How long a ban?

[Oakboy]

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.

That is crucial, IMO. IF we have a bunker system that decrees red, IT IS red. That should not be contestable in any way. Representation about punishment is reasonable BUT I have reservations about rich unions getting players bans reduced when poor unions can't afford to. So, I'd have no lawyers. I'd just allow one member of a union's coaching staff to make a case.

[Banquo]

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.

It’s utter bs either way. They looked like they were telling Kolisi whether to kick for goal or not.

[Puja]

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.

That is crucial, IMO. IF we have a bunker system that decrees red, IT IS red. That should not be contestable in any way. Representation about punishment is reasonable BUT I have reservations about rich unions getting players bans reduced when poor unions can't afford to. So, I'd have no lawyers. I'd just allow one member of a union's coaching staff to make a case.

What's interesting to me is that the bunker system is already changing the decisions that are being given, and thus games. In the Argentina game, if it's the referee who has to make the decision live, I don't know whether he gives the red, because he is under enormous pressure in the opening minutes of the game and will have it going through his head that it will be his personal decision that "wrecks the game". In addition to that, if the referee is the sole arbiter and does make the decision to give a red in the end, I suspect he then would give a red to Carreras because of the emotion of the situation and the feeling of, "I've given them one, so this is fair and consistent." I don't see them being two different decisions if made by the referee.

Outsourcing it to a completely separate location has removed a lot of the bias and fear, which is potentially more fair, but it also removes the context of the game and means that 50:50 decisions are decided discretely, rather than with any sense of what the ref might consider "just" based on the game as a whole.

I don't know if that's better or worse.

Puja

[jimKRFC]

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 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.

my first impression was it was a rugby incident, penalty at most.

But, going against Curry (and I think it will be used to justify it), is that Daly was further ahead of Curry managed to adjust and tackle legally the same player. This will show it was possible and thus Curry was reckless - 3 week ban, minus 1 for tackle school.

If Kriel, and Biggar, aren't cited then the whole thing will just become a giant publicity nightmare. World Rugby have to do it or lose all legitimacy. Plus it's feed to the ongoing legal dispute on head injuries as it (very publicly) shows they couldn't really give a toss.

[p/d]

As the ref did t stop play until the tmo got in his ear then it could be argued that tmo has already made a decision for the ref. I would then suggest that the ref is left with making the only decision he did make as the tmo had already come to his conclusion

[Insouciant]

Looing at our last few matches, this thread might need to be stickied.

[Mellsblue]

The beautiful thing about the Curry red is that Daly is just behind him showing how he should’ve entered the contact zone.

[p/d]

The beautiful thing about the Curry red is that Daly is just behind him showing how he should’ve entered the contact zone.

I was just thinking how Curry's defence could be completely undermined by Daly's textbook tackling technique.

[fivepointer]

Curry gets 2 match ban, misses Japan and Chile.

[Puja]

Curry gets 2 match ban, misses Japan and Chile.

https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... ary-update

That is *harsh*. Entering in at mid-range sanction of 6 weeks ban, compared to Sigren, Biggar, Kriel, who have all got nothing whatsoever. Looks like we accepted the red card rather than contest it, but it feels like that should've been low level of danger with Curry barely applying any forward momentum to the contact whatsoever. I would've grumbled at, but been fine with, a 4 week entry, 50% off and then a tackle school to bring him back for Chile.

Poor sod.

Puja

[p/d]

Curry gets 2 match ban, misses Japan and Chile.

5p are you part of the England committee?

The BBC hasn't mentioned it, though they have just told me that fiery little minx Halep has landed a four year ban

[Banquo]

Curry gets 2 match ban, misses Japan and Chile.

5p are you part of the England committee?

The BBC hasn't mentioned it, though they have just told me that fiery little minx Halep has landed a four year ban

just up now

[Banquo]

Curry gets 2 match ban, misses Japan and Chile.

https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... ary-update

That is *harsh*. Entering in at mid-range sanction of 6 weeks ban, compared to Sigren, Biggar, Kriel, who have all got nothing whatsoever. Looks like we accepted the red card rather than contest it, but it feels like that should've been low level of danger with Curry barely applying any forward momentum to the contact whatsoever. I would've grumbled at, but been fine with, a 4 week entry, 50% off and then a tackle school to bring him back for Chile.

Poor sod.

Puja

Disciplinary mess the RWC so far.

[FKAS]

As the ref did t stop play until the tmo got in his ear then it could be argued that tmo has already made a decision for the ref. I would then suggest that the ref is left with making the only decision he did make as the tmo had already come to his conclusion

Apparently the TMOs only really want to intervene if there's blood or if it's a tier 2 nation's player making the tackle. England and Curry qualifying both currently...

[Margin_Walker]

Probably fair enough in isolation, albeit a really unfortunate one for Curry.

Set against Kriel though, its just weird.

Hopefully they are a little more consistent come the business end of the tournament

[Oakboy]

About right, I'd say - without taking other incidents into account.

[p/d]

As the ref did t stop play until the tmo got in his ear then it could be argued that tmo has already made a decision for the ref. I would then suggest that the ref is left with making the only decision he did make as the tmo had already come to his conclusion

Apparently the TMOs only really want to intervene if there's blood or if it's a tier 2 nation's player making the tackle. England and Curry qualifying both currently...

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

That is crucial, IMO. IF we have a bunker system that decrees red, IT IS red. That should not be contestable in any way. Representation about punishment is reasonable BUT I have reservations about rich unions getting players bans reduced when poor unions can't afford to. So, I'd have no lawyers. I'd just allow one member of a union's coaching staff to make a case.

What's interesting to me is that the bunker system is already changing the decisions that are being given, and thus games. In the Argentina game, if it's the referee who has to make the decision live, I don't know whether he gives the red, because he is under enormous pressure in the opening minutes of the game and will have it going through his head that it will be his personal decision that "wrecks the game". In addition to that, if the referee is the sole arbiter and does make the decision to give a red in the end, I suspect he then would give a red to Carreras because of the emotion of the situation and the feeling of, "I've given them one, so this is fair and consistent." I don't see them being two different decisions if made by the referee.

Outsourcing it to a completely separate location has removed a lot of the bias and fear, which is potentially more fair, but it also removes the context of the game and means that 50:50 decisions are decided discretely, rather than with any sense of what the ref might consider "just" based on the game as a whole.

I don't know if that's better or worse.

Puja

It has to be better. Removing bias, time pressure, crowd pressure, treating each decision in isolation, these are all good things. Making important decisions in an unbiased and unhurried way has to be for the best.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

That is crucial, IMO. IF we have a bunker system that decrees red, IT IS red. That should not be contestable in any way. Representation about punishment is reasonable BUT I have reservations about rich unions getting players bans reduced when poor unions can't afford to. So, I'd have no lawyers. I'd just allow one member of a union's coaching staff to make a case.

What's interesting to me is that the bunker system is already changing the decisions that are being given, and thus games. In the Argentina game, if it's the referee who has to make the decision live, I don't know whether he gives the red, because he is under enormous pressure in the opening minutes of the game and will have it going through his head that it will be his personal decision that "wrecks the game". In addition to that, if the referee is the sole arbiter and does make the decision to give a red in the end, I suspect he then would give a red to Carreras because of the emotion of the situation and the feeling of, "I've given them one, so this is fair and consistent." I don't see them being two different decisions if made by the referee.

Outsourcing it to a completely separate location has removed a lot of the bias and fear, which is potentially more fair, but it also removes the context of the game and means that 50:50 decisions are decided discretely, rather than with any sense of what the ref might consider "just" based on the game as a whole.

I don't know if that's better or worse.

Puja

It has to be better. Removing bias, time pressure, crowd pressure, treating each decision in isolation, these are all good things. Making important decisions in an unbiased and unhurried way has to be for the best.

Yes. I don't see how that's even a debate Puja?

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.

That is crucial, IMO. IF we have a bunker system that decrees red, IT IS red. That should not be contestable in any way. Representation about punishment is reasonable BUT I have reservations about rich unions getting players bans reduced when poor unions can't afford to. So, I'd have no lawyers. I'd just allow one member of a union's coaching staff to make a case.

I think the level of review needs work. The bunker decision should be reversed only if the decision can be shown to an obvious error in application of the laws - not just that the panel would make a different decision.

Other changes are needed in language: "starting point" rather than "minimum" and whatever good character actually means it can't be whatever we think it means or there's no bloody way it could be applied to Owen Farrell.

I'd also like to see an acknowledgement of what appears to be going on anyway which is that they don't like banning people where it means they miss major matches. If this is going to happen then formalise it. A Lions/RWC/6N fame might be 2 points, a cup final 1.5 points and a standard competitive match 1 point with friendlies 0.75.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Another change I'd like to see is in line with criminal sentencing guidelines. The sanction should depend on a combination of culpability AND HARM. If you prevent someone from achieving a career highlight by injuring them you should be punished more severely than if someone was able to dust themselves down and carry on with the match.

[Puja]

Yes. I don't see how that's even a debate Puja?

One of the fun bits about having memory problems is that occasionally you come across something completely and utterly baffling, which you just can't wrap your head around or understand how someone could think that... and then get to discover that it's apparently a position that Past!You espoused very ardently in the recent past. It's very disconcerting to find that, given a clean slate, you can come to a radically different opinion to your past self, even given the same starting position and being the alleged same person.

I've got no clue really what point I thought I was making here, as I don't remember writing it and I can't work it out from what I've written. It is tempting to try and make up some justification and attempt to defend my own honour, but I can't be bothered. So, yeah, ignore that guy - clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

Puja

[Danno]

Bloody good guy Puja ruining decent internet fights before they get started.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Yes. I don't see how that's even a debate Puja?

One of the fun bits about having memory problems is that occasionally you come across something completely and utterly baffling, which you just can't wrap your head around or understand how someone could think that... and then get to discover that it's apparently a position that Past!You espoused very ardently in the recent past. It's very disconcerting to find that, given a clean slate, you can come to a radically different opinion to your past self, even given the same starting position and being the alleged same person.

I've got no clue really what point I thought I was making here, as I don't remember writing it and I can't work it out from what I've written. It is tempting to try and make up some justification and attempt to defend my own honour, but I can't be bothered. So, yeah, ignore that guy - clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

Puja

I see one of those fancy lawyers has bamboozled you into reversing your own decision on appeal.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Yes. I don't see how that's even a debate Puja?

One of the fun bits about having memory problems is that occasionally you come across something completely and utterly baffling, which you just can't wrap your head around or understand how someone could think that... and then get to discover that it's apparently a position that Past!You espoused very ardently in the recent past. It's very disconcerting to find that, given a clean slate, you can come to a radically different opinion to your past self, even given the same starting position and being the alleged same person.

I've got no clue really what point I thought I was making here, as I don't remember writing it and I can't work it out from what I've written. It is tempting to try and make up some justification and attempt to defend my own honour, but I can't be bothered. So, yeah, ignore that guy - clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

Puja

Being thoroughly decent on the internet. It'll never catch on!!

[canta_brian]

As the ref did t stop play until the tmo got in his ear then it could be argued that tmo has already made a decision for the ref. I would then suggest that the ref is left with making the only decision he did make as the tmo had already come to his conclusion

I agree with this. If the TMO and bunker people are intervening we need to see refereeing as a panel or group activity. Sending the images back to the ref is a waste of time.

I think the idea that someone here mooted about an orange card for a 20 min sit down could work well with this system too.