the issue of a yellow card rather than a red card.

On that basis, the Committee did not uphold the red card and the player is free to play again immediately.

 

[Stu10]

Sends the wrong message in my opinion having the card rescinded. Depending on the assesment, Keenan could be out for a minimum of 7 or 12 days. So he gets a brain injury, can't play for two weeks and people are still worried that Steward "didn't have bad intention", "couldn't do anything else" and actually "Keenan dropped in height". I coach U/7 and U/8 kids and the biggest reason parents don't want their kids to play is because of head and spine injuries. I think FS is a fantastic player and a good person all around, but if you really want to kill the game, you make parents think that head injuries aren't taken seriously in the sport. Using the word "tiddlywinks" and saying "the game is going soft" or "it's a contact sport" aren't going to kill the game. Loosing future players from U/7 and up WILL kill the game.

I don't like the repeated focus on the fact that Keenan had to leave the field and could be out for several weeks, IMHO this has no bearing on the red card decision.

What if Keenan had tripped and banged his head on Steward's knee, knocking himself out - an out and out "rugby incident". Same outcome for Keenan, but that doesn't mean Steward should receive the same punishment. You cannot simply say Keenan missed the rest of the game therefore Steward should too.

 

[Stu10]

I think they quickly applied law 9.11 (turned in shoulder, leading with elbow) and didn't subsequently discuss.

The Red Card was issued as a result of the Referee concluding that the Player had acted contrary to Law 9.13 (A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders),

After hearing the submissions, the Disciplinary Committee formally amended the Law which was breached to Law 9.11 (Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.)

I assumed it was always a breach of Law 9.11... I'm surprised that was ever seen as a tackle (Law 9.13).

 

[crossref]

Well, I think that judgement just reinforces how unpredictable the framework is.
I thought it possible they would think it wasnt foul play
I wonder if the element they consider foul play was twisting to (effectively) lead with elbow.

But then if you think he intentionally led with elbow then surely that IS a RC

I am confused.
What made that foul play? I wish they had explained

 

[Decorily]

Well, I think that judgement just reinforces how unpredictable the framework is.
I thought it possible they would think it wasnt foul play
I wonder if the element they consider foul play was twisting to (effectively) lead with elbow.

But then if you think he intentionally led with elbow then surely that IS a RC

I am confused.
What made that foul play? I wish they had explained

They did explain. ...
He was reckless but there was sufficient mitigation to bring it back to yellow.

 

[Decorily]

See here. ..

 

[crossref]

They did explain. ...
He was reckless but there was sufficient mitigation to bring it back to yellow.

But what was reckless ? the posture and the elbow I think .

 

[Decorily]

But what was reckless ? the posture and the elbow I think .

See my previous post.