Refereeing decisions

[Bullrush]

They don't actually say photoshopped BR, they are saying that showing one frame doesn't show where original contact is. If everytime 2 heads contacted in a rugby game (or there was contact between body and head, there would be about 7 players left on field I think. What they saying is showing a photo doesn't show where original contact is, and even how hard it was.
I know it trnedy at moment to see anytime there is a head contact against team you support to scream red card, but as qwerty rightfully points out there has to be standard in a contact sport, or the game cannot be played.
I know we looking to keep game reasonably safe, but words contact sport give a clue that there is contact. Most of us remember the changes that had to be made (rightfully) when the broken necks was the thing that was in press. That was more serious than this (I believe) and I think we have got to point that some have now just gone overboard with head knocks.

Original contact is usually considered a mitigating factor that takes the penalty from a red card to a yellow or yellow to a penalty - not fully absolve the contact.

There was no reason for there to be any head contact apart from Kriel just making a poor tackle. This was not some kind of incidental contact. The whole idea of punishing the head contact harshly is to try and get better form in tackles.

I don't think we have gone too far. My son plays U15 rugby and for years I have been coaching him that his tackles have to be low. Nipple height at the most. Any higher and he runs the risk of spending time on the sideline because all it takes is for the ball carrier to duck a little or slip and now he's made contact with the head. It's just a matter of time until a new generation have learned a different skill set.

 

[Dan54]

Original contact is usually considered a mitigating factor that takes the penalty from a red card to a yellow or yellow to a penalty - not fully absolve the contact.

There was no reason for there to be any head contact apart from Kriel just making a poor tackle. This was not some kind of incidental contact. The whole idea of punishing the head contact harshly is to try and get better form in tackles.

I don't think we have gone too far. My son plays U15 rugby and for years I have been coaching him that his tackles have to be low. Nipple height at the most. Any higher and he runs the risk of spending time on the sideline because all it takes is for the ball carrier to duck a little or slip and now he's made contact with the head. It's just a matter of time until a new generation have learned a different skill set.

I wasn't really suggesting that head contacts etc should be treated leniently etc, more your claim that WR (World Rugby) were saying they were accusing people of photoshopping etc. I believe there are and always will be accidental head contacts , and idiots picking out a photo and posting it online as proof is stupidity, as is seeing said photo and taking it as proof! I not even talking about Kriel's head contact etc, but facts are the bunker have to look at every angle (and as said in write up they have 15-16 camera angles to assess), and followed up by citing commissioner.
Also what wrie up is about is like it or not something called justice, if after seeing all angles and commissioner decides that there is no case to answer, we should have a lynch mob of idiots saying but we know better, we have seen a photo! Part of it is getting respect for refs and systems.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well according to their write up, they have to block it because of agreements with broadcasters etc in countries. (I not sure if I read that right)

But regardless doesn't excuse the people who use stills or believe them! We can't blame WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) for our own foolishness can we?

I don't think they do legally. There are "fair use" carveouts to copyright laws which is what allows things like sports news segments to exist.

World Rugby (and organisations like FIFA do the same thing) gatekeep these things to only accredited news organisations (generally ones that have paid access fees etc.).

In my view they are not really protecting their revenue streams and the value of the broadcast rights. Absolutely none of the broadcast rights holders are trying to do anything close to what people like Squidge is doing.

What is there to excuse? People are discussing moments from games online using whatever means are available to them. Some people are wrong and some people are right with their opinions and lots of these incidents have a lot of grey areas so no one is completely right or wrong. Surely people engaging with your sport is good?

 

[dru]

I don't think they do legally. There are "fair use" carveouts to copyright laws which is what allows things like sports news segments to exist.

World Rugby (and organisations like FIFA do the same thing) gatekeep these things to only accredited news organisations (generally ones that have paid access fees etc.).

In my view they are not really protecting their revenue streams and the value of the broadcast rights. Absolutely none of the broadcast rights holders are trying to do anything close to what people like Squidge is doing.

What is there to excuse? People are discussing moments from games online using whatever means are available to them. Some people are wrong and some people are right with their opinions and lots of these incidents have a lot of grey areas so no one is completely right or wrong. Surely people engaging with your sport is good?

Off topic a little, but have you followed Rick Beato and his ballte against demonitisation, blocking, copyright strike and even fair use? Pushing the matter theoretically has the rules on your side, in reality it's a lop-sided battle and influence seems to have had better results than (certainly) reasonable claims of fair use.

Agree completely on World Rugby doing the rugby world a disservice.

 

[Braveheart81]

Off topic a little, but have you followed Rick Beato and his ballte against demonitisation, blocking, copyright strike and even fair use? Pushing the matter theoretically has the rules on your side, in reality it's a lop-sided battle and influence seems to have had better results than (certainly) reasonable claims of fair use.

I have not.

It sure is a lopsided battle because there's no value in a social media site or YouTube etc. investigating whether it is fair use or not. They have more to lose by allowing copyrighted material to stay up than by just actioning copyright takedown requests from major rights holders to err on the safe side.

 

[dru]

I followed this up with some info under "Everything Else". For anyone interested.

 

[Bullrush]

I wasn't really suggesting that head contacts etc should be treated leniently etc, more your claim that WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) were saying they were accusing people of photoshopping etc. I believe there are and always will be accidental head contacts , and idiots picking out a photo and posting it online as proof is stupidity, as is seeing said photo and taking it as proof! I not even talking about Kriel's head contact etc, but facts are the bunker have to look at every angle (and as said in write up they have 15-16 camera angles to assess), and followed up by citing commissioner.
Also what wrie up is about is like it or not something called justice, if after seeing all angles and commissioner decides that there is no case to answer, we should have a lynch mob of idiots saying but we know better, we have seen a photo! Part of it is getting respect for refs and systems.

Did the contact happen or not?

Accidental or otherwise really doesn't matter. If Kriel's tackle caused the head-to-head contact, whether he meant or not has no bearing. If you think that because it's accidental then it doesn't need to be penalised then you are absolutely saying that head contact should be treated leniently.

The only way around this incident is to claim that there was no head contact at all. If you are saying that all these different cameras show that there was none, I don't know how you get the stills showing the exact opposite.

You don't get respect by telling people their eyes are lying...

 

[Dan54]

Did the contact happen or not?

Accidental or otherwise really doesn't matter. If Kriel's tackle caused the head-to-head contact, whether he meant or not has no bearing. If you think that because it's accidental then it doesn't need to be penalised then you are absolutely saying that head contact should be treated leniently.

The only way around this incident is to claim that there was no head contact at all. If you are saying that all these different cameras show that there was none, I don't know how you get the stills showing the exact opposite.

You don't get respect by telling people their eyes are lying...

No mate what I saying you can't or won't penalise every accidental head contact, or there wouldn't be any game. I am saying in a contact game there are numerous head contacts, a vast majority of them accidental, and many with little force, it's not possible to penalise them all. The nature of the game where you have rucks, mauls, tackles they happen all the time, it only seems to be a problem when it's a tcakler.
It's a contact sport, and the fact that you can go into a tackle at nipple height (using how you rightly teach your son to tackle) and by the actual contact either player can be caused to change height. If someone gets passed a ball close enough to defender you can't tackle low.
I not saying tackle should allowed to go high, but saying you have to take into account where first contact is made etc.
You ask did contact happen? Well yes but how hard can you tell in a screenshot.
And once again I wasn't getting into arguments on tackle heights, just on people putting a screenshot on a forums etc as proof of their argument, and the idiocy of taking that as proof of guilt etc.
We had a case early this season where everyone was talking about abuse of refs etc, and this is the kind of shit that leads to it.
And as a case in point, in a thread about today's game the ref is accused of trying to be the star of game because he blew 31 penalties. See they damned if they blow up foul plays etc, and are damned if they don't!

 

[Bullrush]

No mate what I saying you can't or won't penalise every accidental head contact, or there wouldn't be any game. I am saying in a contact game there are numerous head contacts, a vast majority of them accidental, and many with little force, it's not possible to penalise them all. The nature of the game where you have rucks, mauls, tackles they happen all the time, it only seems to be a problem when it's a tcakler.
It's a contact sport, and the fact that you can go into a tackle at nipple height (using how you rightly teach your son to tackle) and by the actual contact either player can be caused to change height. If someone gets passed a ball close enough to defender you can't tackle low.
I not saying tackle should allowed to go high, but saying you have to take into account where first contact is made etc.
You ask did contact happen? Well yes but how hard can you tell in a screenshot.
And once again I wasn't getting into arguments on tackle heights, just on people putting a screenshot on a forums etc as proof of their argument, and the idiocy of taking that as proof of guilt etc.
We had a case early this season where everyone was talking about abuse of refs etc, and this is the kind of shit that leads to it.
And as a case in point, in a thread about today's game the ref is accused of trying to be the star of game because he blew 31 penalties. See they damned if they blow up foul plays etc, and are damned if they don't!

Making a poor tackle is not 'accidental' head contact. It's like driving at 180km p/h on a rainy day and then saying the collision with on-coming traffic was 'accidental'.

I'm all for using more judgement and I'm OK with mitigating circumstances in situations where the tackler has almost no option or opportunity to avoid head contact - this is not that case. It's just a poor tackle and bad technique.

If the contact happened, which you seem to admit, then it really doesn't matter how hard it was. It's the action that WR (World Rugby) is apparently trying to remove from the game as much as possible. Are we only going to penalise and card head contact depending on how hard it is?

If refs are damned if they do AND damned if they don't, they may as well be damned for 'do-ing' and protecting players rather than for 'don't-ing'. Personally, I have tried to be slow to 'damn' refs for penalising or carding players when it comes head contact. So much of it comes down to players getting their technique correct and not putting their fate in the hands of the ref.

 

[Bullrush]

I think France should have been shown a red this morning as well. Again, it's just poor tackle technique and he wasn't even attempting to wrap with the shoulder/arm that made the contact. It's a direct shoulder charge to the head.

We've spent a couple of years going pretty hard on all these types of head contacts and all of a sudden, WR (World Rugby) has decided to go soft on it.

 

[Italophile]

I think France should have been shown a red this morning as well. Again, it's just poor tackle technique and he wasn't even attempting to wrap with the shoulder/arm that made the contact. It's a direct shoulder charge to the head.

We've spent a couple of years going pretty hard on all these types of head contacts and all of a sudden, WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) has decided to go soft on it.

Yes, should have been red. The mitigating factor was intervention of another player, the same mitigation that saved Farrell until WR (World Rugby) appealed. Last night the intervention didn't materially affect anything. The French lock was always leading with his shoulder, the collision was going to happen regardless.

 

[Bullrush]

Referee lottery continues with De Groot getting a yellow upgraded to a red this morning. To be clear, as an isolated decision, I don't have a problem with it but it becomes a joke when compared with Kriel not even getting a penalty and Taofifenua’s shoulder charge being deemed not worthy of a red.

 

[qwerty51]

I don't think they do legally. There are "fair use" carveouts to copyright laws which is what allows things like sports news segments to exist.

World Rugby (and organisations like FIFA do the same thing) gatekeep these things to only accredited news organisations (generally ones that have paid access fees etc.).

In my view they are not really protecting their revenue streams and the value of the broadcast rights. Absolutely none of the broadcast rights holders are trying to do anything close to what people like Squidge is doing.

What is there to excuse? People are discussing moments from games online using whatever means are available to them. Some people are wrong and some people are right with their opinions and lots of these incidents have a lot of grey areas so no one is completely right or wrong. Surely people engaging with your sport is good?

This isn't my area of expertise but I'm pretty sure even sports news need to pay for highlights. You often see some news channels refuse to use videos of a major event.

Fair use doesn't cover it.

But you're totally right DMCA'ing content on social media is actually the most backwards thing ever. NFL/NBA let people do whatever they want with their content (as long as it's not a full match). It's to their massive benefit, the engagement of highlights is enormous and only benefits the sport.

 

[Dan54]

Referee lottery continues with De Groot getting a yellow upgraded to a red this morning. To be clear, as an isolated decision, I don't have a problem with it but it becomes a joke when compared with Kriel not even getting a penalty and Taofifenua’s shoulder charge being deemed not worthy of a red.

See I didn't see the player from Chile's one, and even as an AB supporter, I acn see the difference with Kriel's, it was direct conact to head, wasn't secondary, as chest to chest ? Not saying it correct, but it is how the game is supposedly to be reffed? Well from what I read anyway.

 

[Pfitzy]

It is a bit up and down, eh?

Like all Laws of the game, the high contact framework has a bit of give in it. In this case EdG did himself no favours by not lowering his height, and leading the shoulder - didn't look like he wanted to wrap at all.

The French one from memory was more throwing an arm out and the tackler lowered himself. Perhaps those were the mitigating factors.

Kriel not getting done at all makes no sense.

Fans will still argue about it, but perhaps RWC could put out a quick summary of why the sanction met a certain threshold. Tweet it. Whatever.

 

[Pfitzy]

I guess, ultimately, the message is that if you're going to gamble in contact, place smarter bets.

 

[Bullrush]

It is a bit up and down, eh?

Like all Laws of the game, the high contact framework has a bit of give in it. In this case EdG did himself no favours by not lowering his height, and leading the shoulder - didn't look like he wanted to wrap at all.

The French one from memory was more throwing an arm out and the tackler lowered himself. Perhaps those were the mitigating factors.

Kriel not getting done at all makes no sense.

Fans will still argue about it, but perhaps RWC could put out a quick summary of why the sanction met a certain threshold. Tweet it. Whatever.

For me, the French one is by far the worst. No attempt to wrap with the arm tucked as he shoulder charges the ball carrier.

Kriel’s is probably the one I have least issue with. I don’t think it should have been a red - it looks like chest contact first - but a penalty as a minimum and probably a yellow card. He makes absolutely no attempt to lower his height and it’s just ridiculous to deny there was head contact.

deGroot was dumb. I think he was perhaps going to make a play for the ball (I HATE it when my kids do this. Tackle first and THEN go for the ball!!) and I can’t fault the TMO for the decision.

It’s the clear inconsistency that is pissing me off. I just can’t see how it’s that hard. I feel like refs have been pretty consistent on carding and penalising any head contact up until just a month or so ago. Now, it’s back to a lottery.

To me, if refs just maintain a strict ruling of head contact = minimum penalty, like it has been for at least the last year or so, then even if you think the tackler is hard done by, it’s still consistent.

 

[Dctarget]

When does a tackled player lose the right to place/play the ball? Sometimes I see the defending team blast over a ruck and gain control of it, all for the tackled player on the ground to throw the ball out of the ruck off the ground to his teammates, negating the defenders good rucking. Sometimes it's called playing the ball on the ground, other times the ref lets it go. What's the actual rule?

 

[Bullrush]

When does a tackled player lose the right to place/play the ball? Sometimes I see the defending team blast over a ruck and gain control of it, all for the tackled player on the ground to throw the ball out of the ruck off the ground to his teammates, negating the defenders good rucking. Sometimes it's called playing the ball on the ground, other times the ref lets it go. What's the actual rule?

I'm not 100% sure but my understanding is the tackled player has to take the action 'immediately'. Similar to reaching out and scoring a try if tackled short, the ball carrier is supposed to make the decision quickly. So he can't place the ball back and then decide to pop it up or reach out for a try. It's one action that is supposed to be 'immediately.'

I could be wrong. LOL

 

[Derpus]

When does a tackled player lose the right to place/play the ball? Sometimes I see the defending team blast over a ruck and gain control of it, all for the tackled player on the ground to throw the ball out of the ruck off the ground to his teammates, negating the defenders good rucking. Sometimes it's called playing the ball on the ground, other times the ref lets it go. What's the actual rule?

Probably depends whether they've already 'placed it' back or if they just shoot it straight up off the deck. If they place it and then pick it back up then pretty obviously playing it on the ground.