Red Cards & HIA
-
@Dodge I am concerned with the headshots and the survival of the game I love, but I also hate cards as a result of accidental head contact.
Granted, last week was an extreme example, accidental, absolutely, dangerous, very, but I feel there has to be a better way to deal with these than making it an unbalanced contest.
I am all for punishing thuggish plays, but again, ruining the contest because of 1.players moment of stupidity?
When Jamie Heaslip kneed McCaw many years ago, he absolutely deserved to walk, but should his whole team and paying fans also be punished?
Should that be punished the same way as Cane or Loods accidental contact?
Then, on the flipside, in the red cards the past 2 weeks, neither of the attacking players involved, were sent for HIA...as I have said before, if a contact is deemed worthy of being dangerous enough to issue a card, it should also be enough to warrant ensuring the players safety.
-
@taniwharugby hammer and nail mate, there has to be a better way to crack down on the head knocks. That's such a good example comparing genuine thuggish behaviour of Heaslip to what are really accidental head shots that are a bit reckless. Both punished the same way, and more often than not ruin the game as a contest which sucks for the paying fans.
The reckless angle doesn't really wash for me either, because the nature of the game requires you to be a bit reckless if you want to put a good hit in.
I don't know the best answer but right now it's killing the sport. If it were up to me I'd probably make cards a maximum of 10 minutes, and if it's a red then it just means that player can't come back onto the field. Then I'd dish out the punishment to players, particularly repeat offenders, with fines, lengthy bans and even permanent bans if they continue to put other players at risk. I probably haven't thought through that enough, but right now it's just super subjective and ruled inconsistently.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards & HIA:
I am all for punishing thuggish plays, but again, ruining the contest because of 1.players moment of stupidity?
I hate contests being affected by red cards (last two RWC Finals, and two of the biggest match ups this year Ire v NZ, and SA x Fr)..
I would like more leniency on the actual field; with much more harshness at the review panel after the game.
Rub players out for weeks; even out of the game if necessary.An NFL player got suspended for one game recently (they don't get paid when suspended, so cost him about $1 mil.)
It was for a series of "hip drop tackles." None of the incidents were picked up during the games.
But he got a series of warning letters from the review panel.
When he failed to adjust his technique, suspension followed.
One million dollars thanks.
And if he doesn't change; it'll be another million dollars.
Then the mother/wife/gf get involved, and we know how that works. -
@mohikamo said in Red Cards & HIA:
Then the mother/wife/gf get involved, and we know how that works.
having the mum on call from the bunker would be classic. Go to the naughty chair, mum's in your ear for 10 minutes. Offending would drop drastically!
-
@Dodge said in Red Cards & HIA:
I find the paranoia of many of the fans from the South frankly irritating, I can't understand why people can't (or won't) see the difference between those two incidents, or indeed why the two in the world cup final were different, and believe me, in that game i did not want SA to win.
I found the apathy towards head shots before the last world cup from SH teams, coaches, pundits, commentators and fans alarming, and predicted a car crash at the world cup as a result. England have been on the end of these decisions for ages, whilst loads don't agree they should be red under the spirit of the game, I'm not aware of anyone complaining its bias (but then I hang out on SH website, not a NH one so maybe my window is skewed)
I find the objection to last week's red genuinely bizarre, its a tucked arm shoulder hit to the head, yes he was dropping, maybe we should change the process to allow mitigation for that, but its not mitgatable today and in my view probably shouldn't be.
I find this post as irritating. No one said the two incidents were exactly the same, but even you admitted earlier in the thread that before the RWC Kolisi's would have been a red card.
As I noted earlier Kolisi came from distance, led with his head, and hit another player in the fucking head.
The fact he also hit the player on the shoulder as well and that's a reason for mitigation seems to suggest the exact apathy to head shots that you're complaining about.
-
@Nepia said in Red Cards & HIA:
@Dodge said in Red Cards & HIA:
I find the paranoia of many of the fans from the South frankly irritating, I can't understand why people can't (or won't) see the difference between those two incidents, or indeed why the two in the world cup final were different, and believe me, in that game i did not want SA to win.
I found the apathy towards head shots before the last world cup from SH teams, coaches, pundits, commentators and fans alarming, and predicted a car crash at the world cup as a result. England have been on the end of these decisions for ages, whilst loads don't agree they should be red under the spirit of the game, I'm not aware of anyone complaining its bias (but then I hang out on SH website, not a NH one so maybe my window is skewed)
I find the objection to last week's red genuinely bizarre, its a tucked arm shoulder hit to the head, yes he was dropping, maybe we should change the process to allow mitigation for that, but its not mitgatable today and in my view probably shouldn't be.
I find this post as irritating. No one said the two incidents were exactly the same, but even you admitted earlier in the thread that before the RWC Kolisi's would have been a red card.
As I noted earlier Kolisi came from distance, led with his head, and hit another player in the fucking head.
The fact he also hit the player on the shoulder as well and that's a reason for mitigation seems to suggest the exact apathy to head shots that you're complaining about.
you're confusing two things IMO, should Kolisi's have been red under the interpretations of the laws at that time, no. Would it have been red had it happened in February that year - yes, probably. Why did that change? Because the SH was not applying the laws the same way all season and fans and pundits etc bitched and moaned when they came across the World Rugby interpretations, so the authorities softened the interpretation through the World Cup. At the point of the world cup final, those two interpretations were correct IMO.
As for where we should actually draw lines, I don't pretend to have a perfect answer, I don't like head shots and believe we should try to remove them from the game as much as possible, you do that by incentivising players not to do it, therefore punishing the player and the team as a result - that means coaches train differently. I am sure i've seen stats about the average height that the Boks hit vs other teams as Rassie focussed on this earlier than most.
I believe you have to have nuance in punishments, rugby is dynamic, a player bent at the waist and trying to make a legal tackle who makes head contact with a dropping player is not the same as tucking an arm and launching a shoulder like a missile at someone and making contact with the head and should be punished differently. That means subjectivity comes into it. I don't like either extreme version of removing subjectivity - all red or all yellow as I don't believe its fair on the accidental one or enough of a disincentive on the nasty one.
-
From the Italy v SA match
My comments on YouTube
"You're a skilled analyst. But thorough? Surely there was another angle of this incident which would have shown whether there was direct head contact or secondary contact?
You can and should do better if this is your main argument.
If there are no other angles, say as much.
Second incident is 'clear as day'. Penalty to SA.
Third incident, if it was consistent then Italian should have seen red too."
-
The TMO and FPRO for the Italy SA game are French. Hard not to think there was a bit of frenchyness going on there.
Rugby is a professional game run by amateurs, bit of a joke really..
Having said that, there will always be controversy in sport, Still loving it though! -
@Dodge said in Red Cards & HIA:
you do that by incentivising players not to do it, therefore punishing the player, team and fans as a result.
Fixed it for you.
I largely agree with you, but I am dead against punishing the team and fans.
I mean with your statement above about training differently for these accidental contacts, where do thuggish acts sit? Because you (world rugby) are punishing the same group with the same in game sanction; player, team, fans, no one trained that.
-
League are doing it better. Sure they have an arguably looser view of HIA type incidents. But these codes are fast and physical. There is little to no appreciation of that in union right now. Lumping foul play into the same group as poor technique or mistakes is just wrong
-
@canefan said in Red Cards & HIA:
League are doing it better. Sure they have an arguably looser view of HIA type incidents. But these codes are fast and physical. There is little to no appreciation of that in union right now. Lumping foul play into the same group as poor technique or mistakes is just wrong
I would be interested to see the head impact stats and long term study as IMO league is a disgrace in how it allows head contact and dangerous tackles and those are simply brushed off by commentators on the basis that hand wringing liberals don't understand the game.
-
@Dodge said in Red Cards & HIA:
@canefan said in Red Cards & HIA:
League are doing it better. Sure they have an arguably looser view of HIA type incidents. But these codes are fast and physical. There is little to no appreciation of that in union right now. Lumping foul play into the same group as poor technique or mistakes is just wrong
I would be interested to see the head impact stats and long term study as IMO league is a disgrace in how it allows head contact and dangerous tackles and those are simply brushed off by commentators on the basis that hand wringing liberals don't understand the game.
They haven't fixed the problem yet, but they also don't have a situation where the games are almost unwatchable and are being decided by cards
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards & HIA:
@Dodge said in Red Cards & HIA:
you do that by incentivising players not to do it, therefore punishing the player, team and fans as a result.
Fixed it for you.
I largely agree with you, but I am dead against punishing the team and fans.
I mean with your statement above about training differently for these accidental contacts, where do thuggish acts sit? Because you (world rugby) are punishing the same group with the same in game sanction; player, team, fans, no one trained that.
by training to tackle lower it means that always illegal tackles (not bent at the waist etc) happen less often, the goal of which is to bring down the number of unintentional but still illegal head shots. Punishing the team means you punish the coach who loses his job if his team lose every week because the team goes down to 14 thus incentivising better coaching of the tackle, only punishing the player not the team doesn't have that impact. That's the argument made by World Rugby and has merit IMO
-
@Dodge said in Red Cards & HIA:
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards & HIA:
@Dodge said in Red Cards & HIA:
you do that by incentivising players not to do it, therefore punishing the player, team and fans as a result.
Fixed it for you.
I largely agree with you, but I am dead against punishing the team and fans.
I mean with your statement above about training differently for these accidental contacts, where do thuggish acts sit? Because you (world rugby) are punishing the same group with the same in game sanction; player, team, fans, no one trained that.
by training to tackle lower it means that always illegal tackles (not bent at the waist etc) happen less often, the goal of which is to bring down the number of unintentional but still illegal head shots. Punishing the team means you punish the coach who loses his job if his team lose every week because the team goes down to 14 thus incentivising better coaching of the tackle, only punishing the player not the team doesn't have that impact. That's the argument made my World Rugby and has merit IMO
It's not working. How many remedial courses has Owen Farrell done and he still hits high? He's not the only one. The inconsistency of rulings, absorbing vs non absorbing tackles, mitigation. It's a mess even if their intentions are good
-
@canefan said in Red Cards & HIA:
@Dodge said in Red Cards & HIA:
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards & HIA:
@Dodge said in Red Cards & HIA:
you do that by incentivising players not to do it, therefore punishing the player, team and fans as a result.
Fixed it for you.
I largely agree with you, but I am dead against punishing the team and fans.
I mean with your statement above about training differently for these accidental contacts, where do thuggish acts sit? Because you (world rugby) are punishing the same group with the same in game sanction; player, team, fans, no one trained that.
by training to tackle lower it means that always illegal tackles (not bent at the waist etc) happen less often, the goal of which is to bring down the number of unintentional but still illegal head shots. Punishing the team means you punish the coach who loses his job if his team lose every week because the team goes down to 14 thus incentivising better coaching of the tackle, only punishing the player not the team doesn't have that impact. That's the argument made my World Rugby and has merit IMO
It's not working. How many remedial courses has Owen Farrell done and he still hits high? He's not the only one. The inconsistency of rulings, absorbing vs non absorbing tackles, mitigation. It's a mess even if their intentions are good
I believe the data from outside the top flight is clear that it is working, I believe the data from the top level is less supportive that its working as concussions don't appear to have reduced materially. I would like to see proper data presented properly before I concluded though.
I don't think its perfect but i'm not convinced by the alternatives either. I don't know what the best solution is
