• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

TRC2021 - Wallabies v Boks @ Suncorp 18/09

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)

Same scenario last year, off the kick-off he ran up and shoulder to the head, resulted in a red card

Screen Shot 2021-09-20 at 7.48.02 pm.png
 

Joe Blow

Peter Johnson (47)
Complete nonsense.

Aussie are pissed about the Swinton card and now you want to see retaliation.
Goodness me. People can make accidental contact with each other's heads in rugby. Now there's a thing.

Again. If there is head contact it has to be dealt with consistently. If it looks intentional it is a red or a post-match sanction.

If there is video evidence of intentional eye contact it has to be a suspension.

Consistency has to be the goal.
 

dru

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Seeing it again at normal speed the bloke has certainly placed himself at risk of a problem but no eye intent. Looks to me that he definitely went to "ruffle up" Quade with unnecessary (but not uncommon) off the ball push to the head. But he lost a bit of footing and push got clumsy. He didn't run away but tried to check Quade out after, a bit uncertain.

I'm not going to call him a grub, but I do think it lucky for him that the action was missed during the game.
 

The Nomad

Colin Windon (37)
In the still frame that Tragic posted you can a lot of the issue is poor technique, should have been a left shoulder tackle driving off his left lead leg hitting up under the ball.

His lead leg is actually in a good position to make a strong tackle , just hit with the wrong shoulder in too upright a position . It was always going to end up looking like a shoulder charge and probably would have been picked up even without the head clash that resulted from Swinton’s poor body position.

He needs to improve his technique big time.
 

tragic

Arch Winning (36)
In the still frame that Tragic posted you can a lot of the issue is poor technique, should have been a left shoulder tackle driving off his left lead leg hitting up under the ball.

His lead leg is actually in a good position to make a strong tackle , just hit with the wrong shoulder in too upright a position . It was always going to end up looking like a shoulder charge and probably would have been picked up even without the head clash that resulted from Swinton’s poor body position.

He needs to improve his technique big time.
Always the right shoulder.
Reckon he’s right handed and doesn’t like the primary contact on his left side.
Contorts to manufacture a tackle with his dominant shoulder rather than proper technique.
 

tragic

Arch Winning (36)
Jasper Wiese has been cited for the clear out on Kerevi that he copped the yellow for
Just shows how ludicrous the card lottery has become. That was hands down as clear a red card as you’ll see, yet Koro and Barrett get reds for incidents that clearly weren’t. All with the benefit of slow motion TMO reviews - same as what the citing commissioner has.
Very lucky none of those decisions changed the outcome. Mostly they do.
The framework is pretty clear.
Supporters and players deserve better.
 

Bullrush

John Thornett (49)
Yeah it was very lucky the contact was shoulder first. But it was - so the correct call was an entry level of yellow. Low degree of danger and mitigating factors so there’s a very strong argument it could have been reduced to a penalty.
This is just wrong. There was clear head contact from the tackle which causes it to be dangerous so you can cross off 'low degree of danger' and the there were no mitigating factors. According to the Laws, mitigating factors are:


Mitigating factors

(must be clear and obvious and can only be applied to reduce a sanction by 1 level)

  • Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier’s head
  • BC suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)
  • Tackler is unsighted prior to contact
  • “Reactionary” tackle, immediate release
  • Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck)

Just shows how ludicrous the card lottery has become. That was hands down as clear a red card as you’ll see, yet Koro and Barrett get reds for incidents that clearly weren’t. All with the benefit of slow motion TMO reviews - same as what the citing commissioner has.
Very lucky none of those decisions changed the outcome. Mostly they do.
The framework is pretty clear.
Supporters and players deserve better.
Agree. Should have been a red card according to the framework. The only reason I can think that both the TMO and ref decided on YC was because of the height but Kerevi hadn't 'suddenly' dropped in height. I'm not sure how Weise clears him out without hitting the head - he would almost need to lie down to get under Kerevi - but I think players may have to earn that in those circumstances, the steal has been made and it's better to leave it as a turn over then risk getting a card.
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)
This is just wrong. There was clear head contact from the tackle which causes it to be dangerous so you can cross off 'low degree of danger' and the there were no mitigating factors. According to the Laws, mitigating factors are:


Mitigating factors

(must be clear and obvious and can only be applied to reduce a sanction by 1 level)

  • Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier’s head
  • BC suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)
  • Tackler is unsighted prior to contact
  • “Reactionary” tackle, immediate release
  • Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck)
It would appear that the citing commissioner does not agree with you. If he looked at Weise's cleanout I'm assuming he would have also looked at Swinton's tackle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Bullrush

John Thornett (49)
It would appear that the citing commissioner does not agree with you. If he looked at Weise's cleanout I'm assuming he would have also looked at Swinton's tackle.
I’m saying that the refs got it right with Swinton.
Has the citing commissioner reversed the yellow card? If not then the commissioner and I are in agreement.
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)
I’m saying that the refs got it right with Swinton.
Has the citing commissioner reversed the yellow card? If not then the commissioner and I are in agreement.
Ah OK, my apologies, I thought you were still saying it should be a red. I think most agree a yellow was deserved.
 

Bullrush

John Thornett (49)
Ah OK, my apologies, I thought you were still saying it should be a red. I think most agree a yellow was deserved.
Sorry - I probably wasn’t clear.

Listening to the conversation between the TMO and the ref during the Swinton card, you can clearly tell they are following the framework.

Not sure why they weren’t as decisive with Weiss. Again, it think it had to do with the height at the clean-out but to me, Weiss should have just conceded the turn-over because going by the Laws, I think it was a red card.
 

Ignoto

Ken Catchpole (46)
Complete nonsense.

Aussie are pissed about the Swinton card and now you want to see retaliation.

Similar to our cricketers whenever they now travel to the Republic being tarnished as cheaters. South African rugby players have a reputation of fingers being near eyes.

I don't think it was an eye gouge, but it's not hard for peoples minds to think the worst when there's even a remote possibility of loose finger being near an eye.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
Still not sure which framework they applied as he said no arms tackle - so did they apply the tackle framework or the shoulder charge framework.
Not sure if you saw this link I posted in the refereeing thread but it’s a pretty good walk through the process and the starting point is important.

Also there’s some convenient photos being posted from the reverse angle several frames after the contact with the right arm behind the body but it was definitely forward of the body at contact.

I think it is the no arms tackle framework. He has his arm tucked which got him in trouble. He must attempt to wrap that right arm. It is a yellow card because it deemed as having a high degree of danger but no head contact.

The head clash is deemed accidental so it stays as a yellow card.
 

Bullrush

John Thornett (49)
I think it is the no arms tackle framework. He has his arm tucked which got him in trouble. He must attempt to wrap that right arm. It is a yellow card because it deemed as having a high degree of danger but no head contact.

The head clash is deemed accidental so it stays as a yellow card.
Whether it is accidental or not has no bearing in the Laws. The fact that there was head contact is what makes it dangerous. The mitigating factor, according to the framework, is that it wasn’t direct contact to the head. Which is why the TMO asked the ref whether he was sure that the shoulder and head contact was simultaneous. On the replay, the TMO correctly says that he thinks the shoulder contact comes first and this what leads to the ref changing from a red to yellow. The frameworks allows for a downgrade in sanction if:


  • Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck)

Accidental contact has no bearing and I’m pretty sure it is not mentioned in the Laws or mitigating factors.
 

Up the Guts

Andrew Slack (58)
Whether it is accidental or not has no bearing in the Laws. The fact that there was head contact is what makes it dangerous. The mitigating factor, according to the framework, is that it wasn’t direct contact to the head. Which is why the TMO asked the ref whether he was sure that the shoulder and head contact was simultaneous. On the replay, the TMO correctly says that he thinks the shoulder contact comes first and this what leads to the ref changing from a red to yellow. The frameworks allows for a downgrade in sanction if:


  • Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck)

Accidental contact has no bearing and I’m pretty sure it is not mentioned in the Laws or mitigating factors.
Pretty sure BH meant accidental in the sense that it wasn't the first point of contact.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
Whether it is accidental or not has no bearing in the Laws. The fact that there was head contact is what makes it dangerous. The mitigating factor, according to the framework, is that it wasn’t direct contact to the head. Which is why the TMO asked the ref whether he was sure that the shoulder and head contact was simultaneous. On the replay, the TMO correctly says that he thinks the shoulder contact comes first and this what leads to the ref changing from a red to yellow. The frameworks allows for a downgrade in sanction if:


  • Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck)

Accidental contact has no bearing and I’m pretty sure it is not mentioned in the Laws or mitigating factors.

No, I think accidental head clashes are relevant.

They are dealt with under the law application guidelines e.g. some of the examples here: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

If Swinton had wrapped his right arm and made a legal tackle and then the two had clashed heads I don't think it is foul play at all and no card or penalty should ensure.

If Swinton had made a no arms tackle that had started below the head and then it was the shoulder that slipped up into Vermuelen's head with significant contact it would have been a red card in my view because that isn't sufficient mitigation.

The fact that it was a head clash is relevant.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Similar to our cricketers whenever they now travel to the Republic being tarnished as cheaters. South African rugby players have a reputation of fingers being near eyes.

I don't think it was an eye gouge, but it's not hard for peoples minds to think the worst when there's even a remote possibility of loose finger being near an eye.
Have some sand paper with your salty tears.
 
Top