Steward RC

[kudu314]

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.

If if's and buts were candy and nuts. I agree that any potential injury shouldn't have a bearing on the red card decision, that's why the framework is in place to begin with. However, as per the disciplinary committee, FS was being reckless and they have the opportunity to take Keenan's injury and potential recovery time into consideration. What amazes me is the wording of their finding, saying a head contact occured, then an act of foul play occured because of reckless behaviour but that the mitigation was the "change in dynamics and position of the opposing player". That is a weak argument as the WR protocol clearly states in bold and marked in red on their website that Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play. The disciplinary committee admits it was reckless, the follow up question for the To4 is What was the degree of danger? And the consideration is Direct vs Indirect contact as well as High Force vs Low Force. FS fails on both, it was direct contact with high force, therefore any reasonable referee would consider that a highly reckless bit of foul play. It amazes me that even a disciplinary committee can cock things up so royally.

 

[crossref]

See my previous post.

yes "reckless in his actions and upright proitioning"

I don't understand.

- what actions?
- if he wasn't making a tackle (they decided) then whyat's wrong with being upright?

 

[Decorily]

yes "reckless in his actions and upright proitioning"

I don't understand.

- what actions?
- if he wasn't making a tackle (they decided) then whyat's wrong with being upright?

"Upright as he approached and came into highly dangerous contact"

 

[crossref]

yes, hoping you could explain it a bit more, rather than just quoting it !

 

[Stu10]

If if's and buts were candy and nuts. I agree that any potential injury shouldn't have a bearing on the red card decision, that's why the framework is in place to begin with. However, as per the disciplinary committee, FS was being reckless and they have the opportunity to take Keenan's injury and potential recovery time into consideration. What amazes me is the wording of their finding, saying a head contact occured, then an act of foul play occured because of reckless behaviour but that the mitigation was the "change in dynamics and position of the opposing player". That is a weak argument as the WR protocol clearly states in bold and marked in red on their website that Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play. The disciplinary committee admits it was reckless, the follow up question for the To4 is What was the degree of danger? And the consideration is Direct vs Indirect contact as well as High Force vs Low Force. FS fails on both, it was direct contact with high force, therefore any reasonable referee would consider that a highly reckless bit of foul play. It amazes me that even a disciplinary committee can cock things up so royally.

yes "reckless in his actions and upright proitioning"

I don't understand.

- what actions?
- if he wasn't making a tackle (they decided) then whyat's wrong with being upright?

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.

Head Contact Process

Is there any mitigation?​

Considerations include:

• Line of sight
• Sudden and significant drop or movement
• Clear attempt to change height
• Level of control
• Upright - passive vs dynamic

Reading the wording in the press release, the head contact process and my interpretation:

• FS was reckless because he made highly dangerous head contact with a leading elbow and was in an upright position, and was thus in breach of Law 9.11 and therefore it was foul play.
  • Upright position may not be mentioned in Law 9.11, but leading with an elbow is, so it was foul play even if you ignore being upright.
  • Being upright is possibly more relevant when considering mitigation (clear attempt to change height).
• There is no mention in the statement that this action was intentional, and I don't believe it was intentional.
• This was a reckless, non-intentional act that was highly dangerous.
  • Head contact process says no mitigation will be given for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play
  • FS was neither intentional nor highly reckless (according to the press release)
• Was there possible mitigation?
  • Consider sudden and significant drop or movement by green
  • Mitigation supports reduction from RC to YC
• The primary discrepancy between the TO4 on game day and the Disciplinary Committee is whether there was mitigation
  • JP decided no reason for mitigation
  • The DC thought there was sufficient mitigation

 

[Locke]

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?

I don’t agree that the ball carrier dropped his height quickly or unexpectedly. As I watch the replay, I see Hugo Keenan bent over with his head roughly at that same height for several steps, plenty long enough for Freddie Steward to do something other than turn to protect himself.

 

[crossref]

see, the elbow is very important.

if the elbow was entirely accidental and played no part in the judglement that there wad foul play ... well then it's hard for me to see that there was any foul play at all. All that remains is that he was upright while NOT making a tackle.

but if the elbow IS the reason (or part of the reason) for saying that it's foul play .. well fair enough, that's the decision, but then for leading with an elbow that's serious and normally no mitigation is allowed for that (AIUI). (indeed an elbow is an old-fashioned egregious foul play RC)

 

[belladonna]

if the elbow was entirely accidental and played no part in the judglement that there wad foul play ... well then it's hard for me to see that there was any foul play at all. All that remains is that he was upright while NOT making a tackle.

Isn't standing straight up into the path of the tackler considered a "passive tackle" though? I seem to remember a YC in those circumstances not so long ago, where it would have been RC but was reduced to YC because of being passive. It's a little different in this case as FS wasn't passive as he was moving fast towards the BC.

Edit: It was the Hislop RC which was rescinded. https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.php?threads/hislop-rc-rescinded.22697/

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

What if he had lifted his arms up and Keenan smashed into his Hip? would that be more reckless? Would have hurt more!

 

[crossref]

Isn't standing straight up into the path of the tackler considered a "passive tackle" though? I seem to remember a YC in those circumstances not so long ago, where it would have been RC but was reduced to YC because of being passive. It's a little different in this case as FS wasn't passive as he was moving fast towards the BC.

Edit: It was the Hislop RC which was rescinded. https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.php?threads/hislop-rc-rescinded.22697/

Hislop was making a tackle and committed an offence under 9.13
Steward they said was not making a tackle and they charged him under 9.11

I can see that when making a tackle it is dangerous merely to be upright

But other than making a tackle surely it's not considered dangerous or reckless to be upright ?

 

[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?

So not Law 9.13 then

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

I think the judgment is a palliative, they felt they had to apportion some liability but applied only a limited amount of mitigation.

The framework is not unpredictable it's a framework. Albeit it was not designed for circumstance such as this occurrence.

Nevertheless having a framework still relies on humans to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. As we see on here there are many differing perspectives, all working to the same framework. Humans are unpredictable, players and officials will view evidence differently and make differing judgments despite what may be considered a well described and workable framework, except this is a marginal case and the perceived understanding of the event does not fit with existing models.

I have stated my perspective given the short period between KO and contact, others seem to think that Steward is like The Flash, he can stop time and make infinite adjustments while the rest of the world is in stasis. I still feel he was still and braced before impact, Keenan was not in control as his priority was to recover the ball. Given that we are going all air crash investigation, I wonder what the GPS data would support!

"The padded casing surrounds a unit that is commonly referred to as a GPS tracker, although it contains other measuring devices.​

​

The device generally includes a transmitter, a GPS tracker, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer. ​

​

It’s also commonly connected to a heart rate monitor, although that may be in a separate device in a chest band.​

​

The accelerometer helps to keep track of collisions. It gives a reading as to sudden changes in force caused by direct contact, acceleration, and deceleration.​

​

This can be taking or receiving a tackle. It can also measure the force when a player joins a ruck.​

​

The coaches and trainers can use this data to understand the amount of physical punishment a player is taking."​

​

Be easy to synch up to a common time base and get a far better perspective of what occurred.

Did anyone consider the linked C&O shoulder to Ludlum? Dangerous and deliberate hit on helpless Ludlum

 

[BikingBud]

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.

Head Contact Process

Is there any mitigation?​

Considerations include:

• Line of sight
• Sudden and significant drop or movement
• Clear attempt to change height
• Level of control
• Upright - passive vs dynamic

Reading the wording in the press release, the head contact process and my interpretation:

• FS was reckless because he made highly dangerous head contact with a leading elbow and was in an upright position, and was thus in breach of Law 9.11 and therefore it was foul play.
  • Upright position may not be mentioned in Law 9.11, but leading with an elbow is, so it was foul play even if you ignore being upright.
  • Being upright is possibly more relevant when considering mitigation (clear attempt to change height).
• There is no mention in the statement that this action was intentional, and I don't believe it was intentional.
• This was a reckless, non-intentional act that was highly dangerous.
  • Head contact process says no mitigation will be given for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play
  • FS was neither intentional nor highly reckless (according to the press release)
• Was there possible mitigation?
  • Consider sudden and significant drop or movement by green
  • Mitigation supports reduction from RC to YC
• The primary discrepancy between the TO4 on game day and the Disciplinary Committee is whether there was mitigation
  • JP decided no reason for mitigation
  • The DC thought there was sufficient mitigation

Does leading mean he was moving forward? Or can you be stationary and leading with any part of you body.

Further I am not sure how you can stand recklessly. Is that similar to loitering with intent?

Perhaps we are back to using a comparison with basketball, ie of charging. Defender moving foul against defender. Defender static foul against attacker for barging. The energy of the impact came from Keenan not Steward, but Steward is a big unit and would take a large amount of energy to move.

But what is clear is we need to move away from refereeing by outcome.

 

[crossref]

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

If you do not believe Steward has done anything wrong, that it was a complete accident, a rugby collision, then there is no foul play and it's play on. Or, you can say Steward was careless but apply mitigation to apply a yellow card. But if, as the panel have found, you think Steward was reckless and there was foul play, then you are talking about a red-card offence.

In those conversations I have had with other referees, some are on a red card, some on yellow and some are just play on – and the reason some view it only as a sin-bin offence is because there is no reckless foul play in the first place by Steward, not because of any mitigation. Something about the committee's outcome does not add up.

 

[crossref]

I am going back to where I started if it's all this random and ambiguous and unpredictable then the sanction for these types of incidents is too severe and we need the 20 minute rule

 

[shebeen]

This kind of stuff is just not on

Noted

 

[shebeen]

I am going back to where I started if it's all this random and ambiguous and unpredictable then the sanction for these types of incidents is too severe and we need the 20 minute rule

I like the additional suggestion of a yellow card only from the on field referee.
If it's a red card offence, then it can be upgraded to this by the tmo during the ten minute period.

I'd also use the 20 minute and had to be substituted option too.

 

[Dickie E]

I reckon they should have just concluded that it was a red card but the early bath was punishment enough. I don't see how downgrading to a YC serves any purpose except confusion, endless debate and England fans blaming Jaco O"Peyper for stealing their win

 

[belladonna]

Nigel sees both sides of the RC debate

 

[belladonna]

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

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.

As Nigel says in the article, if it's reckless and foul play as the committee decided, then you can't have mitigation and their decision makes no sense. And he stands by the referee and says Jaco Peyper applied the framework spot on.

Given that none of the independent Disciplinary Committee - Nigel Hampton KC – Chair (New Zealand), Frank Hadden (Scotland) and John Langford (Australia) - have ever been referees, perhaps it's hardly surprising, but it's a certainly bit disappointing.

(Same article sans paywall here https://archive.is/C9UwF)

 

[menace]

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.
..

I don't know about your "local" judiciary - but that's pretty much 25% of the time what happens here with judicial decisions. They love to roll out the "the referee wasn't wrong on what they saw, but we just saw more than them from our video angle...blah blah blah". The change of behaviour they will create is not on the player, but the referee. They will undoubtedly save time on admin report writing and just issue a YC (and be done with it).

Given that none of the independent Disciplinary Committee - Nigel Hampton KC – Chair (New Zealand), Frank Hadden (Scotland) and John Langford (Australia) - have ever been referees, perhaps it's hardly surprising, but it's a certainly bit disappointing.

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.