Women's World Cup

[didds]

we had two carded high tackles in that game - one by Eng, one by NZ

They were very similar, it takes a few viewings, and good understanding of the protocols to understand why one was RC the other YC

In terms of the intent, and the technique of the offenders, they are pretty much identical.

Yet one caused a team to play with 14 for 66 minutes, the other caused a team to play with 14 for 10 minutes

Don't you think that the difference in sanction/impact was completely disproportionate to the nuanced difference in the two tackles?

Wouldn't 20 and 10 have been fairer?

This initial impact on the shoulder and rides up style ruling seems to be a reasonably recent thing? Almost an attempt to ensure players dont get RCs, from the authorities' lead? As CR alludes to - its still a head smash with force whether it marginally grazes a shoulder or not. The intention is to try and protect players from head smashes or not surely?

 

[Mipper]

This initial impact on the shoulder and rides up style ruling seems to be a reasonably recent thing? Almost an attempt to ensure players dont get RCs, from the authorities' lead? As CR alludes to - its still a head smash with force whether it marginally grazes a shoulder or not. The intention is to try and protect players from head smashes or not surely?

It is a recent thing Didds. They seem to use it as reasoning for the “degree of danger” stage of the HC guidelines. I do agree that there are times when it is used as a ’get out’ for avoiding a red.

Of course the law is specific in out-lining the fact the high tackle above the shoulders is still foul play if it starts below the shoulders.