the Retallick red card

[convoluted]

made this a separate topic as both the journalist and the Scotland coach Gregor Townsend make a rational observation: Rugby bosses need to clean-up the cleanout — it’s a dangerous, nonsensical mess the way it is refereed and as Townsend says, the margin between being world class and sent off are ridiculously thin.

Gregor Paul: The dangerous, non-sensical mess that led to All Blacks lock Brodie Retallick’s red card
1 Nov, 2022 04:00 AM

Head coach Ian Foster has already suggested the All Blacks legal team will make an impassioned defence of Retallick’s actions as a run of the mill cleanout that had neither any intent nor a high degree of danger as Kazuki Himeno barely seemed to notice that the All Blacks lock had charged into him.

“It looked pretty innocuous from a number of angles, but we’ll do our talking in the judiciary,” Foster said.

“We want to go and present a pretty strong rugby case for it, but we’ll just have to see what unfolds.”

It’s tempting to dismiss Foster’s comments as the typical defensive reaction of a coach who doesn’t want to lose a key player for the big games ahead, and some commentators have already branded Retallick’s actions as dumb and needless.

But those who believe Retallick made an avoidable error of judgement should consider the opinion of Scotland coach Gregor Townsend, who spoke about an almost identical incident in Edinburgh over the weekend.

Scotland lock Glen Young was yellow carded for a cleanout on Wallabies halfback Tate McDermott.

“An athletic second row sprinting to get with the ball carrier and it’s a millimetre away from being the best clearout you will ever see to hitting the smallest guy on the field in the head area,” Townsend explained.

“It’s the game. I personally believe that jackals should be taken out. There are too many injuries on the jackalled player and there is too much risk of where do you take someone out?

“We have to win the races to win contacts and so we are encouraging our players to sprint to win that race because if you don’t win the race, then you are not going to be able to move that jackalled player.

“So if someone is sprinting, thinking he’s going to win the race, he is not going to slow down a yard before the ruck. There is not enough time so it’s either a world class bit of play or a yellow card and there is nothing you can do about it unless you decide not to go to the ruck and let the player win the ball.”

This is why rugby needs to be careful about singling out specific cleanouts as dangerous when the process the player followed was the same as it had been for the 30 to 40 other rucks they hit in the same game.

Referee Nika Amashukeli said Retallick “came from a distance”, the relevance of which is hard to understand as he was simply running as far as he had to, to get to the ball and players fly into rucks at full speed, “from distance” all the time.

The implication of course is that this was pre-mediated, deliberate and avoidable, as if Retallick, like an angry bull, walked slowly back to his mark, shuffled his feet and then charged, and yet he was just doing what he did all game.

The act of hitting a ruck at speed from a distance is not illegal or dangerous per se, but an expected part of the role and as Townsend says, the whole game is built on racing to the ball and so what did everyone expect Retallick to be able to do in the split second he had to decide his course of action as he approached the ruck?

Amashukeli said there was a high degree of danger, but given players fly into rucks at speed all the time, isn’t there a high degree of danger at every collision?

Retallick, of course, is no stranger to this very fact as he almost missed the last World Cup when he was cleaned out of a ruck by RG Snyman in the Rugby Championship and dislocated his shoulder.

And it’s the arbitrary nature of it all that troubles coaches and players. Retallick was red carded, Young yellow carded and back in 2019, Snyman wasn’t hit with any sanction.

They pretty much all did the same thing — ran at speed into a ruck to clean someone out, with low body positions and despite the fact Retallick was deemed to have tucked his shoulder, most angles suggest his right arm was in the motion of wrapping around Himeno.

The next few days will be a feeding frenzy for social media as armchair experts dissect Retallick’s actions and the findings of the judiciary, but this circus needs to end.

Rugby bosses need to clean-up the cleanout — it’s a dangerous, nonsensical mess the way it is refereed and as Townsend says, the margin between being world class and sent off are ridiculously thin.

[Raggs]

The japanese player was already over the ball whilst Retallick was still looking at him. Retallick took 3 more paces to get there. He went straight off his feet, and shoulder barged the player, with the arm at his side and no attempt to wrap.

GTFO.

[Ymx]

Forgetting Retallick, as he was carded according to standard ruling of these days.

But the main point of banning the jackal is something I do agree with. I think a defending team should need to push over the ball in order for the halfback or another to pick it up.

I’d love to see a trial of it. Be a really good wrestle over the ball, rather than the current desperate smash, roll, twist we have now.

[GogLais]

Same in soccer isn’t it? Not that that proves anything of course but would-be tacklers sometimes have only a fraction of a second to decide what to do and how to do it. They have to accept the consequences if they get it wrong.

[Grandpa]

Forgetting Retallick, as he was carded according to standard ruling of these days.

But the main point of banning the jackal is something I do agree with. I think a defending team should need to push over the ball in order for the halfback or another to pick it up.

I’d love to see a trial of it. Be a really good wrestle over the ball, rather than the current desperate smash, roll, twist we have now.

I agree. Far too sensible though.

[Mahoney]

I love this:

It’s tempting to dismiss Foster’s comments as the typical defensive reaction of a coach who doesn’t want to lose a key player for the big games ahead
...

But those who believe Retallick made an avoidable error of judgement should consider the opinion of Scotland coach Gregor Townsend, who spoke about an almost identical incident in Edinburgh over the weekend.

So we shouldn't dismiss Foster's comments as "the typical defensive reaction of a coach" because... another coach in the same position had the same typical defensive reaction?!

Riiight.

[Raggs]

Forgetting Retallick, as he was carded according to standard ruling of these days.

But the main point of banning the jackal is something I do agree with. I think a defending team should need to push over the ball in order for the halfback or another to pick it up.

I’d love to see a trial of it. Be a really good wrestle over the ball, rather than the current desperate smash, roll, twist we have now.

How often do you see teams ruking over the ball now, and why do you think that would change? Why would that 2nd man in retallicks position come in any slower to knock someone back off the ball?

Before we even deal with the implications of a player on their feet not being allowed to play what should be a free ball, how does going to just pushing stop people flying in?

[Dan54]

Forgetting Retallick, as he was carded according to standard ruling of these days.

But the main point of banning the jackal is something I do agree with. I think a defending team should need to push over the ball in order for the halfback or another to pick it up.

I’d love to see a trial of it. Be a really good wrestle over the ball, rather than the current desperate smash, roll, twist we have now.

Yep, much like the old rucking, and only idiots who think bringing back rucking means you can stomp someone, generally the whole purpose when I played was to do exactly as you say , blast past the ball so your 9 had a clen ball to pick up.

[Gumboot]

Forgetting Retallick, as he was carded according to standard ruling of these days.

But the main point of banning the jackal is something I do agree with. I think a defending team should need to push over the ball in order for the halfback or another to pick it up.

I’d love to see a trial of it. Be a really good wrestle over the ball, rather than the current desperate smash, roll, twist we have now.

This.

Didn't think the Retallick incident was that bad - it looked much worse than it actually was, imho. Not sure what else he could've done, but he was red carded and so be it.

The Scottish fella got a yellow in the Aussie test coz the ref deemed there was mitigation - the initial contact to the opponent's head was with the bicep rather than the shoulder. Allegedly. Looked like shoulder first to me. But so be it.

[Dan54]

Forgetting Retallick, as he was carded according to standard ruling of these days.

But the main point of banning the jackal is something I do agree with. I think a defending team should need to push over the ball in order for the halfback or another to pick it up.

I’d love to see a trial of it. Be a really good wrestle over the ball, rather than the current desperate smash, roll, twist we have now.

How often do you see teams ruking over the ball now, and why do you think that would change? Why would that 2nd man in retallicks position come in any slower to knock someone back off the ball?

Before we even deal with the implications of a player on their feet not being allowed to play what should be a free ball, how does going to just pushing stop people flying in?

The whole point YMX is trying to make is not having someone in the position that the jackal gets in, which in this case was illegal anyway as you not allowed to have shoulders lower than hips. Gregor Townsend made a lot of sense when he talked about Scot's player that was YCed on weekend against Aus, about player arriving at speed etc, the whole point is to try and win race to ball , and clean him out before he gets hands on the ball. Not allowing them to lean down (and they not meant to) will help stop the contact on hea.

[Paddington Bear]

Can’t even get through the article, what horseshit. The solution is sometimes the oppo have the ball and always don’t attack people’s heads and necks. We’ve had over 5 years of this whining now and it’s getting very dull, you’re professionals, change your behaviour

[Raggs]

Forgetting Retallick, as he was carded according to standard ruling of these days.

But the main point of banning the jackal is something I do agree with. I think a defending team should need to push over the ball in order for the halfback or another to pick it up.

I’d love to see a trial of it. Be a really good wrestle over the ball, rather than the current desperate smash, roll, twist we have now.

How often do you see teams ruking over the ball now, and why do you think that would change? Why would that 2nd man in retallicks position come in any slower to knock someone back off the ball?

Before we even deal with the implications of a player on their feet not being allowed to play what should be a free ball, how does going to just pushing stop people flying in?

The whole point YMX is trying to make is not having someone in the position that the jackal gets in, which in this case was illegal anyway as you not allowed to have shoulders lower than hips. Gregor Townsend made a lot of sense when he talked about Scot's player that was YCed on weekend against Aus, about player arriving at speed etc, the whole point is to try and win race to ball , and clean him out before he gets hands on the ball. Not allowing them to lean down (and they not meant to) will help stop the contact on hea.

Head below hips, which Brodie was guilty of, applies to the ruck. A jackal is not in a ruck. Heads in line with hips leaves even less to target than a head below hips btw.

[Uncle fester]

Looks very similar to the POM red card against Wales.
Stop smashing people's heads and you won't get carded. Simples.

[Tichtheid]

I'm kinda with Dan54 on this, the "old rucking" was far less dangerous than the current situation with 120kg missiles arriving at full tilt, pointing a shoulder on to someone's upper back/neck area.

Rucking never meant stamping, that was always illegal, hands in the ruck was a penalty offence, you play the ball with your feet, if you play the player you get penalised - that was more or less self-policed but it could be adapted.

Rucking meant that you have to have much more control than sprinting at a breakdown and launching yourself like you're fucking Superman into a player trying to pick the ball up.

I'm wary of unintended consequences, however, and the whole point is a fair contest for the ball at the breakdown, so it might be worth a trial - the problem is coaches always finding a way to game any law changes that are made in good faith.

[Ymx]

Can’t even get through the article, what horseshit. The solution is sometimes the oppo have the ball and always don’t attack people’s heads and necks. We’ve had over 5 years of this whining now and it’s getting very dull, you’re professionals, change your behaviour

Some young lad has clearly had too much sugar from trick or treating tonight.

[Ymx]

How often do you see teams ruking over the ball now, and why do you think that would change? Why would that 2nd man in retallicks position come in any slower to knock someone back off the ball?

Before we even deal with the implications of a player on their feet not being allowed to play what should be a free ball, how does going to just pushing stop people flying in?

The whole point YMX is trying to make is not having someone in the position that the jackal gets in, which in this case was illegal anyway as you not allowed to have shoulders lower than hips. Gregor Townsend made a lot of sense when he talked about Scot's player that was YCed on weekend against Aus, about player arriving at speed etc, the whole point is to try and win race to ball , and clean him out before he gets hands on the ball. Not allowing them to lean down (and they not meant to) will help stop the contact on hea.

Head below hips, which Brodie was guilty of, applies to the ruck. A jackal is not in a ruck. Heads in line with hips leaves even less to target than a head below hips btw.

You are being deliberately obtuse here.

The point being, the other guy would not have been in such a bad position for getting clattered in the head if he was higher and not grasping at the ball on the ground.

ie his head would not be the first natural point of contact.

[Ymx]

Unfortunately, the article posted and the title are not conducive to reasoned discussion.

It sounds like excuses about changing the laws when one’s team are punished, and arm waving ensues. Like when England demanded scrum changes after Wales embarrassed them. Or when Italy embarrassed them in the ruck/tackle and the offside law changed.

This is not that, at all !

[Raggs]

The whole point YMX is trying to make is not having someone in the position that the jackal gets in, which in this case was illegal anyway as you not allowed to have shoulders lower than hips. Gregor Townsend made a lot of sense when he talked about Scot's player that was YCed on weekend against Aus, about player arriving at speed etc, the whole point is to try and win race to ball , and clean him out before he gets hands on the ball. Not allowing them to lean down (and they not meant to) will help stop the contact on hea.

Head below hips, which Brodie was guilty of, applies to the ruck. A jackal is not in a ruck. Heads in line with hips leaves even less to target than a head below hips btw.

You are being deliberately obtuse here.

The point being, the other guy would not have been in such a bad position for getting clattered in the head if he was higher and not grasping at the ball on the ground.

ie his head would not be the first natural point of contact.

Why wouldn't it be the natural first point of contact? Right now with a jackal, you have some of their back and their head to hit. If they're going in level, then their head is in line with their hips and almost the only thing that can be targeted....

The idea that people don't blast into rucks when there's not a jackal is ludicrous, they aren't suddenly going to slow down and bind in to push.

Jackals don't have hands in a ruck when they get hand on, if the tackled player hasn't released the ball by the time the clear out arrives that's not on the jackal. Most of this nonsense comes from the previous vogue that the jackal had to survive the clearout.

[Paddington Bear]

Can’t even get through the article, what horseshit. The solution is sometimes the oppo have the ball and always don’t attack people’s heads and necks. We’ve had over 5 years of this whining now and it’s getting very dull, you’re professionals, change your behaviour

Some young lad has clearly had too much sugar from trick or treating tonight.

Top response, 10/10

[Ymx]

Head below hips, which Brodie was guilty of, applies to the ruck. A jackal is not in a ruck. Heads in line with hips leaves even less to target than a head below hips btw.

You are being deliberately obtuse here.

The point being, the other guy would not have been in such a bad position for getting clattered in the head if he was higher and not grasping at the ball on the ground.

ie his head would not be the first natural point of contact.

Why wouldn't it be the natural first point of contact? Right now with a jackal, you have some of their back and their head to hit. If they're going in level, then their head is in line with their hips and almost the only thing that can be targeted....

The idea that people don't blast into rucks when there's not a jackal is ludicrous, they aren't suddenly going to slow down and bind in to push.

Jackals don't have hands in a ruck when they get hand on, if the tackled player hasn't released the ball by the time the clear out arrives that's not on the jackal. Most of this nonsense comes from the previous vogue that the jackal had to survive the clearout.

If the player has head well above hips it then becomes possible to get low and properly connect with the front of him. Bearing in mind he is also now trying to advance over the ball rather than cling to the ball on the ground. It is also then not as crucial in terms of timing as the non release of tackled player becomes a non issue until the contest is won. Rather than torpedo in It’s more beneficial to get aligned with another of your teams mates to push over the ball (maul like).

[convoluted]

Forgetting Retallick, as he was carded according to standard ruling of these days.

But the main point of banning the jackal is something I do agree with ...

For mine, the article emphasizes how players are obligated to sprint and slam into static opposition at the ruck. How easy for them to get it wrong, particularly when fatigue starts to impair judgement. They don't have the luxury of rewinding and watching repeats in slow motion before deciding whether to proceed and at what height and angle and arm position ... and the cost of that lapse might not be a mere red card for the offender but possible permanent debilitation for either player.

On top of that is the deliberate thuggish blindsiding and thumping of opposition at the ruck who aren't even the jackal. Recollection is that that's how Retallick got taken out by Snyman.

The breakdown mayhem is a cringe.

Gregor Paul's intent with the article was not so much to absolve Retallick but rather, as the bolded sub-heading states, to decry the current dangerous and nonsensical mess.

[Raggs]

You are being deliberately obtuse here.

The point being, the other guy would not have been in such a bad position for getting clattered in the head if he was higher and not grasping at the ball on the ground.

ie his head would not be the first natural point of contact.

Why wouldn't it be the natural first point of contact? Right now with a jackal, you have some of their back and their head to hit. If they're going in level, then their head is in line with their hips and almost the only thing that can be targeted....

The idea that people don't blast into rucks when there's not a jackal is ludicrous, they aren't suddenly going to slow down and bind in to push.

Jackals don't have hands in a ruck when they get hand on, if the tackled player hasn't released the ball by the time the clear out arrives that's not on the jackal. Most of this nonsense comes from the previous vogue that the jackal had to survive the clearout.

If the player has head well above hips it then becomes possible to get low and properly connect with the front of him. Bearing in mind he is also now trying to advance over the ball rather than cling to the ball on the ground. It is also then not as crucial in terms of timing as the non release of tackled player becomes a non issue until the contest is won. Rather than torpedo in It’s more beneficial to get aligned with another of your teams mates to push over the ball (maul like).

Why would that first man be standing with his head well above his hips when that's clearly not a strong position?

You really think that arriving second rather than first is better? And then if you are arriving second you're better off going in slowly rather than smashing over?

[Gumboot]

If Retallick's offence warranted a red card, I reckon the Scottish lad deserved one as well. The lack of consistency in the officiating is ridiculous.

[Raggs]

If Retallick's offence warranted a red card, I reckon the Scottish lad deserved one as well. The lack of consistency in the officiating is ridiculous.

Retallick's was worse, but the Scot deserved a red too I believe.

[Dan54]

F*** me when I coached kids at college rugby ,back when you rucked it was amazingly easy to teach them how to hit rucks and or mauls safely, and at speed, because noone is leaning down to pick up a ball. How aften do you see the problem at mauls, almost never, because noone is leaning down to pick up the ball.
As YMX says it would be good to see it trialled, rather than dismiss it out of hand!

[Tichtheid]

If Retallick's offence warranted a red card, I reckon the Scottish lad deserved one as well. The lack of consistency in the officiating is ridiculous.

Retallick's was worse, but the Scot deserved a red too I believe.

I'd agree with both of those points, pretty much any contact with the head at the ruck is a red now. I'd add that I think there was more opportunity for Retallick to pull out of the collision than there was for Young, just from looking at the videos of the few seconds before impact.

Whenever it was that Sam Warburton retired, as someone who had experienced it many times, he was taking about the dangers of the jackaler being hit at the base of the neck the way the Japanese player was there, it's not a new thing.

[Dan54]

If Retallick's offence warranted a red card, I reckon the Scottish lad deserved one as well. The lack of consistency in the officiating is ridiculous.

Retallick's was worse, but the Scot deserved a red too I believe.

I'd agree with both of those points, pretty much any contact with the head at the ruck is a red now. I'd add that I think there was more opportunity for Retallick to pull out of the collision than there was for Young, just from looking at the videos of the few seconds before impact.

Whenever it was that Sam Warburton retired, as someone who had experienced it many times, he was taking about the dangers of the jackaler being hit at the base of the neck the way the Japanese player was there, it's not a new thing.

Though he wasn't sent off for contact to head, it was to the neck according to ref. Not arguing with the red, just thought we better have it correct.

[average joe]

Seems like you guys are confused.

A ruck is not a ruck until it's formed. If a player gets isolated and tackled, he has to immediately release the ball. If none of his mates are there to bind over him, it is not a ruck and therefore the ball is loose. Players should be allowed to freely pick up a loose ball and play on, provided they're on their feet. Don't know how you are going to do that without bending over.

If he had his mates with him and they bound over him, it's a ruck and players can't use their hands or go of their feet. The only option then is to bind onto the ruck and drive over the ball.

Just officiate the game as per the laws.

[Biffer]

Part of the problem with both of those clear outs was the player hit the contact / tackle area with no intention to stay on his feet. The game is played on your feet. You can’t make dangerous hits in that situation without going off your feet.

As ever, play the actual laws in the book, and the problem will go away.

[Guy Smiley]

Part of the problem with both of those clear outs was the player hit the contact / tackle area with no intention to stay on his feet. The game is played on your feet. You can’t make dangerous hits in that situation without going off your feet.

As ever, play the actual laws in the book, and the problem will go away.

This

[average joe]

Players won't play the actual laws if they get away with not doing so. They have to be forced by the correct officiating.

I've not seen the particular incidents mentioned here. But could it all not have been avoided if the tackled player just let go of the ball immediately.

[Paddington Bear]

Seems like the latest attempt by players/coaches to claim a safety measure is unworkable, before meekly conceding it is workable and changing their technique in a year or so

[Blackmac]

Part of the problem with both of those clear outs was the player hit the contact / tackle area with no intention to stay on his feet. The game is played on your feet. You can’t make dangerous hits in that situation without going off your feet.

As ever, play the actual laws in the book, and the problem will go away.

Absolutely spot on.

[Insane_Homer]

Direct, targeted head contact with shoulder, no attempt to use arms at all, full body weight, failed to stay on his feet, it's fucking dangerous and it's a bloody red.

[LoveOfTheGame]

It's dangerous and he got what he deserved. Move on.

[charltom]

Head below hips, which Brodie was guilty of, applies to the ruck. A jackal is not in a ruck. Heads in line with hips leaves even less to target than a head below hips btw.

You are being deliberately obtuse here.

The point being, the other guy would not have been in such a bad position for getting clattered in the head if he was higher and not grasping at the ball on the ground.

ie his head would not be the first natural point of contact.

Why wouldn't it be the natural first point of contact? Right now with a jackal, you have some of their back and their head to hit. If they're going in level, then their head is in line with their hips and almost the only thing that can be targeted....

The idea that people don't blast into rucks when there's not a jackal is ludicrous, they aren't suddenly going to slow down and bind in to push.

Jackals don't have hands in a ruck when they get hand on, if the tackled player hasn't released the ball by the time the clear out arrives that's not on the jackal. Most of this nonsense comes from the previous vogue that the jackal had to survive the clearout.

I saw a suggestion on the bored a few weeks ago that I liked: the jackal should be required to have one foot in front of the ball before picking it up. Very often that will mean being sideways on, thus presenting a safer part of the body to a potential tackler.

But I also agree with those saying that playing to the actual laws as they stand should also work. So much of what is wrong with rugby comes from laws being readily disregarded.

[PornDog]

Forgetting Retallick, as he was carded according to standard ruling of these days.

But the main point of banning the jackal is something I do agree with. I think a defending team should need to push over the ball in order for the halfback or another to pick it up.

I’d love to see a trial of it. Be a really good wrestle over the ball, rather than the current desperate smash, roll, twist we have now.

Didn't see this particular incident, but absolutely this*. The poacher takes a position that, if an offensive player took the exact same position, he would (rightly) be done for sealing off.

I'm delighted to see people in the game, rather than just anoraks on rugby forums, talking about this

It's all well and good saying "just don't smash them in the head, simples", but we have a situation where the defence has a massive unfair advantage at ruck time and we'll just end up encouraging endless kicking again because everyone is terrified of having the bloody ball.

The game needs to move away from being a collision sport and back to its roots as a contact sport.


* It shouldn't be banned, but it needs radical changes and depowering.

[Biffer]

Direct, targeted head contact with shoulder, no attempt to use arms at all, full body weight, failed to stay on his feet, it's fucking dangerous and it's a bloody red.

His right knee is about three inches off the ground, and his shoulder is about a foot and a half off the ground. How anyone intends to stay on their feet from that position is beyond me.

[PornDog]

Direct, targeted head contact with shoulder, no attempt to use arms at all, full body weight, failed to stay on his feet, it's fucking dangerous and it's a bloody red.

Literally nobody is arguing any different - we're talking about removing dangerous situations from the game, and most likely improving the quality of the game at the same time.

[LoveOfTheGame]

Direct, targeted head contact with shoulder, no attempt to use arms at all, full body weight, failed to stay on his feet, it's fucking dangerous and it's a bloody red.

Literally nobody is arguing any different - we're talking about removing dangerous situations from the game, and most likely improving the quality of the game at the same time.

I do wonder how you think the attacking team's players will join the ruck if the defending team is trying to push over the ball. My best guess is they will come in full tilt hitting the ruck. If anything we might very well find the right for the ball will become muddled and the ball slow. Just because players are not playing within the laws of the game, you want to change the game to accommodate them? Until what, the next problem comes along and we just remove the contest at the ruck completely?