I don't think Attwoods kick was reckless. It certainly wasn't a foul and that's the main point.
Any time a lock tries to kick anything it is reckless 😆 Not the best comparison granted but I hate seeing someone get punished for something innocuous based on a freak outcome.
I don't see Pape's thing as any different to every lock ever running in to a tackle with high knees if the tackler goes low or a "handing off" elbow to the face of the tackler if they go high or the dozens of other bits of niggle they get involved in. Locks are horrible things!
I think it was both. Accidental but a pen nonetheless. Cant go round kicking out and catching peoples heads. Like Fin Russels hit on an airborne Bigger. Its reckless
Like Fin Russels hit on an airborne Bigger.
?
I disagree, Attwood was legally competing for a 50/50 ball. Russell ran into a bloke who was 4ft in the air for a ball which was loooong gone.
Attwood kicked North in the head knocking him out if that isnt reckless nothing is.
Attwood kicked North in the head knocking him out if that isnt reckless nothing is.
Reckless is headbutting a locks foot.
Oh and the Pape one is pure cheapshot and he should get a few weeks rest.
Did anyone see what the scrap at the end was about? Quite funny seeing Biggar march Baldwin off giving him a proper telling off!
Did anyone see what the scrap at the end was about?
Jim Hamilton doesn't need a reason to start a fight. He just fights.
Dumb play though just wasted more time. Then Russell took an age over the kick. He should have drop kicked it or had it teed up ready and waiting.
Looking at the Pape yellow,I think there is little in it.Bit like both yellows on Sat. Just watched the game and just because "One rule for Wales and another for whoever they are playing" Jonathan thinks one could be red and the other was just a penalty,doesn't make him right,neither of those was ever a red,but both were def yellow. Oh and Jackson was crap,but he was consistently crap,that is the single most important thing to have as a ref.
Ducks - what, if any, discretion is given to refs re "intent". Question relates directly to the yellow cards on the high balls. I see the technical offence in both and hence obvious penalty, but no intent in either especially Finn's yellow. So you decide not to challenge in the end, see a welsh player at pace with knees coming at you head and you turn away. Ok looked nasty, especially in slow mo, but can't see any intent to harm the other player. Clumsy at worst.
Does this matter? Or is it an automatic yellow?
Ditto hard line on this but rarely does blocking a kicker or late tackle get pinged?
Taking the player out in the air is dangerous. Russell was nowhere near the ball and made no attempt to get it, then shit out when he thought he might get hurt. Certain yellow and if Biggar had stayed down it could have been a red. Davies was at least near the ball and making an attempt I thought the yellow harsh.
Agree and agreed (he basically decided to look after #1 as most would do at that point since impossible to do anything else) hence the question, is INTENT relevant at all. Purely technical question - as the coverage showed everyone will have "their" view (red or blue) but that is different. I just would like to know the specific ruling.
Agreed ^3 but arguably, the welsh player knew more about what he was doing. But can't see a yellow in either personally. But then again I am wearing a white shirt!!! 😉
Talking of staying down the Scottish player (Lamont?) was never going to get up in a hurry was he!!! 😉
Was Beattie I think. The point about intent is what I was getting at earlier with Attwood booting North, no intent but reckless as with Warburtons tip tackle at the world cup. Players should have a duty of care over each other.
Perhaps, hence the question to our resident ref!
Ditto Rhys high tackle, again clumsy and the guy ducks so looks even worse. Should that have been a yellow? Duty of care to avoid high tackle? Not sure....but they have been given even when players duck into the tackle.
The head on heads are getting scary these days as is the clearing out. If you are defender and on your feet with hands over the ball and you get cleared out - your neck and spine seem just as vulnerable as when in the air. I am glad that my boots are firmly hung up these days. Different game, different game.....
Yes and no to A_A
I partly agree but does that mean that North became "untouchable" because he was diving for the ball? If that had been Atwood's shoulder (similar to Brown on Saturday) would you still be as bothered? Is it the stray boot that bothers you or the resultant injury? A "duty of care" is a tough one. Was Masi in the wrong against Brown? No it was 50/50 and he came out better.
Finn Russell deserved a yellow but what is he meant to do, teleport out if the way? How does a guy stop or prevent it in that situation? According to the law you can't 'tap' the guy in the air...
(i) Tackling the jumper in the air.
A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
What about this...this is extremely dangerous too...
Indeed, the rules seem to indicate penalty. But does a yellow require intent?
In real time, it seemed like a bad clash - but as you say there was nothing he could do. Ok, perhaps with greater timing he could have ducked, but not sure!!!
Didnt see the england game this weekend. If someone kicks a player in the head at a ruck its a pen dont see why it should be different in open play.
Is that Gethin. Dangerous play, off feet no arms but happens all the time in all pro games. The ruck needs sorting out. Should have been a pen against Hogg for not supporting his weight 😉
Finn Russell deserved a yellow but what is he meant to do,
Go for the ball or wait for the player to land.
Russell was so late to that ball (it had been caught and the catcher was on the way down) that he was to blame. He wasn't a passenger to his legs, he should have timed his run to hit matey when his feet hit the floor, just like the vast majority of other players manage to.
The only way to stop the Atwood/North instance reoccurring is to ban kicking the ball on the floor because once it's there, someone will be trying to dive on it and/or kick it.
Broadly in agreement with a_a on the various yellows. The results of a challenge (EDIT: a foul) will always affect the punishment. See Hogg's sending off last year. Payne's sending off against Saracens in the Heiney. There's no point in talking about intent anymore. They're professionals - they can't go wildly into challenges without a thought to consequences anymore. The Welsh yellow seemed harsh - penalty yes, but yellow...
The ref was consistently poor yesterday and tbh, after the first twenty, seemed to have lost confidence in his own decision making.
As for the Pape knee to Heaslip's back, rather than giving my view through green tinged spectacles, to counter the view through blue, navy, red or white tinged specs here, I'd go with the professionals' (neither of them Keith Wood) views given in the segment shown before the game yesterday. Williams and Nicol both said they thought it was deliberate, Nicol believing it will be upgraded to a red retrospectively. Only Guscott remained on the fence by saying that if Saint Andre has been told by his player that it was accidental, that that's the information he has to convey when asked. I'm drawing my own conclusions from that one. 🙂
[green tinge]I don't believe for a second it was accidental. I'm sure he didn't mean to fracture a vertebra(e) when doing it, but if he did and it were to end Heaslip's season (which from reading various press reports, seems likely), then he should be punished severely - certainly shouldn't play for the rest of the 6N. It probably lost France the game as they were gaining a foothold at that point but that isn't punishment enough IMO. He's not an inexperienced player - a 50+ internationally capped professional has no place going into an exposed player's back like that.[/green tinge]
Anyway, he has now been cited for it, so we'll wait and see what happens to him.
AA was the Gethin question for me? If so, no, it was a general comment. The body is so vulnerable in that defensive position. I shudder when I see unprotected necks being smashed by 19st at full pelt.
The ref was consistently poor yesterday and tbh, after the first twenty, seemed to have lost confidence in his own decision making.
Did help by having that **** Clancy whispering in his ear all ****ing game. He is a good ref usually needs a bit more experience of big games. Should have binned Cowan first half and any welshman near the end.
Glad you dont listen to Wood, makes Jiffy seem balanced.
The ref was consistently poor yesterday and tbh, after the first twenty, seemed to have lost confidence in his own decision making.
Did help by having that **** Clancy whispering in his ear all ****ing game. He is a good ref usually needs a bit more experience of big games. Should have binned Cowan first half and any welshman near the end.
Glad you dont listen to Wood, makes Jiffy seem balanced.
/p>
Edit no thm was for whoever posted the vid, could see who it was
Glad you dont listen to Wood, makes Jiffy seem balanced.
Of course I listen to him, he's great, but I'm more swayed by the neutrals' views from before the game yesterday. I'd disagree that anyone else could make Jiffy seem balanced though. 😀
Didnt see the england game this weekend. If someone kicks a player in the head at a ruck its a pen dont see why it should be different in open play.
You were talking about a "duty of care" not just kicking in the head, but still...
If you are in a ruck the head is generally static so a kick is more avoidable and probably more deliberate.
In open play are you saying you should be able to predict where someone's head might be and then not put your foot there or kick in that general direction? As a player North went for the ball knowing that someone might throw a boot at it, both brave but also somewhat foolish and he was hurt in the process.
First time I've seen that Pape knee vid and to me that's a red card then and there. Hopefully be banned for a while as it's dangerous and cynical.
I'd probably have red carded Russell for that 'challenge' on Biggar, dreadful effort.
The Welsh yellow card probably was about right. The 'high tackle' on the Scottish scrum half wasn't though, as the boy ducks/slips into is arm and all at pace.
The Welsh prop is guilty as per the below IRB law
(h)
A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.
The Welsh prop is guilty as per the below IRB law(h)
A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.
Indeed, but its never enforced.
I remember posting a gif of Biggar being hit by a samoan diving into a ruck ages back and everyone here said it was fine...hang on I'm off to the gwlad gif archive.....
[img] 
[/img]
And another example, this one after the whistle has gone.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Can tell it's half term this week ^^^
So in that spirit...
If Attwood was reckless when he knocked North out, then Hibbard was worse when he did it. Ball wasn't even close, should have been more careful where he put his head.
If it's about duty of care, then there's no exception just for being Welsh.
If Attwood was reckless when he knocked North out, then Hibbard was worse when he did it.
I dont recall Hibbard kicking anyone in the head.
After all the guff about how ace Coventry is, Tubby Goode has signed for Reading Samoans/NotNots
In open play are you saying you should be able to predict where someone's head might be and then not put your foot there or kick in that general direction?
If you see someone diving on the ball then you can either dive for it yourself with your arms or wait for then to get it and tackle. If someone is diving on the ball then you can bet their head won't be far behind! I do think Attwood had no intention of doing anything naughty but it is a bit like catchers putting themselves in a venerable position when jumping in the air- the other players around them have a responsibility to not be careless with their actions (IMO, maybe not in the letter of the law).
The Welsh prop is guilty as per the below IRB law
Rucks in internationals are brutal and there is a lot of potential for injury but you hardly ever see the infringements by the letter of the law pinged as A_A says. I can't say I like the Gethin-Hogg collision! I also hate seeing players removed with an arm around the neck and shoulder and twisted half ripping their heads off but that seems like fair game too 😐
Maybe the tub of lard wasnt offered a contract?
Attwood's attempt to fly hack the ball forward was totally legit
If he had kicked the ball and not someones head!
Anyway unpick this! Not sure its a high tackle but not sure its a knock on either
Oooh, I missed that as had to take the dog out. Seems the Scot made a deliberate effort to send the ball backwards. Footage didn't show if Clancy came in off the the touchline to have a word again. 🙂
Attwood was just trying to hack the ball on. If the defender wants to be brave and dive in to save the situation, that's up to him. Attwood was entitled to kick the ball, just that North's head beat him to it.
With the JD sin binning, he was looking for the ball but the real culprit was Sean Lamont who "eased" him into the collision, presumably banking on the yellow card.
Attwood was just trying to hack the ball on. If the defender wants to be brave and dive in to save the situation, that's up to him. Attwood was entitled to kick the ball, just that North's head beat him to it.
Agreed
Not sure its a high tackle
He was stood fully upright with his arm out sideways, I know it's exacerbated by HK's height and the fact he was stumbling but It would have been pretty high even fully upright.
not sure its a knock on either
Not seen a definitive replay but at the time I couldn't believe they'd not gone upstairs - definitely too fine to be sure in real time to my mind.
Anyway unpick this! Not sure its a high tackle but not sure its a knock on either
At the time I thought the high tackle was definite and therefore more punishment seemed likely. Seeing it again it looks a bit more like a ducked tackle and a bit of a stumble... but other views show the contact and the scrum half does go down so it must have been a fair knock, i.e. high tackle 😕
With the knock on it seems any time the ball is dropped and not obviously hugely backwards then it gets called as a knock on. Dropped and slightly backwards or level seems to be given as a knock on nowadays. There wasn't a great view of it but I'm not convinced it went forwards either!
The referees confidence was definitely knocked early on. It was more like football referee decision making with the dallying and odd calls from being influenced by others rather than than authoritarian approach you usually see in rugby. Somewhere between this referees game and Steve Walsh's self belief will do nicely
It looks like the midget 9 ducks into webbs armpit to my eye!
