Connacht Team Talk Thread V - The Friend Zone

sydthebeat

The Friend Zone

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Treadwell should have got a red. Look at Cipriani red in Thomond a few years ago.

We'll see if he's cited. I wouldn't be surprised if he is.

However every contact to the head cannot be a red card when the force of impact (degree of danger) is part of the deciding factor.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines/13

connachta

High tackle. Several seconds. Strangulation. Red. And..No

And TBF both yellow tonight, under the spirit of the game (yes intentionality), are more red than the one earlier this afternoon

sydthebeat

The Friend Zone

connachta wrote: »

High tackle. Red. And..No

And TBF both yellow tonight, under the spirit of the game (yes intentionality), are more red than the one earlier this afternoon

read the framework

understand the framework

realise why Papaliis was a red and Threadwells was a yellow

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

connachta wrote: »

High tackle. Several seconds. Strangulation. Red. And..No

And TBF both yellow tonight, under the spirit of the game (yes intentionality), are more red than the one earlier this afternoon

If you want to watch mindless thuggery go and watch rugby league

You clearly have no clue about player welfare in rugby union nor do you care about it.

And You clearly have no clue about how these decisions are made not do you understand the framework in place to protect players

Former Former Former

It was a pretty clear red. No intent but be absolutely cleaned the Zebre guy out of it, the ref had no choice.

Intent will be relevant at his hearing. I'd expect him to get the low end ban of six weeks, but this being his second red in four games, he won't get any reduction.

Jump_In_Jack

A lot of condescension here ganging up on Connachta,
Either explain your opinion properly or tone down the pontification, it’s overbearing and unnecessary.
If you’re so knowledgeable why not quite the exact parts from the framework that applies or else move on to a different thread, this is a thread for Connacht fans, where real fans can moan about bad decisions without belligerence from other fans.

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

A lot of condescension here ganging up on Connachta,
Either explain your opinion properly or tone down the pontification, it’s overbearing and unnecessary.
If you’re so knowledgeable why not quite the exact parts from the framework that applies or else move on to a different thread, this is a thread for Connacht fans, where real fans can moan about bad decisions without belligerence from other fans.

connachta wrote: »

His arm didn't touch the neck.

But some here, decided he's a dangerous player

This was the posters initial post about it. It was a head on head contact but there was total denial of that at all to begin with. The guy has two red cards in about 6 games for serious foul play and its a conspiracy against Papaili. Cant possibly be the guy he has bigged up has terrible technique and is at fault.

It has been explained in detail.

Burkie1203 wrote: »

No the Zebre player was not going downwards. He is almost bolt upright bar a slight bend of the knees

Papaili is leaning forward head first and is driving upwards. Look at his feet.

I think he may get longer then 6 weeks


https://twitter.com/eirSport/status/1330540517340422145?s=19

The responses are mostly gibberish about no intent even though intent or lack of doesnt come into it, which has been explained numerous times but completely ignored.

sydthebeat

The Friend Zone

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

A lot of condescension here ganging up on Connachta,
Either explain your opinion properly or tone down the pontification, it’s overbearing and unnecessary.
If you’re so knowledgeable why not quite the exact parts from the framework that applies or else move on to a different thread, this is a thread for Connacht fans, where real fans can moan about bad decisions without belligerence from other fans.

Better not be on about me here!

I literally posted the framework, with the direct quotation of the applicable section. Perhaps you didn't read it, so maybe go back and read again.

"ganging up" is a bit snowflaky now isn't it.
Connachta is nailing their colours quite strictly to their mast, so those of the opposite view are quite entitled to explain why he is wrong.

The Lost Sheep

connachta wrote: »

High tackle. Several seconds. Strangulation. Red. And..No

And TBF both yellow tonight, under the spirit of the game (yes intentionality), are more red than the one earlier this afternoon

Is a red card in every sense. There was no mitigation from a red. He led with head. he wasnt dropping nor was other player. no option bar a red

sydthebeat wrote: »

read the framework

understand the framework

realise why Papaliis was a red and Threadwells was a yellow

He wont and cant.

Burkie1203 wrote: »

If you want to watch mindless thuggery go and watch rugby league

You clearly have no clue about player welfare in rugby union nor do you care about it.

And You clearly have no clue about how these decisions are made not do you understand the framework in place to protect players

Totally agree. He has previous for supporting/believing mindless violence is ok.

connachta

Mindless violence? You should be kidding

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

connachta wrote: »

Mindless violence? You should be kidding

im deadly serious

you dont need to tackle someone in the head to make a physical dominant tackle in rugby union. Papaili needs to learn that lesson because he is of no use to connacht if he doesnt

connachta

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

A lot of condescension here ganging up on Connachta,
Either explain your opinion properly or tone down the pontification, it’s overbearing and unnecessary.
If you’re so knowledgeable why not quite the exact parts from the framework that applies or else move on to a different thread, this is a thread for Connacht fans, where real fans can moan about bad decisions without belligerence from other fans.

Thank you

I do think the two yellows tonight should be sanctioned more then an accidentadal head contact. I do think intention should matter. I do hope, as Former Former said, it will during hearing.


I did get ahead of myself in my tone, all right, enough about this from me.
Good win, and the ban is less of an issue than Farrell injury ..

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

connachta wrote: »

Thank you

I do think the two yellows tonight should be sanctioned more then an accidentadal head contact. I do think intention should matter. I do hope, as Former Former said, it will during hearing.


I did get ahead of myself in my tone, all right, enough about this from me.
Good win, and the ban is less of an issue than Farrell injury ..

It's not accidental though. When a player leads with his head and drives upwards he is taking a huge risk. And if head to head contact happens it's on the tackler in this incident. Its pure luck if there isn't head to head contact.

That doesn't mean he intended to have head to head contact.

Papaili does the exact same upwards motion with his body when he got a red v Munster, a tackle you claimed was "impressive" and would have been equally impressive if it was "10cm lower". Its clearly a technique issue with him. A technique that he needs to alter significantly otherwise he will be watching his team mates from his sofa an awful lot between now and May/June

Bazzo

Mul, it's over

Anyhoo

Great to see Sean O'Brien back. Thought he did very well considering the length he's been out injured... Must be nearly a year?


Thought Sean Masterson also put in a tidy enough display.

Jump_In_Jack

Just to highlight how intent is captured within the framework,

“ VIDEO SIGNS INDICATING HIGHER DEGREE OF DANGER

Preparation
Tackler draws the arm back prior to contact
Tackler may leave the ground
Arm swings forward prior to contact
Contact
Tackler is attempting an active/dominant tackle, as opposed to passive/soak, or “pulling out” of contact
Tackler speed and/or acceleration into tackle is high
Rigid arm or elbow makes contact with BC head as part of a swinging motion
Follow through
Tackler completes the tackle (as opposed to immediate release/withdrawal)”

All of the above are examples of intent, and none were the case with that head clash, maybe the dominant tackle part is arguable but given that the ball carrier sidestepped into the tackler, so it wasn’t a planned hit, the head clash was clearly not premeditated, so the above should have meant the referee started his decision tree with the degree of danger at low, and without mitigation of player dropping height, although the sudden sidestep and change of direction is worth considering as a possible mitigation, and therefore there is no doubt that Connacht have a case to argue that the framework could be used to conclude a yellow would have been the correct call.

That clip from Eir Sport on Twitter doesn’t show the collision in real time nor the movements of both players in the few seconds leading up to the collision so without better footage it would be unsound to make definitive statements that it would have to be a red card.

The mention about leading with the head is traditionally language used in reference to intentional head butting which was not the case in this instance, so was incorrectly used by the referee to start off his decision tree at a high degree of danger. That could be argued by Connacht if appealing the decision.

typhoony

connachta wrote: »

Thank you

I do think the two yellows tonight should be sanctioned more then an accidentadal head contact. I do think intention should matter. I do hope, as Former Former said, it will during hearing.


I did get ahead of myself in my tone, all right, enough about this from me.
Good win, and the ban is less of an issue than Farrell injury ..

although you have to agree that he is a red card waiting to happen with his technique. If you go by the law it's a red however common sense here should prevail as I don't think the incident warrants a 6 week ban. if the length of ban is for cumulative offences then this offence unfortunately will go against him regardless of the "accidental" nature of todays red card

The Lost Sheep

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Just to highlight how intent is captured within the framework,

“ VIDEO SIGNS INDICATING HIGHER DEGREE OF DANGER

Preparation
Tackler draws the arm back prior to contact
Tackler may leave the ground
Arm swings forward prior to contact
Contact
Tackler is attempting an active/dominant tackle, as opposed to passive/soak, or “pulling out” of contact
Tackler speed and/or acceleration into tackle is high
Rigid arm or elbow makes contact with BC head as part of a swinging motion
Follow through
Tackler completes the tackle (as opposed to immediate release/withdrawal)”

All of the above are examples of intent, and none were the case with that head clash, maybe the dominant tackle part is arguable but given that the ball carrier sidestepped into the tackler, so it wasn’t a planned hit, the head clash was clearly not premeditated, so the above should have meant the referee started his decision tree with the degree of danger at low, and without mitigation of player dropping height, although the sudden sidestep and change of direction is worth considering as a possible mitigation, and therefore there is no doubt that Connacht have a case to argue that the framework could be used to conclude a yellow would have been the correct call.

That clip from Eir Sport on Twitter doesn’t show the collision in real time nor the movements of both players in the few seconds leading up to the collision so without better footage it would be unsound to make definitive statements that it would have to be a red card.

The mention about leading with the head is traditionally language used in reference to intentional head butting which was not the case in this instance, so was incorrectly used by the referee to start off his decision tree at a high degree of danger. That could be argued by Connacht if appealing the decision.

You need to watch the incident again. The clip on twitter shows the incident enough for it to be clear a red card was merited.
The use of language was fine and isnt just used in reference to head butting. It couldnt be used in any argument by Connacht especially considering the players history....

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

All of the above are examples of intent, and none were the case with that head clash, maybe the dominant tackle part is arguable but given that the ball carrier sidestepped into the tackler, so it wasn’t a planned hit, the head clash was clearly not premeditated, so the above should have meant the referee started his decision tree with the degree of danger at low, and without mitigation of player dropping height, although the sudden sidestep and change of direction is worth considering as a possible mitigation, and therefore there is no doubt that Connacht have a case to argue that the framework could be used to conclude a yellow would have been the correct call.

That clip from Eir Sport on Twitter doesn’t show the collision in real time nor the movements of both players in the few seconds leading up to the collision so without better footage it would be unsound to make definitive statements that it would have to be a red card.

Look at APs feet. Its pure luck if he avoids head to head contact because he leads with his head and drives upwards, he has only his toes touching the ground as his head makes contact. The Zebre player changing direction is irrelevant.

If AP had considered going low at all he avoids giving away even a penalty. When a player has no intention of going low, the degree of danger is not low. The higher a player wants to go, the greater chance of it going wrong.


Connacht can argue all they want, I think AP is getting an absolute minimum of 6 weeks off. And probably more

CowboyTed

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Look at APs feet. Its pure luck if he avoids head to head contact because he leads with his head and drives upwards, he has only his toes touching the ground as his head makes contact. The Zebre player changing direction is irrelevant.

If AP had considered going low at all he avoids giving away even a penalty. When a player has no intention of going low, the degree of danger is not low. The higher a player wants to go, the greater chance of it going wrong.


Connacht can argue all they want, I think AP is getting an absolute minimum of 6 weeks off. And probably more

AP was on the ground when the head contact happened. His arms and should were not illegal and he actually looked like he was jumping out of the way more than taking on the challenge.

He actually jumps out of his way and releases his arms as they come higher.

The question will be can he carry his head that high... Is that considered dangerous... (by the way Sexton has been carrying his head that high his whole career).

I think the case can be made that he was caught by the side step and tried to adjust to his other side and actually let the player go. This is clearly not a shoulder or arm contact to the head with any force.

It is head to head contact, the rules aren't clear in this situation, unless we sum up that he hit his head with full force (much like and arm or shoulder). That is hard to say from the angle we got there as the Italian's change of direction is hard to determine...
It could just as easily be said the Italian was leading with his head too as he changed direction.. Honestly this was an accident and that is why 6 weeks would be cruel...

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

CowboyTed wrote: »

AP was on the ground when the head contact happened. His arms and should were not illegal and he actually looked like he was jumping out of the way more than taking on the challenge.

He actually jumps out of his way and releases his arms as they come higher.

The question will be can he carry his head that high... Is that considered dangerous... (by the way Sexton has been carrying his head that high his whole career).

I think the case can be made that he was caught by the side step and tried to adjust to his other side and actually let the player go. This is clearly not a shoulder or arm contact to the head with any force.

It is head to head contact, the rules aren't clear in this situation, unless we sum up that he hit his head with full force (much like and arm or shoulder). That is hard to say from the angle we got there as the Italian's change of direction is hard to determine...
It could just as easily be said the Italian was leading with his head too as he changed direction.. Honestly this was an accident and that is why 6 weeks would be cruel...

The Zebre player is almost bolt upright bar a slight bend at the knee. He is not leading with his head.

Papaili is not upright. He is leaning forward, bent at the hips, head first. His heels are not touching the ground as his head makes contact because he is driving upwards.


His arms and shoulders were not illegal, but he was not sent off for doing anything wrong with his arms and shoulders. He wraps both arms.

AP is not jumping out of the way. He is trying to tackle the zebre player. The change of direction doesnt matter. Papaili instincts are to go high. If he makes 5 tackles in a game, chances are one is going to get him into trouble.

connachta

Be very careful : everyone having ponderated points about un-intentional situation promote "mindless violence":rolleyes::rolleyes:

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

connachta wrote: »

Be very careful : everyone having ponderated points about un-intentional situation promote "mindless violence":rolleyes::rolleyes:

You Previously described Papaili red card v Munster as impressive physicality.

KBurke85

The Friend Zone

Burkie1203 wrote: »

You Previously described Papaili red card v Munster as impressive physicality.

Lads either let it go or take it to a pm please. The ref gave a red card, ye both disagree with each other on this. We get it.

Lets focus on the fact that Connacht played well and got a good win on the road. It's not that often we score 47 points in a game

connachta

Any Papali'i intervention is impressive physically
He has to make it legal, and having a 2nd red on a non-intentional accident is not an issue for now, but for next suspension, who could be a lengthy one.
No more room for errors

realhorrorshow

Papali’i brings so much in terms of his carrying but until he sorts his tackle technique out I think he’s a luxury we can’t afford. I know there was no intent and Boni did change direction but if you put a player with good tackle technique (like Paul Boyle) in that situation ten times I don’t think he gets a red card once.

thomond2006

Some Like It TOH

realhorrorshow wrote: »

Papali’i brings so much in terms of his carrying but until he sorts his tackle technique out I think he’s a luxury we can’t afford. I know there was no intent and Boni did change direction but if you put a player with good tackle technique (like Paul Boyle) in that situation ten times I don’t think he gets a red card once.

Pretty much. You can see why Connacht wanted to pluck him out of relative obscurity.

Jump_In_Jack

Independent had this from Andy Friend about his intention to appeal the red card decision,

"Connacht coach Andy Friend said they will look at appealing the red card dished out to Papali’i.

“I thought it was a harsh red card, a head-on-head, no one leads with their head on purpose because you don’t have a future in the game if you do that.

“At the same time we have to protect players so I can understand the desire to make sure we are protecting ball-carriers and if it’s head-on-head and they deem that to be a red penalty offence then so be it. It’s certainly something we would be keen to appeal,” said Friend."

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/pro14/connacht-claim-pro14-win-at-zebre-but-papalii-sees-red-again-39776898.html

Former Former Former

Hmmm.

The problem is that Papali'i won't get any reduction in his ban for a clean record. It's his second red card for contact to the head in four games with no previous record to refer to.

That only leaves him with accepting the charge and good conduct at the hearing as possible reductions to his suspension. If Connacht now decide not to accept it, then he's looking at taking the full whack of the suspension.

realhorrorshow

Papali’i averaging a red card every 64 minutes so far.

connachta

Former Former Former wrote: »

Hmmm.

The problem is that Papali'i won't get any reduction in his ban for a clean record. It's his second red card for contact to the head in four games with no previous record to refer to.

That only leaves him with accepting the charge and good conduct at the hearing as possible reductions to his suspension. If Connacht now decide not to accept it, then he's looking at taking the full whack of the suspension.

Friend is right to appeal to overturn an extensive interpretation of the rule (as said above on this page, and not by me)

Try to push for a claerence which won't dammage his record for next time, an error which could happen to anyone in 5-6 years of carreer left. That's a good bet to avoid living under threat of a season ban for a 3rd offense. Clear this very harsh one

If it fails, we can do even for 8 weeks without him, take the risk, Dowling is back in a few weeks which leaves us full-strenght for back-row options