6N - 2023

[C70R]

Hill92 said:

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?

Jesus wept.

If you really think this is what rugby is about, then I don't know how to discuss it with you.

[C70R]

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.

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.

You're making points that ignore the laws of rugby and the head contact framework. Why?

[Kermit power]

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.

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.

You're making points that ignore the laws of rugby and the head contact framework. Why?

I'm not.

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.

[Bonefish Blues]

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!

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.

Three international officials who had the benefit of replays both slowmo and real time worked through the process and came to an agreed view that it was a red card for reasons that were clearly audible. You say they are wrong.

Let's see what happens when this is reviewed.

[C70R]

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.

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.

[C70R]

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!

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.

Three international officials who had the benefit of replays both slowmo and real time worked through the process and came to an agreed view that it was a red card for reasons that were clearly audible. You say they are wrong.

Let's see what happens when this is reviewed.

Were these all current referees?

[Mr Magooagain]

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.

[Evanivitch]

C70R said:

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.

Player bends down to pick up loose ball isn't mitigation

[epom]

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!

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.

Three international officials who had the benefit of replays both slowmo and real time worked through the process and came to an agreed view that it was a red card for reasons that were clearly audible. You say they are wrong.

Let's see what happens when this is reviewed.

Clear red card for me. Only mitigation would be brainlessness from the England player.

[Evanivitch]

C70R said:

Were these all current referees?

Yes they're collectively known as "the match officials"

[C70R]

Evanivitch said:

C70R said:

Were these all current referees?

Yes they're collectively known as "the match officials"

Oh, right.

[C70R]

Evanivitch said:

C70R said:

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.

Player bends down to pick up loose ball isn't mitigation

Not understanding the laws of rugby is fine.

Continuing to argue when you don't understand them is a bit silly.

[Bonefish Blues]

C70R said:

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!

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.

Three international officials who had the benefit of replays both slowmo and real time worked through the process and came to an agreed view that it was a red card for reasons that were clearly audible. You say they are wrong.

Let's see what happens when this is reviewed.

Were these all current referees?

Yes

Referee: Jaco Peyper (SARU)
Assistant Referee 1: Ben O’Keeffe (NZR)
Assistant Referee 2: Pierre Brousset (FFR)

[Evanivitch]

C70R said:

Not understanding the laws of rugby is fine.

Continuing to argue when you don't understand them is a bit silly.

Are you still crawling back from your "passive" comment?

[Megaflow]

P. ONeill said:

That’s a yellow for me.

That.

For me the difference between yellow and red is intent. He clearly tried as best he could to bail out of it. The officials need to learn these are big lads running at speed, if the situation in front of them changes they can’t stop instantly

[Madness60]

Rockettvr said:

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

Edited by Rockettvr on Sunday 19th March 15:43

Edited by Rockettvr on Sunday 19th March 15:44

Great, sensible post, ignoring some of the other extremes here is some added info

This is the current World Rugby Law application guidelines, my route through the protocol as a current low level ref is different to Peyper and theres lots of routes that are plausible.

Process questions and considerations
1. Has head contact occurred?
Head contact includes neck and throat area

2. Was there foul play?

Considerations:
Intentional
Reckless
Avoidable

3. What was the degree of danger?
Considerations include:


Direct vs indirect contact
High force vs low force

4. 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
Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play


Trigger words for match officials
Match officials may wish to use the non-exhaustive list of trigger words below to help them identify whether a player is at fault, the degree of danger involved and whether any mitigation should be applied.

PLAY ON
No fault
Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier
Player had no time to readjust
Passive action
Involuntary collision
No leading arm when close to the body

PK YC
Low danger
Indirect contact
Low force
Low speed
Passive
No leading head / shoulder / forearm

RC
High danger
Direct contact
Lack of control
High speed
Upright and dynamic
Leading head / shoulder / elbow / forearm
Swinging arm
No mitigation for intentional or highly reckless act of foul play

Mitigation
Sudden / significant drop in height or change in direction from ball carrier
A late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact
An effort to wrap / bind and having no time to adjust

I think and from the audio Peyper went - yes to head contact, yes to foul play, direct contact with high force, no mitigation = red card
Me as a ref - yes to head contact, yes to foul play (sort of if you think that the bracing is foul play, tricky argument as in real time its so quick), but passive and not out of control, red mitigated to yellow.
Entirely plausible to go for yes to head contact, no to foul play (player had to time to adjust, brace vs height drop is again tricky, passive action, involuntary collision) so play on!

Steward will be cited but get min ban in my mind. There were some other poor decisions from the ref team but its really hard to ref a game, try it and see.

[PhilboSE]

Megaflow said:

That.

For me the difference between yellow and red is intent. He clearly tried as best he could to bail out of it. The officials need to learn these are big lads running at speed, if the situation in front of them changes they can’t stop instantly

“Intent” isn’t in the guidelines/flowchart.
Once the ref has decided there’s been foul play and it’s not reckless or dangerous then it’s a red IF:

- it’s a HIGH level of danger
- there are NO mitigating circumstances

If the ref thinks it’s low or medium danger, or relevant mitigating circumstances, then it’s a yellow or a penalty.

Peyper obviously decided it was high level of danger and no mitigation (and he kind of imposed that opinion on the TMO and dared him to challenge it). Given Steward was trying to back out of contact, and all that led up to the contact, I think that position is shaky.

I expect the review panel to back Peyper 100% and give Steward the lowest possible consequential punishment.

[Evanivitch]

PhilboSE said:

I expect the review panel to back Peyper 100% and give Steward the lowest possible consequential punishment.

At least he'll learn something on the tackle coaching course.

[Challo]

PhilboSE said:

“Intent” isn’t in the guidelines/flowchart.
Once the ref has decided there’s been foul play and it’s not reckless or dangerous then it’s a red IF:

- it’s a HIGH level of danger
- there are NO mitigating circumstances

If the ref thinks it’s low or medium danger, or relevant mitigating circumstances, then it’s a yellow or a penalty.

Peyper obviously decided it was high level of danger and no mitigation (and he kind of imposed that opinion on the TMO and dared him to challenge it). Given Steward was trying to back out of contact, and all that led up to the contact, I think that position is shaky.

I expect the review panel to back Peyper 100% and give Steward the lowest possible consequential punishment.

He isn’t daring the TMO, he has given an on the field decision based on how he has viewed it. He wants the TMO to provide replays to see if there is mitigation, or there is something he has missed. That’s why he clearly outlines his view on what happened, and what he thinks should be the outcome.

He is the ref and decides what is right and wrong based on his interpretations of the laws.

[PhilboSE]

Challo said:

PhilboSE said:

“Intent” isn’t in the guidelines/flowchart.
Once the ref has decided there’s been foul play and it’s not reckless or dangerous then it’s a red IF:

- it’s a HIGH level of danger
- there are NO mitigating circumstances

If the ref thinks it’s low or medium danger, or relevant mitigating circumstances, then it’s a yellow or a penalty.

Peyper obviously decided it was high level of danger and no mitigation (and he kind of imposed that opinion on the TMO and dared him to challenge it). Given Steward was trying to back out of contact, and all that led up to the contact, I think that position is shaky.

I expect the review panel to back Peyper 100% and give Steward the lowest possible consequential punishment.

He isn’t daring the TMO, he has given an on the field decision based on how he has viewed it. He wants the TMO to provide replays to see if there is mitigation, or there is something he has missed. That’s why he clearly outlines his view on what happened, and what he thinks should be the outcome.

He is the ref and decides what is right and wrong based on his interpretations of the laws.

Whereas other refs have asked the TMO for their opinion first and then entered into a discussion. The way Peyper went about it required the TMO to tell him he was wrong with a live audio feed.