General rugby thread
Discussion
DocJock said:
I am being told that the Falcons' player's foul play does not negate mitigation, yet World Rugby say...
Head contact process - 9th March 2023 - Mitigation will not apply for intentional OR always-illegal acts of foul play
Are you saying WR are wrong? Or are you saying that a shoulder charge to the head with no attempt at a legal tackle is not 'an always-illegal act of foul play'?
A deliberate shoulder charge to the head will be always illegal foul play; red card no mitigation.Head contact process - 9th March 2023 - Mitigation will not apply for intentional OR always-illegal acts of foul play
Are you saying WR are wrong? Or are you saying that a shoulder charge to the head with no attempt at a legal tackle is not 'an always-illegal act of foul play'?
A bad attempted tackle where the shoulder meets the head is not always illegal foul play so therefore mitigation can be taken into account.
“Always illegal foul play” is a statement which has context. The “always illegal” bit directs you to actions which are not normal foul play as will naturally happen in a fast contact sport like rugby. Foul play is foul play. You don’t need the “always illegal” qualifier unless you are trying to modify it.
If they meant any foul play negates the possibility of mitigation then that’s all they need to say. They wouldn’t need to add the “always illegal” bit.
So, if the incident happened in a genuine attempt to make a tackle then even though “foul play” has occurred if it isn’t “always illegal foul play” then mitigation can be considered.
“Always illegal foul play” to me means an action that can’t possibly be explained away as something that happened in the course of playing rugby. Like just walking up to someone and lamping them. Or an off the ball player takeout that ends up with shoulder meeting face.
Look at this another way.
By the law - clarified in the flowchart for head contact - step one says if there’s no foul play then it’s play on. So if we proceed through the flowchart then there must have been foul play.
IF the simple existence of foul play negates mitigation, then no aspect of the flowchart relating to mitigation could possibly be relevant. Because to get to this stage would mean there has been foul play, so therefore no mitigation can be considered.
But the flowchart supports mitigation, and to get to that stage there must have been foul play (step 1), so therefore the possibility must exist for mitigation to be considered even if there has been foul play. This is because there is a distinction between “foul play” and “always illegal foul play”.
I don’t have a view on this incident because I haven’t seen it.
I am not a ref or anything to do with enforcing rugby laws, but I do have some legal training and spent a chunk of my career having to analyse contracts and laws. This is just my interpretation, on that basis, of the language in the rugby Law and the flowchart to help referees arrive at a decision.
Hunky Dory said:
There was foul play (no attempt to wrap the tackling arm) therefore no mitigation can be applied. It was pretty straightforward.
If there was no foul play then it’s play on (step 1 in the flowchart).By your understanding if there was foul play then there can be no possible mitigation.
Why then does the law and flowchart support mitigation at a point where foul play must have occurred when you say it can’t be considered?
"Always illegal" presumably also has to be blind to the size of the player?
A 5'7" scrum half tackling a 6'5" lock is almost certainly never going to make contact with the lock's head unless a mitigating factor comes in to play, but reverse the situation and it's highly likely the lock makes head contact, but would it be fair to call that "always illegal"?
A 5'7" scrum half tackling a 6'5" lock is almost certainly never going to make contact with the lock's head unless a mitigating factor comes in to play, but reverse the situation and it's highly likely the lock makes head contact, but would it be fair to call that "always illegal"?
DocJock said:
Interstingly, the Guideline I quoted earleir was, at some point this morning, changed to Head contact process - 9th March 2023 - Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play.
Someone at WR must be reading this thread!
Interesting. The “always illegal” qualifier was unhelpful for the man in the street to understand the Law as it was written. I expect they have changed the wording to clarify.Someone at WR must be reading this thread!
It is not unusual for a non legally trained person to read the previous definition and say to himself:
Hmm “Always illegal foul play”
But foul play is always illegal
So the qualifier is redundant
So “always illegal foul play” == “foul play”
It is these sorts of nuances that lawyers spend their life arguing about; not wrong vs right but interpretations of situations against the letter of the Law. And it’s why Laws of all sorts are constantly evolving to clarify the intended meaning.
It’s an issue I have with asking ex players for their opinions on contentious card decisions because people assume that they are familiar with the law and how to apply it. BOD obviously had no idea and fell back on the “contact to the head so it’s a red” trope. I think it’s great that Nigel Owens is on some commentary teams but he’s vastly under-utilised IMO. By a distance the best ref I have ever seen.
PhilboSE said:
If there was no foul play then it’s play on (step 1 in the flowchart).
By your understanding if there was foul play then there can be no possible mitigation.
The law and flowchart state that mitigation cannot be applied where “intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play” are involved. This incident was clearly reckless and with high degree of danger so was clear red card. That was what I was commenting on and my understanding of that element of the process is fine.By your understanding if there was foul play then there can be no possible mitigation.
PhilboSE said:
Why then does the law and flowchart support mitigation at a point where foul play must have occurred when you say it can’t be considered?
The flowchart itself (outside such a clear red) however, is where there is room for improvement as I agree it seems to be sloppily written and counter intuitive!For example, if you follow the flow chart, it would seem it is fine to have no penalty or sanction for any head contact at all unless there is foul play, which is probably not the intention of a head contact framework..?
It may be more logical if step 2 was the assessment of degree of danger first then foul play element as step 3, with option to increase from yellow to red for example at step 3 for foul play, but that may result in even more red cards for accidental head contact I suppose.
As you said, there will be lawyers all over this permanently arguing as much about the inference of the wording as the actual wording itself…!
Hunky Dory said:
PhilboSE said:
If there was no foul play then it’s play on (step 1 in the flowchart).
By your understanding if there was foul play then there can be no possible mitigation.
The law and flowchart state that mitigation cannot be applied where “intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play” are involved. This incident was clearly reckless and with high degree of danger so was clear red card. That was what I was commenting on and my understanding of that element of the process is fine.By your understanding if there was foul play then there can be no possible mitigation.
Hunky Dory said:
The flowchart itself (outside such a clear red) however, is where there is room for improvement as I agree it seems to be sloppily written and counter intuitive!
I think the flowchart is fine, it was the Law itself which needed clarification to make the intent more obvious, and DocJock says that has now happened.Hunky Dory said:
For example, if you follow the flow chart, it would seem it is fine to have no penalty or sanction for any head contact at all unless there is foul play, which is probably not the intention of a head contact framework..?
There are lots of occasions when a player goes off for an HIA and doesn't return and there are no sanctions to any player because it is accepted that head injuries can happen in a fast contact sport. The framework and sanctions are an attempt to reduce the frequency and eliminate the easily avoidable incidents.PhilboSE said:
That may have been what you meant, but the actual statement was "there was foul play, so no mitigation applies". This suggests the mere presence of any sort of foul play negates mitigation, which as I've described above, isn't correct. It would need to be "always illegal foul play" under the definition of the Law as it stood at the time of the offence, or "highly reckless act of foul play" if it takes place after this morning (!)
Ahem:Hunky Dory said:
There was foul play (no attempt to wrap the tackling arm) therefore no mitigation can be applied. It was pretty straightforward.
My comment was specific and not about the consequences of “any” foul play. A shoulder to the head with no attempt to wrap is “always illegal” and what I said was about an incident you haven’t seen. I suggest you watch the match and what happened, then you can pass judgement on the validity of my comment.
I’m not sure why you chose to pick on my comments and then suggest I meant something that suits your apparent need to have an argument, but I’ll leave you to it.
DocJock said:
C70R said:
DocJock said:
The foul play. (Direct head contact, no wrap) took any mitigation out of the process.
These guys need to learn to aim lower in the first place.
I've not seen the incident in question, but again you're not using the Laws or Head Contact Framework correctly.These guys need to learn to aim lower in the first place.
It's entirely possible for there to have been foul play, but the outcome to only be a penalty (low degree of danger and mitigation).
So no, foul play doesn't take any mitigation out of the process.
Head contact process - 9th March 2023 - Mitigation will not apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play
BTW, I am referring to a contact which I have seen, a shoulder, direct to the head in an upright position, with a high level of force ie high degree of danger.
Genuinely not looking for an argument here
Edited by DocJock on Saturday 25th March 09:28
As in Steward's case, he was adjudged to have committed foul play, but mitigation brought him down to a yellow card.
I never said such.
The incident we were discussing had already reached the 'card' stage of the protocol. The foul play in question was an intentional, no-arm shoulder charge, contacting the head, hence no mitigation applicable, as per the guideline. Note the 'intentional' qualifier.
Anyway, I'm back off to watch the second half of Bath v Exeter which is good entertainment so far (despite a yellow card).
The incident we were discussing had already reached the 'card' stage of the protocol. The foul play in question was an intentional, no-arm shoulder charge, contacting the head, hence no mitigation applicable, as per the guideline. Note the 'intentional' qualifier.
Anyway, I'm back off to watch the second half of Bath v Exeter which is good entertainment so far (despite a yellow card).
Great servant to Scotland over a long period. - 100 caps is a lot. I guess looking beyond the World Cup seems pretty far away for him, he won’t make the next Lions tour, or the next World Cup. He’s not been short of injuries, and his body is likely telling him it’s time to hang up his boots. Hope he has a huge World Cup as send off.
the tribester said:
DocJock said:
Stuart Hogg to retire from rugby after the world cup at the young age of 30.
I guess 12 years of pro rugby takes it's toll physically and mentally.
I must admit I didn't see this one coming. Rumour was that he was going back to Glasgow. He'll be 31 in June.I guess 12 years of pro rugby takes it's toll physically and mentally.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff