Discussion
epom said:
U20 Grand Slam for Ireland too if that helps distract from the red card discussion.
Not really - a try disallowed that should have stood & another dodgy red card (tackler was low, wrapped his arms, but the speed spun him over the top, and he landed on his bum so play on really).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.
I didn’t say intent was in the guidelines/flowchart, but maybe it should be. Steward found himself accidentally in a situation he could do nothing about that got him a red card.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.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying it didn’t deserve punishing, it was a yellow all day long. But he tried as best he could to bail out, but as the frame by frame analysis shows, there is only so much you can do in 0.3 of a second.
jimKRFC said:
Pieman68 said:
There's also an argument for the attacking player to have a duty of care for his own protection - putting yourself in that position off the back of a forward pass/knock on is also a poor decision
With the incoming proposal for the change of tackle height (Must be below the sternum) there is reference to the attacking player not leading with the head. So the head down charge should be cut back.The tackling height directive is a massive danger to RU. Many that I know are talking of abdicating to RL (although with the law suits I don't think a change will be far behind there)
For me, there's more danger of head injuries from hips and knees on the low tackler. There's also a huge issue with clear outs in rucks that isn't addressed by the tackle height law
Should be introduced at age grade and allow it to gradually filter through the game. Most of the vets I know can't even bend to waist height
Would it be heresy to suggest that all players wear skull caps (not gridiron style helmets), and greatly diminish the effects from head contact wither to heads, shoulders, hips or knees? Still penalise head hits in foul play, but reduce the risk of accidental damage. the number of cards and HIAs indicates that player behaviour isn't really changing.
abzmike said:
Would it be heresy to suggest that all players wear skull caps (not gridiron style helmets), and greatly diminish the effects from head contact wither to heads, shoulders, hips or knees? Still penalise head hits in foul play, but reduce the risk of accidental damage. the number of cards and HIAs indicates that player behaviour isn't really changing.
There's not that much evidence that they help though. Much of the concussion is the shaking of the brain through collision, so a skull cap doesn't really assist. They are useful for reducing cauliflower ears and laceration injuries, but I believe there are question marks over how much they actually help with concussions
abzmike said:
Would it be heresy to suggest that all players wear skull caps (not gridiron style helmets), and greatly diminish the effects from head contact wither to heads, shoulders, hips or knees? Still penalise head hits in foul play, but reduce the risk of accidental damage. the number of cards and HIAs indicates that player behaviour isn't really changing.
There's been a lot of research into brain injury lately and the amount of padding available in a scrum cap doesn't significantly reduce the risk. At best if offers some axial protection if the surface is low-friction (like a MIPS helmet does). Long gone are the days where concussion was considered just the result of an impact to the head. The sudden acceleration and internal pressure is the issue.Pieman68 said:
I've played both codes. I still play RL at Masters level
The tackling height directive is a massive danger to RU. Many that I know are talking of abdicating to RL (although with the law suits I don't think a change will be far behind there)
For me, there's more danger of head injuries from hips and knees on the low tackler. There's also a huge issue with clear outs in rucks that isn't addressed by the tackle height law
Should be introduced at age grade and allow it to gradually filter through the game. Most of the vets I know can't even bend to waist height
So have I (played union/league). In union all kids, from u9, are taught to tackle at the stomach/waste level and have been for years. The mantra is to get "cheek to (bum) cheek". At no point do we teach to tackle high - they do it anyway but it's not what's taught and practiced. The tackling height directive is a massive danger to RU. Many that I know are talking of abdicating to RL (although with the law suits I don't think a change will be far behind there)
For me, there's more danger of head injuries from hips and knees on the low tackler. There's also a huge issue with clear outs in rucks that isn't addressed by the tackle height law
Should be introduced at age grade and allow it to gradually filter through the game. Most of the vets I know can't even bend to waist height
The higher tackle came in with league defence coaches and is aimed to stop the off load/pass. Personally I think the lowe tackle will be good and take the game back to the more open early 90s type of play.
Rucks are another mine field, the bind before entering needs to be properly enforced, then we could see if it made a difference. Unfortunately, like feeding straight, it's often not ref'd at top levels.
I do notice that the people saying Peyper did well have managed to defend the Ludlam head shot though.
jimKRFC said:
The higher tackle came in with league defence coaches and is aimed to stop the off load/pass. Personally I think the lowe tackle will be good and take the game back to the more open early 90s type of play.
It will be very interesting to see how it develops in relation to the choke tackle. It's going to make forcing the turnover in open play very difficult
C70R said:
Tom8 said:
Steward red card rescinded. Bit embarrassing for the officials at the game.
Pleased to have been proven right about that one, because it annoyed the hell out of me at the time.Bit embarrassing for the folks on here who had it marked down as a "cast-iron red".
epom said:
C70R said:
Tom8 said:
Steward red card rescinded. Bit embarrassing for the officials at the game.
Pleased to have been proven right about that one, because it annoyed the hell out of me at the time.Bit embarrassing for the folks on here who had it marked down as a "cast-iron red".
Peyper just didn’t want to know about anything other than the red. The whole team had a very bad day:
- wrong card for Steward
- missed shoulder on head charge on Ludlum in a ruck “clearout” when clearly Ludlum was going nowhere.
- missed Sexton’s high tackle
- missed grab around the neck on Watson when pushing over the try line
- missed lots of illegal Irish hands in rucks clearly visible on TV
A ref has a huge amount to look out for in any game and they can’t get it 100% correct so I have some sympathy but Peyper missed a lot that was right under his nose. Even worse for the TMO whose job it is to review footage and call the ref back.
- wrong card for Steward
- missed shoulder on head charge on Ludlum in a ruck “clearout” when clearly Ludlum was going nowhere.
- missed Sexton’s high tackle
- missed grab around the neck on Watson when pushing over the try line
- missed lots of illegal Irish hands in rucks clearly visible on TV
A ref has a huge amount to look out for in any game and they can’t get it 100% correct so I have some sympathy but Peyper missed a lot that was right under his nose. Even worse for the TMO whose job it is to review footage and call the ref back.
Edited by PhilboSE on Wednesday 22 March 10:34
C70R said:
epom said:
C70R said:
Tom8 said:
Steward red card rescinded. Bit embarrassing for the officials at the game.
Pleased to have been proven right about that one, because it annoyed the hell out of me at the time.Bit embarrassing for the folks on here who had it marked down as a "cast-iron red".
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff