Wasps Vs Tigers

[ellis9]

Poor term of phrase on behalf. I meant I’d want him match hardened for the Ulster match

I'd want him match hardened for the Saints game.

[ourla]

I've only just seen the George Smith tackle. He seems to raise his shoulder INTO the tackle. Spencer's tackle IMO was definitely no worse than that. Letter of the law I guess it's a red, but if he got a ban compared to Smith I'd be disappointed.

Don't expect any leniency on that account. With Smith it was deemed "on the balance of probabilities that the initial contact did not involve any direct contact to the head". There is no doubt about that in the case of Spencer.

There is a lot of people here trying to find get outs based on Taylors positioning. I'm not seeing any mitigation on that front myself. Thankfully, I am not on the panel.

All will be revealed tomorrow.

[Mark62]

Tigers will have had all the bio mechanics guys looking at it and it slowed down to the nth degree freeze framed etc.

Watched it again on channel 5 tonight and it all happens very quickly. I’m still not convinced there wasn’t slight contact with the shoulder or upper arm first but obviously shoulder the connects with head,

To his credit Taylor can be seen getting to his feet quickly after the incident obviously non the worse for wear. To use Formula 1 parlance it looks like a rugby incident.

Just goes to show that no matter what it was a big collision and compare that to th innocuous nature of Rob Hornes challenge on Khalamafoni that ended his career

[AngusMcCoatup]

Taylor was not injured & not HIA

Where does it state in the rules that the opponent has to be injured or concussed in order for a red card to be issued?

Rules??? I would have thought by now you would realise in Rugby it is "The Laws of the Game!"
Your question is not relevant to the statement that " Taylor was not injured & not HIA"
I suggest you look under the RFU Governance for the laws.

[ourla]

Taylor was not injured & not HIA

Where does it state in the rules that the opponent has to be injured or concussed in order for a red card to be issued?

Rules??? I would have thought by now you would realise in Rugby it is "The Laws of the Game!"
Your question is not relevant to the statement that " Taylor was not injured & not HIA"
I suggest you look under the RFU Governance for the laws.

Synonyms of "rule" - regulation, ruling, directive, order, court order, act, law, by-law, statute, edict, canon, ordinance, pronouncement, mandate, command, dictate, dictum, decree, fiat, proclamation, injunction, commandment, prescription, stipulation, requirement.

Don't try and divert the debate with semantics.

My question is entirely relevant. Care to answer it?

Just for clarity I am asking you (and the rest of the forum) where it states in the laws/rules that a player has to be injured/concussed in order for a red card to be issued (or something similar)? Should be pretty easy given you know the laws so well...

[ourla]

Looking on twitter there seems to be a pretty clear divide.. current players say it was not a red, the vast majority of others, including ex-players (Murphy excepting obviously) say it was a red.

Current players being the likes of Burns, Genge, Balmain...

[Scuttle]

I cannot access it but there is a Mirror article online which has May saying players should just stop moaning about the tackle laws and get on with it. He is right but is he breaking ranks with GM et al? I don't know as cannot see full article but if anyone can it would be helpful.

[johnthegriff]

Personally I think that for a Red Card to be issued the referee should be satisfied there was intent and in this case there was none. A Red is the ultimate sanction on the pitch, what happens next is out of the refs hands. Rugby is a contact sport, knees, arms, hands, elbows and yes heads get into strange positions sometimes endangering another player sometimes yourself. We have all seen a player leaping for a high ball and jumping into a grounded player who unable to get out of the way receives a card the colour dependant on how the airborne player lands. I have seen a jumping player fall over his own team mate so no action taken. I have often seen players clash heads with a team mate, if the crime is careless contact with the head without intention should there be any difference if the incidence is between teammates or members of opposing teams.
Spencer went into a tackle using his arms, the opposing player lowered himself instinctively, it is impossible for the rest of Spencer's body to disappear, there was no injury and no fault, there should have been no consequence.

[DingDong]

Personally I think that for a Red Card to be issued the referee should be satisfied there was intent

But what about negligence? Spencer was aiming to tackle in the upper chest area, so therefore risked a high tackle in the dynamics of it all. Spencer had the option to go lower but chose not to, therefore negligent under the circumstances. Players can adapt to laws and regularly do so, just look at how the breakdown is played - ruck formed quicker = less jackalling, rolling away quicker etc, just a shame this one high tackle law is constantly ignored by players/coaches. 6' 10" can bend, when it wants to that is!

[Scuttle]

I think John's point is the intent seemed to be to tackle legally and is upper chest/ below shoulder (however you describe) not legal? The point then for me is Taylor dropped at the last minute to avoid/reduce contact and at a point that left Spencer not time to adjust I think seeing it in real time shows it best rather than slow motion or stills. The point made by GM about no HIA made is also intetestimg and I see his point....if there was contact with the head with force surely that should lead to HIA. It doesn't change the red but shows some inconsistency
Having said that, by the law it was red and for the integrity of the laws it should stay so and not be rescinded. I just think the red should be deemed enough of a punishment with no ban.

[daktari]

Personally I think that for a Red Card to be issued the referee should be satisfied there was intent

But what about negligence? Spencer was aiming to tackle in the upper chest area, so therefore risked a high tackle in the dynamics of it all. Spencer had the option to go lower but chose not to, therefore negligent under the circumstances. Players can adapt to laws and regularly do so, just look at how the breakdown is played - ruck formed quicker = less jackalling, rolling away quicker etc, just a shame this one high tackle law is constantly ignored by players/coaches. 6' 10" can bend, when it wants to that is!

But the chest high tackle is legal so how is that negligent? The initial positioning is legal but then in a moment the other player moves and it no-longer is. The culpability of the tackler should be taken into account (regardless of outcome). I don't think the law is ignored (in the main), they are making legal tackles that then end badly due to changing circumstances. If we are saying players should tackle lower than the legal height then is legal height wrong, should it be lower body only? Players need protecting from dangerous play but accidents do happen. If the powers that be are truly focused on reducing head injuries the whole game needs looking at especially players flying in off their feet at the break down. A red card for an accident won't stop it happening if it is from an initial legal position.

[jgriffin]

Agree about the breakdown, always one of my pet hates. How a slipped tackle can be equated with a flying shoulder hit, beyond me. By such standards I see red cards in most matches.

[BFG]

I think the force of contact with the head will be the deciding factor on the high tackle, that's how I see it anyway, otherwise it'll be as hard to stomach as the accidental/deliberate knock on interpretations.

[DingDong]

I think John's point is the intent seemed to be to tackle legally and is upper chest/ below shoulder (however you describe) not legal?

Of course it's legal, but as mentioned its a dynamic sport with all players constantly dipping, so in some circumstances you're tackle height should compensate and start lower for that very reason. High risk equals high reward, so 'risking' a borderline tackle in the upper chest area will either reward you with choking up the ball/knocking them off balance, or reward you with a penalty/sanction if it slips upwards.

I'd hate to see the tackle height being trialled in the Championship introduced anywhere else, but until players start to change their mindsets then the law makers will unfortunately have their day much to the detriment of the game.

[wormus]

Agree re TMO prompting the ref. TMO should be used for referral only and advise the ref as he sees it. End of. Ref ignores it TMO should stay quite, he has given his advice. Re Spencer red card. Its a red card. He will get a ban. We showed enough grit and Tigers spirit to cope with it.

George Smith did pretty much the same thing and got his red overturned

Several are comparing Spencer's red card to the George Smith Bristol Bears v Jackson Wray Saracens incident where - The tackle was deemed high above the shoulder line & contact to the head.
Wray left the field of play for a HIA which he passed but did not return as"he did not feel ok to carry on!"
Wray did not sense it was foul play.
**** George Smith and Bristol Bears pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charge, so I wonder if Tigers will adopt the same approach?
For those requesting proof of the above here is the RFU statement on George Smith's incident.
- https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Documen ... eutral.pdf