2019 under 20's
-
But it's not a shoulder charge. Watching it in real time, it's clearly a tackle. He wraps both his arms around the player.
It's a little bit upright, sure, but it's fundamentally a rugby play. If that's now a red card, then you could give 2-3 a game I reckon.
-
Thoughts on the Red Card in the Aus/Eng game? First up in this highlight package below, happened in the 3rd minute...
https://twitter.com/WorldRugby/status/1138924449015771137
If this is the way the game is being refereed now, the World Cup could be an absolute debacle.
@barbarian said in 2019 under 20's:
Thoughts on the Red Card in the Aus/Eng game? First up in this highlight package below, happened in the 3rd minute...
https://twitter.com/WorldRugby/status/1138924449015771137
If this is the way the game is being refereed now, the World Cup could be an absolute debacle.
Absolutely ridiculous to consider that a red card. What needs to be taken into account is the height with which someone approaches contact - if they're going to run into contact bending down then that should mitigate what would otherwise be a perfectly fine front on tackle.
-
Clearly deserving of a penalty and probably a card - not the red one though.
WR need to have a look at themselves and have a think about what they want rugby to be as a spectator sport going forward. If they’re going to direct their refs to go card crazy then they probably need to change red card to - out of the game and then can be replaced by another player after 10 mins.
-
But it's not a shoulder charge. Watching it in real time, it's clearly a tackle. He wraps both his arms around the player.
It's a little bit upright, sure, but it's fundamentally a rugby play. If that's now a red card, then you could give 2-3 a game I reckon.
@barbarian Yeah, you're right, it's a high tackle because his arm is (just) in front of his body when the contact is made.
However, the high contact was with the tackler's shoulder and there was direct contact with the head/neck area. In that case the ref then has to determine the degree of danger. If he considers that there is a high degree of danger, it's always going to be a red card, unless there are mitigating factors. In this case, the ref says there's a high degree of danger and no mitigating factors.
To determine the degree of danger, the ref has to look at factors like those in this picture (this is from the video about the new high-tackle sanction framework).
At least two factors are present: the tackler is attempting a dominant tackle and he completes the tackle. It's debatable whether he swings his shoulder/arm forward; I'm not so sure he does. But there are at least two factors to conclude there's a high degree of danger (it's not clear to me how many of those factors need to be present to establish a high degree of danger; is one enough? need there be more? how many more?)
Possible mitiagting factors are:
I agree with the ref there were no mitigating factors.
We'll see whether the judiciary agrees with the ref's assessment of the degree of danger (that's the only thing that's debatable IMO).
-
Clearly deserving of a penalty and probably a card - not the red one though.
WR need to have a look at themselves and have a think about what they want rugby to be as a spectator sport going forward. If they’re going to direct their refs to go card crazy then they probably need to change red card to - out of the game and then can be replaced by another player after 10 mins.
@Nepia said in 2019 under 20's:
Clearly deserving of a penalty and probably a card - not the red one though.
WR need to have a look at themselves and have a think about what they want rugby to be as a spectator sport going forward. If they’re going to direct their refs to go card crazy then they probably need to change red card to - out of the game and then can be replaced by another player after 10 mins.
I think this is a direct result of that new high- tackle sanction framework that they announced two weeks ago. When I posted the info on that framework in the "Law trials" thread, I already said that I expected more cards to be handed out. I'm all for player safety, but all those cards are ruining the game.
-
My problem then is with the framework more than it is the referee and the individual decision.
Because to me a red card should be reserved for play that is deliberately cynical and dangerous. IMO if a player is making a 'rugby play' that goes slightly wrong, it shouldn't result in a red card.
This tackle wasn't a swinging arm, or a shoulder charge, or a spear tackle. It was a tall bloke attempting a tackle against a player who had dropped his body height. He inadvertantly made contact with the head in making the tackle.
A penalty? Yes. A yellow? I wouldn't love it but I could accept it.
But for that play to result in a red card in the 3rd minute of the game is not what I want the game to become.
-
@barbarian Yeah, you're right, it's a high tackle because his arm is (just) in front of his body when the contact is made.
However, the high contact was with the tackler's shoulder and there was direct contact with the head/neck area. In that case the ref then has to determine the degree of danger. If he considers that there is a high degree of danger, it's always going to be a red card, unless there are mitigating factors. In this case, the ref says there's a high degree of danger and no mitigating factors.
To determine the degree of danger, the ref has to look at factors like those in this picture (this is from the video about the new high-tackle sanction framework).
At least two factors are present: the tackler is attempting a dominant tackle and he completes the tackle. It's debatable whether he swings his shoulder/arm forward; I'm not so sure he does. But there are at least two factors to conclude there's a high degree of danger (it's not clear to me how many of those factors need to be present to establish a high degree of danger; is one enough? need there be more? how many more?)
Possible mitiagting factors are:
I agree with the ref there were no mitigating factors.
We'll see whether the judiciary agrees with the ref's assessment of the degree of danger (that's the only thing that's debatable IMO).
@Stargazer said in 2019 under 20's:
I agree with the ref there were no mitigating factors.
To me, the change in height is a mitigating factor. The defender braced and dropped with the tackler - but front on, there's not many places for the shoulder to go unless you completely pull out of the tackle.
For me, that's a penalty + yellow card for incidental contact. If not, we're going to see a whole lot of red cards I think; just drop into front on tackles and leave the tackler no where to go
-
Is there a sperm bank in SA that is full of Bakkies Bothas DNA, fuck me they produce some monster locks.
@chimoaus said in 2019 under 20's:
Is there a sperm bank in SA that is full of Bakkies Bothas DNA, fuck me they produce some monster locks.
i have long been convinced there is a factory somewhere outside Pretoria that just produces massive crew-cut locks.
-
Is there a sperm bank in SA that is full of Bakkies Bothas DNA, fuck me they produce some monster locks.
@chimoaus said in 2019 under 20's:
Is there a sperm bank in SA that is full of Bakkies Bothas DNA, fuck me they produce some monster locks.
South Africa leading the world in cloning.
-
World Rugby has announced a major overhaul for next years U20 tournament. Following a submission from Mr C. Philpott, the emphasis will change from winning the tournament to warm hugs and kisses for taking part. As a result, points will no longer be awarded and the knockout stages have been scrapped. Instead players will get a certificate of participation with a gold star and good effort stamped in the corner. At the end of the tournament, teams will congregate around a bonfire and share their participation experiences. “It’s a trial” said a world rugby spokesman. “If it’s successful, we might look at introducing this for the RWC 2023”.
-
The red card on Aussie #8: justified when you look at the thresholds being applied for U20 players.
It wasn't a shoulder charge, but it was rising contact above the shoulder line and was never going low enough. Ball carrier may have dipped slightly into contact - which is a "rugby play"
-but given the height the tackle started, and the direction he was going, there was a significant degree of recklessness which goes into dangerous territory. -
Now the u/20s campaign has gone the way a lot of people on the fern thought it would.
What’s the thoughts on individuals in this 20s squad are many/any good enough for SR contract in 2020 ?? disregarding the 3 who already have one. because it’s likely some are going to be picked up due to the current lack of depth. -
-
Now the u/20s campaign has gone the way a lot of people on the fern thought it would.
What’s the thoughts on individuals in this 20s squad are many/any good enough for SR contract in 2020 ?? disregarding the 3 who already have one. because it’s likely some are going to be picked up due to the current lack of depth.@Chris said in 2019 under 20's:
Now the u/19s campaign has gone the way a lot of people on the fern thought it would.
What’s the thoughts on individuals in this 19s squad are many/any good enough for SR contract in 2020 ?? disregarding the 3 who already have one. because it’s likely some are going to be picked up due to the current lack of depth.I assume you mean U20?
And the guys with SR contracts being Etene Nanai-Seturo, Billy Proctore and Devan Flanders?
Personally, I think we can't really draw too many conclusions from this tournament. They have a shit coach.
I'd like to see them play Mitre 10 Cup first.
-
Not because of the the U20s campaign but more for what I reckon we'll see at NPC level, but I reckon Taufa Funkai will get a Super Rugby gig next season.
Baffling that Philpott totally ignored him in the loss to South Africa. He'd have asked questions of the Boks' line speed, and had them back on their heels within minutes.
-
@Chris said in 2019 under 20's:
Now the u/19s campaign has gone the way a lot of people on the fern thought it would.
What’s the thoughts on individuals in this 19s squad are many/any good enough for SR contract in 2020 ?? disregarding the 3 who already have one. because it’s likely some are going to be picked up due to the current lack of depth.I assume you mean U20?
And the guys with SR contracts being Etene Nanai-Seturo, Billy Proctore and Devan Flanders?
Personally, I think we can't really draw too many conclusions from this tournament. They have a shit coach.
I'd like to see them play Mitre 10 Cup first.
-
Not because of the the U20s campaign but more for what I reckon we'll see at NPC level, but I reckon Taufa Funkai will get a Super Rugby gig next season.
Baffling that Philpott totally ignored him in the loss to South Africa. He'd have asked questions of the Boks' line speed, and had them back on their heels within minutes.
-
@Stargazer yeah sorry u/20s,Leicester Faingaanuku Etene Nanai-Seturo, Billy Proctor were the 3 I was thinking of.I haven't seen anywhere that Flanders is confirmed as having a contract as of yet.
