How long a ban?

[Banquo]

Also worth noting that the ref also explicitly asks TMO to review with a view to upgrading - both on the microphone and arm signals.
That commentators, once again, ignore the things the ref is saying and doing is just another thing that bugs me about most commentators.


How many times do we hear the ref explaining their rationale to the players in pretty clear and concise terms, only for the commentators to be confused as to what the rationale is 20 seconds later? must be at least once per match.

This gets me across most sports tbh- they just don't pay attention to what counts ie the actual event.

[Stom]

Also worth noting that the ref also explicitly asks TMO to review with a view to upgrading - both on the microphone and arm signals.
That commentators, once again, ignore the things the ref is saying and doing is just another thing that bugs me about most commentators.


How many times do we hear the ref explaining their rationale to the players in pretty clear and concise terms, only for the commentators to be confused as to what the rationale is 20 seconds later? must be at least once per match.

This gets me across most sports tbh- they just don't pay attention to what counts ie the actual event.

The commentators are not for us, they're for "Joe Public". Football is worse. There I can write a pretty simple and sensible post about structures and everyone thinks I should be coaching, or am some kind of tactical genius. Sports commentary is abysmal in general.

Rugby has Dayglo, though...

[Oakboy]

Also worth noting that the ref also explicitly asks TMO to review with a view to upgrading - both on the microphone and arm signals.
That commentators, once again, ignore the things the ref is saying and doing is just another thing that bugs me about most commentators.


How many times do we hear the ref explaining their rationale to the players in pretty clear and concise terms, only for the commentators to be confused as to what the rationale is 20 seconds later? must be at least once per match.

This gets me across most sports tbh- they just don't pay attention to what counts ie the actual event.

The commentators are not for us, they're for "Joe Public". Football is worse. There I can write a pretty simple and sensible post about structures and everyone thinks I should be coaching, or am some kind of tactical genius. Sports commentary is abysmal in general.

Rugby has Dayglo, though...

Perhaps standards will improve as more and more women arrive . . . .

[Mikey Brown]

Have the women discovered spiral bombs yet? Have they got the required bone density?

[monkey]

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.“

He said it wasn't worth a red. How is that a clear demonstration of remorse?

What does 'good character' mean? It can't mean a clean record. Maybe it means 'we think he's nice'??

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

I'm sure in the Fagerson decision from the 6N last year they explicitly said that he couldn't get a reduction for remorse etc. as, while he had admitted it was foul play, he denied it was yellow.

Really, they have just massively overcomplicated the process and made it too legalistic. That might be worth it if it let to consistent defendable decisions but it seems to just lead to lots of money being spent on a lottery. With an explanation of the basic framework and history of each player, any of us could have worked out that Farrell's was worth about 4 weeks and Vunipola's about 2.

Yep, that's what happened to ZF. Since then, they've changed the guidelines on that specific point tho. Now you can contest the on field sanction, while still admitting it was foul play. So contesting the on field sanction now no longer counts against you if the panel uphold it.

[Cameo]

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.“

He said it wasn't worth a red. How is that a clear demonstration of remorse?

What does 'good character' mean? It can't mean a clean record. Maybe it means 'we think he's nice'??

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

I'm sure in the Fagerson decision from the 6N last year they explicitly said that he couldn't get a reduction for remorse etc. as, while he had admitted it was foul play, he denied it was yellow.

Really, they have just massively overcomplicated the process and made it too legalistic. That might be worth it if it let to consistent defendable decisions but it seems to just lead to lots of money being spent on a lottery. With an explanation of the basic framework and history of each player, any of us could have worked out that Farrell's was worth about 4 weeks and Vunipola's about 2.

Yep, that's what happened to ZF. Since then, they've changed the guidelines on that specific point tho. Now you can contest the on field sanction, while still admitting it was foul play. So contesting the on field sanction now no longer counts against you if the panel uphold it.

Thanks, that makes more sense I think.

[Danno]

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.“

He said it wasn't worth a red. How is that a clear demonstration of remorse?

What does 'good character' mean? It can't mean a clean record. Maybe it means 'we think he's nice'??

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

I'm sure in the Fagerson decision from the 6N last year they explicitly said that he couldn't get a reduction for remorse etc. as, while he had admitted it was foul play, he denied it was yellow.

Really, they have just massively overcomplicated the process and made it too legalistic. That might be worth it if it let to consistent defendable decisions but it seems to just lead to lots of money being spent on a lottery. With an explanation of the basic framework and history of each player, any of us could have worked out that Farrell's was worth about 4 weeks and Vunipola's about 2.

Yep, that's what happened to ZF. Since then, they've changed the guidelines on that specific point tho. Now you can contest the on field sanction, while still admitting it was foul play. So contesting the on field sanction now no longer counts against you if the panel uphold it.

Which strikes me as rubbish, because it's for the refs/panel to decide what the sanctions are. If I admit to a crime I can argue for a lower sentence but I'll still be convicted.

[Which Tyler]

Surely the downgrading a red to a yellow, or even just a penalty IS lowering the sentence and still being "convicted".

There are plenty of acts of foul play that aren't red card offences and don't attract bans

[monkey]

Surely the downgrading a red to a yellow, or even just a penalty IS lowering the sentence and still being "convicted".

There are plenty of acts of foul play that aren't red card offences and don't attract bans

Exactly.

The change in the guidelines were to allow players to contest a red card but still admit foul play without doing so *necessarily* impacting the mitigation applied.

So, in the ZF example, the guidelines at the time meant that contesting the nature of the on field sanction explicitly constrained the mitigation that could be applied. That aspect of the guidelines was dropped around about the same time the tackle school stuff was brought in.

Edit: at least, that’s my understanding of the changes made to the guidelines.

[monkey]

Also worth noting that the ref also explicitly asks TMO to review with a view to upgrading - both on the microphone and arm signals.
That commentators, once again, ignore the things the ref is saying and doing is just another thing that bugs me about most commentators.


How many times do we hear the ref explaining their rationale to the players in pretty clear and concise terms, only for the commentators to be confused as to what the rationale is 20 seconds later? must be at least once per match.

It would probably help if the commentators listened to what the ref said and allowed us to as well, instead of prattling over the top of it :/ Does my head in.

[Mellsblue]

He’s completely missed the point(s) of why direct contact to the head has been banned but I thought it was worth posting so Michael could play devil’s advocate:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... apocalypse

[Puja]

What an utterly risible article.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

He’s completely missed the point(s) of why direct contact to the head has been banned but I thought it was worth posting so Michael could play devil’s advocate:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... apocalypse

Jesus. I've never felt compelled to create an account to comment on a newspaper article before but that one did it. He's manage to misunderstand basically every single element of this whole debate. How is that even possible?

He does surely understand on some level that 'one-off incidents' are what make up 'cumulative incidents'? That each occasion we continue to allow the (risk of) forceful headshots is contributing to the damage? He talks about this issue like it's been a high priority since the dawn of professionalism.

Him not being able to separate the poor social-media behaviour of some 'fans' and the "torturous process" it took to reach a conclusion on Farrell (which everyone in the world agrees was made far more complicated than it needed to be) from the desire to keep disincentivising head injuries is either just idiotic or disingenuous.

Well done, Mells.

[Banquo]

Its utter bollocks....that said, we continue to ignore the repeated micro concussions at our own peril....and we do.

[Puja]

I should probably just sticky this thread.

TCurry's hearing is today and it has been confirmed that Kriel will not be cited. I'm hoping our fancy-pants lawyer has his case all organised to get it downgraded to a yellow.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I should probably just sticky this thread.

TCurry's hearing is today and it has been confirmed that Kriel will not be cited. I'm hoping our fancy-pants lawyer has his case all organised to get it downgraded to a yellow.

Puja

Do you think that's the right/fair call? I understand the logic if someone else got away with a clear high shot, but I wonder if they're just sweeping Kriel's incident under the rug because it's embarrassing it didn't get picked up.

I missed the first half so didn't see the Curry tackle. Sounded like it was a fairly clear head contact, but (unlike with Farrell) people are quite happy that we play the game and try to get him off without a ban?

[Mikey Brown]

I don't know why I didn't just look it up myself. A bit of a weird one as the player is coming down almost on top of him, but he's put himself in that position with a player in the air fielding the ball.



That's tough, but if our players keeping putting themselves in those 50/50 positions which make head contact a serious risk then we're going to keep picking up cards. It's hard to be that sympathetic.

[Oakboy]

I should probably just sticky this thread.

TCurry's hearing is today and it has been confirmed that Kriel will not be cited. I'm hoping our fancy-pants lawyer has his case all organised to get it downgraded to a yellow.

Puja

Do you think that's the right/fair call? I understand the logic if someone else got away with a clear high shot, but I wonder if they're just sweeping Kriel's incident under the rug because it's embarrassing it didn't get picked up.

I missed the first half so didn't see the Curry tackle. Sounded like it was a fairly clear head contact, but (unlike with Farrell) people are quite happy that we play the game and try to get him off without a ban?

MB, Curry's tackle was not as bad as Farrell's or BV's but it was a red card regardless of comparable incidents in other games. Maybe, a two game ban?

[Which Tyler]

For me, based on instinct, red card is fair, and punishment enough; but I certainly won't complain if there's a low-end ban (2-weeks, probably reduced to 1 for good behaviour). I also won't complain if it's downgraded to yellow for Mallia's height dropping, and a fairly passive tackle.

My complaint will be that Kriel, Biggar, Sigren, and probably 1-2 others I haven't picked up on, haven't been cited.

IMO, citing commissioner should be referring yellow card (their opinion) offences for review, certainly in the case of head contact. It means that they get looked at, we get public, written evidence of the process that they went through to come to the decision, precedent stands with "that was an illegal act" rather than "that went completely unpunished", and even retrospective yellows will count when potential future disciplinary panels look at a player's past record.
On top of that, it's also showing willing that we're taking things more seriously than we were before.


Whilst we're here, there's this on Kriel: https://rugby365.com/news-world-cup/sco ... d-to-head/
Complete with this gold from Erasmus "Not that I have to educate you on this, but we all know that if it isn't direct head contact – which it wasn't, because he made contact on the ball and then moved up after he tackled on the ball – then it is not an issue"
I believe that's what's called "gaslighting", and it's a lie. Making contact lower than the head first, and then hitting head on head is not "not an issue", it's mitigation, but it's still foul play. As anyone who's been watching rugby for the last few years knows full well.

[Puja]

I should probably just sticky this thread.

TCurry's hearing is today and it has been confirmed that Kriel will not be cited. I'm hoping our fancy-pants lawyer has his case all organised to get it downgraded to a yellow.

Puja

Do you think that's the right/fair call? I understand the logic if someone else got away with a clear high shot, but I wonder if they're just sweeping Kriel's incident under the rug because it's embarrassing it didn't get picked up.

I missed the first half so didn't see the Curry tackle. Sounded like it was a fairly clear head contact, but (unlike with Farrell) people are quite happy that we play the game and try to get him off without a ban?

I will openly admit that I am probably biased, because I like Curry and I don't like Farrell (in terms of their effects on the team; I'm sure Owen is delightful in company). So we'll go into the conversation knowing that, whatever justifications I may spin, I have determined the answer that I want already and may just be backwards justifying it through confirmation bias.

For your reference, there is a better replay at the start of the highlights video (literally the first highlight), which shows the overall situation in real time:

The logic on Kriel appears to be that the initial contact was chest to chest (by a milisecond) and so therefore it's a yellow rather than a red because there's mitigation. It's not officially confirmed, but that's what Rassie's said in his defence. If that's the case, I can see several different mitigations for Curry which are just as strong.

The first is that Malia's height and positioning is rapidly changing. In slow-motion, it looks like Curry has all the time in the world, but Malia jumps fowards from a distance out and changes his body position as he takes the ball so, while he should absolutely not be upright, it is a massively dynamic situation which could lead to mitigation.

The second option is that Curry's first contact is chest on shoulder, just like Kriel and Sigren this week. I don't think that should be sufficient mitigation, as it hasn't been in the Premiership before (Two try-Guy being done over springs to mind), but what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

The third option for mitigation is that I don't think there is a high level of danger and certainly not imparted by TCurry himself. He's actually slowing to a stop to avoid taking Malia in the air and the head contact is a glancing blow, rather than it being something where Curry launched himself in. It's a very different situation to, say, Carreras's yellow where he launched himself bodily at Ford's head.

Is it right or fair? Hard to say with my biases, but I would say the first mitigation is why I would be comfortable with no ban - it looks bad on slow-motion, but there's a lot of movement and it's unsympathetic to say that he should've adjusted when the gap between Malia taking off and landing is under a second, especially since he was wending his way through the Argentine blockade. If Kriel and Sigren and Carreras had all seen red, then I can absolutely see a case for Curry's remaining as a red (after all, Elliot Daly was in the same situation at the same time, but because he had better technique of starting low and staying low, he ended up just removing Malia's ribcage in a textbook tackle, rather than getting banged in the head), but if we're being sympathetic to players for rugby incidents rather than zero-tolerance for shitty technique, then I think sympathy for Curry is in order too.

Puja

[p/d]

Do not think Curry’s is anymore than a rugby incident. That said if we want the bunker to work it can’t keep being undermined by ‘fancy lawyers’

I would never assume a SA tmo has any bias against England nor would I expect them to send on water carriers or flash lights at people.

[Banquo]

Do not think Curry’s is anymore than a rugby incident. That said if we want the bunker to work it can’t keep being undermined by ‘fancy lawyers’

I would never assume a SA tmo has any bias against England nor would I expect them to send on water carriers or flash lights at people.

how they got away with the flash lights stuff. Next...morse code for choosing the right play from a scrum for a number 8 (answer, make searing break and kick it)

[p/d]

Do not think Curry’s is anymore than a rugby incident. That said if we want the bunker to work it can’t keep being undermined by ‘fancy lawyers’

I would never assume a SA tmo has any bias against England nor would I expect them to send on water carriers or flash lights at people.

how they got away with the flash lights stuff. Next...morse code for choosing the right play from a scrum for a number 8 (answer, make searing break and kick it)

I know!!! Couldn't believe it.

[Mikey Brown]

I should probably just sticky this thread.

TCurry's hearing is today and it has been confirmed that Kriel will not be cited. I'm hoping our fancy-pants lawyer has his case all organised to get it downgraded to a yellow.

Puja

Do you think that's the right/fair call? I understand the logic if someone else got away with a clear high shot, but I wonder if they're just sweeping Kriel's incident under the rug because it's embarrassing it didn't get picked up.

I missed the first half so didn't see the Curry tackle. Sounded like it was a fairly clear head contact, but (unlike with Farrell) people are quite happy that we play the game and try to get him off without a ban?

I will openly admit that I am probably biased, because I like Curry and I don't like Farrell (in terms of their effects on the team; I'm sure Owen is delightful in company). So we'll go into the conversation knowing that, whatever justifications I may spin, I have determined the answer that I want already and may just be backwards justifying it through confirmation bias.

For your reference, there is a better replay at the start of the highlights video (literally the first highlight), which shows the overall situation in real time:

The logic on Kriel appears to be that the initial contact was chest to chest (by a milisecond) and so therefore it's a yellow rather than a red because there's mitigation. It's not officially confirmed, but that's what Rassie's said in his defence. If that's the case, I can see several different mitigations for Curry which are just as strong.

The first is that Malia's height and positioning is rapidly changing. In slow-motion, it looks like Curry has all the time in the world, but Malia jumps fowards from a distance out and changes his body position as he takes the ball so, while he should absolutely not be upright, it is a massively dynamic situation which could lead to mitigation.

The second option is that Curry's first contact is chest on shoulder, just like Kriel and Sigren this week. I don't think that should be sufficient mitigation, as it hasn't been in the Premiership before (Two try-Guy being done over springs to mind), but what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

The third option for mitigation is that I don't think there is a high level of danger and certainly not imparted by TCurry himself. He's actually slowing to a stop to avoid taking Malia in the air and the head contact is a glancing blow, rather than it being something where Curry launched himself in. It's a very different situation to, say, Carreras's yellow where he launched himself bodily at Ford's head.

Is it right or fair? Hard to say with my biases, but I would say the first mitigation is why I would be comfortable with no ban - it looks bad on slow-motion, but there's a lot of movement and it's unsympathetic to say that he should've adjusted when the gap between Malia taking off and landing is under a second, especially since he was wending his way through the Argentine blockade. If Kriel and Sigren and Carreras had all seen red, then I can absolutely see a case for Curry's remaining as a red (after all, Elliot Daly was in the same situation at the same time, but because he had better technique of starting low and staying low, he ended up just removing Malia's ribcage in a textbook tackle, rather than getting banged in the head), but if we're being sympathetic to players for rugby incidents rather than zero-tolerance for shitty technique, then I think sympathy for Curry is in order too.

Puja

Some interesting points there. It certainly feels more like Curry standing his ground - maybe slightly high but not actively throwing himself at the head of the player - from seeing that version.

The game will never be 100% fair. There are too many things for refs to spot and too many situations that come down to interpretation. I guess we just have to weigh up whether the priority is being fair/consistent (well he got away with it, so should I) or continuing to push message (where possible) that you can't risk head contacts/injuries.

Looking at the Curry/Carreras incidents back to back I could have guessed either would be yellow/red and be fine with it, but probably not want a long ban in either case.

I also just happened to see a video with a very defensive Neinaber saying that the coloured lights were purely for indicating to medical staff whether players are "green - stay on, amber - give them 5/10, red - make a substitution" and nothing tactical at all. The point was to not use the radio channels which are reserved for tactics... apparently.

All sounds a bit strange to me, and I'm not sure how the medics would respond if not using their headsets. I'm not sure why they would be the ones to tell the medical staff whether a player is fit to stay on either. I had thought this was a bit of a nothing topic before, but now I'm actually more suspicious of it.

[Which Tyler]

I also just happened to see a video with a very defensive Neinaber saying that the coloured lights were purely for indicating to medical staff whether players are "green - stay on, amber - give them 5/10, red - make a substitution" and nothing tactical at all. The point was to not use the radio channels which are reserved for tactics... apparently.

All sounds a bit strange to me, and I'm not sure how the medics would respond if not using their headsets. I'm not sure why they would be the ones to tell the medical staff whether a player is fit to stay on either. I had thought this was a bit of a nothing topic before, but now I'm actually more suspicious of it.

And there was me thinking that medical decisions were supposed to be the purview of the medical staff, not the coaching.