Australia v France

[Kawazaki]

It's literally taken from the same source as this


there's no doubt he ended up hitting the guy in the head. The still taken from just before he hit the guy in the head. And there's no doubt about the arm never wrapping.

You're so, so strange.

No, I'm so, so in line with the review committee who rescinded the red card. You're the outlier.

[JM2K6]

They rescinded the red card because they think the mitigation process wasn't followed not because they didn't think it was a dangerous tackle

yeesh

[Raggs]

It's literally in the statement that they consider it an act of foul play. I'm not sure how I feel about calling it a shoulder charge though, the right arm is in that awkward position where it could be out in an attempt to create a wrap, as opposed to tucked, which would be clearer. If you do consider it a shoulder charge, it jumps back to an easy red.

Said at the time I thought it was a yellow, but really not surprised by a red. Much later in the match another Aussie put in an arguably bigger hit from a restart, that drove Jelonch back further, and did it far lower, with no risk of a card.

[Kawazaki]

They rescinded the red card because they think the mitigation process wasn't followed not because they didn't think it was a dangerous tackle

yeesh

The mitigation being that it was shoulder to shoulder first and a perfectly good contact. The French player holding his forehead and diving to the ground probably also pissed off the review committee.

[Ymx]

It's literally in the statement that they consider it an act of foul play. I'm not sure how I feel about calling it a shoulder charge though, the right arm is in that awkward position where it could be out in an attempt to create a wrap, as opposed to tucked, which would be clearer. If you do consider it a shoulder charge, it jumps back to an easy red.

Said at the time I thought it was a yellow, but really not surprised by a red. Much later in the match another Aussie put in an arguably bigger hit from a restart, that drove Jelonch back further, and did it far lower, with no risk of a card.

Did it knock the ball out?

[JM2K6]

They rescinded the red card because they think the mitigation process wasn't followed not because they didn't think it was a dangerous tackle

yeesh

The mitigation being that it was shoulder to shoulder first and a perfectly good contact. The French player holding his forehead and diving to the ground probably also pissed off the review committee.

That's potentially mitigating it down from a straight red, it's still foul play as they said so themselves. As the process wasn't correctly followed, they binned it.

Completely agree about the acting but he did actually get hit in the jaw by a guy flying in with a shoulder - it pisses me off that the acting is the only reason foul play was spotted, but that's a separate conversation. It was a dangerous tackle and the committee agrees with me on this.

[Kawazaki]

They rescinded the red card because they think the mitigation process wasn't followed not because they didn't think it was a dangerous tackle

yeesh

The mitigation being that it was shoulder to shoulder first and a perfectly good contact. The French player holding his forehead and diving to the ground probably also pissed off the review committee.

That's potentially mitigating it down from a straight red, it's still foul play as they said so themselves. As the process wasn't correctly followed, they binned it.

Completely agree about the acting but he did actually get hit in the jaw by a guy flying in with a shoulder - it pisses me off that the acting is the only reason foul play was spotted, but that's a separate conversation. It was a dangerous tackle and the committee agrees with me on this.

Jesus wept.

[JM2K6]

Literally foul play as acknowledged by the committee but you do you

[Kawazaki]

Having reviewed all the evidence, the committee deemed that Marika Koroibete’s tackle on French loose-forward Anthony Jelonch initially made shoulder to shoulder contact," the statement read.

“Subsequently, through the impact, any contact to the chest and neck was incidental by Koroibete.

"Therefore, World Rugby’s Head Contact Process was not met due to mitigating factors, and the act of the foul play was secondary.

The reference to foul play is a reference to what the referee and officials used to produce the red card. However, the review committee deemed that the tackle was shoulder-to- shoulder and legal so the 'subsequent impact and contact to the chest and neck was incidental'. This means there wasn't any foul play as it was secondary to a legal tackle.

Further example: If an attacking player got struck in the mouth by a stray boot from a defender in the act of a legal tackle then you wouldn't send the tackler off for kicking an opponent in the face would you? The 'foul play' (kicking in the face) would be incidental and secondary to the legal tackle.

HTH

[JM2K6]

Yeah, nah. It's not the primary thing that happened - but it was a secondary effect. That is not the same thing as them saying it was a legal tackle, which is precisely why they refer to it as an act of foul play.

Translated for those who find this hard to understand, they are saying the fact that the foul play happened after the initial contact and not from direct contact means that their own protocols weren't followed. The initial contact point should have been used as mitigation, and it wasn't.

It does not mean that the foul play "doesn't count". It does not mean that it was a legal act. It means that their method for determining the sanction on the field of play was not, in their eyes, correctly followed.

[Kawazaki]

Yeah, nah. It's not the primary thing that happened - but it was a secondary effect. That is not the same thing as them saying it was a legal tackle, which is precisely why they refer to it as an act of foul play.

Translated for those who find this hard to understand, they are saying the fact that the foul play happened after the initial contact and not from direct contact means that their own protocols weren't followed. The initial contact point should have been used as mitigation, and it wasn't.

It does not mean that the foul play "doesn't count". It does not mean that it was a legal act. It means that their method for determining the sanction on the field of play was not, in their eyes, correctly followed.

“Subsequently, through the impact, any contact to the chest and neck was incidental by Koroibete".

It was a legal tackle. That is literally it. All of it. Everything subsequent to that was 'incidental'. I even gave you a paint by numbers example to help you understand.

You're wrong. Absorb it, own it, then move on. I won't mention it again and I don't think anyone else noticed.

[JM2K6]

Yeah, nah. It's not the primary thing that happened - but it was a secondary effect. That is not the same thing as them saying it was a legal tackle, which is precisely why they refer to it as an act of foul play.

Translated for those who find this hard to understand, they are saying the fact that the foul play happened after the initial contact and not from direct contact means that their own protocols weren't followed. The initial contact point should have been used as mitigation, and it wasn't.

It does not mean that the foul play "doesn't count". It does not mean that it was a legal act. It means that their method for determining the sanction on the field of play was not, in their eyes, correctly followed.

“Subsequently, through the impact, any contact to the chest and neck was incidental by Koroibete".

It was a legal tackle. That is literally it. All of it. Everything subsequent to that was 'incidental'. I even gave you a paint by numbers example to help you understand.

You're wrong. Absorb it, own it, then move on. I won't mention it again and I don't think anyone else noticed.

It's astonishing how arrogant you are while getting this so wrong by WR's own head contact process, mitigation means no red card. That's why they're talking about that process! If they were trying to say that it wasn't foul play at all they would say that - instead, they talk about the mitigating factors. Aka the reasons to knock it down from a red, as per their lovely little flowchart.

You don't talk about mitigation if foul play never existed. Using your blinkered definition of "it was legal at the point of contact, ergo it was a legal and fair tackle" every single decision to penalise or yellow card a player for a rabble that "rides up" - something we've seen countless times - would be wrong

[Kawazaki]

The word 'incidental' is the clue.

HTH

[JM2K6]

Yes. When determining if it's a red card, head contact after the initial contact is incidental, i.e. less important than the initial point of contact.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that "incidental" and "secondary" both mean irrelevant. Koroibete would still have been sanctioned for an illegal tackle.

[Kawazaki]

Yes. When determining if it's a red card, head contact after the initial contact is incidental, i.e. less important than the initial point of contact.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that "incidental" and "secondary" both mean irrelevant. Koroibete would still have been sanctioned for an illegal tackle.

A shoulder on shoulder tackle is not illegal. You seem to be 'labouring under the misapprehension' that it is.

Here's a still image just for good measure of what a shoulder on shoulder tackle looks like...

[Raggs]

Yes. When determining if it's a red card, head contact after the initial contact is incidental, i.e. less important than the initial point of contact.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that "incidental" and "secondary" both mean irrelevant. Koroibete would still have been sanctioned for an illegal tackle.

A shoulder on shoulder tackle is not illegal. You seem to be 'labouring under the misapprehension' that it is.

Here's a still image just for good measure of what a shoulder on shoulder tackle looks like...

Shoulder on shoulder isn't. Shoulder on shoulder that rides up to head/neck is... it's just considered a mitigating factor.

[JM2K6]

Yes. When determining if it's a red card, head contact after the initial contact is incidental, i.e. less important than the initial point of contact.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that "incidental" and "secondary" both mean irrelevant. Koroibete would still have been sanctioned for an illegal tackle.

A shoulder on shoulder tackle is not illegal. You seem to be 'labouring under the misapprehension' that it is.

Here's a still image just for good measure of what a shoulder on shoulder tackle looks like...

What happened after the initial contact, Toga?

In your experience watching rugby, what happens when a tackle that at the point of contact was legal then hits the head / neck?

What does that make the tackle?

I fear you've spun yourself into a corner because you didn't realise what "incidental" actually means...

[Kawazaki]

There's no post-rationalisation from me, my position is the same as it was when I first saw it and called it.

[Raggs]

There's no post-rationalisation from me, my position is the same as it was when I first saw it and called it.

So you believe it to be a legal tackle. That's the most recent stance I can see you making on it, and you say your position is the same.

Fine. You're wrong. World rugby says you're wrong. The ref says you're wrong. The laws and framework say your wrong.

Now they say it's a yellow, rather than red, hence no ban, but that doesn't make it a legal tackle.

Maybe this will help: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/13

Specifically this bit:

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)

Now a couple of points in my mind, it's not clear and obvious, and also, it was still far from minor contact with his head in my mind.

Regardless, there's the laws themselves, in conjunction with World Rugby, clearly stating it was an act of foul play.

[JM2K6]

There's no post-rationalisation from me, my position is the same as it was when I first saw it and called it.

Yes. You were correct about it not being a red card. You were and are wrong about it being a legal tackle. So not sure why you're acting all Billy big bollocks!

[laurent]

Whatever floats your boat

He is trolling/Francophobic...

Ah ok, I never really pay attention to his posts, well I guess now even less.

Did you see the last 2 ovale masqué?

Yes Good writer ...

[Torquemada 1420]

Whatever floats your boat

Not red for me and Jelonch's effort to impersonate David Bory or Huget not very impressive either.

For me it was a yellow, but lets be clear, it was a dumb tackle given all of the edicts about lowering the tackle height and i am not shocked or particularly bothered that the ref saw it as red, deserved a red for the sheer stupidity if you ask me.

Can't argue with that either. Only one player is safe now and that's Farrell with his invisibility cloak.

[Certain Navigator]

There's no post-rationalisation from me, my position is the same as it was when I first saw it and called it.

Yes. You were correct about it not being a red card. You were and are wrong about it being a legal tackle. So not sure why you're acting all Billy big bollocks!

Yeah, red always seemed a bit OTT, but it was a yellow all day long. Which, in convoluted lawyer-speak, is what the committee appears to be saying.

[Kawazaki]

There's no post-rationalisation from me, my position is the same as it was when I first saw it and called it.

Yes. You were correct about it not being a red card. You were and are wrong about it being a legal tackle. So not sure why you're acting all Billy big bollocks!

You said it was a red card didn't you?

[JM2K6]

There's no post-rationalisation from me, my position is the same as it was when I first saw it and called it.

Yes. You were correct about it not being a red card. You were and are wrong about it being a legal tackle. So not sure why you're acting all Billy big bollocks!

You said it was a red card didn't you?

I did. I still believe it should be, if they're serious about player safety - I don't believe "it was shoulder to shoulder a split second before he cracked him in the jaw" should be enough mitigation, and I think high shots like that that hit the head with force should be a red all day long. However, that's not how they see it. And this argument has been about you not understanding that it was not a legal tackle.

[Kawazaki]

Yes. You were correct about it not being a red card. You were and are wrong about it being a legal tackle. So not sure why you're acting all Billy big bollocks!

You said it was a red card didn't you?

I did. I still believe it should be, if they're serious about player safety - I don't believe "it was shoulder to shoulder a split second before he cracked him in the jaw" should be enough mitigation, and I think high shots like that that hit the head with force should be a red all day long. However, that's not how they see it. And this argument has been about you not understanding that it was not a legal tackle.

It was a legal tackle. There's no conclusion or recommendation from the review committee of how the referee should have adjudged in the first place. He had a perfect view of it and signalled for a knock-on when it happened. First instincts are so often spot on.

[JM2K6]

You said it was a red card didn't you?

I did. I still believe it should be, if they're serious about player safety - I don't believe "it was shoulder to shoulder a split second before he cracked him in the jaw" should be enough mitigation, and I think high shots like that that hit the head with force should be a red all day long. However, that's not how they see it. And this argument has been about you not understanding that it was not a legal tackle.

It was a legal tackle. There's no conclusion or recommendation from the review committee of how the referee should have adjudged in the first place. He had a perfect view of it and signalled for a knock-on when it happened. First instincts are so often spot on.

It's quite remarkable that you still think that hitting someone in the head is a legal tackle as long as the initial contact wasn't to the head. That's what this boils down to, along with your hilarious misreading of what the panel actually said.

I don't know if you have Raggs on ignore, but he's given you all the information you need to understand why you are wrong on this.

[PCPhil]

You said it was a red card didn't you?

I did. I still believe it should be, if they're serious about player safety - I don't believe "it was shoulder to shoulder a split second before he cracked him in the jaw" should be enough mitigation, and I think high shots like that that hit the head with force should be a red all day long. However, that's not how they see it. And this argument has been about you not understanding that it was not a legal tackle.

It was a legal tackle. There's no conclusion or recommendation from the review committee of how the referee should have adjudged in the first place. He had a perfect view of it and signalled for a knock-on when it happened. First instincts are so often spot on.

At best it was a 'Farrell' tackle. I think it was slightly worse. No attempt to use the arms, above the tits, basically using body as a battering ram but feel free to keep digging away.

[Ymx]

Thread R.U.I.N.E.D

[Kawazaki]

Red card.

[Uncle fester]

Thread R.U.I.N.E.D

He really has them going, doesn't he!