Discussion
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?
Six Nations 2023: 'Unacceptable to spoil good games with poor red cards'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65006193
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/pundits-r...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65006193
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/pundits-r...
Evanivitch said:
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&...
Let's assume that foul play has occurred - otherwise it's play on.
To be a red card then:
1. Steward must be at fault
2. There must be a high degree of danger (not low, or medium)
3. There cannot be any mitigation (unless the play was intentional or highly reckless).
Re 1) Again, let's assume Steward is at fault, though there's certainly an argument to be made about unavoidable circumstances.
Re 2) What was the danger? Well, he wasn't going in to the collision with forward momentum, and his arm was passive in the contact. All that will reduce the level of danger (compared with say forward momentum and a drive of the arm to the head).
Re 3) Was it intentional or reckless? Very hard to argue it was either. Was there any mitigation? Plenty - forward pass, blown whistle, opponent shaping to kick, defender trying to avoid contact and/or get out of the way or protect himself, split second decision making.
The law application guidelines says that the process can be applied to:
• High tackles
• Shoulder charges
• Dangerous cleanouts
• Head-to-head collisions
• Leading elbow / forearm
Was it a shoulder charge? It was a very odd looking one if so. You'd have to ignore a lot of more likely scenarios for Steward's body shape before you said he was trying to charge Keenan with his shoulder. And, contact wasn't made with the shoulder.
Was it a leading elbow/forearm? Under the application of the Law clarification, there is no leading arm when close to the body. Stewards arms were tightly tucked in. It also says "Play On" / no fault for passive action / involuntary collision both of which arguably apply.
It goes on to say give a penalty / yellow card for Low Danger:
• Indirect contact (Steward was trying to turn away from contact)
• Low force (yes, Steward had minimal forward momentum, so lower force)
• Low speed (low to medium speed)
• Passive (yes)
• No leading head / shoulder / forearm (not a leading head, not a leading shoulder - Keenan didn't hit the shoulder, not a leading forearm - it was close to the body).
So you can only end up at a red card decision if you decide that there was a high level of danger and that it was reckless, intentional or zero mitigation.
768 said:
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.
Does this not then suggest that Steward was reckless in arriving at the contact area in such a manner that he could not safely assess and react? He was back at the 22 while play was on the 10m line moments before joining the defensive line to cover Keenan.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.
Similar to a player taking out a player in the air with no attempt to contest for the ball because they arrived too quickly.
PhilboSE said:
Evanivitch said:
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&...
C70R said:
You're not actually following the laws there, you know?
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?
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?
bigothunter said:
Which of my statements is incorrect:
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?
Did I only quote one line? I don't think I did.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