Wallabies v France 3
-
@stargazer Ah, of course. I'm a bit too keen for this aren't I?
@gibbonrib I'm not expecting too much from the decision either tbh.
-
@nevorian I don't think it was ever considered malicious, reckless is enough for a red if there's no mitigation
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nevorian I don't think it was ever considered malicious, reckless is enough for a red if there's no mitigation
Exactly, most of the high tackles are reckless not malicious. They keep going on about the tackler having to be responsible for any head contact, even if it slips up.
The only way I can see this being a yellow, as there was forceful head contact, is if they say the French 8 dipped enough for there to be mitigation. But they are seem to be saying that contact slipping up is only a yellow, and that's not how it's been ruled in the past.
So fucking inconsistent all this bullshit. No wonder coaches and players have no idea whats going on from one game to the next.
-
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nevorian I don't think it was ever considered malicious, reckless is enough for a red if there's no mitigation
Exactly, most of the high tackles are reckless not malicious. They keep going on about the tackler having to be responsible for any head contact, even if it slips up.
The only way I can see this being a yellow, as there was forceful head contact, is if they say the French 8 dipped enough for there to be mitigation. But they are seem to be saying that contact slipping up is only a yellow, and that's not how it's been ruled in the past.
So fucking inconsistent all this bullshit. No wonder coaches and players have no idea whats going on from one game to the next.
@kirwan Yup, rules that are inconsistently applied on the field, then inconsistently confirmed / overturned by the review committee, which then sends out muddled and misleading communications on the outcome, with the whole process being commentated on by a bunch of former players who either don't understand the framework or don't care if they're talking nonsense.
There's certainly a little room for improvement.
-
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nevorian I don't think it was ever considered malicious, reckless is enough for a red if there's no mitigation
Exactly, most of the high tackles are reckless not malicious. They keep going on about the tackler having to be responsible for any head contact, even if it slips up.
The only way I can see this being a yellow, as there was forceful head contact, is if they say the French 8 dipped enough for there to be mitigation. But they are seem to be saying that contact slipping up is only a yellow, and that's not how it's been ruled in the past.
So fucking inconsistent all this bullshit. No wonder coaches and players have no idea whats going on from one game to the next.
-
Someone posted this shot earlier. You'd think the easy option is to just say it was a red card but mitigated due to body height. MK is basically horizontal to the ground at the point of contact and Jelonch clearly drops into it.
@derpus
You can't tell much from a still, certainly not how much he dipped into it. Seeing it live, I thought he did dip into it a little, but that it was a natural instinctive movement to brace for the impact, not really a mitigation.
In real time, I thought it was a great tackle. But after seeing the replays which showed clear head contact. I was expecting yellow, on the basis that it looked like it wasn't direct to head, and the fact that it was the 4th minute (which shouldn't affect the decision, but was hard to ignore) -
Someone posted this shot earlier. You'd think the easy option is to just say it was a red card but mitigated due to body height. MK is basically horizontal to the ground at the point of contact and Jelonch clearly drops into it.
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Someone posted this shot earlier. You'd think the easy option is to just say it was a red card but mitigated due to body height. MK is basically horizontal to the ground at the point of contact and Jelonch clearly drops into it.
This is where screenshots don't help. He wasn't horizontal, more on a 45 degree angle up. And watching the replay you can see the French 8 lifted off his feet because of it.
But if you take one angle, like this, it looks different.
And here we are arguing about it days later, and the ref had what, 1 or 2 mins to make the call watching the big screen? Refs are in an impossible situation with this new focus on head highs.
-
I prefer the side angle wide shot where you can see both guys start upright and then both lower into contact.
The question is: how low should the ball carrier be? This isn't him running into contact, it is bracing for impact.
@nta said in Wallabies v France 3:
I prefer the side angle wide shot where you can see both guys start upright and then both lower into contact.
The question is: how low should the ball carrier be? This isn't him running into contact, it is bracing for impact.
I think he has a reasonable dip there, so it should have been yellow. Not sure what a "reasonable" dip is for the mitigation dance.
-
The other thing i don't really understand about the protocol is why wasn't Valetini yellow or even red carded later in the game when he clocked the guy directly in the head? The protocol doesn't seem to say that shoulder contact is worse than forearm.
The player was exactly where you would expect him to be making that run so i don't see how you could argue body height as mitigation (which seems to be the interpretation above).
-
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Someone posted this shot earlier. You'd think the easy option is to just say it was a red card but mitigated due to body height. MK is basically horizontal to the ground at the point of contact and Jelonch clearly drops into it.
This is where screenshots don't help. He wasn't horizontal, more on a 45 degree angle up. And watching the replay you can see the French 8 lifted off his feet because of it.
But if you take one angle, like this, it looks different.
And here we are arguing about it days later, and the ref had what, 1 or 2 mins to make the call watching the big screen? Refs are in an impossible situation with this new focus on head highs.
@kirwan said in Wallabies v France 3:
And here we are arguing about it days later, and the ref had what, 1 or 2 mins to make the call watching the big screen? Refs are in an impossible situation with this new focus on head highs.
This is a great point, but it highlights the error I think BOK and his team made: with each angle showing something slightly different (especially in regards to first point of contact), why did they not acknowledge the presence of doubt and opt for a YC?
It's still the key question days afterwards, and the judiciary mess only serves to reinforce it I think.
-
@steven-harris where did you find that?
Sadly that statement doesn't clarify the decision at all. I'd like to watch that video to see if that helps (fully expecting that it won't though).
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@steven-harris where did you find that?
Sadly that statement doesn't clarify the decision at all. I'd like to watch that video to see if that helps (fully expecting that it won't though).
@stargazer said in Wallabies v France 3:
@gibbonrib It's only the media release. Not the decision.
Oh, shit, I forgot that if a red card is dismissed, there won't be a written decision. Just the media release.
So the media release is all we get. It has been published on the WR website now, btw.Forget getting a further clarification of the decision.
-
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@steven-harris where did you find that?
Sadly that statement doesn't clarify the decision at all. I'd like to watch that video to see if that helps (fully expecting that it won't though).
@stargazer said in Wallabies v France 3:
@gibbonrib It's only the media release. Not the decision.
Oh, shit, I forgot that if a red card is dismissed, there won't be a written decision. Just the media release.
So the media release is all we get. It has been published on the WR website now, btw.Forget getting a further clarification of the decision.
@stargazer
Well that's just the icing on top of the shit sandwich isn't it? So the Aussies can go away believing that the tackle was 100% legal and the red was only given because of French play-acting, and most NH observers will assume it's a yellow card level offence, and the whole thing will blow up again the next time there's a similar tackle in a high profile game. What an utter, completely unnecessary shambles. -
@stargazer
Well that's just the icing on top of the shit sandwich isn't it? So the Aussies can go away believing that the tackle was 100% legal and the red was only given because of French play-acting, and most NH observers will assume it's a yellow card level offence, and the whole thing will blow up again the next time there's a similar tackle in a high profile game. What an utter, completely unnecessary shambles.@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@stargazer
Well that's just the icing on top of the shit sandwich isn't it? So the Aussies can go away believing that the tackle was 100% legal and the red was only given because of French play-actingI don't think anyone here believes it was because of play-acting. People think it was a mix of rugby's rules being too rigid, and the officials being unable to correctly interpret them.
-
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@stargazer
Well that's just the icing on top of the shit sandwich isn't it? So the Aussies can go away believing that the tackle was 100% legal and the red was only given because of French play-actingI don't think anyone here believes it was because of play-acting. People think it was a mix of rugby's rules being too rigid, and the officials being unable to correctly interpret them.
@barbarian said in Wallabies v France 3:
I don't think anyone here believes it was because of play-acting.
When you say "here" do you mean the fern or Oz? Cos I've spoken to quite a few mates who think the Frenchie should receive punishment and MK was fine.
-
@barbarian said in Wallabies v France 3:
I don't think anyone here believes it was because of play-acting.
When you say "here" do you mean the fern or Oz? Cos I've spoken to quite a few mates who think the Frenchie should receive punishment and MK was fine.
-
Regardless, every coach should be pointing out to their teams that attempting tackles like that you're playing russian roulette with the ref.
-
@kirwan said in Wallabies v France 3:
And here we are arguing about it days later, and the ref had what, 1 or 2 mins to make the call watching the big screen? Refs are in an impossible situation with this new focus on head highs.
This is a great point, but it highlights the error I think BOK and his team made: with each angle showing something slightly different (especially in regards to first point of contact), why did they not acknowledge the presence of doubt and opt for a YC?
It's still the key question days afterwards, and the judiciary mess only serves to reinforce it I think.
@barbarian said in Wallabies v France 3:
This is a great point, but it highlights the error I think BOK and his team made: with each angle showing something slightly different (especially in regards to first point of contact), why did they not acknowledge the presence of doubt and opt for a YC?
If it was a red card and reduced to yellow because of mitigating factors I think the majority of people would have accepted that decision and moved on. IIRC it was Fraser who first said that there was direct contact to the head so O'Keeffe might have been swayed by that comment. Certainly some of those camera angles supported that.
-
@barbarian said in Wallabies v France 3:
I don't think anyone here believes it was because of play-acting.
When you say "here" do you mean the fern or Oz? Cos I've spoken to quite a few mates who think the Frenchie should receive punishment and MK was fine.
