Viewing 40 posts - 1,281 through 1,320 (of 1,484 total)
  • Rugby 22-23 Season
  • imnotverygood
    Full Member

    When I was taught to play rugby, one of the things I remember being told was never, ever, bend forwards to pick up the ball if there is an opponent coming towards you: Step past it & turn your shoulder intowards the oncoming player, thus protecting yourself & the ball. Basic stuff that seems to have been forgotten. Personally I would say the Irish player bears at least some of the responsibility for the contact.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I think he hesitated because he would have tackled him before he got to the ball, no? But he ballsed it up – simply tackling early would have only been a penalty?

    onehundredthidiot
    Full Member

    No if he’d tackles him properly it would have gone back for the forward pass.
    There was no whistle before that. It is odd positioning then the turn that does for him.
    He’s undone by his run up into the defensive line from being deep behind the line.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    I see the U20s secured a second GS in a row. Another red and a yellow for the youngsters in white – clearly discipline is a problem throughout. 😀 That’d be three out of the last five years that the U20s have completed a GS. Arguably, they were headed for one in 2020 but for the pandemic. Cracking weekend for the green machine.

    LeeW
    Full Member

    Loved the hug between Andy and Owen, it at least proves Owen can wrap his arms.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Oohhh – saucer of cream for LeeW

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    Oh I dunno, I thought it was quite funny. 😀

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Oh me too.  Hell of a catty comment tho

    ElVino
    Full Member

    Ollie Chessum’s “little” brother Lewis looks like a serious prospect. England beaten in the end but well in it until the cards started to come out. Green machine production line in good shape!

    onehundredthidiot
    Full Member

    “England players and staff were left stunned by Freddie Steward’s red card against Ireland, which the RFU will try to overturn at a disciplinary hearing on Tuesday.”

    Just say previous good form etc etc and being it to two games. Do not overturn it. There’s no case to do that.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Now the dust of the 6N is settling which one player from any 6n side would you want to add to your team?  for me its Peter O’Mahony.  There are faster more skillful forwards out there although he is no donkey but what he has is a hard edge that he keeps just about inside th elaws.  Never a backward step, never does his head go down.  He never knows his team is beaten.

    Scotland have players to match most teams in most positions and in a few cases some real world class players but we are missing that hard edge that POM brings.

    Mind you I hate him when we play against him ad he has a real grudge against Glasgow.

    olddog
    Full Member

    It’s a bit obvious but Antoine Dupont – the only issue would be having the quality around him that could live with and link up with him

    tjagain
    Full Member

    AS a Scotland fan we have decent 9s.  yes Dupont is the best in the world but I think POM would strengthen the Scots team more.  Our real weakness is the lack of that hard edge that does not stray over the line to thuggery

    ElVino
    Full Member

    Now the dust of the 6N is settling which one player from any 6n side would you want to add to your team? for me its Peter O’Mahony. There are faster more skillful forwards out there although he is no donkey but what he has is a hard edge that he keeps just about inside th elaws. Never a backward step, never does his head go down. He never knows his team is beaten.

    It’s funny because many Irish fans question how he gets on the team, he is a divisive figure along Provincial lines with most Leinster fans think Conan should start ahead of him and Dorris move to 6. I disagree but I would as a Munster fan 🙂

    For me it would be Thibaud Flament, the area Ireland could do with some strengthening is 2nd row. Ryan & Beirne together is a little light weight and anyway you need at least 4 top quality locks for a tournament given number of injuries in this position.

    onehundredthidiot
    Full Member

    Wooden spoon? Reminds me of this at the borders general hospital.

    Kryton57
    Full Member

    he has a real grudge against

    That’s his issue. He even tried to pick a fight with Sinckler after the match was won and during the celebrations, Google it.

    Twodogs
    Full Member

    Well, the red card has been rescinded

    tjagain
    Full Member

    I am surprised.  Ruled as a rugby incident?  Linky?

    Edit – found it on the BBC but no story just the headline

    Twodogs
    Full Member

    Yeah just heard it on R5 bulletin

    tjagain
    Full Member

    England fullback Freddie Steward appeared before an independent Disciplinary Committee via video link having received a red card in the Guinness Six Nations match between Ireland and England on Saturday 18th March 2023 played at the Aviva Stadium.

    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.

    The Committee acknowledged that match officials are required to make decisions under pressure and in the heat of a live match environment.”

    To me thats a really pervese decision – clearly looking for a way to downgrade it

    to me its either rule it a rugby incident ie no fault and then its play on or its an act of foul play and therefore red.  that simply does not fit in with the framework the refs have to use.

    boomerlives
    Free Member

    D’you think?

    It seems fair-ish. There was a whack to the head but with mitigation.

    Doesn’t get him back on the field for the last 35 minutes, though.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Because under the guidelines mitigation cannot be applied for that incident

    Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play

    https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

    What they have done is a confusing fudge that will make life even harder for refs

    all IMO of course

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    The Committee acknowledged that match officials are required to make decisions under pressure and in the heat of a live match environment.

    Did they also acknowledge that despite applying the laws as supplied to them (which aimed to reduce head injuries in the sport, regardless of intent), match officials can be later undermined because it seemed a bit harsh?

    Kryton57
    Full Member

    It seems fair-ish. There was a whack to the head but with mitigation.

    Doesn’t get him back on the field for the last 35 minutes, though.

    This for me. England would not have won with Steward remaining on the pitch, but it would have been a lot closer, especially if the high tackle on Watson and the head on Ludlum had been penalised. We would have all been on the edge of our seats even more so.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    I guess you’ll just have to feed off the injustice of it all. It’s ok – we’ve been doing it for centuries. 😀

    DougD
    Full Member

    From that link TJ it says that mitigation will not apply for “intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play”. Based on the text above, can they then differentiate between reckless and highly reckless? In which case, it seems like they didn’t deem it intentional, ‘just’ reckless and therefore which is why they have been able to take into account mitigation. Or is this the potential fudge you’re referring to?

    tjagain
    Full Member

    yes – that and the using a different law so they could apply the mitigation.

    I do think a red was too harsh a punishment for the crime but I also think the ref followed the laws and guidance properly.  the problem is that the lawsand guidance do not allow the flexibility to make ” common sense” decisions.

    for me its either accidental – play on or red card.  I just do not see how they can make it a yellow

    sharkbait
    Free Member

    I do think a red was too harsh a punishment for the crime but I also think the ref followed the laws and guidance properly.  the problem is that the lawsand guidance do not allow the flexibility to make ” common sense” decisions.

    This.

    The decision was made based on events as if they were described in writing alone – but the reality was quite different when viewed and common sense would have said to play on.

    Did they downgrade it to a yellow to save face rather than face the music that would inevitably been aimed at them for admitting it shouldn’t have been penalised?

    thecaptain
    Free Member

    Well it’s all the degree of negligence isn’t it?

    I find myself asking, what was he actually hoping to achieve? He ran toward the opponent, upright position, made no attempt to tackle or dodge, just turned a bit sideways and barged in. What was he aiming for here, legitimately within the rules of the game?

    Kryton57
    Full Member

    and barged in

    Thats in correct. He checked and was pretty much stood still.

    Caher
    Full Member

    England would not have won with Steward remaining on the pitch but it would have been a lot closer

    Why do you think that. Keenan subsequently failed a HIA and we were then without one of the most in-form players in the tournament.
    Maybe the margin would have been higher.

    loum
    Free Member

    Probably would have been 3 or four more tries.

    Keenan’s had a habit of scoring important tries, and setting them up.
    And ripping into teams last quarter.

    Still, wouldn’t have materially effected the table as they got the bonus point anyway.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    He was not still at impact – he jumped and turned and was in the air traveling forward at impact.  Nor was Keenans motion ” a sudden change in height” – he was at that height for a couple of paces

    Edit – its a fudge to get what would be a fairish punishment without throwing the ref completely under the bus

    imnotverygood
    Full Member

    He was not still at impact – he jumped and turned and was in the air traveling forward at impact. Nor was Keenans motion ” a sudden change in height” – he was at that height for a couple of paces

    I think you have to look at it in real time. In slo-mo it looks bad, but basically he is on an international rugby field with a chance of getting the ball & then has to back out in the last moment. He has very little time to react.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    OH I quite agree.  He reacted badly but its a split second decision.  He could have put his hands out.

    Its not a charge into a ruck with arm tucked.  I think he was very unfortunate but if instead he had put his hands out its unlikely Keenan gets a head injury and unlikely that any sanction would be taken

    In attempting to get consistency the tight guidance allows for no discretion

    duckman
    Full Member

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member
    I guess you’ll just have to feed off the injustice of it all. It’s ok – we’ve been doing it for centuries. 😀

    Maybees adapt a song?

    By a lonely changing room wall
    I heard an English coach call
    Freddie, they have taken you away
    For you stole Keenan’s wits
    Cause you can’t control your hits
    Now posh biscuits are tucked under your arm.

    With apologies to the Dubliners and every other Irish band….

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Nigel Owens take on the red card

    There are a couple of things from the Freddie Steward decision which leave me scratching my head. A lot of referees I have spoken to are split: Was it reckless? Was there foul play? Was there mitigation? Or was it just an unavoidable “rugby collision” and play on. It comes down to your view on the day as a referee.

    I couldn’t argue if a red or yellow card had been given to Steward, but here is where I feel there is plenty of confusion.

    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.

    My understanding was, and is, that if you have foul play and a reckless action, then the mitigation doesn’t play a part in the process. Which is why the outcome of the hearing is a surprise. They haven’t decided it was an accident or just a rugby collision, they have said that Steward was reckless and there was foul play. I am not sure, therefore, how they can apply mitigation.

    I have used this scenario before: if you are driving and meeting the 30mph speed limit and someone runs out in front of you who you can’t avoid, it’s an accident and out of your control. If you are going 40mph – over the limit – and that happens, you are being reckless and don’t have a leg to stand on.

    I could understand if Steward had not been sent off. But I cannot understand the panel’s verdict to reduce the punishment if they felt he was being reckless.

    Watching it happen, I felt that if Steward had stood his ground and braced himself for impact, then he would have done nothing wrong. But the fact he was still moving forward and turned to not make a legal tackle… I feel he could have done something different to avoid that. And that’s where the foul play comes in. 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.

    Former players also divided

    Hugo Keenan is not going in upright, he’s down towards the chest level of Steward, and that would have counted as mitigation if Steward had done everything he could to avoid a collision. But I’m not sure he did, which is why I felt it was closer to a red card. There is almost a half skip or a jump forward into the contact. Ex-players I have spoken to are also divided, with those leaning toward red doing so because of how Steward comes in. Whereas others are saying they don’t know how Steward can do anything different.

    Jaco Peyper in that situation is following the framework because he views the incident as reckless and foul play – as have the judiciary – and Jaco has therefore rightly ended up with a red card. You can’t be in a position where you think you’re going to give a yellow card, but if a player goes off for a head injury assessment you then increase the sanction. Jaco, in terms of following the framework, has done everything right.

    I think the judiciary needs to look at their wording, at why they are applying mitigation when they say it’s reckless and foul play. Or, the framework needs to be adjusted so referees can apply mitigation. But if you do that, you are on dangerous ground.
    Referees should always use a final real-time replay

    I once gave a red card to Iain Henderson in a game between Ulster and Munster, and then saw it again on review after the match and thought “b—– hell, Nigel, that’s not a red card”, and it was quite rightly overturned – but because the foul play was not a red-card offence in the first place.

    The Steward incident looks a lot worse in slow-motion, but slowing it down can help you see exactly what has happened. I would always base my ultimate decision though on a final real-time replay, which I think officials need to make sure they do before deciding on a call.

    Finally, there is an ongoing trial in Super Rugby in which players can be shown yellow cards and then the incident is reviewed off-field and potentially upgraded to a red card. The Steward example would not fit with that. You have a 60-40 split among referees I have spoken to between it not being a red card and Steward being sent off.

    There are four people and the TMO in the box who should be able to make the right decision after a few replays. I don’t see the benefit of the TMO having a further eight-minute window to review it. The best officials are appointed for these games for a reason. We need to trust them to make the right calls on the field.

    onehundredthidiot
    Full Member

    Interesting that the dynamics of the situation didn’t come into play in previous citing boards
    Was it fagerson who hit a ruck just as a player moved position and got clocked?

    Steward was moving forward and was never in a bent position to make a tackle. Yes he turned but it was always going to be a dodgy contact.

    Or as I believe has been said on past, non white, cases. Dry your eyes it’s been done (and now fudged).

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Team of the 6N.  Not mine but from two sources.

    PA NEWS AGENCY

    15. Hugo Keenan (Ireland)
    14. Damian Penaud (France)
    13. Huw Jones (Scotland)
    12. Gael Fickou (France)
    11. Mack Hansen (Ireland)
    10. Finn Russell (Scotland)
    09. Antoine Dupont (France)

    08. Caelan Doris (Ireland)
    07. Josh Van der Flier (Ireland)
    06. Sebastian Negri (Italy)
    05. James Ryan (Ireland)
    04. Thibaud Flament (France)
    03. Finlay Bealham (Ireland)
    02. Dan Sheehan (Ireland)
    01. Pierre Schoeman (Scotland)

    PLANETRUGBY.COM

    15. Thomas Ramos (France)
    14. Damian Penaud (France)
    13. Huw Jones (Scotland)
    12. Sione Tuipulotu (Scotland)
    11. James Lowe (Ireland)
    10. Johnny Sexton (Ireland)
    09. Antoine Dupont (France)

    08. Caelan Doris (Ireland)
    07. Francois Cros (France)
    06. Charles Ollivon (France)
    05. James Ryan (Ireland)
    04. Thibaud Flament (France)
    03. Finlay Bealham (Ireland)
    02. Dan Sheehan (Ireland)
    01. Andrew Porter (Ireland)

    Whats yours?  Sexytoes or Finnsanity at 10?

    Can you make a case for any England player?

    Does anyone NOT have Dupont at 9?

    Why is big Ritchie not in either team?

    Why is Duhan not in either team?  Does his sometimes poor defensive positioning outweigh his ridiculous scoring and tackle breaking stats?

    🙂

    tjagain
    Full Member

    No one?  I expect leads of bleating from AA 😉

Viewing 40 posts - 1,281 through 1,320 (of 1,484 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.