Discussion
C70R said:
You're not actually following the laws there, you know?
Always happy to learn...???C70R said:
As for your point about "passive tackles" (which aren't mentioned once in the head contact framework, by the way), Steward was leaning back at point of contact. How much more "passive" can he be?
I never said they were part of the framework, but if he had taken that option,rather than turning his shoulder into the impact then no dangerous contact would have occurred and the protocols would not have needed to be invoked. Turning to hit someone in the face with your shoulder/upper arm, leaning back of not, is in no way 'passive'.To make it even worse, there were two pieces of head contact on English players that weren't even reviewed by the TMO.
Sexton on Curry in a tackle, which could have easily been yellow, was quite bad. But Ludlam got absolutely smashed in the face by a charging shoulder while trapped in a ruck, which was a stone-cold red.
I'm sure the officials didn't set out to be biased, but incompetence like this ruins our sport.
Sexton on Curry in a tackle, which could have easily been yellow, was quite bad. But Ludlam got absolutely smashed in the face by a charging shoulder while trapped in a ruck, which was a stone-cold red.
I'm sure the officials didn't set out to be biased, but incompetence like this ruins our sport.
DocJock said:
C70R said:
You're not actually following the laws there, you know?
Always happy to learn...???C70R said:
As for your point about "passive tackles" (which aren't mentioned once in the head contact framework, by the way), Steward was leaning back at point of contact. How much more "passive" can he be?
I never said they were part of the framework, but if he had taken that option,rather than turning his shoulder into the impact then no dangerous contact would have occurred and the protocols would not have needed to be invoked. Turning to hit someone in the face with your shoulder/upper arm, leaning back of not, is in no way 'passive'.There was clear justification for a mitigation to yellow, and it was ignored by an incompetent refereeing team. I'm annoyed, and I'd imagine England fans are incensed.
There was no 'player lowering' mitigation.
Keenan was not lowering his height into contact. He had bent to pick up the ball, and if anything was slightly rising into the contact. Steward should have anticipated the height at contact as he could see that Keenan would have to bend to collect the ball.
Keenan was not lowering his height into contact. He had bent to pick up the ball, and if anything was slightly rising into the contact. Steward should have anticipated the height at contact as he could see that Keenan would have to bend to collect the ball.
DocJock said:
Intentionally leading with the shoulder? Well, yes. He actively turned to make his shoulder the point of contact.
Dangerous tackle? No wrap, shoulder to the head, so yes.
Avoid contact? Not enough time, but he could have taken contact with a passive tackle. The fact he opted to decline a legal tackle and lead with his shoulder without attemting to wrap was (by the current letter of the Law) foul play.
I have some sympathy for Freddie, he had very little time to react, but unfortunately for him, he made the wrong decision and paid the price.
You think Steward was trying to tackle Keenan?Dangerous tackle? No wrap, shoulder to the head, so yes.
Avoid contact? Not enough time, but he could have taken contact with a passive tackle. The fact he opted to decline a legal tackle and lead with his shoulder without attemting to wrap was (by the current letter of the Law) foul play.
I have some sympathy for Freddie, he had very little time to react, but unfortunately for him, he made the wrong decision and paid the price.
DocJock said:
There was no 'player lowering' mitigation.
Keenan was not lowering his height into contact. He had bent to pick up the ball, and if anything was slightly rising into the contact. Steward should have anticipated the height at contact as he could see that Keenan would have to bend to collect the ball.
He did anticipate. He was thinking, bugger, this guy is going to hit me at full pelt I'm the ribs and the whistle has gone. He was on a lose, lose situation. He could have taken the tackle and they both got hurt. However, due to him bracing and moving his body to try and mitigate the impact, he actually made it worse for the Irish player. So it's a res card. A very unfortunate one. I don't agree with it though, and I think refs should be able to take account of the situation. The Irish players and crowd didn't help.Keenan was not lowering his height into contact. He had bent to pick up the ball, and if anything was slightly rising into the contact. Steward should have anticipated the height at contact as he could see that Keenan would have to bend to collect the ball.
Road2Ruin said:
DocJock said:
There was no 'player lowering' mitigation.
Keenan was not lowering his height into contact. He had bent to pick up the ball, and if anything was slightly rising into the contact. Steward should have anticipated the height at contact as he could see that Keenan would have to bend to collect the ball.
He did anticipate. He was thinking, bugger, this guy is going to hit me at full pelt I'm the ribs and the whistle has gone. He was on a lose, lose situation. He could have taken the tackle and they both got hurt. However, due to him bracing and moving his body to try and mitigate the impact, he actually made it worse for the Irish player. So it's a res card. A very unfortunate one. I don't agree with it though, and I think refs should be able to take account of the situation. The Irish players and crowd didn't help.Keenan was not lowering his height into contact. He had bent to pick up the ball, and if anything was slightly rising into the contact. Steward should have anticipated the height at contact as he could see that Keenan would have to bend to collect the ball.
DocJock said:
PhilboSE said:
You think Steward was trying to tackle Keenan?
No, that's part of the problem. He just turned his shoulder into him and made contact with his head. He could have let Keenan hit him square on, wrap and fall backwards in a classic passive tackle.So if we’re going to hold players accountable for not getting out of the way what’s to stop players (not even ball carriers) running around barging their heads into opponent’s shoulders resulting in immediate red cards? I exaggerate of course but somewhere in between the two extremes lies what happened between Steward & Keenan.
From the Irish “experts” side, Donal Lenihan, Rob Kearney and Matt Williams all thought it should have been yellow, whereas Shane Horgan thought red. His rationale was that Steward put himself in that position, and had to do either one of two things in that case - compete for the ball (wasn’t an option) or tackle the man. Doing neither left him with responsibility to protect the other player in contact, which turning his body didn’t do
I don’t know the laws these days well enough, but I wasn’t surprised it was red. Despite there not being intention, it “looked” bad (ball-carrying player with a head injury on the ground) and we know referees are going to penalise such things strongly. It might not be right, but it’s the way referees have been operating for years
In saying that, it killed the contest. I still think Ireland would have prevailed with our attack and an ability these days to better cope under pressure, but it would have been a lot tighter. Will certainly be interesting the next time we meet
I don’t know the laws these days well enough, but I wasn’t surprised it was red. Despite there not being intention, it “looked” bad (ball-carrying player with a head injury on the ground) and we know referees are going to penalise such things strongly. It might not be right, but it’s the way referees have been operating for years
In saying that, it killed the contest. I still think Ireland would have prevailed with our attack and an ability these days to better cope under pressure, but it would have been a lot tighter. Will certainly be interesting the next time we meet
C70R said:
Even if that were true (which it isn't), it has absolutely nothing to do with the head contact framework.
Until you can acknowledge the reality it's hard to believe you even understand the laws of the game.And you clearly don'
World Rugby said:
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
Woopsy.Considerations include:
• Line of sight
• Sudden and significant drop or movement
• Clear attempt to change height
• Level of control
• Upright - passive vs dynamic
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...
To put some numbers to it...
Frame 0 - is he going to kick?
Frame 9 - hands on the ball.
Frame 17 - contact at frame 16, but now head contact.
25 frames per second, so around 0.3 seconds from when he was legal to make a tackle until contact, but it's already far too late by then to change direction. Some people won't even have a reaction time that quick, I don't believe anyone would then have the ability to then get out of the way or decide to and then make a tackle.
Probably better off deciding to tackle players who don't yet have the ball, rather than risk a red.
Frame 0 - is he going to kick?
Frame 9 - hands on the ball.
Frame 17 - contact at frame 16, but now head contact.
25 frames per second, so around 0.3 seconds from when he was legal to make a tackle until contact, but it's already far too late by then to change direction. Some people won't even have a reaction time that quick, I don't believe anyone would then have the ability to then get out of the way or decide to and then make a tackle.
Probably better off deciding to tackle players who don't yet have the ball, rather than risk a red.
Evanivitch said:
Jasey_ said:
It's the law that needs changing.
As others have said this law is ruining the game.
Concussions have ruined lives.As others have said this law is ruining the game.
Yesterday's red card was a farce...
bigothunter said:
Rugby is intrinsically brutal and hazardous. Professional players are aware of the risks. To eradicate concussion, we would need to stop rugby being a contact sport and replace it with something softer.
Yesterday's red card was a farce...
This is incorrect on every level. Children, youths, young adults, desperate for careers in rugby are not specialists in rugby injuries. Not ligament damage, not muscle damage, not brain damage.Yesterday's red card was a farce...
Contact sport does not require concussions.
Aussie rules is a contact sport. Off-ball hits, contact encouraged in the air, far more blind-sided hits. It's definitely not perfect and has it's own demons to deal with, but they've banned head (and shoulder) contact far more rigidly than Rugby Union.
Evanivitch said:
bigothunter said:
Rugby is intrinsically brutal and hazardous. Professional players are aware of the risks. To eradicate concussion, we would need to stop rugby being a contact sport and replace it with something softer.
Yesterday's red card was a farce...
This is incorrect on every level. Children, youths, young adults, desperate for careers in rugby are not specialists in rugby injuries. Not ligament damage, not muscle damage, not brain damage.Yesterday's red card was a farce...
Contact sport does not require concussions.
Aussie rules is a contact sport. Off-ball hits, contact encouraged in the air, far more blind-sided hits. It's definitely not perfect and has it's own demons to deal with, but they've banned head (and shoulder) contact far more rigidly than Rugby Union.
Rugby is intrinsically brutal and hazardous. Yes or No?
Professional players are aware of the risks. Yes or No?
To eradicate concussion, we would need to stop rugby being a contact sport and replace it with something softer. Yes or No?
Yesterday's red card was a farce... Yes or No?
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff