Steward RC

[SimonSmith]

They saw a loophole to get Product back on the field as quickly as possible, and took it.

There is no definition of "highly reckless" that allows us to differentiate it from "reckless" so far as the Protocols are concerned, and I do feel the DC owes it to everyone to explain how they made the differentiation. Because that's the only way they can legitimately get to YC using the framework.

I get more, and more disillusioned with DCs beyond the Community level. I grow more and more convinced that they they go with an agenda and manoeuvre to get to that outcome, rather than applying the laws, and protocols, as written. Top of any agenda item is that wherever possible, get the Product back to work as quickly as possible.

Regulation 17 isn't fit for purpose.

 

[Jz558]

And next season, when the ball carrier is banned from dropping their height whilst approaching a tackler, does the community equivalent of Keenan get sent off in an incident like this?

 

[Stu10]

Nigel O doesn't understand the verdict either , with much the same reasons as everyone else

Paywall , sorry

Referees do not know what a red card is anymore

Panel found Freddie Steward was reckless and there was foul play, so mitigation should not apply and the red card should stand

www.telegraph.co.uk

Reading the Head Contact Process, the FS press release and this comment from NO, it appears this issue is whether an incident relating to Law 9.11 is reckless or highly reckless... mitigation can be applied if the player is reckless, but not if the player is highly reckless.

Do we have any guidance regarding reckless vs highly reckless, or is this simply down to the discretion of the referee on the day? If it is entirely down to the discretion of the referee/panel, are we surprised that it is subjective and outcomes vary from incident to incident?

 

[didds]

So once again the disciplinary committee make a complete horlicks of everything and muddies the waters, leaving us more confused than when we started, and hanging the referee To4 out to dry in the process.

Or the To4 got it horribly wrong in the first place.

The reality of course lies somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[crossref]

WR have tried to remove the subjectivity of different refs judgement, by writing a complicated framework to follow.

Unfortunately that doesn't work
.. the framework itself leaves room for subjectivity
.. rugby keeps throwing up new varieties of incident not foreseen in the framework

Hence the mess

 

[belladonna]

Reading the Head Contact Process, the FS press release and this comment from NO, it appears this issue is whether an incident relating to Law 9.11 is reckless or highly reckless... mitigation can be applied if the player is reckless, but not if the player is highly reckless.

Do we have any guidance regarding reckless vs highly reckless, or is this simply down to the discretion of the referee on the day? If it is entirely down to the discretion of the referee/panel, are we surprised that it is subjective and outcomes vary from incident to incident?

Yes, but...

a) The DC said it wasn't 9.13 (high tackle) but 9.11 (dangerous tackle), so why would the head contact process come into play?

The [Head Contact] process can be applied to:
• High tackles
• Shoulder charges
• Dangerous cleanouts
• Head-to-head collisions
• Leading elbow / forearm

None of the above was found by the DC.

Which I think is kind of NO's point about once you get out of 9.13 and into 9.11 with recklessness, there is no mitigation.

b) Section 2 of the Head Contact Process mentions only 3 categories:

2. Was there foul play?
Considerations:
• Intentional
• Reckless
• Avoidable

To my reading, the most logical interpretation of "Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play" is that WR simply meant "intentional or reckless" as per section 2, and screwed up as usual in writing the rules in a non-ambiguous way - especially as "highly reckless" is not defined anywhere else.

 

[belladonna]

Playing devil's advocate - So does a judge need to be a criminal to be able to make a judgment on criminal laws and acts?

I think it's better to insinuate that they make mistakes too - not that they're incompetent because they don't have the practical experience. Or
If the law wording is poorly written leading to ambiguous or unintended interpretation, then that's not their fault.

Does a judge need to have been a criminal to be able to make a judgement? Lol no, hopefully not - but they almost always rise through the ranks of the judiciary. To adapt your analogy, all three have been "criminals" (players and/or coaches), but none of them have been barristers (referees).

 

[Stu10]

Yes, but...

a) The DC said it wasn't 9.13 (high tackle) but 9.11 (dangerous tackle), so why would the head contact process come into play?

The [Head Contact] process can be applied to:
• High tackles
• Shoulder charges
• Dangerous cleanouts
• Head-to-head collisions
• Leading elbow / forearm

None of the above was found by the DC.

Which I think is kind of NO's point about once you get out of 9.13 and into 9.11 with recklessness, there is no mitigation.

b) Section 2 of the Head Contact Process mentions only 3 categories:

2. Was there foul play?
Considerations:
• Intentional
• Reckless
• Avoidable

To my reading, the most logical interpretation of "Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play" is that WR simply meant "intentional or reckless" as per section 2, and screwed up as usual in writing the rules in a non-ambiguous way - especially as "highly reckless" is not defined anywhere else.

I'm not sure if we are getting into very murky territory regarding wording.

The press release said FS approached and came into contact with the other player. Contact was with the elbow (not in the press release, but we all know that to be fact). It is fair to conclude this a "leading elbow", therefore the head contact process can be applied.

"The [Head Contact] process can be applied to:" ... does that mean it can be applied or can only be applied to those actions?

Do we have a definition of reckless anywhere? I'm trying to consider an act of foul play under 9.11 or 9.13 that is not reckless.

Reckless - showing a lack of care about risks or danger, and acting without thinking about the results of your actions (Cambridge Dictionary)

For consideration, I'm more worried about foul play that is intentional rather than without thinking!

 

[belladonna]

The press release said FS approached and came into contact with the other player. Contact was with the elbow (not in the press release, but we all know that to be fact). It is fair to conclude this a "leading elbow", therefore the head contact process can be applied.

They didn't mention anything about leading with the elbow in the official statement (and it was tucked into his body so it would be strange if they did.)

RFU

www.englandrugby.com

 

[Stu10]

They didn't mention anything about leading with the elbow in the official statement (and it was tucked into his body so it would be strange if they did.)

RFU

www.englandrugby.com

Much like the discussion on "what is a charge down" and law 10.4.c, I feel we don't have enough information to move our understanding forward at this point.

 

[Rich_NL]

Playing devil's advocate - So does a judge need to be a criminal to be able to make a judgment on criminal laws and acts?

I think it's better to insinuate that they make mistakes too - not that they're incompetent because they don't have the practical experience. Or
If the law wording is poorly written leading to ambiguous or unintended interpretation, then that's not their fault.

No, but a supreme court - which finally rules on appeals and the real-life application of the intent/wording of the law - is made up of the most senior judges, with decades of experience applying the law in individual cases. Because they need to understand the case law, the culture in which law is interpreted and applied, and the difficulties and intricacies of the decisions at stake.

 

[crossref]

They may bring the 'upgrade' system in for the RWC

Rugby World Cup could feature radical red card upgrade system

Exclusive: Proposed new rule was discussed just days after England full-back Freddie Steward was sent off in final match of the Six Nations

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[menace]

No, but a supreme court - which finally rules on appeals and the real-life application of the intent/wording of the law - is made up of the most senior judges, with decades of experience applying the law in individual cases. Because they need to understand the case law, the culture in which law is interpreted and applied, and the difficulties and intricacies of the decisions at stake.

Yes...I am aware of that having worked in the judicial system....though in Oz the High Court is at the apex.

But that doesn't matter..

I think you may have missed the point of my post. That is, you don't have.to have been a referee be able to understand the game and the point or application of the written law. And to suggest that's why the judiciary made that decision because they had not refereed, as belladonna alluded, was/is IMO, unfair.

 

[katherineknowle]

I am in favor of protecting players and, in general, I have no challenge against RC issued by high tacle, however, I do not agree with this RC. For me, Steward goes through a loose ball, he realizes that he will not arrive first and try to turn to protect and not run into the Irish player. So it is unfortunate that there is contact with the head, but it is accidental.
How to watch Rugby World Cup Live Online

 

[shebeen]

They may bring the 'upgrade' system in for the RWC

Rugby World Cup could feature radical red card upgrade system

Exclusive: Proposed new rule was discussed just days after England full-back Freddie Steward was sent off in final match of the Six Nations

www.telegraph.co.uk

So, as predicted, now that England have been affected something might actually get done to resolve this mess.

 

[Rich_NL]

So, as predicted, now that England have been affected something might actually get done to resolve this mess.

The southern hemisphere have been trialling alternatives for the past year, they're already on their second

 

[crossref]

So, as predicted, now that England have been affected something might actually get done to resolve this mess.

I don't think that's it

I think the problem is that in England there are very entrenched feelings that "a reds a red. If you don't like it don't get a red" .

An attitude I would have agreed with a few years ago.

We have been slow to adapt our thinking for the new world, where RC are given out for more technical, essentially accidental incidents, and so old punishment does not fit the new crime