Next up, England

[Sandydragon]

Citing Commissioner has reviewed the match and:

Marler has been cited for groping AWJ.

Lawes has been cited for a dangerous tackle on AWJ.
At the time I winced when I saw it and was a bit surprised that it didn't seem to merit on on field review.

Along with Tuilagi that’s three long match bans coming up.

Real shame the Lawes hit wasn’t looked at properly at the time.

[WaspInWales]

Citing Commissioner has reviewed the match and:

Marler has been cited for groping AWJ.

Lawes has been cited for a dangerous tackle on AWJ.
At the time I winced when I saw it and was a bit surprised that it didn't seem to merit on on field review.

Parkes is a bit lucky. Williams too?

[Sandydragon]

Citing Commissioner has reviewed the match and:

Marler has been cited for groping AWJ.

Lawes has been cited for a dangerous tackle on AWJ.
At the time I winced when I saw it and was a bit surprised that it didn't seem to merit on on field review.

Parkes is a bit lucky. Williams too?

Parkes at least did use his arms initially which then rode up to head height and there was head to head contact. I agree he is lucky but I can see the difference between that and two shoulder charges to the head/neck area.

[Puja]

Citing Commissioner has reviewed the match and:

Marler has been cited for groping AWJ.

Lawes has been cited for a dangerous tackle on AWJ.
At the time I winced when I saw it and was a bit surprised that it didn't seem to merit on on field review.

Parkes is a bit lucky. Williams too?

Parkes at least did use his arms initially which then rode up to head height and there was head to head contact. I agree he is lucky but I can see the difference between that and two shoulder charges to the head/neck area.

Looks like a direct shoulder to the head to me:



Agreed 100% that Lawes should have been a straight red card as well. If Williams had gone for flipping Curry, we could've been playing 13-a-side!

Puja

[Numbers]

Parkes is a bit lucky. Williams too?

Parkes at least did use his arms initially which then rode up to head height and there was head to head contact. I agree he is lucky but I can see the difference between that and two shoulder charges to the head/neck area.

Looks like a direct shoulder to the head to me:



Agreed 100% that Lawes should have been a straight red card as well. If Williams had gone for flipping Curry, we could've been playing 13-a-side!

Puja

Well all the commentators said at the time it was head on head and they showed a different angle to the one in the tweet, I don't recall the tipping incident, I don't think the Parkes incident can be compared to what Lawes did which was deliberately target the head, he should get a lengthy ban for that.

[Mikey Brown]

Parkes’ tackle is a red unless there’s some real trickery going on with that camera angle. Can’t recall the Lawes one but thought it looked pretty nasty at the time.

I don’t remember the Curry incident looking so bad because he landed okay but it was a very dangerous thing to do and we seem to be seeing more and more of it around the ruck.

[Puja]

Parkes at least did use his arms initially which then rode up to head height and there was head to head contact. I agree he is lucky but I can see the difference between that and two shoulder charges to the head/neck area.

Looks like a direct shoulder to the head to me:



Agreed 100% that Lawes should have been a straight red card as well. If Williams had gone for flipping Curry, we could've been playing 13-a-side!

Puja

Well all the commentators said at the time it was head on head and they showed a different angle to the one in the tweet, I don't recall the tipping incident, I don't think the Parkes incident can be compared to what Lawes did which was deliberately target the head, he should get a lengthy ban for that.

I can't say it looked like Lawes targetting the head - AWJ was being tackled by someone else and Lawes came in with a reckless shoulder. Definite red, but same as Tuilagi and Parkes - direct to the head, reckless contact, with force.

Here's the tip:



Puja

[Puja]

For reference, here is Lawes's effort:



Again, I'd class that as reckless and dangerous, rather than a deliberate target.

Puja

[Numbers]

For reference, here is Lawes's effort:



Again, I'd class that as reckless and dangerous, rather than a deliberate target.

Puja

I don't agree, there was no change of height from either player and I can see nothing other than him leading with his shoulder directly to the head, what was he trying to achieve unless this was deliberate?

The Liam Williams tip was daft but a yellow at most, Currys head/neck area didn't make contact with the floor as far as I can see.

[Sandydragon]

Looks like a direct shoulder to the head to me:



Agreed 100% that Lawes should have been a straight red card as well. If Williams had gone for flipping Curry, we could've been playing 13-a-side!

Puja

Well all the commentators said at the time it was head on head and they showed a different angle to the one in the tweet, I don't recall the tipping incident, I don't think the Parkes incident can be compared to what Lawes did which was deliberately target the head, he should get a lengthy ban for that.

I can't say it looked like Lawes targetting the head - AWJ was being tackled by someone else and Lawes came in with a reckless shoulder. Definite red, but same as Tuilagi and Parkes - direct to the head, reckless contact, with force.

Here's the tip:



Puja

It a a terrible tackle, but the key difference is that Parkes is using his arms in the tackle. If the citing commissioner decided that it was more of a yellow than a straight red then of course no further action.

I agree fine margins but Tuilagi was reckless and Lawes just stupid. I think Lawes might be in more bother as there was clear head contact, AWJ clearly felt the blow and it looked like a bit of afters following a successful tackle by an English team mate.

[Puja]

Well all the commentators said at the time it was head on head and they showed a different angle to the one in the tweet, I don't recall the tipping incident, I don't think the Parkes incident can be compared to what Lawes did which was deliberately target the head, he should get a lengthy ban for that.

I can't say it looked like Lawes targetting the head - AWJ was being tackled by someone else and Lawes came in with a reckless shoulder. Definite red, but same as Tuilagi and Parkes - direct to the head, reckless contact, with force.

Here's the tip:



Puja

It a a terrible tackle, but the key difference is that Parkes is using his arms in the tackle. If the citing commissioner decided that it was more of a yellow than a straight red then of course no further action.

I agree fine margins but Tuilagi was reckless and Lawes just stupid. I think Lawes might be in more bother as there was clear head contact, AWJ clearly felt the blow and it looked like a bit of afters following a successful tackle by an English team mate.

Arms are largely irrelevant to the protocol though. Direct contact to the head, with force, with no mitigating factors like change of height, is an automatic red card. The only reason Manu's lack of arms mattered is that he did have mitigating factors for the change of height and they were nullified by his lack of arms. By the letter, both reds.

I think the two of you are damning Lawes by the slow-motion. Looked at in real time, AWJ folds from the first tackle and there's no way Lawes has time to adjust to his new height. It is a leading shoulder and it is nasty and it is a red card, but I can't in the least see it as a deliberate head shot when viewed at full speed.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Lawes tackle was essentially a shoulder charge. AWJ was dipping but the nature of the tackle was reckless. Parkes was a poor tackle but his arms made contact first (at least from the angle shown on the clip below). Penalty yes, yellow a probability but not a red.

Sometimes these decisions are annoying. We’ve had enough go against us and I really don’t think Wales get any special treatment.

[Sourdust]

Sometimes these decisions are annoying. We’ve had enough go against us and I really don’t think Wales get any special treatment.

They're annoying because of inconsistency, which the removal of intent is meant to partly address. Ignoring intent takes away a major source of doubt and subjectivity. Sadly we still have the reality that every case will look different but lines HAVE to be drawn.

Also annoying is that we are now red-carding players for honest mistakes (fair enough), but there is no higher sanction for deliberate foul play. It really rankles if one of your men mis-times a tackle and one of theirs throws a punch, but you both end up with 14 men. People say that's what the citing process is for but that doesn't help - in fact, it often hurts - the offended team. If someone assaults one of my players I want something for it there and then, above and beyond what would have happened if he'd just been unlucky.

[Sandydragon]

Sometimes these decisions are annoying. We’ve had enough go against us and I really don’t think Wales get any special treatment.

They're annoying because of inconsistency, which the removal of intent is meant to partly address. Ignoring intent takes away a major source of doubt and subjectivity. Sadly we still have the reality that every case will look different but lines HAVE to be drawn.

Also annoying is that we are now red-carding players for honest mistakes (fair enough), but there is no higher sanction for deliberate foul play. It really rankles if one of your men mis-times a tackle and one of theirs throws a punch, but you both end up with 14 men. People say that's what the citing process is for but that doesn't help - in fact, it often hurts - the offended team. If someone assaults one of my players I want something for it there and then, above and beyond what would have happened if he'd just been unlucky.

Completely agree with you. Not sure I have a better solution though. Maybe the post match sanction can be weighted to really stamp out proper foul play so it’s too much of a risk. By that I mean a lot more than 4 weeks for a clear punch to the face. Quite a lot more.

[Sourdust]

Completely agree with you. Not sure I have a better solution though. Maybe the post match sanction can be weighted to really stamp out proper foul play so it’s too much of a risk. By that I mean a lot more than 4 weeks for a clear punch to the face. Quite a lot more.

To take the 2nd point 1st: I see no reason at all why a clear punch to the head should ever result in less than a 6 month ban.

As to fairer sanctions: I think that in cases of clear thuggery like that from Haouas, at a bare minimum the red card should be accompanied by a penalty in front of the posts, WHEREVER the offence took place. I'd prefer a penalty TRY, but I appreciate that's creeping close to a codified system of "awards" like in a "judged" sport, which I'm sure no-one wants to see. How about giving the offending team CAPTAIN an automatic yellow to accompany such a red? The offending team instantly reduced to 13 for 10 minutes is a more appropriate redress for being assaulted, no?

[Sandydragon]

Immediate Red and 3 penalty points is fine. Giving the captain a yellow feels a bit too much.