Discussion
basherX said:
I’d say it’s an instinctive attempt to protect himself from a collision and everyone’s overthinking it.
ThisI’ve got no skin in the game as welsh but thought the red was very harsh and killed the game. It was more of a rugby incident and yellow at worst. He was just bracing and aligning himself for an awkward and uncontrolled contact from both parties
Evanivitch said:
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?
up until now I've not had any time for the thought of the 'orange card'/20 minute bin - there have a been a few marginal calls recently which make me think that maybe it is an option that should be considered (though there is the danger then that properly deserved reds would get downgraded)
Boom78 said:
basherX said:
I’d say it’s an instinctive attempt to protect himself from a collision and everyone’s overthinking it.
ThisI’ve got no skin in the game as welsh but thought the red was very harsh and killed the game. It was more of a rugby incident and yellow at worst. He was just bracing and aligning himself for an awkward and uncontrolled contact from both parties
This rugby incident was worthy of a penalty or possibly a yellow card at worst. Awarding a red card was ludicrous.
I'm dreading poor referee decisions spoiling the World Cup.
Just watched it in real time replay
Quite telling was the views of the commentary team - “ rugby incident “ “unfortunate collision” etc immediately after the event
To my eyes :-
Steward rushing in to fill gap Keenan is running through
Forward pass thrown
Keenan continues momentarily shaping to kick
Steward begins to pull out of tackle expecting the kick
Keenan regathers rather than kick
Steward realises they are going to collide and pulls himself in tighter trying to protect himself
Keenan’s stooped position and forward momentum carries him into steward
I can’t hear a whistle being blown at any point during the above??
The ref on his review follows the protocol correctly, in my view , regarding Contact Stewards position etc but then goes on to say “no mitigation” which is clearly incorrect when it’s clear that the speed at which the incident happens gives steward no time to change his course or body position, and in addition Keenan is coming in stooped bent at both the knees and waist.
Let alone the fact that steward is trying to avoid contact altogether
As I posted earlier the fact that head contact had occurred means someone is leaving the field either for a 10 min breather or an early shower.
A head contact occurred and if there is to be a concerted effort to try and eradicate this then there HAS to be a sanction of some sort
Given the above a yellow and a penalty to Ireland would have been the correct outcome
Unfortunately Mr Peyper didn’t see it that way
( hasn’t he got previous regarding his officiating of England ?? )
I think the slow motion replays , which made it look horrible and subsequent crowd reaction didn’t help with the Referee trying to come to a decision
it remains to be seen if the disciplinary committee see it differently when reviewing it later this week (Tuesday ?? )
Edited to add
I think it had no impact on the outcome of the match. Ireland would still have won and are fully deserving of being Six Nations Grand Slam winners
Quite telling was the views of the commentary team - “ rugby incident “ “unfortunate collision” etc immediately after the event
To my eyes :-
Steward rushing in to fill gap Keenan is running through
Forward pass thrown
Keenan continues momentarily shaping to kick
Steward begins to pull out of tackle expecting the kick
Keenan regathers rather than kick
Steward realises they are going to collide and pulls himself in tighter trying to protect himself
Keenan’s stooped position and forward momentum carries him into steward
I can’t hear a whistle being blown at any point during the above??
The ref on his review follows the protocol correctly, in my view , regarding Contact Stewards position etc but then goes on to say “no mitigation” which is clearly incorrect when it’s clear that the speed at which the incident happens gives steward no time to change his course or body position, and in addition Keenan is coming in stooped bent at both the knees and waist.
Let alone the fact that steward is trying to avoid contact altogether
As I posted earlier the fact that head contact had occurred means someone is leaving the field either for a 10 min breather or an early shower.
A head contact occurred and if there is to be a concerted effort to try and eradicate this then there HAS to be a sanction of some sort
Given the above a yellow and a penalty to Ireland would have been the correct outcome
Unfortunately Mr Peyper didn’t see it that way
( hasn’t he got previous regarding his officiating of England ?? )
I think the slow motion replays , which made it look horrible and subsequent crowd reaction didn’t help with the Referee trying to come to a decision
it remains to be seen if the disciplinary committee see it differently when reviewing it later this week (Tuesday ?? )
Edited to add
I think it had no impact on the outcome of the match. Ireland would still have won and are fully deserving of being Six Nations Grand Slam winners
Edited by Rockettvr on Sunday 19th March 15:43
Edited by Rockettvr on Sunday 19th March 15:44
Rockettvr said:
I think the slow motion replays , which made it look horrible and subsequent crowd reaction didn’t help with the Referee trying to come to a decision
it remains to be seen if the disciplinary committee see it differently when reviewing it later this week (Tuesday ?? )
I suspect that the panel will find in favour of Peyper given that they've:it remains to be seen if the disciplinary committee see it differently when reviewing it later this week (Tuesday ?? )
- got to be seen to support the latest edict from on high
- got to be seen to support the ref
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff