Lood De Jager permanent red card vs France/Franco Mostert permanent red card vs Italy
- Thread starter shebeen
- Start date
ok I'll engage on this one.
There has been a huge push to get players to drop their height. both of these cards saw really tall locks dropping a significant amount to get down to that level. It seems problematic that both of these were on field permanent reds, when clearly these players are trying to get down to a safe tackle height, is that the thuggery intentional foul play that this card is supposed to be for?
Both of these tackles are highly dynamic, they are the second tacklers.
I'm going to include this one from March (that resulted in a 6 week ban) because it fits in the same category.
Furthermore, while stats can be made up to fit any narrative, but these tell a story
but back to Player safety you raised, the issue is the selective nature of how these are being penalised, carded and then cited. If there was more consistency and zero tolerance was given we would see so many more cards and 13 on 12 more often. Maybe anecdotal, but when last was someone cited for something that wasn't picked up during the game? The other issue that seems to be ignored like a straight scrum feed is head contact around the tryline. It happens so often, but is somehow totally acceptable as a rugby incident due to the push for a try/defend. There's no way to feasibly regulate that, so let's just ignore player safety when 5m out.
Historic stats mean nothing. In the same manner that every time you flip a coin there is a 50/50 chance, each contact must be viewed on its own (de)merits. Also unsure what the stats actually mean, qualify Low Med and Choke and we might understand better, other than SA saying they do no have the worst record, so what?
Trying to get down to a safe tackle height is your judgment of the intent whereas we can see the actual events. Trying to get down does not mean they achieved it, teams are striving to score tries all game it doesn't mean they should get points for their efforts.
A low tackle is not about height its about point of contact, so big tackling little must get lower (not just ry to get lower) than big v big although the change of height might present some mitigation both of the quoted instances had in my mind a tucked arm, you can see that clearly on Mostert's "shot" above.
My point about player safety is that we should be seeing the games reduced in numbers as the high tackles and head contact is continuing and the pile of evidence under the carpet is getting quite large.
Everybody says we need to keep players on the pitch!
I say we need to keep the payers on the pitch SAFE!
Trying to get down to a safe tackle height is your judgment of the intent whereas we can see the actual events. Trying to get down does not mean they achieved it, teams are striving to score tries all game it doesn't mean they should get points for their efforts.
A low tackle is not about height its about point of contact, so big tackling little must get lower (not just ry to get lower) than big v big although the change of height might present some mitigation both of the quoted instances had in my mind a tucked arm, you can see that clearly on Mostert's "shot" above.
My point about player safety is that we should be seeing the games reduced in numbers as the high tackles and head contact is continuing and the pile of evidence under the carpet is getting quite large.
Everybody says we need to keep players on the pitch!
I say we need to keep the payers on the pitch SAFE!
Volun-selected
Referees in America
Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons ā¦ I remember a lot of chatter about forcing lower tackles for the safety of the tackler, so ā¦
ā¦ the simple solution would be to amend the guidance to the tackler still has to go low but BC cannot deliberately drop their height.
(Would also have the benefit of making it more likely theyāll offload earlier and keep the ball in play longer.)
ā¦ the simple solution would be to amend the guidance to the tackler still has to go low but BC cannot deliberately drop their height.
(Would also have the benefit of making it more likely theyāll offload earlier and keep the ball in play longer.)
There is no defence it is dangerous play.
For the avoidance of doubt, this comment was for the Wales/NZ game and before the cardfest. plumtree yellow bunker call
didds
Resident Club Coach
so the BC cannot dive for the line ?
I had to rewatch it. For a sec i thought my mind was playing tricks on me.
belladonna
Active member
belladonna
Active member
Exhibit B: Plumtree wrapping with his right arm, also from the TMO review.
Are you saying this is similar to the SA straight red, and that Plumtree's actions were always illegal?
Exhibit B shows arm at the side, no wrap. Exhibit A shows wrap of left arm. Very similar to both instances with De Jager and Mostert. Unlike Ryan in IRE v RSA game where both arms clearly at the side with no wrap. Illustrates that even with Head Contact Process on place there were 4 different outcomes adjudicated. So either the process is faulty or the people applying the process are doing it incorrectly. The public is simply calling for consistency. Three similar tackle techniques where two are permanent red and one a yellow and a fourth where an always illegal action with clear and obvious no wrap with shoulder to head and intent is given a bunker review and 20 minute red. Referees should apply the process that is in place and stop āinterpretingā the process to find a conclusion.
Last edited:
Volun-selected
Referees in America
Good point. Would need to amend the guidance to allow that, probably along the lines of if your dropping height just to try and dodge a tackle, itās a nope but if your doing it to dot down the ball in-goal and in doing so drop the height then thatās ok. (And why it should be a guidance thing rather than a law change with lots of caveats that ends up with unintended consequences.)
But the law is perfectly clear on a player diving to score ...what am I missing here?
But the history of the game is to play low as a ball carrier, drive forward with a low cross section forcing tackles to be low or ineffective. That's a problem the defenders need to get their heads around.
We have taken competition from scrums and line outs and now we want to eradicate good driving, forward play.
I despair.
Which straight RED?..going to assume Lood de Jager since that has gone through both hearing and appeal and remained.
If you that's your evidence for a wrap then it's pretty feeble - you should see the angle from behind. LdJ the wrap attempt was on Ramos' arm as 1st contact. So yes, we're back to the "always illegal" term that is so subjective.
The call from the bunker was "high degree of danger but mitigation due to sudden drop of height".
Apply that to LdJ and he gets a YC and not 4week ban. Plumtree (and Sacha FM) are both fortunate that the twitters have been buzzing for the past fortnight so clearly different level of investigation here over this past weekend.
Rich_NL
Well-known member
I disagree: Plumtree has his elbow bent and palm forward, the other three cases had the palm backward. Arm rotation is a key sign.
I agree James Ryan should have been a straight red for consistency, though.
This whole thread is hilarious. It just seems to be a whinge around how unfair referees/officials are toward South Africa.
I was a player for a lot longer than I have ever been reffing and I know what is a no-arms tackle and what is an attempt at a wrap. Plumtree was a genuine tackle attempt, but too high. Completely different to the thuggish shoulder charges of de Jager and Mostert.
De Jager, Mostert and Feinberg.M were not. Two correct decisions and one incorrect on the field. For me yellow would suffice for the Feinberg-M offence, so considering the sanction was penalty only, that is not a huge error. Risk of taking further flak, I thought Carley had a very good game overall.
James Ryan, if he had received a straight red, it would not have been a surprise. I suspect that a consideration by Carley of ālow-degreeā of danger would have swayed him away from that.