Mexico v The Wildlings match thread.

Former Former Former

Sooo.... the ref actually rode Leinster? (note: this is a joke)

I'm not sure I agree with that being overturned, I know it wasn't malicious but head on head contact...

awec

Absolutely laughable to be honest. Rugby is paying only lip service to the head contact issue.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968384#Comment_119968384

Why is not paying lip service then when James Hume only receives a yellow card for head to head contact with Ringrose?

I don't personally agree with Healy's red being overturned, but equally, I don't see a significant distinction between the incidents.

Mitigation for Healy - his feet are planted, Stewart comes around the corner at speed, he absorbs the contact.

Mitigation for Hume - Ringrose steps back off his right foot, Hume can't stop the collision.

In both cases, the reason for the head collision was the tackler was too upright in his body position. I think Healy got the red and Hume didn't because of the blood pumping from Tom Stewart, whereas Ringrose bounced off Hume and scored a try, hence yellow.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968408#Comment_119968408

What has James Hume got to do with it? Total whataboutery.

This is an absurd call but not unsurprising, the officiating of head contact can at best be described as a complete shambles.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968408#Comment_119968408

Hume got a yellow because the mitigation was very, very, very clear and obvious. Healy got a red because the mitigation wasn’t.

At the time I thought yellow because it was more of a soak tackle with Healy not moving forward. But the fact that he rose into the tackle a bit could have pushed it to a red. I thought red was a little harsh but figured it’s best these ones are treated harshly. I’m assuming todays take on it was in line with what I thought on the day.

I can understand why people think this was a red and I’m pretty close to 50/50 on it myself, while also acknowledging that I’m hardly 100% objective. I can also understand why people are frustrated by the decision today, and especially it’s lack of proper explanation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968445#Comment_119968445

Because both were head on head collisions in the same game, that received different sanctions.

You've chosen to exhibit outrage about the one that went against the team you support, but ignored the one that occurred for the team you support.

Either its lip service from world rugby that neither of these incidents were deemed red card worthy or it isn't - it shouldn't be just lip service because Cian Healy's wasn't deemed a red.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968452#Comment_119968452

In general, I don't think mitigation should come into it if the tackler is largely upright.

That's what causes the head on head collision.

It should be a simple and straightforward protocol that unless demonstrably bent at the knees and the hip in the tackle, mitigation isn't a factor. Otherwise, it's free reign for outside backs who are fleeter of foot to suffer head shots because the fact they are likelier to step on receipt of the ball will always be deemed mitigation.

Hume was the one going into the tackle with Ringrose at pace, whereas Healy was virtually stationary at the point of the tackle. That wasn't considered at all.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968454#Comment_119968454

What has the team I support got to do with this? It makes zero difference to Ulster if Cian Healy is banned or not.

As a rugby supporter, this is an absurd decision, particularly when put in the context of rugby being a sport that is desperately trying to clean up it's image when it comes to head contact.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968471#Comment_119968471

I just find it coincidental then.

Head collisions of all types are existential threats for the game - and the only way they stop happening is if World Rugby get tougher on the sanctioning of it, whereas it seems like they're going the other way (between overturning decisions like this, looking for mitigation, trialling the 20 min red in the SH this year and generally giving slap on the wrist bans to players and allowing them to cut it further by doing a silly tackling lesson).

It can't be a situation though where the Healy-Stewart incident is a complete disgrace and a stain on the game, but the Hume-Ringrose one is largely fine.

They need to toughen the sanctions in both situations if they really want to change player behaviour.

pickarooney

The stupidest thing was them playing three full minutes before looking at the Healy interest

Burkie1203

https://twitter.com/RuaidhriOC/status/1600578212228120609?t=6_CT_s5cbbUShnYpVoJTfw&s=19

....

sydthebeat

I get the first one...

Feet planted you could argue.

The rest I can't stand over. There was no major or unusual change of direction or height, and he certainly did have a forward motion, if only a natural forward motion

lawrencesummers

Why does it matter if someones feet are planted or one foot is off the ground ?

Isnt the problem with head on head contact the fact that its head on head not i wonder what his feet were doing

Dubinusa

Leinster get lucky, Healy is lucky. I thought it was a red. The Hume case was fair imo. A yellow was fair.

CIARAN_BOYLE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968865#Comment_119968865

Feet being planted means he isn't running into the tackle which reduces the level of impact significantly. Hence mitigation.

While there's a duty of care on the tackler by nature of being the tackler as opposed to the tackled Stewart brought the majority of the force into the collision.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968865#Comment_119968865

Yeah, because if your feet aren't planted then arguably you're not the one initiating the contact, you're absorbing it. Hume initiated the contact with Ringrose, Healy didn't.

Podge_irl

Healy rose up into the tackle which is the exact kind of thing we are supposed to be trying to eliminate. Its a bad decision to overturn the red.

Dave_The_Sheep

I can see why they overturned it - to an extent - but still it's not a great look to be rescinding cards like this when we're trying to get it out of the game. Thought it was a red at the time, albeit a 'low grade' one if that is a thing, still think it is.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968805#Comment_119968805

Most of that aligns with exactly what I thought at the time. Not so sure about the last one but there’s enough mitigation there without it.

lawrencesummers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119968910#Comment_119968910

Is the onus not on the tackler to have his head at the correct height?

I dont think this grey area is going to do the game any good tbh, its putting responsibility on the ball carrier.

In the game had that been a yellow which acknowledges it was foul play then ulster lost their player for the entire rest of the game and leinster only 10 minutes. That cant make sense.

I dont think healy is a dirty player, hes tough and effective and maybe getting off a ban because of his record is warranted but to me this is still a tackle where the tackler was to high and what rugby are saying here is:

“The tackle was high, it was illegal and we are coming down hard on that because of head injury issues, go sit down for ten minutes and then play away.

Its baffling to me tbh.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119969615#Comment_119969615

maybe getting off a ban because of his record is warranted

que???

he didnt get off a ban because of his record? thats an incredibly 'unique' take on how these things work.

we can be baffled by the reasons they gave, but we have to take the reasons they gave at face value..otherwise youre veering straight into conspiracy theory areas.

Former Former Former

I don't think they should have overturned it, it wasn't a heinous tackle but where's the deterrent to future offenders, which is supposed to be the point?

Part of the problem is that citing is a blunt instrument. If the citing committee decides the red was justified, then they HAVE to suspend him.

Then you have a situation where Healy has got a red card and misses another two or three games but Hume (for example) sits out ten minutes and no more for the same offence. You could argue that's a disproportionate punishment and maybe if they'd been able to decide that the red card was sufficient, they'd have left it there.

But overall, the URC comes across as very weak on discipline, compared to EPCR or Top 14. Bad call IMO.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119969615#Comment_119969615

Is the onus not on the tackler to have his head at the correct height?

Did Cooney have his head at the right height when tackling Lowe?

People accuse refs of inconsistencies but as supporters and spectators were far worse.

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119969914#Comment_119969914

I read that as it would have been fair if he didn't get a ban for to his record, that the red is punishment enough. Not that he got off this time because of his record.

Overturning this ban is crazy. The ref clearly explained why it was a red. His assistant and the TMO all agreed. The citing committee have effectively said they are all wrong. What do they do next time a decision like this had to be made? They just give a yellow and these types of tackles become acceptable again.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970082#Comment_119970082

you cant get a red and no ban??

to be fair to URC, its a similar situation to JGP getting cited for his high hit on Kieran marmion back in April. At that time too there was a lot of clamouring about head contact = red, but the disciplinary committee dismissed it for much the same reasons as healy (low degree of force)

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970100#Comment_119970100

As I said, I read the post as suggesting that is made possible. Hence the maybe. I'm not saying I agree, just how I read it.

I find it hard to say that a head on head tackle left a player streaming blood and failing a HIA was low force.

Paul Smeenus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970051#Comment_119970051

Well, Cooney wasn't penalised, so that suggests the ref saw no issue with it.

You're complaining about inconsistency and then going full "whataboutery" mode over two instances that had utterly different outcomes (other than an Ulster player being taken off for an HIA).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970160#Comment_119970160

Of course there was no penalty for Cooney, I'm merely pointing out to OP that if there is an onus to go low as the tackler then that onus is universal and would have implications for other incidents in the same fixture.

I'm still on the same page I was initially with the Healy red. I thought he was stationary, soaked the tackle, was too high but at full speed there is less than a second from the player coming from behind the ruck to going into contact. Healy was too high and that's an offence, I thought at the time it would be a yellow with the potential for red but that there would be mitigation given it was a fairly passive tackle and his body height was slightly lower.

I suspect at the citing that whoever was representing Healy showed a number of examples and technically applied the mitigating factors and this was sufficient in hindsight for the red to be overturned. I wouldn't have complained had it not been - but I think this is a case that is on or near the line where a yellow becomes a red and in this instance it fell on the side of yellow.

OldRio

Healy is not the only high profile International rugby player to have a red overturned before these European fixtures.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970207#Comment_119970207

Come on now, I've heard it all.

Is Cian Healy still a "high profile" player? You think he's a factor in selling tickets down in Le Havre for this weekend?

These conspiracy theories are just nonsense.

Akrasia

I think these decisions to overturn red cards and bans are going to cause a major problem for world rugby when the class action law suits come before the courts

World Rugby or the national unions will set forth their policies and procedures, and then the prosecution lawyers will have a blooper reel of dangerous tackles, concussions, spear tackles, tackles in the air, head collisions... Whatever about referees on field performance, referees can make mistakes on the day, but when they get to a panel of 'experts' reviewing them and concluding that those players were unfairly carded.. the Jury in that trial will be very easy to convince that world rugby, despite knowing of the serious harm that head and brain injuries can cause to players, have refused to take player welfare seriously.

Yeah_Right

It's interesting that the 2 cards (Healy and Hume) are very similar to 2 of the cards handed out in the ABs v Ireland series this year. Healy's red is very similar to Porter's tacklevon Rettallick (yellow) and Hume's yellow is very similar to Ta'avao's tackle on Ringrose (red). And it's very interesting reading on here how some posters' opinions on what card should be handed out for those tackles appear to have changed. I wonder why that would be??

OldRio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970267#Comment_119970267

Did I say any of that? You joined the dots not I.

Assumption is a dangerous thing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970397#Comment_119970397

What point were you trying to make then? Please clarify.

OldRio

A point? I mealy pointed out facts. Your imagination did the rest.

phog

The overturning Healy's Red Card and basically ignoring of Fekitoa's shoulder to the head (v Ulster I think) aren't a great look for the URC. The ERC seems to have a harder sanction on dangerous play than the URC. You'd imagine with all the concerns around head injuries all major competitions would be trying to stamp out hits to the head, taking a softly softly approach to the guilty party isn't going to allow them get there anytime soon.

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970352#Comment_119970352

Have many people changed? The jist as I’m reading it is that most people are surprised he got away with it. Also that the URC aren’t being strong enough on it head shots.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970415#Comment_119970415

I think he's referring to some of the points being made about the URC being a bit soft, but Dupont had his red overturned by WR a few weeks ago also.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119969615#Comment_119969615

Teams lose players to injury all the time, even in situations that are not penalties. That is just an unfortunate part of the sport. The punishment shouldn’t be about the injury, it should be about the action.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970352#Comment_119970352

I wouldn’t say Humes is at all similar to Ta’avaos. There’s an actual step and significant change of direction in the former that isn’t at all in the latter. Agreed on the similarities between Healy and Porter. If anything, Porters was worse because he was completely upright in the tackle. Healy at least tried to get himself lower.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970832#Comment_119970832

My memory of Ta'avao's tackle was that he was coming across the field and Ringrose came back inside on a switch play. I could be completely wrong. Ta'avao was upright (like Hume) so not in a position to make a safe tackle.

I can't remember, did Porter get cited for his tackle? If not, at least the citing commissioners are consistent even if the refs aren't.

Jump_In_Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970882#Comment_119970882

My recollection is that Ta’avao was clumsier, think he was moving forward more and less bent over than Healy was. It was a definite red card in my opinion.

I still would rather Healy’s red card stood, as I believe he aimed slightly too high.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970882#Comment_119970882

It was a switch play, but Ringrose never really changed direction. He started his line and stuck to it. Against Hume he stepped into a space his original line was never going to take him.

Porter was cited but it was dismissed at the hearing. So there is clear consistency there between how the international panel reviewed and decided on Porter and how the URC panel reviewed and decided on Healy.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970905#Comment_119970905

I was comparing Ta'avao and Hume. Not Healy.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119971026#Comment_119971026

But doing a switch play on a prop is just mean. He's running as hard as he can across the field, chasing the ball carrier and suddenly they switch to an inside runner!! Props can't change direction the fast. At least when Ringrose stepped inside Hume it was back vs back. If anything Ta'avao deserved mitigation for being a prop and Hume should have got a red for not being agile enough as a back 😁

CIARAN_BOYLE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119970138#Comment_119970138

Healy brought very little momentum. Stewart was running full force.

He brought all the momentum which led to Stewart coming off. The collision was high force but Healy was low force.

It sucks and I'm sorry for Stewart being hurt.

Larbre34

Its right that this Red was overturned.

I remember saying on the night, something to the effect that what Rugby official, what Ref, what fan, what player, ever would have intended that a particular Law would end up in THAT tackle being a red card offence.

It can only be viewed at full speed to be realistic and in that you can see Healy was cautious, had a proper tackling stance with knees bent and his arms poised to wrap the ball carrier. He did EVERYTHING he possibly could with his decades of experience to take a contact with the player.

Unfortunately, for so long as Rugby remains a contact sport, you will get collisions with variables like player height, arm length, approach angle, contributing movement from other players etc, that will result in some head contact and some blood injury and maybe worse. Even with both players employing the very best of technique in the circumstances.

If it remains a policy to Red Card incidents like the one under discussion, we might as well voluntarily disband the game of Rugby Union at all levels, in its current form.

Jump_In_Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119971407#Comment_119971407

They are even less comparable. Less force, more mitigation changing direction, more effort to tackle with arms.

AbusesToilets

I think WR's move to try and get tackle heights lower is to be commended, but they need to also address the ball carriers height going into contact, if they are being serious. You see it especially in goal line situations. If a carrier is effectively moving forward with his head brushing the turf, there's no safe way for a defender to contact them.

The NFL notionally addressed that as part of their efforts on safe contact, mandating that a carrier can't lower their helmet into a tackle. Can't say I remember it ever being called mind you.

I think the important take away from all this is that those who said the Healy red was harsh and the Lowe incident was play on (Leinster fans) we're right and EVERYONE else was wrong.

And on that note - I think this thread has run its course, lock er up there awec.