Discussion
768 said:
If we're talking about tackle height we can have a conversation about tackle height, I think what was clear there is Freddie was not trying to make a tackle.
Yes, and he should have been. He shouldn't have turned sideways and led with his shoulder.What possible reason could he have for not tackling?
LastPoster said:
Time
I take you saw the frame by frame earlier in the thread. 0.3 of a second to decide to tackle, to get low enough to tackle, to get his arms to a tackle position, to effect a tackle.
Agreed,not enough time for a tackle but enough to adjust his body position to result in a red card.I take you saw the frame by frame earlier in the thread. 0.3 of a second to decide to tackle, to get low enough to tackle, to get his arms to a tackle position, to effect a tackle.
It clearly shows him adjusting. Therefor it was then down to the ref etc to make a decision. Like it or not that's what happened.
The refs performance will be reviewed as usual.
LastPoster said:
Time
I take you saw the frame by frame earlier in the thread. 0.3 of a second to decide to tackle, to get low enough to tackle, to get his arms to a tackle position, to effect a tackle.
He ran in in a straight line from the 22 to the point of contact. Keenan also ran in a straight line towards him. Keenan deviated downwards to pick up the ball, but neither deviated left/right.I take you saw the frame by frame earlier in the thread. 0.3 of a second to decide to tackle, to get low enough to tackle, to get his arms to a tackle position, to effect a tackle.
As the defending player, the onus was on Steward to avoid going in upright.
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.
Nonsense. They were both running towards a loose ball, and the Irish player dipped down to pick the ball up less than a second before contact. That's literally the definition of why the mitigation was put in place. 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.
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.
Exactly!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.
That's the dictionary definition of a late change in height, and why it wasn't a red.
Honestly, the people calling that a "nailed on red" or similar, without bothering to reference any laws, are part of rugby's problem today.
Kermit power said:
C70R said:
It's really not a red.
Follow the head contact framework, and point out the foul play to me (quoting the appropriate law).
That also ignores the mitigation of a sudden drop in height, which would have made it a yellow at most anyway.
It's a real pity that he copped a concussion, but you can't legislate for rugby incidents like that. There's simply no coaching point for Steward to avoid that one.
If Steward had dropped his height and attempted a tackle, then I think you're absolutely right to say that Keenan's own drop in height would've been considered in mitigation, and would probably have been enough to drop from a red to a yellow.Follow the head contact framework, and point out the foul play to me (quoting the appropriate law).
That also ignores the mitigation of a sudden drop in height, which would have made it a yellow at most anyway.
It's a real pity that he copped a concussion, but you can't legislate for rugby incidents like that. There's simply no coaching point for Steward to avoid that one.
As it is, though, whilst Keenan isn't a small bloke at 6'1", Steward is a full 4" taller, so even if Keenan had gone into contact fully upright, there's still every chance that by leading in with his shoulder and fully upright himself, Steward would've made contact with his head. I'd think that just that alone would be enough to rule out possible mitigation.
C70R said:
Kermit power said:
C70R said:
It's really not a red.
Follow the head contact framework, and point out the foul play to me (quoting the appropriate law).
That also ignores the mitigation of a sudden drop in height, which would have made it a yellow at most anyway.
It's a real pity that he copped a concussion, but you can't legislate for rugby incidents like that. There's simply no coaching point for Steward to avoid that one.
If Steward had dropped his height and attempted a tackle, then I think you're absolutely right to say that Keenan's own drop in height would've been considered in mitigation, and would probably have been enough to drop from a red to a yellow.Follow the head contact framework, and point out the foul play to me (quoting the appropriate law).
That also ignores the mitigation of a sudden drop in height, which would have made it a yellow at most anyway.
It's a real pity that he copped a concussion, but you can't legislate for rugby incidents like that. There's simply no coaching point for Steward to avoid that one.
As it is, though, whilst Keenan isn't a small bloke at 6'1", Steward is a full 4" taller, so even if Keenan had gone into contact fully upright, there's still every chance that by leading in with his shoulder and fully upright himself, Steward would've made contact with his head. I'd think that just that alone would be enough to rule out possible mitigation.
The framework is a guideline defined to improve consistency, not a hard and fast process that isn't open to interpretation. It specifically states that under law 9.11, the ref is always entitled to issue a red or yellow card for anything deemed reckless or dangerous.
Within the framework, you're quite right to say that consideration for mitigation should be given to sudden or significant drop in movement, but the very next line is "clear attempt to change height".
Steward made absolutely no attempt to change height, and given he's 4 inches taller than Keenan, there's every chance there would've been contact to the head even if Keenan had also been fully upright, so just how much consideration could Peyper possibly give to Keenan's drop in height?
Another consideration is line of sight. Steward had an absolutely clear line of sight with both players running straight towards each other from distance. He could see him coming, and should've been giving consideration to the possibility of him dropping his height. It wouldn't have taken him any longer to drop his height as it did to turn sideways on, but he chose not to.
C70R said:
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.
Exactly!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.
That's the dictionary definition of a late change in height, and why it wasn't a red.
Honestly, the people calling that a "nailed on red" or similar, without bothering to reference any laws, are part of rugby's problem today.
Let's see what happens when this is reviewed.
Kermit power said:
Within the framework, you're quite right to say that consideration for mitigation should be given to sudden or significant drop in movement, but the very next line is "clear attempt to change height".
Steward made absolutely no attempt to change height, and given he's 4 inches taller than Keenan, there's every chance there would've been contact to the head even if Keenan had also been fully upright, so just how much consideration could Peyper possibly give to Keenan's drop in height?
They are mutually exclusive mitigations. Any one of them is sufficient to justify a yellow over a red.Steward made absolutely no attempt to change height, and given he's 4 inches taller than Keenan, there's every chance there would've been contact to the head even if Keenan had also been fully upright, so just how much consideration could Peyper possibly give to Keenan's drop in height?
That you acknowledge a late drop in height (less than half a second before contact) is sufficient to tell me that a red card was a bad decision.
Bonefish Blues said:
C70R said:
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.
Exactly!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.
That's the dictionary definition of a late change in height, and why it wasn't a red.
Honestly, the people calling that a "nailed on red" or similar, without bothering to reference any laws, are part of rugby's problem today.
Let's see what happens when this is reviewed.
DodgyGeezer said:
thought I'd give it a try as I've never watched a U20 match - have to say however that I'm not impressed with the quality. Seems very scrappy to me
Shows what a big step up full international standard is.Enjoyable though.
Another grand slam for the under 20s and Ireland.
Congrats on your post count by the way.
Bonefish Blues said:
C70R said:
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.
Exactly!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.
That's the dictionary definition of a late change in height, and why it wasn't a red.
Honestly, the people calling that a "nailed on red" or similar, without bothering to reference any laws, are part of rugby's problem today.
Let's see what happens when this is reviewed.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff