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

[RugbyReg]

I agree - the inconsistency is so frustrating.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

But this is largely how it should be. The consistency is created by having a clear framework that then gets applied.

 

[Maulalltheway]

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

One player had the ball the other didn’t.
One tackler lead with the head the other didn’t.
Are you a SANZAR burner account?

 

[Maulalltheway]

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.

When you watch the videos side by side you can’t possibly think they’re the same action. At least admit that

 

[Maulalltheway]

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.

Can you please cite these guidelines mate.

 

[Braveheart81]

One player had the ball the other didn’t.
One tackler lead with the head the other didn’t.
Are you a SANZAR burner account?

Literally the first impact Valetini made was his head on the ball carrier's head.

I don't think the hit being late increases the degree of foul play. It's already a red card.

Can you please cite these guidelines mate.

Regulations | World Rugby

Information about the game's laws and regulations, including the World Rugby Laws app

www.world.rugby

 

[LeCheese]

One player had the ball the other didn’t.
One tackler lead with the head the other didn’t.
Are you a SANZAR burner account?

Are you secretly a bitter Bobby V?

 

[Maulalltheway]

Literally the first impact Valetini made was his head on the ball carrier's head.

I don't think the hit being late increases the degree of foul play. It's already a red card.

Regulations | World Rugby

Information about the game's laws and regulations, including the World Rugby Laws app

www.world.rugby

What part says intent is needed for it to be high range I looked today and couldn’t see it

 

[Maulalltheway]

Are you secretly a bitter Bobby V?

I’m not saying his was wrong. This one is

 

[Maulalltheway]

Literally the first impact Valetini made was his head on the ball carrier's head.

I don't think the hit being late increases the degree of foul play. It's already a red card.

Regulations | World Rugby

Information about the game's laws and regulations, including the World Rugby Laws app

www.world.rugby

Are you seriously saying that a high shot with the head to a ball carrier who is expecting to be tackled is the same as a high shot with the head to a player without the ball????

 

[Wilson]

What part says intent is needed for it to be high range I looked today and couldn’t see it

It's the very first feature to be considered in determining what end the infringement is categorised as:

17.18 Assessment of seriousness of the Foul Play


17.18.1 Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall undertake an assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct that constitutes the offending and categorise that conduct as being at the lower end, mid-range or top end of the scale of seriousness in order to identify the appropriate entry point for consideration of particular act(s) of Foul Play where such act(s) are expressly covered in Appendix 1. The assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct shall be determined by reference to the following features:


(a) whether the offending was intentional;

 

[Maulalltheway]

It's the very first feature to be considered in determining what end the infringement is categorised as:

It says they assess it. Not that it’s needed for high end?

It also talks about the vulnerability of the player hit. (Without the ball is pretty vulnerable)

 

[Wilson]

It says they assess it. Not that it’s needed for high end?

It also talks about the vulnerability of the player hit. (Without the ball is pretty vulnerable)

No one said it was required for a high end offence, only that it was a key component of the assessment of the severity of an offence.

 

[Maulalltheway]

No one said it was required for a high end offence, only that it was a key component of the assessment of the severity of an offence.

Incorrect. Braveheart has been beating on about how for high end you'd need to prove it was deliberate

 

[Wilson]

Incorrect. Braveheart has been beating on about how for high end you'd need to prove it was deliberate

No, he made the point that the two incidents were largely the same by the guidelines and for this one to be treated markedly differently by the judiciary it would need to have been seen as intentional, which it wasn't. That is not the same as saying that all high end offences need to be intentional (though it is relatively rare for an offence like this to be considered high end without either intent or history).

 

[Maulalltheway]

No, he made the point that the two incidents were largely the same by the guidelines and for this one to be treated markedly differently by the judiciary it would need to have been seen as intentional, which it wasn't. That is not the same as saying that all high end offences need to be intentional (though it is relatively rare for an offence like this to be considered high end without either intent or history).

happy to prove you wrong here.

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

 

[Wilson]

happy to prove you wrong here.

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

Fair enough, though I don't think it markedly changes the assessment there. It is a key feature applied in assessing the severity and it's rare to see a high tackle offence categorized as high (top) range without either intent or history of offending by the player (which goes to 17.18.1 a, b, j and l to varying degrees).

 

[Maulalltheway]

Fair enough, though I don't think it markedly changes the assessment there. It is a key feature applied in assessing the severity and it's rare to see a high tackle offence categorized as high (top) range without either intent or history of offending by the player (which goes to 17.18.1 a, b, j and l to varying degrees).

doesnt pass the sniff test to be honest though when you look at head clashes in tackles getting the same suspension.

Blyth on Toole was a good old fashion cheap shot. i think he did intentionally hit him late. i think he butchered it but he certainly intentionally hit him and the ball was long gone

 

[Slim 293]

i think he did intentionally hit him late.

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that was the case...

Blyth on Toole was a good old fashion cheap shot. i think he did intentionally hit him late. i think he butchered it but he certainly intentionally hit him and the ball was long gone

He was definitely going for the cheap shot, but as you said he butchered it - he lined up Toole when he had the ball and overcommitted to the tackle, taking his eyes off the play, and the end result Toole getting hit late and with the height difference copping it in the head.

It was, as stated, lazy and reckless... and taking into the considerations of the framework that's a mid-range offence for which Blyth has received the maximum sanction, minus mitigating factors.

 

[Braveheart81]

happy to prove you wrong here.

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

Find me some evidence to the contrary.

For the record I can't find any SANZAAR judiciary outcome since 2020 that graded something in the top-end range of the offence.