Red Cards & HIA

mohikamo

If you are dropping a million dollars every time you get suspended, the females in your life will be getting involved.

Nepia

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.

Mr Fish

This post is deleted!

W32

@Mr-Fish love to know what you said mate. PM me if you want

Dodge

@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.

MiketheSnow

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."

W32

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!

canefan

@W32 it is amateurish that is for sure

pakman

taniwharugby

@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.

canefan

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

Dodge

@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.

canefan

@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

Dodge

@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

canefan

@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

Dodge

@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

canefan

I don't think having the TMO jabbering constantly in the ear of the ref while he runs his rule over every minor incident that occurs during play is having a positive contribution to player safety. It just makes for confusion and a shitty product for the fans. WR have to work out exactly what they are trying to achieve because they don't appear to have a clear idea right now

Dodge

the TMO thing I see as a slightly separate subject. As I said on Saturday, in general i'm in favour of better decisions made badly over bad decisions made live but the balance does feel off. I don't like seeing a TMO bringing stuff back for a knock on in the middle of the park, I do agree it should be used for foul play but at the moment some of that stuff is too minor to be being interfered with

antipodean

@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

Precisely. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Their implementation of this is an utter disaster. It's ineffective, arbitrary and ruining the sport as a result.

If you want to change player behaviour, punish the player so they're incentivised to tackle within the laws

canefan

@antipodean said in Red Cards & HIA:

@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

Precisely. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Their implementation of this is an utter disaster. It's ineffective, arbitrary and ruining the sport as a result.

If you want to change player behaviour, punish the player so they're incentivised to tackle within the laws

And don't weaken. I hate it when the judiciary makes a decision and then backtracks on appeal

The Silver Fern

Red Cards & HIA