Round 7: Reds v Brumbies - Friday April 7 @ Suncorp 7:35pm

[Maulalltheway]

regardless of the semantics its a weak suspension.

 

[Slim 293]

Obviously the result was not his intention, but as discussed he was lining up Toole for a big shot and put himself into a dangerous position where he was committed to the hit which resulted in a late, high shot...

I don't think you can argue with certainty that it met the full red card threshold, but Blyth is still incredibly lucky as it was a pretty sickening hit that has led to Toole missing just as much game time.

 

[Braveheart81]

regardless of the semantics its a weak suspension.

He has a clean record, he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and showed remorse. It's 6 weeks for a mid range dangerous tackle halved to 3.

I agree with the general feeling that he is lucky it wasn't longer but I also think the judicial system works better if it provides more consistent outcomes and involves less discretion from the judicial officers.

 

[Dctarget]

Not excusing Angus but I feel bad for these big fellas. Skelton, Coleman, Arnold, Simmons, Blyth, S. Barrett, Salakai-Loto have all gotten red cards for head highs.

 

[Maulalltheway]

He has a clean record, he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and showed remorse. It's 6 weeks for a mid range dangerous tackle halved to 3.

I agree with the general feeling that he is lucky it wasn't longer but I also think the judicial system works better if it provides more consistent outcomes and involves less discretion from the judicial officers.

how is this consistent.
this is the same as an accidental head clash in a tackle when the bloke has the ball. Rob Valetini had a head clash with Adam Beard against Wales in 2021 and got 3 weeks... this is so much worse
SANZAR have shit the bed here

 

[Sword of Justice]

Anecdotally, with no basis of evidence or even logical reasoning at all as I cant be bothered, calling that hit mid range seems quite bizarre by the judiciary. Anyway, my last post on the issue - it was quite emotive for me at the time to see a young player with a bright future do the concussion dance after that hit.

 

[Braveheart81]

how is this consistent.
this is the same as an accidental head clash in a tackle when the bloke has the ball. Rob Valetini had a head clash with Adam Beard against Wales in 2021 and got 3 weeks... this is so much worse
SANZAR have shit the bed here

Both were completely reckless and both resulted in injury to the tackled player.

SANZAAR have worked exactly within the framework provided by World Rugby.

Valetini was also given the ability to reduce the suspension by another week by completing the coaching intervention programme.

Anecdotally, with no basis of evidence or even logical reasoning at all as I cant be bothered, calling that hit mid range seems quite bizarre by the judiciary. Anyway, my last post on the issue - it was quite emotive for me at the time to see a young player with a bright future do the concussion dance after that hit.

By my understanding they need to determine that the act was deliberate to bring it into the high range.

 

[LeCheese]

how is this consistent.
this is the same as an accidental head clash in a tackle when the bloke has the ball. Rob Valetini had a head clash with Adam Beard against Wales in 2021 and got 3 weeks... this is so much worse
SANZAR have shit the bed here

As @Braveheart81 said, it's consistent and within the framework. The suspensions, and their ultimate reduction, were identical:

"The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play worthy of a red card," the committee said in a statement.

"Having reviewed all the evidence, the committee deemed that the offending was reckless, and that he ran at speed in an upright position in an attempt to tackle Adam Beard, exhibiting poor tackle technique resulting in his head striking the right hand side of Adam Beard’s head (in breach of World Rugby’s Head Contract Process and Law 9.13) who was removed from the field of play. He failed his HIA & received 20 stitches in the area of his eyebrow.

"The Committee determined by a majority that after an assessment of the seriousness of the offending the actions merited a minimum mid-range entry point of 6 weeks (with one member determining the offending justified a top end entry point of 10+ weeks).

"On that basis, the committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head. This resulted in a starting point of a six-week suspension.

"The Committee determined that all mitigating factors were present and the Player was entitled to a 50% reduction from the entry point, and accepting that there were no aggravating factors the committee reduced the six-week entry point by three weeks, resulting in a sanction of three weeks.

“The Player may apply to take part in the Coaching Intervention Programme to substitute the final match of his sanction for a coaching intervention aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play."

 

[Maulalltheway]

As @Braveheart81 said, it's consistent and within the framework. The suspensions, and their ultimate reduction, were identical:

the acts were significantly different. dead set guys come on

 

[Braveheart81]

the acts were significantly different. dead set guys come on

Both involved the tackler entering into contact in a reckless fashion resulting in their head striking the head of the ball carrier causing injury to the ball carrier.

I agree with you that Blyth's was far more clumsy but I also don't think you can argue he intended for his head to strike Toole's.

We're trying to punish dangerous play. Both were similarly dangerous.

I don't think you can create a reasonable judiciary framework where those two incidents are treated substantially differently. Otherwise we end up right back where we were years ago where if it is considered that you didn't mean to hit the other person in the head you get off with basically no sanction.

 

[Maulalltheway]

Both involved the tackler entering into contact in a reckless fashion resulting in their head striking the head of the ball carrier causing injury to the ball carrier.

I agree with you that Blyth's was far more clumsy but I also don't think you can argue he intended for his head to strike Toole's.

We're trying to punish dangerous play. Both were similarly dangerous.

I don't think you can create a reasonable judiciary framework where those two incidents are treated substantially differently. Otherwise we end up right back where we were years ago where if it is considered that you didn't mean to hit the other person in the head you get off with basically no sanction.

I think were now devoid of reality. watch the two videos and tell me they deserve the same suspension...

 

[Braveheart81]

I think were now devoid of reality. watch the two videos and tell me they deserve the same suspension...

The Wales player suffered a concussion and required 20 stitches to his eye after Valetini recklessly entered the tackle and smashed his head into the ball carrier's face.

Angus Blyth recklessly entered the tackle on Toole without adequate control and in too high a position and struck Toole in the head with his head concussing him.

The high tackle framework and suspensions largely focus on recklessness and danger. They both contained similar degrees of each. Most high tackles are going to be mid range penalties because where there is direct high contact with force it has be mid range and it is hard to make it top-end because it's almost impossible to say it was deliberate.

 

[Maulalltheway]

The Wales player suffered a concussion and required 20 stitches to his eye after Valetini recklessly entered the tackle and smashed his head into the ball carrier's face.

Angus Blyth recklessly entered the tackle on Toole without adequate control and in too high a position and struck Toole in the head with his head concussing him.

The high tackle framework and suspensions largely focus on recklessness and danger. They both contained similar degrees of each. Most high tackles are going to be mid range penalties because where there is direct high contact with force it has be mid range and it is hard to make it top-end because it's almost impossible to say it was deliberate.

the act... not the outcome
jesus help me

the acts are hugely different

 

[LeCheese]

the act... not the outcome
jesus help me

the acts are hugely different

The 'act' is direct, reckless, and considerable contact to the head. They are the same.

 

[Braveheart81]

Unless you can categorically determine that Blyth's action was deliberate then the acts weren't hugely different. Both were reckless. They entered a tackle in such a way that there was a high likelihood of contact with the head of the ball carrier.

Neither player was trying to get their head to impact the other player's head but the way they entered the tackles created a high probability that it would happen. That is what the guidelines look at.

 

[Tomthumb]

Open both eyes next buddy

Seriously, the camera angle from behind Toole showed Blythe line up his head and barrel into it. Watch it again

 

[Tomthumb]

Unless you can categorically determine that Blyth's action was deliberate then the acts weren't hugely different. Both were reckless. They entered a tackle in such a way that there was a high likelihood of contact with the head of the ball carrier.

Neither player was trying to get their head to impact the other player's head but the way they entered the tackles created a high probability that it would happen. That is what the guidelines look at.

Considering Toole wasn't even in possession of the ball at the time they are completely different

 

[Braveheart81]

Considering Toole wasn't even in possession of the ball at the time they are completely different

I agree that it was slightly late as well.

Again though, the guidelines focus on danger to a large degree.

For the incidents to be treated substantially differently they need to find that Blyth's foul play was deliberate.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think in this case it was a case of Blyth trying hard to make a difference after being out.

Unfortunately that doesn’t excuse it.

From Corey Toole's POV I'd say its fortunate that didn't excuse it.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Just as an observation, does anyone else see that the judiciary's decision looks to be a cut and paste of the same set of words in possibly every case. Just alter the name(s) and Bob's your uncle - you've got a decision.

Just doesn't look like they give a lot of thought to the specifics of any case but just regurgitate the same old same old.