The judgement states "point of contact was not above the line of Mr Wray’s shoulder." and it rode up from there i.e, there was no direct contact with the head.
Except the guidelines say the sanctions apply "even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders". The fact that Smith didn't make initial contact with Wray's head is irrelevant - the RFU claimed he did so twice in the course of the tackle.
From the judgement:
As the Player continued to move upwards in the tackle, the glancing contact to the underneath of Mr Wray’s chin was incidental to an otherwise legitimate tackle.
In otherwise contact with the head was minimal.
There is no way you can say that about Spencers tackle IMO.
IMHO it wasn't a red & shouldn't of got a ban, but if every similar incident gets reffed & judged the same throughout this season I would accept it, as it won't I won't!!!
If a player tackles another at waist height & as they both fall to the pitch the one of the players shoulders makes contact with the others head, do they get sent off??
The TMO is becoming a menace in the game.
[quote=ourla post_id=697342 time=1537371745 user_id=10130]
[quote=kend post_id=697340 time=1537369508 user_id=398]
[quote] The judgement states "point of contact was not above the line of Mr Wray’s shoulder." and it rode up from there i.e, there was no direct contact with the head. [/quote]
Except the guidelines say the sanctions apply "[i]even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders[/i]". The fact that Smith didn't make initial contact with Wray's head is irrelevant - the RFU claimed he did so twice in the course of the tackle.[/quote]
From the judgement:
[b][i]As the Player continued to move upwards in the tackle, the glancing contact to the underneath of Mr Wray’s chin was incidental to an otherwise legitimate tackle.[/i][/b]
In otherwise contact with the head was minimal.
There is no way you can say that about Spencers tackle IMO.
[/quote]
Wray said there was contact under his chin after initial contact above where he was carrying the ball.This does not necessarily mean it was minimal. Wray didn't know where he was.
Quoted from the ref... After the game I learned that Mr. Wray left the field of play for a head injury assessment as a result of the
tackle and that he suffered a concussive event at the time the tackle was effected, which caused him to be
permanently removed from the game.
Does not sound minimal to me.
The whole situation is a mess, and on this occasion I do agree with Austin. The players, coaches and fans need to see consistency in decision making by refs, and the RFU.
Tigers coaches and players need to learn from this quickly and adapt. Not something they have been quick to do in the past.
ellis9 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:27 am
It wouldn't have been a waste of time if he didn't get a ban. As I say, I'd rather our players and club fought for something they feel is right that just rolling over and accepting it so that's it's not wasting everyone's time. They called him in to the hearing, they can sit there for hours and listen to what the club want to say.
And that is typical of your attitude. Which is fine, if it only affects you. Unfortunately, we will now be missing Spencer for more games and our club loses a bit of its reputation. It's not "rolling over" to except what is plain to the naked eye and to support the laws that have been put in place for player protection.
That's not just my attitude though. Tigers have obviously felt the same.
Traveller wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:44 pm
Semi-final 2019 WC. Tenth minute Retalick does the same thing to Faff de Klerk. Will the referee make the same decision? I think I know the answer. Laws are now implemented (or not) during matches on an arbitrary, preferential, faddish basis.
It is not inexpensive to pay to go to a game, and I am tired of seeing arbitrary refereeing decisions (based on the introduction of poorly constructed laws) dictate the outcome of matches. On Sunday neck rolls went entirely unpenalised, the law simply wasn't implemented. Was the TMO snoozing? Two years ago, nothing was more heinous than a neck roll. I haven't heard any coach or player argue that what happened on Sunday deserved the punishment Spencer received.
Like!
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
Total rubbish, rhubarb and balderdash! Rugby needs to get it's act together and sort the malicious from the unintended. 4 weeks is a ridiculously steep punishment for a first red.
Sorry but whomsoever talked about arbitrary and inconsistent referees is on the money. The whole tackle law needs a wire brushing. As do those who administer them.
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
Big Dai wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:56 pm
Total rubbish, rhubarb and balderdash! Rugby needs to get it's act together and sort the malicious from the unintended. 4 weeks is a ridiculously steep punishment for a first red.
Sorry but whomsoever talked about arbitrary and inconsistent referees is on the money. The whole tackle law needs a wire brushing. As do those who administer them.
Calm down BD. Better get that bottle of cognac out and have a couple of stiff ones!!
Big Dai wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:56 pm
Total rubbish, rhubarb and balderdash! Rugby needs to get it's act together and sort the malicious from the unintended. 4 weeks is a ridiculously steep punishment for a first red.
Sorry but whomsoever talked about arbitrary and inconsistent referees is on the money. The whole tackle law needs a wire brushing. As do those who administer them.
Calm down BD. Better get that bottle of cognac out and have a couple of stiff ones!!
Too right! Harrumph! (Glug!) I'll take a glass now whilst I work out where to shove this wire brush!
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
Mathieu Bastareaud has been handed a 5 week ban for brutally forearm smashing a player in the head while they were lying prone and defenceless on the floor! When do France’s Autumn internationals start?! In 7 weeks so the 5 week ban seems legit.
So he got just 7 days more than Will Spencer.
Outrageous.
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
Yes it is a bit off Bastareaud's intention.
Not a good few days all round.
Rock and hard place for the authorities here though, what between the pressure on youth level and also the potential insurance implications and advertising, and I don't suppose players tweeting manly tweets of support that it's harsh will accept a pay cut to pay for massively increased premiums for concussion related injuries accidental or not, or waiver any liability to a payout should the worst happen.
It's more complex than one blokes honest mistake.
Last edited by BFG on Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Total :censored: mess. Head contact with intention = big penalty? No.
Head contact with shoulder by player flying off his feet at ruck = b. All.
Neck roll = b. All .
This is not to exonerate Spencer but to point up the ludicrous inconsistency.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Not wanting to stir at all ( much ) but the consistence point is huge
The clearly visible forearm ( Gaskell ? ) to head was ignored as was the offside at kick off - even bad enough for the commentators to point out - this led to pressure and arguably a poor clearance and then points for Wasps in a tight game, what a difference.
It is also ignored in almost every game - there's a line on the pitch, why doesn't a touch judge or TMO call Off Side every time - problem solved after 2 or 3 restarts + taking a restart can be very exposed and risky so if the opposition have a yard or two start where is the so important duty of care to the receiver of the ball ?
