PDA

View Full Version : England v Scotland lifting tackle YC



TheBFG
13-03-17, 10:03
So people's thoughts on the early YC in the Eng v Sco match?

Looked like he landed on his upper back and then force of the tackle meant he got whiplash for his head to hit the ground too, which I guess resulted in the HIA requirement and him not coming back

Phil E
13-03-17, 10:03
It's never too early.

Wouldn't have been surprised if it was Red, but not surprised at Yellow either. I saw it as landing on his back after his leg was lifted high in the air, so it would have been a Yellow from me.

FlipFlop
13-03-17, 11:03
Saw it as landing on back, so not surprised yellow.

BUT....

It could easily be argued for red. Either by saying Daly was driven into the ground; or by saying it was Dalys action to roll his head up that prevented head to ground contact first.

I think the official got it right on the day, but wouldn't be surprised if there was a citing, so as to re-examine it.

crossref
13-03-17, 11:03
Didn't Daly pass the HIA, come back on, only to leave the pitch again because he still had double vision

WTF is going on with HIA? They seem to be simply a mechanism to allow head-injured players in tier 1 rugby to continue to play

DocY
13-03-17, 11:03
I thought it'd be a YC followed by a citing and a ban - such is the way these things go.

TheBFG
13-03-17, 11:03
assume this is kosha?

https://www.ruck.co.uk/scotland-player-cited-dangerous-tackle/

ChuckieB
13-03-17, 11:03
He was a lucky boy to see YC only in my opinion. I could certainly err on the side of a RC on this one and be happy with such a call.

I don't now the procedures but in the absence of the RC on the day you might think a citing might be warranted. On the top of the back, at the base of the neck, is most certainly dangerous.

didds
13-03-17, 12:03
As we've discussed before, under the outcome-based-sanction AIUI the YC was the "correct" decision. neither FB nor Daly was in control of Daly's descent (though maybe ED managed to pull his head up) and FB basically "got lucky".

didds

DocY
13-03-17, 12:03
Lo and behold! His hearing is tomorrow:

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/brown-cited-for-dangerous-tackle/

winchesterref
13-03-17, 15:03
It's not come up yet that I've seen, so let me be the first.


https://youtu.be/s3nuMHKtzvE

Thoughts?

Note that it has now been cited.
Telegraph - Fraser Brown cited (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/03/13/scotland-hooker-fraser-brown-cited-dangerous-tackle-englands/)

"Fraser Brown, the Scotland hooker, has been cited by the independent citing commissioner at Saturday's RBS 6 Nations match between England and Scotland at Twickenham," read a Six Nations statement.

"The cited offence, dangerous tackling, took place in the second minute of the match in which the cited player was yellow carded.

"The disciplinary hearing, before an independent Six Nations Disciplinary Committee of three, is scheduled for London on Tuesday, March 14."

winchesterref
13-03-17, 15:03
My first thought was RC from kick off to full time, regardless of when the incident occurs. Anyone not reaching for a RC here?

If you are with a RC, and you're in the middle here - with all the TV, 80k crowd pressures, high profile coaches - do you?

winchesterref
13-03-17, 15:03
Bugger, found it
Can someone merge them?
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20230-That-tackle-Red-Yellow-too-early-one-for-the-citing

Mine looks more funky than BFGs!


EDIT: Merge completed - MOD

ChuckieB
13-03-17, 15:03
My first thought was RC from kick off to full time, regardless of when the incident occurs. Anyone not reaching for a RC here?

If you are with a RC, and you're in the middle here - with all the TV, 80k crowd pressures, high profile coaches - do you?

You're in the middle on merit and you have other highly experienced and expert officials in support. It was a call he made, incorrect in my opinion, but I don't think you could suggest he bottled it.

At least the Citing panel or whatever will be able to consider all the evidence.

winchesterref
13-03-17, 15:03
You're in the middle on merit and you have other highly experienced and expert officials in support. It was a call he made, incorrect in my opinion, but I don't think you could suggest he bottled it.

At least the Citing panel or whatever will be able to consider all the evidence.

Agreed.

The "do you give it" question is not a suggestion of bottling it, more do you err on the side of caution and YC in knowing that citing can pick it up if needed?

CrouchTPEngage
13-03-17, 15:03
Seemed especially unfair as
(a) if its outcome based (and Daly had to go off immediately and played only another 5 mins afterwards ) then it should be a red.
(b) Daly got a red for something a bit similar in the 5th minute of the Argentina game in November. He could be forgiven for expecting consistent protection from the referees.
It was dangerous. That could have ended Daly's career. That deserves a red in the current climate.

ChuckieB
13-03-17, 15:03
You're in the middle on merit and you have other highly experienced and expert officials in support. It was a call he made, incorrect in my opinion, but I don't think you could suggest he bottled it.

At least the Citing panel or whatever will be able to consider all the evidence.

I seek to clarify my earlier statement. I believe there was sufficient evidence to support a RC. I am not saying he made an incorrect decision.

Gosh, I am starting to sound like a lawyer!

didds
13-03-17, 16:03
Agreed.

The "do you give it" question is not a suggestion of bottling it, more do you err on the side of caution and YC in knowing that citing can pick it up if needed?

but in the knowledge that a 78 minute RC will have a far larger impact than a 10 minute YC.

didds

VM75
13-03-17, 21:03
Measured against this article, i'd say that both players might consider themselves very fortunate

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/alex-mckinnon-sues-nrl-after-tackle-left-him-paralysed-report-20161218-gtdrx2.html

"Former Newcastle Knights player Alex McKinnon has reportedly launched legal proceedings against the NRL for the tackle that left him paralysed in 2014.According to News Corp, McKinnon sent a legal letter to the NRL last week to instigate proceedings for compensation. It is reported that Melbourne Storm's Jordan McLean, who made the tackle, will also be personally pursued."

At one point FB had ED's feet pointing vertically to 12o'clock , the speed at which FB jerked his elbow up indicates his intention to tip ED IMO, WTF was FB thinking.

didds
14-03-17, 09:03
I thought it'd be a YC followed by a citing and a ban - such is the way these things go.

I have a bit an issue with this process/concept.

Cos a post match citing and ban effectively being a post match RC suggests that in match it SHOULD have been a RC.

NOT Rc'ing a player that SHOULD have been RCd has huge material effects on the match in question.

didds

Thunderhorse1986
14-03-17, 10:03
Seemed especially unfair as
(a) if its outcome based (and Daly had to go off immediately and played only another 5 mins afterwards ) then it should be a red.
(b) Daly got a red for something a bit similar in the 5th minute of the Argentina game in November. He could be forgiven for expecting consistent protection from the referees.
It was dangerous. That could have ended Daly's career. That deserves a red in the current climate.

Referencing the bold above, AIUI, outcome based does not mean "was the player injured?". It means was the outcome of the player being lifted through the horizontal / what was the outcome of the unfair challenge in the air? Then you have options generally based on landing (some may have slightly different interpretations of the below?):

1) Player bought back to ground safely - play on (but probably have a word with the tackler at next stoppage)
2) Player not bought to ground safely, landing on legs/bum - penalty only
3) Player landed on his back, shoulder - PK & YC
4) Player landed on this neck, head - PK and RC

A player could get a career ending injury through a perfectly legal tackle. So outcome based is not to do with injury but on outcome of the challenge in terms of landing point (which you could argue is associated with potential injury).

TheBFG
14-03-17, 12:03
NOT Rc'ing a player that SHOULD have been RCd has huge material effects on the match in question.

didds

Not in this game it didn't :eng:

DocY
14-03-17, 12:03
I have a bit an issue with this process/concept.

Cos a post match citing and ban effectively being a post match RC suggests that in match it SHOULD have been a RC.

NOT Rc'ing a player that SHOULD have been RCd has huge material effects on the match in question.

didds

You're quite right. It shouldn't be the case, but it seems to have been for the last few years. Most noticeably during the last world cup.

We can only speculate about the reasons for this, but having heard some top flight refs talk about it they feel the citing commissioners are over zealous - applying the exact letter of the law to every situation with no empathy and not considering any mitigating factors that referees would. But I guess they would say that ;)

That's not to say the decisions are always wrong, but if the wording of a directive is poor, they still treat it as gospel.

didds
14-03-17, 14:03
Not in this game it didn't :eng:

england might have declared on the hour!

didds

didds
14-03-17, 14:03
I have a bit an issue with this process/concept.

Cos a post match citing and ban effectively being a post match RC suggests that in match it SHOULD have been a RC.

NOT Rc'ing a player that SHOULD have been RCd has huge material effects on the match in question.

didds

I shouold also add that conversely if protocols say the actiojn requires a sanction of a YC, then an effective RC level ban from the commissioners seems wrong also. witness this Brown?daly tip tackle. If the call is YC cos Daly landed on his back and FB gets a YC (as he did) then that should be the end opf it.

AQt the moment it seems that there isn't joined up thinking or agreement at the highest levels as to what constitutes a YC/RC. Particularly when use of replay and TMO/Ref interaction means there should be almost no "accidents" in real time.

didds

crossref
14-03-17, 14:03
You're quite right. It shouldn't be the case, but it seems to have been for the last few years. Most noticeably during the last world cup.

We can only speculate about the reasons for this, but having heard some top flight refs talk about it they feel the citing commissioners are over zealous - applying the exact letter of the law to every situation with no empathy and not considering any mitigating factors that referees would. But I guess they would say that ;)

That's not to say the decisions are always wrong, but if the wording of a directive is poor, they still treat it as gospel.

it works the other way as well, don't forget that in the RWC the disciplinirary panels rejected every single citing for tip tackles, and punished the offenders for lesser, merely dangerous tackles.

Paule23
14-03-17, 15:03
I shouold also add that conversely if protocols say the actiojn requires a sanction of a YC, then an effective RC level ban from the commissioners seems wrong also. witness this Brown?daly tip tackle. If the call is YC cos Daly landed on his back and FB gets a YC (as he did) then that should be the end opf it.

AQt the moment it seems that there isn't joined up thinking or agreement at the highest levels as to what constitutes a YC/RC. Particularly when use of replay and TMO/Ref interaction means there should be almost no "accidents" in real time.

didds

I think one of the arguments for RC, hence a fair citing, is ED landed on his shoulder/back only as a result of curling his head up. Without that it would have been head first. You could argue this is similar to putting an arm out to prevent landing on your head, which should still be RC.

TheBFG
14-03-17, 18:03
Cleared :chin:

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12505/10801747/scotland-hooker-fraser-brown-cleared-by-disciplinary-panel-over-dangerous-tackle-on-elliot-daly

ChuckieB
14-03-17, 19:03
Cleared :chin:

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12505/10801747/scotland-hooker-fraser-brown-cleared-by-disciplinary-panel-over-dangerous-tackle-on-elliot-daly

To get there in the first place someone must have thought it was bad enough?

He's a very lucky boy!

didds
14-03-17, 19:03
I think one of the arguments for RC, hence a fair citing, is ED landed on his shoulder/back only as a result of curling his head up. Without that it would have been head first. You could argue this is similar to putting an arm out to prevent landing on your head, which should still be RC.

I would agree - butthe hand/arm out, or head curl is as clear on the day to a TMO+ref (via big screen replay), so I'm not sure what a citing commisioner adds here. Apart form somebody sayiong "well I think despite the ref and TMO having no more than I have, II think they got it wrong"

didds

didds

dave_clark
14-03-17, 21:03
I have a bit an issue with this process/concept.

Cos a post match citing and ban effectively being a post match RC suggests that in match it SHOULD have been a RC.

NOT Rc'ing a player that SHOULD have been RCd has huge material effects on the match in question.

didds

chopper (formerly of this parish) used to argue regularly for this. and i can understand the argument - that the spectacle was king, and that anything that detracted from this (such as 14 vs 15) was to be avoided.

i don't agree with this viewpoint, but i can understand it.

didds
15-03-17, 08:03
I'm not fussed about the spectacle. But the principle.

YCing a player that the commission gave aRC length ban to can only mean

* the ref got it wrong OR
* the commissioner got it wrong

If its the former the players team has benefited(unless its in the last ten minutes of the match of chose).

Didds

OB..
15-03-17, 23:03
I'm not fussed about the spectacle. But the principle.

YCing a player that the commission gave aRC length ban to can only mean

* the ref got it wrong OR
* the commissioner got it wrong
* a different view of the criteria
* a different view of the facts

If its the former the players team has benefited(unless its in the last ten minutes of the match of chose).

Didds
A couple more possibilities.

winchesterref
15-03-17, 23:03
I thought we initially had to disregard the actions of the ball carrier, such as twisting their head away or putting arms/hands down. More and more this seems to be being used to mitigate the defending player's actions?

DocY
16-03-17, 11:03
I thought we initially had to disregard the actions of the ball carrier, such as twisting their head away or putting arms/hands down. More and more this seems to be being used to mitigate the defending player's actions?

Perhaps the nonsense this caused when evaluating tackles in the air has meant the BC's actions are now considered less important in other sorts of dangerous tackle, too.

Or perhaps they couldn't conclusively say that the outcome would have been different but for the BC's actions.