Leinster vs Northampton match thread

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.

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.

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.

Dog Botherer

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.

Former Former Former

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

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

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Enough former players and commentators seem to be of the opinion that this wasn't a card-able offence that I'm going to sit on the fence and see whether there is a citing.

My understanding of the rules was that if the shoulder makes contact with the head then it's a penalty and card and there is absolutely no mitigation from what I can see as VDF didn't move and was entitled to be where he was. I think it looked worse than it was, I don't think VDF was particularly hurt and at the time I thought it was a certain yellow but only possibly a red.

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

It's an odd one for sure, potentially a bit of a precedent setter for supporters.

I think what should have been particularly damning was the fact that VDF is relatively still. He’s in a great position and he doesn’t drop before the contact and nothing really changes. If he had dropped at the last minute maybe you could argue for a yellow. But I don’t think the referee was even looking at that tbh

I’d be really shocked if it isn’t mentioned by EPCR at all. That would require further explanation, and I’m sure they’ll make a comment on that when journalists enquire. Most likely I think, SURELY, there’ll be a citing or at least a citing commissioners warning.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Whether VDF was particularly hurt or not is immaterial.

Exactly this. Just because VDF wasn’t hurt this time doesn’t mean someone else won’t be if it happens again.

I’d consider VDF lucky that he wasn’t seriously injured here.

Burkie1203

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Enough former players and commentators seem to be of the opinion that this wasn't a card-able offence that I'm going to sit on the fence and see whether there is a citing.

My understanding of the rules was that if the shoulder makes contact with the head then it's a penalty and card and there is absolutely no mitigation from what I can see as VDF didn't move and was entitled to be where he was. I think it looked worse than it was, I don't think VDF was particularly hurt and at the time I thought it was a certain yellow but only possibly a red.

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

It's an odd one for sure, potentially a bit of a precedent setter for supporters.

A lot of those pundits are very quiet on social media since too. IMO ref got it totally wrong. VDF was in perfect position. If you want him out you do it legally. If you cannot do it legally you have lost the space.

Alix Popham is suffering in part because of sub concussion blows or knocks. VDF not being hurt now doesn't mean this isn't adding up to when he is in his 40s or 50s and cannot recall ever winning Europe or Pro14 with Leinster

ButtersSuki

Deleted User wrote: »

Enough former players and commentators seem to be of the opinion that this wasn't a card-able offence that I'm going to sit on the fence and see whether there is a citing.

My understanding of the rules was that if the shoulder makes contact with the head then it's a penalty and card and there is absolutely no mitigation from what I can see as VDF didn't move and was entitled to be where he was. I think it looked worse than it was, I don't think VDF was particularly hurt and at the time I thought it was a certain yellow but only possibly a red.

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

It's an odd one for sure, potentially a bit of a precedent setter for supporters.

Whether VDF was particularly hurt or not is immaterial.

[Deleted User]

Enough former players and commentators seem to be of the opinion that this wasn't a card-able offence that I'm going to sit on the fence and see whether there is a citing.

My understanding of the rules was that if the shoulder makes contact with the head then it's a penalty and card and there is absolutely no mitigation from what I can see as VDF didn't move and was entitled to be where he was. I think it looked worse than it was, I don't think VDF was particularly hurt and at the time I thought it was a certain yellow but only possibly a red.

I still haven't heard anything from pundits or read anything on social media which explains satisfactorily why it wasn't a card - but ultimately I don't consider myself a sufficient authority to disregard the opinion of former players and the ref.

It's an odd one for sure, potentially a bit of a precedent setter for supporters.

[Deleted User]

We'll know more if a citing does or doesn't come. If it does, and I suspect it will, it's really not a good look for a few people including the ref.

Burkie1203

Tim Robbins wrote: »

When you issue a Red you need to be 100% sure. Because you will change the game and people will talk about you instead of the game if you get it wrong

A shoulder direct to the head with a run up to enter a ruck.

If any ref cannot be 100% sure of that with multiple angle replays then they should not be let ref.

Tim Robbins

When you issue a Red you need to be 100% sure. Because you will change the game and people will talk about you instead of the game if you get it wrong.

We watch those incidents on TV, press rewind when we feel like it and are in a better position than any official -- none of us are accountable. All those officials are being assessed not just for their decisions but how they communicate. Given the complexity of the game, the standard is usually pretty high. All I was doing was trying to explain how someone who might go for Yellow instead of a Red would see it. As I said, in my view it is a Red. However, if an elite ref doesn't even think it is a penalty, either he is wrong or I am.

In the cold light of day, I think he will think that is minimum a Yellow.

If it is unquestionably a Red, well then sadly, I think the Ref will bear the repercussions of his decision. When there were some bad tackles in a certain NZ match there was a big communication from World Rugby to get more consistency between penalty, Yellow or Red.

So, now, do we need more from World Rugby? Or do we have enough and this Ref made massive blunder...

Faugheen wrote: »

So I have to be accredited to interpret the laws as they are clearly written down?

I have to be accredited to say that even suggesting VDF doing everything right could be a mitigating factor in him getting a shot to the head is a load of bollocks?

I have to be accredited to comment on anything that is said by that poster now? Because he is accredited and I’m not?

It’s the typical put down from yourself. People who are not qualified are not allowed to talk.

I’m not ‘freaking out or throwing a fit’, I’m saying that a player who gets a blow to the head should not be blamed in any f*cking way like some of the commentary around VDF has been. Quinlan, O’Driscoll and Hartley just three pundits who made those exact arguments. They’re chatting sh*t and anyone who tries to suggest it’s a mitigating factor is chatting sh*t as well, even if they wouldn’t do that themselves.

But don’t worry, I’ll go get accredited so I can be put on the same pedestal as your fine self.

No, you don’t need to be accredited to talk about anything. But if you’re not and someone else is, it’s totally ridiculous to dismiss their opinion out of hand and act as if you know better without consideration. It’s exceptionally Dunning-Kruger

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No it isn’t. Your stating things as fact when based on nothing but some inflated sense of authority about laws you’re not actually accredited over.

So what’s actually the point?

It’s outrageously childish. I’ve said nothing dangerous. I think it was likely a red. The other poster thinks it was likely a red. But because we’re entertaining a discussion about what COULD have mitigated it, with the experience to know that referees will sometimes differ, you’re freaking out and throwing a fit.

I don’t even agree 30% of refs (with the benefit of TMO) would see it as a yellow, but I could maybe see it being mitigated down to a yellow on a first viewing at lower levels where some refs are a lot more cautious.

Most of all, this is a total and utter waste of time because everyone here thinks it should be a red, and the referee let it go completely. So the argument is irrelevant to the problem, which will be sorted out between the ref and the organisers

So I have to be accredited to interpret the laws as they are clearly written down?

I have to be accredited to say that even suggesting VDF doing everything right could be a mitigating factor in him getting a shot to the head is a load of bollocks?

I have to be accredited to comment on anything that is said by that poster now? Because he is accredited and I’m not?

It’s the typical put down from yourself. People who are not qualified are not allowed to talk.

I’m not ‘freaking out or throwing a fit’, I’m saying that a player who gets a blow to the head should not be blamed in any f*cking way like some of the commentary around VDF has been. Quinlan, O’Driscoll and Hartley just three pundits who made those exact arguments. They’re chatting sh*t and anyone who tries to suggest it’s a mitigating factor is chatting sh*t as well, even if they wouldn’t do that themselves.

But don’t worry, I’ll go get accredited so I can be put on the same pedestal as your fine self.

Faugheen wrote: »

Very good. Your defence is being shown to be dangerous and bollocks so you resort to smart-holery.

No it isn’t. Your stating things as fact when based on nothing but some inflated sense of authority about laws you’re not actually accredited over.

So what’s actually the point?

It’s outrageously childish. I’ve said nothing dangerous. I think it was likely a red. The other poster thinks it was likely a red. But because we’re entertaining a discussion about what COULD have mitigated it, with the experience to know that referees will sometimes differ, you’re freaking out and throwing a fit.

I don’t even agree 30% of refs (with the benefit of TMO) would see it as a yellow, but I could maybe see it being mitigated down to a yellow on a first viewing at lower levels where some refs are a lot more cautious.

Most of all, this is a total and utter waste of time because everyone here thinks it should be a red, and the referee let it go completely. So the argument is irrelevant to the problem, which will be sorted out between the ref and the organisers

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh right, so are you an assessor with the Leinster branch? Or is it elsewhere?

Very good. Your defence is being shown to be dangerous and bollocks so you resort to smart-holery.

Faugheen wrote: »

That isn’t a ‘possible’ mitigating factor whatsoever. That puts blame on a player who did everything right.

To even suggest it as a possible mitigating factor is backwards and it sums up the attitude towards blows to the head.

It’s wrong, and there is no excuse. End of.

Oh right, so are you an assessor with the Leinster branch? Or is it elsewhere?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is when talking about POSSIBLE mitigating factors that a ref might reduce it from a yellow to a red, which hes made clear he wouldn’t have done.

No one is putting the blame on VDF. Impossible to have a conversation about something like this if people throw a complete tantrum if there’s any mention of theoretical stuff they disagree with.

That isn’t a ‘possible’ mitigating factor whatsoever. That puts blame on a player who did everything right.

To even suggest it as a possible mitigating factor is backwards and it sums up the attitude towards blows to the head.

It’s wrong, and there is no excuse. End of.

It’s also impossible to have a conversation when people believe there needs to be a ‘balance’ to every single argument that is ever had.

There is no balance when it comes to Wood’s attempted clear out on VDF. Zero. But sure some refs might think the duty of care is also on the player who is doing everything by the book and sure what else is the other player supposed to do?

There doesn’t have to be a ‘balance’ for ****ing everything, and to even suggest that as a mitigating factor is dangerous.

Faugheen wrote: »

“VDF should really have his head up and his eyes focusing on what is coming at him. Everyone has a duty a care in a collision sport. To yourself and to others”

Ah sure we all partied.

This is when talking about POSSIBLE mitigating factors that a ref might reduce it from a yellow to a red, which hes made clear he wouldn’t have done.

No one is putting the blame on VDF. Impossible to have a conversation about something like this if people throw a complete tantrum if there’s any mention of theoretical stuff they disagree with.

razorblunt

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The female commentator on C4 thought nothing of it. Heaslip said a penalty.

We can get real angry about this and throw insults at each other or else try to understanding why there is inconsistency and then hope World Rugby clarify.

Surprised the two of them didn’t just laugh as they always do at everything.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

FFS he doesn't "put the blame" on VDF! :pac:

Is there some weird fetish over outrage and drama going on here or something?

“VDF should really have his head up and his eyes focusing on what is coming at him. Everyone has a duty a care in a collision sport. To yourself and to others”

Ah sure we all partied.

Faugheen wrote: »

He also puts blame on VDF.

Instead of trying to play devil’s advocate I’d suggest you read the posts yourself. Anyone who tries to bring that narrative should not be a referee as they are a danger to players.

FFS he doesn't "put the blame" on VDF! :pac:

Is there some weird fetish over outrage and drama going on here or something?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If you actually read his posts here, he said that was a mistake. He said the disagreement is between whether its a yellow or a red and his feeling would be a big majority would go with red. I'd completely agree with that. Why people are having a fit over this is totally beyond me.

He also puts blame on VDF.

Instead of trying to play devil’s advocate I’d suggest you read the posts yourself. Anyone who tries to bring that narrative should not be a referee as they are a danger to players.

Kraftwerk wrote: »

It's a mistake that a ref thought a shoulder to the head wasn't foul play? That's not a mistake, that's a ref who doesn't understand the laws. And if you don't understand the laws around player welfare you shouldn't be on the field.

And you'll excuse me if I'm struggling to understand that posters point as his proof of refs disagreeing is the opinion of random pundits on TV.

Yes, its a mistake.

I mean I'm all for criticising random pundits, but I'll also listen when a ref tells me their opinion on refereeing, especially when its entirely sensible.

ButtersSuki

Quinlan is not the smartest tool in the box at the best of times, but he’s let himself down badly here.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If you actually read his posts here, he said that was a mistake. He said the disagreement is between whether its a yellow or a red and his feeling would be a big majority would go with red. I'd completely agree with that. Why people are having a fit over this is totally beyond me.

It's a mistake that a ref thought a shoulder to the head wasn't foul play? That's not a mistake, that's a ref who doesn't understand the laws. And if you don't understand the laws around player welfare you shouldn't be on the field.

And you'll excuse me if I'm struggling to understand that posters point as his proof of refs disagreeing is the opinion of random pundits on TV.

Kraftwerk wrote: »

If any ref disagreed that a shoulder to the head in a ruck clear out is foul play they shouldn't be referees. It's not a matter of interpretation it's a matter of not understanding the laws. The laws are quite clear on it.

That ref yesterday said that a shoulder to the head in a ruck clear out is not foul play. With the benefit of a tmo who brought his attention to it and a clear replay. That's not interpretation. That's a dangerous misunderstanding of the laws.

If you actually read his posts here, he said that was a mistake. He said the disagreement is between whether its a yellow or a red and his feeling would be a big majority would go with red. I'd completely agree with that. Why people are having a fit over this is totally beyond me.