Leinster vs Northampton match thread

Kraftwerk

Former Former Former wrote: »

The ref didn't see a contact with the head, that's why he awarded nothing.

How do you know he didn't see it? He referenced the attempted wrap which in the footage is the arm that hits VDF in the face. If he sees an attempt to wrap he seen the contact with the player he's attempting to grab. There's also no way he's missed VDF recoiling holding his face or Byrne shouting and pointing about VDF getting hit in the face and is somehow oblivious to the fact there was head contact.

Unless we're dealing with the most clueless ref that ever set foot on a pitch he was aware of the head contact.

Former Former Former

Kraftwerk wrote: »

How do you know he didn't see it? He referenced the attempted wrap which in the footage is the arm that hits VDF in the face. If he sees an attempt to wrap he seen the contact with the player he's attempting to grab. There's also no way he's missed VDF recoiling holding his face or Byrne shouting and pointing about VDF getting hit in the face and is somehow oblivious to the fact there was head contact.

Unless we're dealing with the most clueless ref that ever set foot on a pitch he was aware of the head contact.

He called it a "good cleanout". You can't make contact with the head. Attempting to wrap doesn't excuse contact with the head.

If he saw the contact with the head and still thinks it's a good cleanout, then he definitely is the most clueless ref ever. His only excuse for not even awarding a penalty is that he saw it wrong.

Kraftwerk

Former Former Former wrote: »

He called it a "good cleanout". You can't make contact with the head. Attempting to wrap doesn't excuse contact with the head.

If he saw the contact with the head and still thinks it's a good cleanout, then he definitely is the most clueless ref ever. His only excuse for not even awarding a penalty is that he saw it wrong.

BOD and Hartley in the commentary clearly see the head contact yet still say its a good clean out as he can't get any lower and can't avoid the head. BOD says it's the only target he left for Wood so how can Wood avoid hitting it. Its a similar view with Quinlan and others. Clear head contact but can't be avoided, **** happens, Wood did everything right etc etc.

I just don't see how the ref is the only person on the planet who can't see head contact while getting a close enough look to determine Wood wrapped in the clear out while VDF goes flying holding his face.

I think he sees it as BOD does. Attempted wrap, inadvertently hits the face but its a "rugby incident" not foul play.

UAEguy2020

Are people still trying to justify what happened to VDF yesterday and the end result were okay?

Former Former Former

Kraftwerk wrote: »

BOD and Hartley in the commentary clearly see the head contact yet still say its a good clean out as he can't get any lower and can't avoid the head. BOD says it's the only target he left for Wood so how can Wood avoid hitting it. Its a similar view with Quinlan and others. Clear head contact but can't be avoided, **** happens, Wood did everything right etc etc.

I just don't see how the ref is the only person on the planet who can't see head contact while getting a close enough look to determine Wood wrapped in the clear out while VDF goes flying holding his face.

I think he sees it as BOD does. Attempted wrap, inadvertently hits the face but its a "rugby incident" not foul play.

If the only thing left for Wood to hit is the head, then he shouldn't make the hit. That's the bottom line.

I'm not sure it matters what BOD thinks. He never played a game of rugby under the current rules.

I'm genuinely amused that Dylan Hartley and Alan Quinlan, two of the dirtiest players of the last 20 years, are being held up as good judges of what constitutes foul play.

So long as the game tolerates this sort of dangerous hit, then it's opening itself up to more and more liability down the road.

I'd be shocked if Wood isn't cited.

ButtersSuki

Former Former Former wrote: »

If the only thing left for Wood to hit is the head, then he shouldn't make the hit. That's the bottom line.

That’s it a nutshell.

Dr Bennet Omalu - the Medic credited with discovering CTE - was on Newstalk a few years ago and talked about how (in his opinion) rugby was inevitably going to have the same concussion issues as American Football. It looks like it’s here in a big way now. He also talked about the impact it was having on underage participation in the US, and how inevitably that would happen here with rugby too. Failure to punish incidents like yesterday’s will inevitably speed up that process.

The problem with many ex-players as pundits is they don’t appreciate how much the game has evolved and moved on - this is true of many sports, not just rugby. The comments mentioned are reflective of that., sadly.

ButtersSuki

UAEguy2020 wrote: »

Are people still trying to justify what happened to VDF yesterday and the end result were okay?

From reading the thread it certainly appears so.

Yeah_Right

theVersatile wrote: »

Of course if the laws surrounding shoulders not dipping below hips were employed more strictly, situations like this would happen less often.

What law is this? The only time I have ever heard of shoulders below hips being penalised, is in the scrum. Is it illegal in rucks too?

The Lost Sheep

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What law is this? The only time I have ever heard of shoulders below hips being penalised, is in the scrum. Is it illegal in rucks too?

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15
FORMING A RUCK

A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.

Dog Botherer

Dog Botherer wrote: »

i get why people feel the need to defend refs, they get a hard rub of it and it’s not an easy job, especially at pro level.

but yer man has clearly ****ed that decision. not everything has to be defended with paragraphs and paragraphs of ifs and buts. he has ****ed that call.

I'm not trying to defend the ref tbh. He made a couple of errors in the game that I'm more than happy to call (and did in earlier in the thread in relation to a turnover which Feris also thought was fine) - it's more that there has been a degree of dissent on the issue from informed commentators that makes me inclined to be cautious.

I thought it was a clear cut yellow with scope for red. I still think that - I'm just open to the possibility that I'm wrong for some reason outside of my window of perspective!

Burkie1203

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not trying to defend the ref tbh. He made a couple of errors in the game that I'm more than happy to call (and did in earlier in the thread in relation to a turnover which Feris also thought was fine) - it's more that there has been a degree of dissent on the issue from informed commentators that makes me inclined to be cautious.

I thought it was a clear cut yellow with scope for red. I still think that - I'm just open to the possibility that I'm wrong for some reason outside of my window of perspective!

The only mitigation that can be offered would be if VDF moved in the last fraction of a Second. He didn't. It was direct contact to the head. The lack of mitigation means its not possible to drop from Red to Yellow.

Yeah_Right

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15
FORMING A RUCK

A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.

What about jackling after the tackle? Are the shoulders allowed to be below the hips?

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What about jackling after the tackle? Are the shoulders allowed to be below the hips?

No. Very rarely enforced however

realhorrorshow

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What about jackling after the tackle? Are the shoulders allowed to be below the hips?

Yes because the jackal takes place before the ruck is formed.

realhorrorshow

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No. Very rarely enforced however

What is your basis for saying jackaling is illegal?

Tim Robbins

Kraftwerk wrote: »

It's a mistake that a ref thought a shoulder to the head wasn't foul play?

No-one said that.

Kraftwerk

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No-one said that.

Yes they did. They even answered that post with "yes its a mistake"...

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No. Very rarely enforced however

You’ll need to show me your credentials for interpreting the rules.

UAEguy2020

ButtersSuki wrote: »

From reading the thread it certainly appears so.

If that wasn’t a red card I’m done with this sport, Wood has to be cited and get a decent ban.

Tim Robbins

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Yes they did. They even answered that post with "yes its a mistake"...

I think you are intent on arguing rather than trying to understand where people are coming from. If you are an expert, you are wasting your time on the internet. The game needs more coaches, refs and an assessors.

irishbucsfan

realhorrorshow wrote: »

What is your basis for saying jackaling is illegal?

Sorry, you're right that ONLY jackaling with your head below your hips is legal. And if no ruck comes out of that situation then of course it is because the law only applies to rucks.

However, the question is about the law for rucks. In theory, if you're jackaling with your head below your hips and a ruck is formed on you (which almost always is exactly what happens), you are illegal and it should be a penalty against you. I've never seen that given at any level, I think its pretty much unenforceable. They could really do with reviewing/rewording that law.

Under the law trials in 2017 jackaling with your head below your hips WAS actually illegal (I think? Can't remember if they kept that clause during that trial, I think they did), became inadvertently so when a single player was needed to form a ruck. It wasn't even pinged then. So its a dead letter law.

Kraftwerk

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think you are intent on arguing rather than trying to understand where people are coming from. If you are an expert, you are wasting your time on the internet. The game needs more coaches, refs and an assessors.

A poster literally said that, I asked them if that's what they meant and they said yes. Now you're here contradicting them on what they said, getting personal with me saying "if you're such an expert then go be a ref" and then accusing me of being the one that just wants to argue...

UAEguy2020

BOD still can’t admit he was wrong about the VDF hit...

UAEguy2020

No need to modify anything BOD, just don’t try take someone’s head off at a ruck just because you were late.

Apparently it should be brought down to a yellow because here was no target...**** me on a stick...

Burkie1203

UAEguy2020 wrote: »

No need to modify anything BOD, just don’t try take someone’s head off at a ruck just because you were late.

Apparently it should be brought down to a yellow because here was no target...**** me on a stick...

BOD needs to go for a HIA.

UAEguy2020

Burkie1203 wrote: »

BOD needs to go for a HIA.

We seem to have found a loophole around getting a red for a shot to the head. Just claim there was no target.

ButtersSuki

UAEguy2020 wrote: »

BOD still can’t admit he was wrong about the VDF hit...

Any link?

UAEguy2020

I’m watching it live on BT sport right now in their highlight show, hopefully it will pop up later.

Burkie1203

UAEguy2020 wrote: »

I’m watching it live on BT sport right now in their highlight show, hopefully it will pop up later.

Thought Eoin Reddan spoke very well yesterday and even Jim Hamilton called it red and tom wood is a friend of his.

AbusesToilets

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Sorry, you're right that ONLY jackaling with your head below your hips is legal. And if no ruck comes out of that situation then of course it is because the law only applies to rucks.

However, the question is about the law for rucks. In theory, if you're jackaling with your head below your hips and a ruck is formed on you (which almost always is exactly what happens), you are illegal and it should be a penalty against you. I've never seen that given at any level, I think its pretty much unenforceable. They could really do with reviewing/rewording that law.

Under the law trials in 2017 jackaling with your head below your hips WAS actually illegal (I think? Can't remember if they kept that clause during that trial, I think they did), became inadvertently so when a single player was needed to form a ruck. It wasn't even pinged then. So its a dead letter law.

Nothing will change unless they make it illegal to jackal. Anything that leads to hands in the ruck creates dangerous circumstances nowadays. Ballistic clearouts, twisting and rolling, impacts on the head. Refs are useless most of the time, because there's just too much occuring to adjudicate effectively

Has the citing window passed?

Burkie1203

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Has the citing window passed?

48 hours IIRC. Expect a statement around 5pm tmrw if there is a citing.

Dog Botherer

50 hours from the start of kickoff, to be exact

Tim Robbins

Kraftwerk wrote: »

A poster literally said that, I asked them if that's what they meant and they said yes. Now you're here contradicting them on what they said, getting personal with me saying "if you're such an expert then go be a ref" and then accusing me of being the one that just wants to argue...

People can misunderstand each other. You're coming across a bit argumentative in your posts that you just want to win rather than explore the issues.

The bottom line is for that Ref yesterday to get to that match yesterday, he has to be at a certain level that requires a lot of work and skill that not many make. Did he make a mistake? We nearly all think so. Did the pundits on the game make similar mistakes, a lot of them possibly did. So much experience and expertise making a mistake -- so let's explore the issues and try to respect each other along the way.

The Lost Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

Has the citing window passed?

Teams can refer incidents within 26 hours of the kickoff to the citing commisioner who has 50 hours from the kickoff time to make a decision but its never until monday/tuesday that you here if anyone actually has to go to discipline meeting

Kraftwerk

Tim Robbins wrote: »

People can misunderstand each other. You're coming across a bit argumentative in your posts that you just want to win rather than explore the issues.

The bottom line is for that Ref yesterday to get to that match yesterday, he has to be at a certain level that requires a lot of work and skill that not many make. Did he make a mistake? We nearly all think so. Did the pundits on the game make similar mistakes, a lot of them possibly did. So much experience and expertise making a mistake -- so let's explore the issues and try to respect each other along the way.

Again to restate what has happened here. You contradicted me on what another poster said and when I explained they said exactly what I had quoted you got personal with me saying if I'm such an expert I should go be a ref.

I'm not the argumentative person here trying to dismiss other people. You are. So stop with the taking the high road and let's all be respectful crap. I never said anything personal or disrespectful to you.

Tim Robbins

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Again to restate what has happened here. You contradicted me on what another poster said and when I explained they said exactly what I had quoted you got personal with me saying if I'm such an expert I should go be a ref.

I'm not the argumentative person here trying to dismiss other people. You are. So stop with the taking the high road and let's all be respectful crap. I never said anything personal or disrespectful to you.

Fair enough. If you want me to reword any posts, I'll do that.

degsie

randomname2005

A strange coincidence, but was watching some highlights on YT when a suggested video popped up 'Cian Healy, Rugby's Biggest Thugs'. Whether he qualifies for that is a different story, but in the video is the incident against Exeter where he gets a red card for a hit to the face.
https://youtu.be/CBTSQHw64to?t=44

That was a few years back, before all this talk of increased player welfare, safety, etc. In my opinion, if it was red then, it was red now. Yes, there were other areas of the body he could have used to clean out the opposition player but I don't see how 'the only place he could hit him was the face' argument stands up.
Are we going to start allow boots on faces in rucks because there is nowhere else to stand? Are we going to allow hands to faces and eyes because there is nowhere else to grab? Are we going to allow tackles in the air because that was the only time a tackle could be made? Yes, some of these are extreme, but they all fall into the category of 'if your only option is illegal, then don't do it'.

ButtersSuki

Any update on any citing?

UAEguy2020

Listening to all the discussions about the Tom Wood hit im shock and genuinly quite worried how its still even a discussion, its the clearest definition of a red that you'll see on a rugby field, even those debating it are really reaching when trying to find an excuse...

We're 50 hours from kickoff now (well, 8 mins away) so presuming no citing. I can't really believe that but there we are.

ButtersSuki

Aron Poor Sordidness wrote: »

We're 50 hours from kickoff now (well, 8 mins away) so presuming no citing. I can't really believe that but there we are.

Likewise, astonished.

crisco10

Aron Poor Sordidness wrote: »

We're 50 hours from kickoff now (well, 8 mins away) so presuming no citing. I can't really believe that but there we are.

I'm really really disappointed in this.

Just last week I was defending rugby to some of my non-rugby fan friends in the wake of the Steve Thompson story etc. My argument being, things have changed these days and matured. I cited how POC wouldn't get away with kicking Dave Kearney in the head for example.

But, if we were having the discussion this week, I'd have nothing. No doubt it was an accident, no doubt Tom Wood is a decent guy. But his shoulder hit the head with force. It needs to be punished so that everyone always makes maximal effort to protect every player from brain injury.

Part of me wishes it didn't happen in a Leinster game too, as then I wouldn't have the potential bias of it happening to "one of my own".

Burkie1203

Aron Poor Sordidness wrote: »

We're 50 hours from kickoff now (well, 8 mins away) so presuming no citing. I can't really believe that but there we are.

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Could be this evening or tomorrow before a press release is issued

Buer

Because they don't announce it within 50 hours doesn't mean they haven't cited him within 50 hours.

The EPC didn't publish citings from Round 1 until lunch time on Tuesday.

blackdog1

Aron Poor Sordidness wrote: »

We're 50 hours from kickoff now (well, 8 mins away) so presuming no citing. I can't really believe that but there we are.

I thought Wood did a text book clear out but he should be cited because this is the world we operate in now, you just can't make contact with the head area. Vdf should be annoyed because he should have had his head down jackling that ball first thing I was taught as a 7 was never look up when on the ball...your gonna be targeted by the cleaners... Also people must consider wood had alot of bodies and legs in his way and that effects the height at clear out. If those legs aren't there he can get closer to the ruck and lower his body height. He would have had to dive into the ruck to lower his height from my recollection of the event.

ButtersSuki

blackdog1 wrote: »

I thought Wood did a text book clear out but he should be cited because this is the world we operate in now, you just can't make contact with the head area. Vdf should be annoyed because he should have had his head down jackling that ball first thing I was taught as a 7 was never look up when on the ball...your gonna be targeted by the cleaners... Also people must consider wood had alot of bodies and legs in his way and that effects the height at clear out. If those legs aren't there he can get closer to the ruck and lower his body height. He would have had to dive into the ruck to lower his height from my recollection of the event.

It can’t be a text book clear out and make contact with the head though.

stephen_n

blackdog1 wrote: »

I thought Wood did a text book clear out but he should be cited because this is the world we operate in now, you just can't make contact with the head area. Vdf should be annoyed because he should have had his head down jackling that ball first thing I was taught as a 7 was never look up when on the ball...your gonna be targeted by the cleaners... Also people must consider wood had alot of bodies and legs in his way and that effects the height at clear out. If those legs aren't there he can get closer to the ruck and lower his body height. He would have had to dive into the ruck to lower his height from my recollection of the event.

VDF had his head up because he was talking to the ref checking he was allowed make the Jackal.

Faugheen

blackdog1 wrote: »

I thought Wood did a text book clear out but he should be cited because this is the world we operate in now, you just can't make contact with the head area. Vdf should be annoyed because he should have had his head down jackling that ball first thing I was taught as a 7 was never look up when on the ball...your gonna be targeted by the cleaners... Also people must consider wood had alot of bodies and legs in his way and that effects the height at clear out. If those legs aren't there he can get closer to the ruck and lower his body height. He would have had to dive into the ruck to lower his height from my recollection of the event.

More blaming VDF. Nice