PDA

View Full Version : Analyse this tackle



The Fat
24-05-15, 01:05
The two Waratahs players involved in this tackle have been cited. During the match the No.2 got a YC as he was deemed to be the player who initiated the lift.
Cannot see what effect the tackle had on the red player (Sam Whitelock), although that is not relevant to what the on-field decision should be. Initially Whitelock is motionless immediately after the tackle which would suggest a head injury however, he didn't leave the field for a concussion test.

Interested to hear peoples thoughts/decision/reasoning e.g.
YC for #2,
YC for #2 & #4,
RC for #2,
RC for #2 & #4,
PK only

Watch from 16:50 on Game Clock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ECV8m-fGXk

Ian_Cook
24-05-15, 04:05
I don''t care what the TMO said, BOTH blue players helped to lift Red 4 and both players turned him upside down, then

a. Blue 2 drove him to ground
b. Blue 4 threw him to ground

Lift
Tip
Drive/Drop

In my book, that is two RC (and I'm happy to see the Citing Commissioner agrees)

I don't understand how the TMO could conclude that Blue 4 wasn't lifting; he grabbed Red 4 around the chest, lifted him off the ground, and hip-tossed him head first.

Its been 4 years since Alain Rolland RC Sam Warburton for a tip-tackle in the RWC semi; the players are still doing it, and elite referees still do not appear to have the balls to RC players for it.

Jarrod Burton
24-05-15, 07:05
I felt #4 had more of an effect on the final slam result than #2 so should have been carded for mine. Not sure if #2 would have dumped if it wasn't for Skelton's intervention. Maybe a yellow for #2 but I couldn't accept a red given previous rulings. Red for #4.

It brings up a interesting question - while a player who lifts another has the responsibility to safely bring the lifted player to ground, if another player decides to come in and grab/throw a player onto the ground, should both be sanctioned to the same level? Can you really stand up and punish someone for a lifting tackle which may have ended up being safely placed back down on the ground except for the intervention of a third player? If the player is on the same team as the lifter? What if they are on the lifted player's team and their interference causes a spear/dump and a career or season ending injury?

Why wasn't Whitelock taken off for a head check given that he stayed down for a long time - possibly because his head never really impacted the ground, most shock through the shoulder, which can cause concussion, but the initial contact of the head with the ground doesn't look that heavy.

The Fat
24-05-15, 08:05
I felt #4 had more of an effect on the final slam result than #2 so should have been carded for mine. Not sure if #2 would have dumped if it wasn't for Skelton's intervention. Maybe a yellow for #2 but I couldn't accept a red given previous rulings. Red for #4.

It brings up a interesting question - while a player who lifts another has the responsibility to safely bring the lifted player to ground, if another player decides to come in and grab/throw a player onto the ground, should both be sanctioned to the same level? Can you really stand up and punish someone for a lifting tackle which may have ended up being safely placed back down on the ground except for the intervention of a third player? If the player is on the same team as the lifter? What if they are on the lifted player's team and their interference causes a spear/dump and a career or season ending injury?

Why wasn't Whitelock taken off for a head check given that he stayed down for a long time - possibly because his head never really impacted the ground, most shock through the shoulder, which can cause concussion, but the initial contact of the head with the ground doesn't look that heavy.

A couple of points to remember.
In the case of Sharks player Francois Steyn, there were several Sharks players involved in the tackle. The TMO in that match tried to convince referee Angus Gardiner that it was the involvement of the other players in the tackle that contributed to the outcome and that a lesser sanction (I think he suggested maybe a YC???) would be appropriate. Steyn was eventually rubbed out for 5 weeks as he was the player deemed to have initiated the lift. I would expect that the Waratahs will use this argument to attempt to save Skelton.

However, as yet, no-one has mentioned that the referee had blown his whistle before the two players went on with the tackle.

I thought Skelton was lucky not to get a YC for his hit on McCaw but I suspect that incident, having been dealt with during the game can't be used against him in relation to this citing.

I'm concerned about Whitelock post tackle. I will probably cop a shellacking for saying this, but no matter how many times I watch the replay, I cannot see heavy contact with his head with the ground that would seem to render him unconscious. He lays motionless after the tackle which would suggest, 99% of the time, an unconscious player. I am still wondering why there was no concussion test.

Pegleg
24-05-15, 08:05
Two red cards.

Baylion
24-05-15, 09:05
Both players have been cited for lifting tackle

(So too Robbie Coetzee for lifting tackle in the Lions Cheetahs game)

talbazar
24-05-15, 10:05
To make things worse and if I hear well, it happens after the ref blowed to stop game for touch!
2 RC for me.

Browner
24-05-15, 10:05
Why wasn't Whitelock taken off for a head check given that he stayed down for a long time - possibly because his head never really impacted the ground, most shock through the shoulder, which can cause concussion, but the initial contact of the head with the ground doesn't look that heavy.

It is possible that he wasn't injured or hurt at all.

I only mention this because ( unless I'm misjudging my viewings) there seems to be a increasing correlation between
a) the longer you stay down and get treatment
b) the general fuss your teammates make in posturing that a crime has been committed
For the colour of the cards that follow .....

Its common knowledge 'points advantage' will result from a player numbers mismatch (aka power play) , all commentators and analysts point to such stats ..... Am I suggesting that pro players across the world have stepped onto the murky path of sham injury pretence and orchestration of handbags to gain carding of their opponents ( both encouraged by coaches) ?? ........ Yep, I am, least that's what I see in some cases. (If you recall soccer had a problem with injury feigning that was largely removed by insisting the player was removed from the FoP whilst the game then continued)

I have my doubts Whitelock was hurt, I'm guessing you do too, and unless I'm reading Fats original post incorrectly (?) he doubts it also, but only big Sam knows !

My stance against if you Lift, then don't drop or drive is well known.

ddjamo
24-05-15, 11:05
2 reds.

was there a flash point that led up to the incident above? makes no sense for professional athletes to act that way.

The Fat
24-05-15, 11:05
For the record, I believe they will both get rubbed out for 1 or 2 weeks.

Pegleg
24-05-15, 11:05
It is possible that he wasn't injured or hurt at all.

I only mention this because ( unless I'm misjudging my viewings) there seems to be a increasing correlation between
a) the longer you stay down and get treatment
b) the general fuss your teammates make in posturing that a crime has been committed
For the colour of the cards that follow .....

Its common knowledge 'points advantage' will result from a player numbers mismatch (aka power play) , all commentators and analysts point to such stats ..... Am I suggesting that pro players across the world have stepped onto the murky path of sham injury pretence and orchestration of handbags to gain carding of their opponents ( both encouraged by coaches) ?? ........ Yep, I am, least that's what I see in some cases. (If you recall soccer had a problem with injury feigning that was largely removed by insisting the player was removed from the FoP whilst the game then continued)

I have my doubts Whitelock was hurt, I'm guessing you do too, and unless I'm reading Fats original post incorrectly (?) he doubts it also, but only big Sam knows !

My stance against if you Lift, then don't drop or drive is well known.


Accusing players of cheating? Hmmmmm. Of course it is possible. Interesting you feel able to accuse professional players of cheating yet you accuse me (falsly) of accusing a ref of cheating. Double standards abound.

The stat quoted on points during a YC period is 7 points. Since many include 3 points for the PK that would have been scored whether or not a card had beein issued, that stat is meaningless the "extras" are really an average or around 4 to 4.5 points.

Ian_Cook
24-05-15, 13:05
I'm concerned about Whitelock post tackle. I will probably cop a shellacking for saying this, but no matter how many times I watch the replay, I cannot see heavy contact with his head with the ground that would seem to render him unconscious. He lays motionless after the tackle which would suggest, 99% of the time, an unconscious player. I am still wondering why there was no concussion test.


It is possible that he wasn't injured or hurt at all.

I only mention this because ( unless I'm misjudging my viewings) there seems to be a increasing correlation between
a) the longer you stay down and get treatment
b) the general fuss your teammates make in posturing that a crime has been committed
For the colour of the cards that follow .....

Its common knowledge 'points advantage' will result from a player numbers mismatch (aka power play) , all commentators and analysts point to such stats ..... Am I suggesting that pro players across the world have stepped onto the murky path of sham injury pretence and orchestration of handbags to gain carding of their opponents ( both encouraged by coaches) ?? ........ Yep, I am, least that's what I see in some cases. (If you recall soccer had a problem with injury feigning that was largely removed by insisting the player was removed from the FoP whilst the game then continued)

I have my doubts Whitelock was hurt, I'm guessing you do too, and unless I'm reading Fats original post incorrectly (?) he doubts it also, but only big Sam knows !


What makes either of you think that a head knock is the only reason someone might stay down when they have fallen from a height?

I came off a horse a few months back when I was jumping in the cross-country phase of a one-day event. I had a helmet and a body protector on and didn't hit my head at all. Nonetheless, the fall knocked me around a bit, I was winded and I stayed down for about two and a half minutes (as timed by the fence judge). Whitelock was up and about in less time than that. Someone brought me my horse and I completed the course.

I think its is premature to accuse the guy of gamesmanship unless you have proof. Do either of you have some proof?

Pegleg
24-05-15, 15:05
What makes either of you think that a head knock is the only reason someone might stay down when they have fallen from a height?

I came off a horse a few months back when I was jumping in the cross-country phase of a one-day event. I had a helmet and a body protector on and didn't hit my head at all. Nonetheless, the fall knocked me around a bit, I was winded and I stayed down for about two and a half minutes (as timed by the fence judge). Whitelock was up and about in less time than that. Someone brought me my horse and I completed the course.

I think its is premature to accuse the guy of gamesmanship unless you have proof. Do either of you have some proof?


Well said.

RobLev
24-05-15, 18:05
For me - 2RC.


I felt #4 had more of an effect on the final slam result than #2 so should have been carded for mine. Not sure if #2 would have dumped if it wasn't for Skelton's intervention. Maybe a yellow for #2 but I couldn't accept a red given previous rulings. Red for #4.

It brings up a interesting question - while a player who lifts another has the responsibility to safely bring the lifted player to ground, if another player decides to come in and grab/throw a player onto the ground, should both be sanctioned to the same level? Can you really stand up and punish someone for a lifting tackle which may have ended up being safely placed back down on the ground except for the intervention of a third player? If the player is on the same team as the lifter? What if they are on the lifted player's team and their interference causes a spear/dump and a career or season ending injury?

Why wasn't Whitelock taken off for a head check given that he stayed down for a long time - possibly because his head never really impacted the ground, most shock through the shoulder, which can cause concussion, but the initial contact of the head with the ground doesn't look that heavy.

The answer to the emphasised questions above - absolutely. If you don't want the reponsibility of bringing a player to ground safely despite possible outside interference, don't pick him up. Any interferers can be dealt with for their part in events, but if you pick him up, you remain responsible for putting him down safely.

The Fat
24-05-15, 19:05
For me - 2RC.



The answer to the emphasised questions above - absolutely. If you don't want the reponsibility of bringing a player to ground safely despite possible outside interference, don't pick him up. Any interferers can be dealt with for their part in events, but if you pick him up, you remain responsible for putting him down safely.

Whilst my personal opinion is that I agree with your statement, is that your opinion or are you stating how the tackles are actually being dealt with by elite level rugby judiciaries?

Again I raise the case of Francois Steyn's tackle in the game in March against the Chiefs. The TMO tried to say that the other players involved in the tackle contributed to the end result, in this case that was a high end tip tackle that earned Steyn 5 weeks on the side line. Whilst the TMO was partly correct in what he was communicating to Angus Gardiner, his insistence that Steyn only deserved a YC??? was way off the mark. Gardiner was 100% correct to ignore the TMO's recommendation and RC Steyn anyway.
No doubt when Steyn's case went to the Judiciary, the video and TMO's communication was used in his defence and he got off (presumably because of the involvement of other players in the tackle). A subsequent appeal by SANZAR saw Steyn back at the Judiciary and he was then rubbed out for 5 weeks, i.e. he was deemed to be the lifter who then went on with the tackle. Good decision but what about the other Sharks players who were originally said to have contributed to the end result of the tackle? Were they just forgotten or, by this stage, was it too late to cite them?

Now back to the OP. I suspect that the Waratahs defence will be that Skelton (#4) threw Whitelock to the ground and should not be banned and if a precedent is required, refer to the Steyn tackle hearing. They Waratahs may accept that their #2 did lift Whitelock below the hips and take him past the horizontal and argue that the entry point should be low end and therefore accept that they will lose the hooker for a week or two.

That will be their argument and, based on the Steyn case, will have some merit.
Do I believe Skelton will get off? Probably not. As I said in an earlier post, I think they will both get 1 or 2 weeks.

The Fat
24-05-15, 20:05
What makes either of you think that a head knock is the only reason someone might stay down when they have fallen from a height?

I think its is premature to accuse the guy of gamesmanship unless you have proof. Do either of you have some proof?

First of all, as I have said in other posts, I think both #2 & #4 blue will get 1 or 2 weeks for the tackle. I have also raised the point that the tackle occurred after the referee blew his whistle.

Now, looking at the video of the tackle, #2 managed to get one of Whitelock's legs off the ground before Skelton's action forced Whitelock to the horizontal. At this point Whitelock's left foot is still on the ground and he puts his left hand on the ground (obviously knowing he is heading for earth). Whitelock's left leg leaves the ground as his now horizontal torso is at the grasping height of the short arse #2 and now, by a combination of basic physics and Skelton's throwing action, Whitelock's torso angle is approximately 20 degrees past the horizontal.
We know that a tackled player placing a hand or arm on the ground to break his fall makes no difference to the outcome of the decision by the referee for a tip/lifting tackle.
Whitelock then lands on his side, not on his neck, head or shoulders. The judiciary will probably determine that it was only Whitelock's action of getting a hand on the ground that prevented him from landing on his shoulder and therefore will probably say that a RC should have been issued.
Despite Whitelock being manhandled to the ground by the giant from Jack and the Beanstalk, his impact with the ground seems to be no harder than any normal tackle and there appears to be no significant heavy head contact with the ground. I don't discount that he couldn't have sustained a head knock capable of causing a suspected concussion. Following a number of concussions during my playing days, I received what seemed like a fairy tap to the chin in a game of basketball and twenty minutes later was off to the hospital for the night.
What I am saying, is that Whitelock is completely motionless on the ground post tackle even with several players jostling right over him. The physio gets to him and he is still motionless. There is no "I'm winded" or "I've injured a shoulder or rib" reaction/movement. He looks like he's been shot. At some point during the many reviews of the tackle and TMO discussions, which do take a couple of minutes, Whitelock rejoins his team mates and the next time we see him he is moving into position for Carter to take the PK following #2's dismissal.

Now my original question was, if a player has been up-ended in a tip tackle, and now looks like he has been shot and is completely motionless on the ground, it is fair to assume he may have a head or neck injury. Why wasn't Whitelock sent from the field for a concussion test? I believe that all I have have written above is fair and reasonable.

What I would like to know however, is if Whitelock was not dazed or unconscious and showed no other obvious signs of injury, was he simply making sure the match officials had something else to think about when making their on-field decision?

If people think I may be hinting there is the possibility that Whitelock was "milking it" a bit then yes, from looking at the video footage, I'd say that possibility exists. Can I prove that is the case? Of-course not, only one person knows the answer to that question.

This is the last vision we get of Whitelock on the ground and 15 seconds after he hits the ground, he still has not moved.
Again, why wasn't this player at least checked by the match officials to see if a concussion test was required?
3225

Ian_Cook
24-05-15, 20:05
Again I raise the case of Francois Steyn's tackle in the game in March against the Chiefs. The TMO tried to say that the other players involved in the tackle contributed to the end result, in this case that was a high end tip tackle that earned Steyn 5 weeks on the side line. Whilst the TMO was partly correct in what he was communicating to Angus Gardiner, his insistence that Steyn only deserved a YC??? was way off the mark. Gardiner was 100% correct to ignore the TMO's recommendation and RC Steyn anyway.
No doubt when Steyn's case went to the Judiciary, the video and TMO's communication was used in his defence and he got off (presumably because of the involvement of other players in the tackle). A subsequent appeal by SANZAR saw Steyn back at the Judiciary and he was then rubbed out for 5 weeks, i.e. he was deemed to be the lifter who then went on with the tackle. Good decision but what about the other Sharks players who were originally said to have contributed to the end result of the tackle? Were they just forgotten or, by this stage, was it too late to cite them?.

In the Steyn case the TMO was wrong about the influence of the other players, the referee was right and went through with the RC. The Judiciary overturned the referee and agreed with the TMO. The appeal hearing overturned that and agreed with the referee that Steyn was solely responsible for the tip tackle.

In this case however, is it clear and obvious to me that both players lifted Whitelock off the ground, both players had a hand in turning him upside-down, then Blue 2 drive him to ground, while Blue 4 threw him to ground.

I can't see any other correct outcome than two red cards, which the citing officer obviously agrees with. Hopefully the SANZAR judiciary is not going to drop the ball here and require WR to pick it up for them again. The aggravating factor here is that they did this clearly after the whistle. No excuses - these two should be sidelined for 4 weeks.

PS: Whether or not Whitelock was injured is irrelevant to the situation.

The Fat
24-05-15, 20:05
In the Steyn case the TMO was wrong about the influence of the other players, the referee was right and went through with the RC. The Judiciary overturned the referee and agreed with the TMO. The appeal hearing overturned that and agreed with the referee that Steyn was solely responsible for the tip tackle.

In this case however, is it clear and obvious to me that both players lifted Whitelock off the ground, both players had a hand in turning him upside-down, then Blue 2 drive him to ground, while Blue 4 threw him to ground.

I can't see any other correct outcome than two red cards, which the citing officer obviously agrees with. Hopefully the SANZAR judiciary is not going to drop the ball here and require WR to pick it up for them again. The aggravating factor here is that they did this clearly after the whistle. No excuses - these two should be sidelined for 4 weeks.

PS: Whether or not Whitelock was injured is irrelevant to the situation.

I agree with everything you say here including your last sentence. However, part of my previous post was in answer to your question directed to me in post #12, "I think its is premature to accuse the guy of gamesmanship unless you have proof. Do either of you have some proof?"

I will be surprised if they get 4 weeks. Still thinking the judiciary will give 2 max.
Will know soon enough.

Crucial
24-05-15, 21:05
In the thread about the Steyn incident the excellent point was made that we should look at the tackler's elbow pointing skyward. If you are grasping a player low and lifting with your elbow up you will only achieve one outcome, and that is to rotate the player around their centre of gravity.

Therefore IMO #2 gets RC and faces ban.

As for #4, his actions come under 'dangerous play'. The hip throw, body slam was his obvious intention (despite his coach feebly arguing he was trying to hold Whitelock up to create a maul). Whether a body slam meets RC threshold I don't know.

My suspicion is that #2 will get a couple of weeks after some pathethic 'mitigating factors' reduction and #4 will get a post match YC.

Ian_Cook
24-05-15, 21:05
I agree with everything you say here including your last sentence. However, part of my previous post was in answer to your question directed to me in post #12, "I think its is premature to accuse the guy of gamesmanship unless you have proof. Do either of you have some proof?"

I will be surprised if they get 4 weeks. Still thinking the judiciary will give 2 max.
Will know soon enough.


Fat. When I crashed off my horse, I didn't hit my head but I stayed down because I felt like crap. I was flat on my back for at least 30 seconds, not moving. but feeling somewhat shocked. I did not have concussion (in NZ Equestrian events it is compulsory for ALL competitors who fall to visit the Ambulance, even if they continue after falling, for a set of protocols that include a concussion test).

I'm just saying that a head knock is not the only reason why a player might stay down. I cannot imagine Dr. Deb Robinson, the Crusaders' team doctor, ignoring the concussion protocols given that the franchise is so red hot on compliance, with a clear record of keeping players who have had concussion(e.g. Richie McCaw, Kieran Read) from playing well beyond their medical; return date.

PS: are your doctors using these on the sideline yet in Australia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdB-JLI9FpQ

Crucial
24-05-15, 23:05
The GIF on this page is an interesting angle. (can't embed it as the forum says it is too large)

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/waratahs/nsw-waratahs-face-search-for-hooker-after-tolu-latu-will-skelton-cited-over-lifting-tackle-20150523-gh89x6.html

Nothing was ever discussed further about the punch #2 threw either.

Pretty sure that even the Tahs coaches know #2 is in for a spell on the sidelines. They immediately starting calling around for replacement hookers apparently.

Done it for you

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/lwd1f.gif

Browner
25-05-15, 02:05
I agree The Fat, of course he wasn't concussed - its virtually impossible to get concussed when your elbow/forearm takes the brunt/cushions your fall. However it is possible that concussion occurred when his hips hit the floor ! Nah you're right, i dont believe that either, is SW really so brittle?!?.

having watched it in slow mo then i dont see anything that could render a battle toughened international player into floppy arm mode so damn quickly, so I'm sticking with my 'milking - hoping to get an opponent RCarded' assessment. I'm sure I saw SW wink at his physio :wink: lol.

(Removed personal insult)

Pps. Anyone who doesn't think 'milking for YC/RC reward' (or learning to fall with maximum dramatic effect) is being embraced by coaches with win at all costs pro mentality , is IMO being slightly naieve.

Good OP,
Thanks.

Ian_Cook
25-05-15, 03:05
The GIF on this page is an interesting angle. (can't embed it as the forum says it is too large)

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/waratahs/nsw-waratahs-face-search-for-hooker-after-tolu-latu-will-skelton-cited-over-lifting-tackle-20150523-gh89x6.html

Nothing was ever discussed further about the punch #2 threw either.

Pretty sure that even the Tahs coaches know #2 is in for a spell on the sidelines. They immediately starting calling around for replacement hookers apparently.

There seems to me to be no doubt that the only reason Whitelock didn't land on this head/neck is because he put his left arm down to protect himself.

Browner
25-05-15, 10:05
I agree The Fat, of course he wasn't concussed - its virtually impossible to get concussed when your elbow/forearm takes the brunt/cushions your fall. However it is possible that concussion occurred when his hips hit the floor ! Nah you're right, i dont believe that either, is SW really so brittle?!?


This was replied to me in post #12

. I came off a horse a few months back when I was jumping in the cross-country phase of a one-day event. I had a helmet and a body protector on and didn't hit my head at all. Nonetheless, the fall knocked me around a bit, I was winded and I stayed down for about two and a half minutes (as timed by the fence judge).
The Fats answered it well enough, but id add that SWs landing wasnt akin to falling off a cross country competing horse !:horse: The speeds/ height/abrupt halt of that sport make this landing wholly minor by any comparisons to a horse riding fall. If id posted the comparison-id expect people to suggest im still be suffering delayed post fall concussion :shrug:


Having watched it in slow mo then i dont see anything that could render a battle toughened international player into floppy arm mode so damn quickly, so I'm sticking with my 'milking - hoping to get an opponent RCarded' assessment. I'm sure I saw SW wink at his physio :wink: lol.

Pps. Anyone who doesn't think 'milking for YC/RC reward' (or learning to fall with maximum dramatic effect) is being embraced by coaches with win at all costs pro mentality , is IMO being slightly naieve.

Good OP,
Thanks.

The YC for the lifter was correct IMO.
Skelton could easily have got a YC also, but he should have least been warned for such 'after the whistle cheapshot'. Looked like new kid v past master 'posturing/bravado'.

Phil E
25-05-15, 10:05
Two :rc:

.......and you don't need to impact your head to get a concussion.

Ian_Cook
25-05-15, 11:05
Two :rc:

.......and you don't need to impact your head to get a concussion.

Yes indeed those who claim that "its virtually impossible to get concussed when your elbow/forearm takes the brunt/cushions your fall" are just plain wrong. No direct blow to the head is required for a concussion to result. One of the things I learned on the Sport Tasman Injury Prevention Workshop I attended last year was that while a concussion may result from a direct blow to the head, face or neck, it may also occur from a blow elsewhere on the body where the force of the blow is transmitted to the head. There is simply no way to know for certain whether a particular blow will lead to a concussion.

Even more important, is that rotational forces rather than linear forces, are more likely to cause concussion (for the same amount of force delivered) and those concussions are often more severe. For example, the whiplash that can be caused by a tackle of a stationary player from behind is likely to cause not only hyper-extension of the neck, but is likely to lead to the type of concussion that is not always obvious at the time - delayed concussion, or post concussion syndrome. Its insidious because the neck pain caused by the whiplash tends to mask the immediate physical symptoms of concussion.

The Fat
25-05-15, 11:05
Waratahs hooker Latu gets 4 weeks off as he was deemed to be the main culprit. Low end entry of 4 weeks reduced by 2 (mitigating factors) but then 2 weeks added as a deterrent. If Waratahs make the finals he will miss the 1st week.

Waratahs #4 Skelton gets 2 weeks. Low end entry of 4 weeks reduced by 2 (mitigating factors).

Waratahs legal team have indicated they intend to appeal the decision.

Mentioned as evidence is a medical report for Sam Whitelock but no detail so medical report could range from "The player suffered no injury or ill effects", to "We have organised a wake in case he doesn't pull through", so we still don't know what is contained within the report and if it had any bearing on the extra 2 weeks handed to Latu.

Ian_Cook
25-05-15, 11:05
Waratahs hooker Latu gets 4 weeks off as he was deemed to be the main culprit. Low end entry of 4 weeks reduced by 2 (mitigating factors) but then 2 weeks added as a deterrent. If Waratahs make the finals he will miss the 1st week.

Waratahs #4 Skelton gets 2 weeks. Low end entry of 4 weeks reduced by 2 (mitigating factors).

Waratahs legal team have indicated they intend to appeal the decision.

Mentioned as evidence is a medical report for Sam Whitelock but no detail so medical report could range from "The player suffered no injury or ill effects", to "We have organised a wake in case he doesn't pull through", so we still don't know what is contained within the report and if it had any bearing on the extra 2 weeks handed to Latu.

Well Whitelock has been ruled out of the next match against the Hurricanes in Nelson with concussion sustained in this tip tackle, so I guess we now know what it contained.

I await retractions from certain posters who accused him of cheating and play-acting and trying to get a RC given to his opponent.

I won't be holding my breath.

The Fat
25-05-15, 11:05
Whitelock has been ruled out of the next match against the Hurricanes in Nelson with concussion sustained in this tip tackle.

I await retractions from certain posters who accused him of cheating and play-acting and trying to get a RC given to his opponent. I won't be holding my breath.

My question all along has been, when a tackled player is motionless following a tackle (for at least 15 seconds that we know of in this case), why was he not ordered from the field for a concussion test? He appeared to be unconscious as players jostled above him. I make no apology for or retraction of anything I have posted regarding Whitelock, the match officials or attending physio in relation to his possible injury and your information now that he has suffered a concussion would seem to back my stance Ian.

Ian_Cook
25-05-15, 11:05
My question all along has been, when a tackled player is motionless following a tackle (for at least 15 seconds that we know of in this case), why was he not ordered from the field for a concussion test? He appeared to be unconscious as players jostled above him. I make no apology for or retraction of anything I have posted regarding Whitelock, the match officials or attending physio in relation to his possible injury and your information now that he has suffered a concussion would seem to back my stance Ian.


1. I suggest you read my post earlier (#26) about rotational concussion and post concussion syndrome. A person may display NO symptoms of concussion at the time, only to get them later. A player lying still on the ground does not necessarily mean he is unconscious.

2. I wasn't referring to you Fat. I understood perfectly where you were coming from.

Ian_Cook
25-05-15, 12:05
Fat I would just like to add this

The Crusaders have a long and proven track record of taking concussion seriously, going all the way back to McCaw's serious concussion issues in 2004, 2005 and 2008; well before any other teams or unions were taking it seriously. They have routinely kept players off the park well past the time when doctors cleared them as fit to play. I don't believe for one moment that any of the Crusaders medical staff would have ignored it if Whitelock had been unconscious or had exhibited any symptoms of concussion. Dr. Deb Robinson would have had their guts for garters if they had.


We are also using a new technology that gives the Doctors their own replay system to look at what happened, and order the removal of players who are suspect to be concussed. Are your teams using these yet in Australia?

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?16511-Concussion-tests&p=298790&viewfull=1#post298790

The Fat
25-05-15, 12:05
1. I suggest you read my post earlier (#26) about rotational concussion and post concussion syndrome. A person may display NO symptoms of concussion at the time, only to get them later. A player lying still on the ground does not necessarily mean he is unconscious.

2. I wasn't referring to you Fat. I understood perfectly where you were coming from.

But going back to your point #1 above Ian, regardless of whether we have a situation where a rotational concussion occurs and/or post concussion syndrome is the result, even if a player displayed NO symptoms of concussion at the time, how many referees here would allow a player who was motionless for some time following a tackle to continue and if at the elite level where a concussion test is available, shouldn't the player be ordered off for the test? What the on-field physio says shouldn't come into it. If there is a possibility that the player may have lost consciousness (and yes, I do accept your argument that another injury could cause a player to remain dead still), the head bin MUST be used. Don't you agree?

Browner
25-05-15, 12:05
Reuters says this
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKL3N0YE08M20150523?irpc=932

"The recriminations for the Crusaders, who are laden with All Blacks, however, have just started in rugby-mad New Zealand with the team management likely to come under scrutiny from their passionate fans"


The Fat,
Maybe SW fancies/ needs a week off? Maybe it was part of a player rotation plan that can now be enacted with nothing to play for ?? Could this conveniently deflect attention re: demise of this laden side ??? Maybe he got immediate concussion, then recovered enough with treatment to play on - then reverted to post match concussion ???? Did anything else happen afterwards in the game that compounded a cumulative effect to his earlier minor landing????? Could there be other factors?????? Will there be an independant medical report available to see ???????

If that landing is solely responsible, then SW should likely be concussed every time he hits a ruck/maul/opponent or receives similar as I suspect the GPS data would say it was far less than often occurs.

Likely well never really know, and thus bar room debate must conclude.

Ian_Cook
25-05-15, 12:05
But going back to your point #1 above Ian, regardless of whether we have a situation where a rotational concussion occurs and/or post concussion syndrome is the result, even if a player displayed NO symptoms of concussion at the time, how many referees here would allow a player who was motionless for some time following a tackle to continue and if at the elite level where a concussion test is available, shouldn't the player be ordered off for the test? What the on-field physio says shouldn't come into it. If there is a possibility that the player may have lost consciousness (and yes, I do accept your argument that another injury could cause a player to remain dead still), the head bin MUST be used. Don't you agree?

I agree at grass roots perhaps, but its not his job at elite level is it? Surely that is what the Medics, team doctors and the match doctor is there to do.

Besides, did the referee see him lying still? I thought he looked like he was preoccupied trying to prevent some full-on biff, after which he was consulting with his AR and the TMO about the tackle. I don't recall seeing him even looking in Whitelock's direction, much less going over to him to see how he was, and I don't think the AR did either.

PS: You do have Official Match Doctors at professional matches in Australia?

The Fat
25-05-15, 12:05
Fat I would just like to add this

The Crusaders have a long and proven track record of taking concussion seriously, going all the way back to McCaw's serious concussion issues in 2004, 2005 and 2008; well before any other teams or unions were taking it seriously. They have routinely kept players off the park well past the time when doctors cleared them as fit to play. I don't believe for one moment that any of the Crusaders medical staff would have ignored it if Whitelock had been unconscious or had exhibited any symptoms of concussion. Dr. Deb Robinson would have had their guts for garters if they had.


We are also using a new technology that gives the Doctors their own replay system to look at what happened, and order the removal of players who are suspect to be concussed. Are your teams using these yet in Australia?

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?16511-Concussion-tests&p=298790&viewfull=1#post298790

Maybe Dickie E would know if we are using the replay technology for medical officers at elite matches.

I'm not questioning what systems the Crusaders have in place however, if anyone can look at Whitelock when he hits the deck and say that he doesn't look like it's lights out, I'd be very surprised. The Crusaders' physio should then not have to make a decision that would result in Dr Robinson getting a new set of garters. The TMO or AR or Referee should have seen that Whitelock should have gone for a test.

Pegleg
25-05-15, 12:05
A player could lie still for any number of reasons. A, susspected, broken bone or concussion or spinal injury etc. Or just to keep out of the way of the boots etc stepping around him. Of course people with agendas can invent all sorts of reasons as to why the player who was illegally dumped is "cheating".

Any simple concussion training will show that impact is not required for there to be a concussion. It's a basic fact.

Ian_Cook
25-05-15, 13:05
A player could lie still for any number of reasons. A, susspected, broken bone or concussion or spinal injury etc. Or just to keep out of the way of the boots etc stepping around him. Of course people with agendas can invent all sorts of reasons as to why the player who was illegally dumped is "cheating".

Any simple concussion training will show that impact is not required for there to be a concussion. It's a basic fact.

And they have, right here, for all to see!

Dickie E
25-05-15, 13:05
[QUOTE=The Fat;298871]Maybe Dickie E would know if we are using the replay technology for medical officers at elite matches.

QUOTE]

No idea I'm afraid.

Crucial
25-05-15, 21:05
The release


SANZAR NEWS RELEASE


A SANZAR Judicial Hearing has found Silatolu Latu of the Waratahs guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (j) Lifting Tackle, after he was cited following a Super Rugby match at the weekend. Latu has been suspended for four weeks up to and including Saturday 20 June 2015.


The incident occurred in the 17th minute of the Super Rugby match between the Waratahs and Crusaders at ANZ Stadium in Sydney on 23 May 2015.


The SANZAR Judicial Hearing was heard by Robert Stelzner SC via video conference at 3:30pm AEST, 5:30pm NZST, 7:30am SAST on 25 May 2015. Mike Mika was the former professional player who attended as a Judicial Technical Adviser.


In his finding, Stelzner ruled the following:


"As the Judicial Officer, I considered all the evidence before me including the video footage, additional video provided by the Waratahs, Citing Commissioner's report, medical information for the Crusaders' player, Sam Whitelock, who was involved in the incident and the submissions made for the player by his legal representatives, Anthony Black SC and Bruce Hodgkinson.


"After taking all relevant facts into consideration, I found the incident to have a lower end entry point for breaching of 10.4 (j) Lifting Tackle which stipulates a four-week suspension.

"Mitigating factors included the fact that the player admitted his contravention of the law, his youthfulness and clean disciplinary record and the character references supplied on his behalf.

“This resulted in the aforesaid period of four weeks being reduced by two weeks. A deterrent of two weeks was however added for this type of offending as it is an action that has sought to be eliminated from the game.


“Latu played a more dominant role in the tackle when compared to the actions of his teammate, Will Skelton, who received a suspension of two weeks.


"The player’s playing schedule is such that there is a significant chance of the Waratahs being involved in the Super Rugby Qualifier and/or Semi-Finals. A four-week suspension will in all probability result in his missing the next four matches of the competition. This is a meaningful sanction.


"The player is accordingly found to have contravened Law 10.4 (j) and is suspended up to and including Saturday 20 June 2015."

Crucial
25-05-15, 21:05
and this one as well


Hearing Details: 25 May 2015 @ 3:30pm AEST, 5:30pm NZST and 7:30am SAST via videoconference
Judicial Hearing Chairman: Robert Stelzner SC
Player: Will Skelton
Team: Waratahs
Position: Lock
Date of Incident: 23 May 2015
Nature of Offence: Law 10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Elapsed time in match when incident occurred: 17th minute


SANZAR NEWS RELEASE


A SANZAR Judicial Hearing has found Will Skelton of the Waratahs guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (j) Lifting Tackle, after he was cited following a Super Rugby match at the weekend. Skelton has been suspended for two weeks up to and including Saturday 6 June 2015.


The incident occurred in the 17th minute of the Super Rugby match between the Waratahs and Crusaders at ANZ Stadium in Sydney on 23 May 2015.


The SANZAR Judicial Hearing was held by Robert Stelzner SC via video conference at 3:30pm AEST, 5:30pm NZST, 7:30am SAST on 25 May 2015. Mike Mika was the former professional player who attended as a Judicial Technical Adviser.


In his finding, Stelzner ruled the following:


"As the Judicial Officer, I considered all evidence before me including the video footage, additional video provided by the Waratahs, Citing Commissioner's report, medical information for the Crusaders' player, Sam Whitelock, who was involved in the incident and the submissions made for the player by his legal representatives, Anthony Black SC and Bruce Hodgkinson.

"After taking all relevant facts into consideration, I found the incident to have a lower end entry point for breaching of 10.4 (j) Lifting Tackle which stipulates a four-week suspension.

"Mitigating factors which were taken into account included the player’s clean record, his relative youthfulness and the good character references supplied on his behalf. This resulted in the sanction being reduced by two weeks.


"Two offending players, Skelton and Silatolu Latu, were involved in the incident. Latu played a more active role in the lifting and twisting of their opponent, Sam Whitelock, contributing more significantly to the end result than Skelton. Skelton nevertheless also lifted and twisted Whitelock in the tackle, which is why he too was found to have breached the applicable Law.


"Given the lesser extent of his involvement however, the sanction in the case of Skelton did not in my view warrant an increase from the entry level sanction to serve as a deterrent. He was unaware of the actions of his fellow player, Silatolu Latu, and although he dropped his opponent after he had lifted and turned him, it appeared that Latu was the player who had continued with the tip tackle causing their opponent to land in the manner in which he ultimately did.


"The player was found to have contravened Law 10.4 (j) and is suspended up to and including Saturday 6 June 2015."

Shane D
28-05-15, 09:05
Quick point that I don't think has been made about Whitelock staying down & being immobile. It took about 3 seconds for the team medico to get to Whitelock. Now I am not sure how many of you have completed emergency medical training but i can guarantee the medico would have been telling Whitelock not to move . They would have had no idea if an injury had occured & would have been taking normal neck / spine/ head injury precautions. He would have been advised not to move while resulting scuffle took place around him & also until an assessment of his condition had been completed.

Baylion
28-05-15, 14:05
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/602028002923270144/alXiwCF6_normal.jpgAlistair Hogg @AlistairSANZAR (https://twitter.com/AlistairSANZAR) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/AlistairSANZAR/status/603918570733510657)

Both appeals brought by the Waratahs were unanimously dismissed. The initially-imposed sanctions stand: Latu (4), Skelton (2) #SuperRugby (https://twitter.com/hashtag/SuperRugby?src=hash)

Browner
28-05-15, 15:05
Shame we cant heard the conversations.

Re: skelton ...
Youthfullness as a mitigation .....:wtf: doesn't he have 8 international caps ????? :nono:

Browner
25-06-15, 18:06
There seems to me to be no doubt that the only reason Whitelock didn't land on this head/neck is because he put his left arm down to protect himself.

&


In the thread about the Steyn incident the excellent point was made that we should look at the tackler's elbow pointing skyward. If you are grasping a player low and lifting with your elbow up you will only achieve one outcome, and that is to rotate the player around their centre of gravity.


I've just rewatched this ( 36-41s is the slow mo)
http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/03/3662/malakai-fekitoa-smashes-conrad-smith-with-huge-tackle but on reflection it seems that ...... There seems to be no doubt that the only reason Smith didn't land on this head/neck is because he put his left arm down to protect himself.

Jarrod Burton
03-07-15, 09:07
After having a bit of a giggle about Kearn's reply to the Kiwi baggers on Fox I had a second think about Liam Coltons ruck clear out the other night. Clearly lifts a player and the player lands on head/neck region. What do you guys think? Ok or not? Some down here think that ruck cleanouts are a different kettle of fish when it comes to lifting/dangerous play - I strongly disagree.

The only footage I can find is in the rant, so have a watch and a giggle first, then watch Colton's effort again. 1:35 on the video.

Also - what do you think on Naholo's hand all over the face of Rob Horne at around 1:00. I'm in two minds, certainly not a high tackle, but a hand in the face like that can go very bad very quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nyjl4RNzTS0

damo
03-07-15, 11:07
After having a bit of a giggle about Kearn's reply to the Kiwi baggers on Fox I had a second think about Liam Coltons ruck clear out the other night. Clearly lifts a player and the player lands on head/neck region. What do you guys think? Ok or not? Some down here think that ruck cleanouts are a different kettle of fish when it comes to lifting/dangerous play - I strongly disagree.

The only footage I can find is in the rant, so have a watch and a giggle first, then watch Colton's effort again. 1:35 on the video.

Also - what do you think on Naholo's hand all over the face of Rob Horne at around 1:00. I'm in two minds, certainly not a high tackle, but a hand in the face like that can go very bad very quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nyjl4RNzTS0
That clip is not available to those in NZ. Perhaps someone could make a gif or a video grab of the incident. I have heard people say that the Coltman one was dangerous, but the Naholo one was nothing. I haven't been able to see it, so I can't say.

Kearns is a plonker though. He was disgraceful on Saturday night, and he was rightfully pulled up by Kafer for being said plonker.

Jarrod Burton
04-07-15, 01:07
As a youtube uploading virgin, lets see if this works:


https://youtu.be/VP__KaVV5nA

SimonSmith
04-07-15, 01:07
On the footage, you'd have to say Kearns has a point

Browner
04-07-15, 10:07
Im bemused how Coltons clearout escaped the To3 RC , to not be cited even more so !

Most of Kearns other comments are punditry provocative 'license' .

Commentators should be chargeable if they bring their network into disrepute.