BarmyBamford wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:54 am
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 ?
You shouldn't need to apologise for posting in my opinion, but I completely agree with you.
Rugby seems to need to go through these periods where one particular area is focused on for cleaning up and at the moment it's the high tackle.
Bottom line is if they had been penalising it properly over the past few years it wouldn't be such a bad habit in the game, and it pretty much relates to most parts of the game.
Forgive me if I am wrong in the order as there seem to be initiatives for cleaning up officiating every year now but I recall feeding being a recent initiative that is now forgotten again, the hit at the scrum engage seems to be very slowly creeping back in, the list is endless.
I guess they'll eventually have another ruck initiative of some sort to try and tidy it up and whilst that is going on everything else will be overlooked and become sloppy again.
By the way I'm not blaming refs, I think they are under too much pressure to provide a spectacle when really that's the players role.
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.
Mark62 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:09 pm
Maybe it’s more what he thought he should say given his new position.
The ironic thing is that in this particular incident there was no HIA or concussion
What's ironic about it?
Having an HIA or concussion should not come into it otherwise it is then judged on the outcome and that'll be even more inconsistent in my opinion!
"Red cards are supposed to be for deliberate acts of violence. In rugby’s far dirtier, more hateful past they were hardly ever issued. Now they are issued liberally for what are essentially technical offences, which is a betrayal of players far, far cleaner and less malicious than they have ever been. Make the ‘big hit’ illegal by all means, but keep those players on the field."
"This is an excellent reminder that there are different ways of framing a regulation that deals with the most worthwhile of aims, reducing concussions."
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
strawclearer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:39 pm"Red cards are supposed to be for deliberate acts of violence.
Says who?
strawclearer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:39 pm"Make the ‘big hit’ illegal by all means, but keep those players on the field."
He needs to make his mind up. How do you eliminate reckless tackles that impact the head without players being punished for it.
Murphy has now acknowledged the law/rules were put in place for good and need to be respected. I think some players and supporters who have defended Spencer and berated the authorities need to do the same.
ourla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:42 am
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.
Well ellis if your preference is the way then expect absolutely massive insurance costs and potential liability issues should the worst happen, especially for those who have already expressed publicly on the issue.
Compare the cost of insuring a squad of 40-50 players for two rugby matches per week compared to one boxer who maybe fights twice a year and you'll find the cost could potentially become astronomical.
Then you've got added development/academy/junior set ups to deal with.
Concussion causing incidents have to be dealt with by a proactive approach.
BFG wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:20 pm
Well ellis if your preference is the way then expect absolutely massive insurance costs and potential liability issues should the worst happen, especially for those who have already expressed publicly on the issue.
Compare the cost of insuring a squad of 40-50 players for two rugby matches per week compared to one boxer who maybe fights twice a year and you'll find the cost could potentially become astronomical.
Then you've got added development/academy/junior set ups to deal with.
Concussion causing incidents have to be dealt with by a proactive approach.
Liability issues?! You mean from the players who CHOOSE to play the sport?
ellis9 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:07 pm
No. I don't believe players should be getting a red card for those types of tackles in a contact sport.
A swinging arm to the head or a deliberate shoulder to the head is different.
So reckless tackles that result in contact with the head are OK?
I'd agree that doing something deliberately is worse than doing something accidentally but that doesn't mean the latter should be without sanction.
It's the same as driving without due care and attention. Do you think I should be able to run someone over driving my car as long as it was accidental and I didn't mean to?
Pedestrians crossing the road should expect that sort of thing to happen shouldn't they...
BFG wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:20 pm
Well ellis if your preference is the way then expect absolutely massive insurance costs and potential liability issues should the worst happen, especially for those who have already expressed publicly on the issue.
Compare the cost of insuring a squad of 40-50 players for two rugby matches per week compared to one boxer who maybe fights twice a year and you'll find the cost could potentially become astronomical.
Then you've got added development/academy/junior set ups to deal with.
Concussion causing incidents have to be dealt with by a proactive approach.
Liability issues?! You mean from the players who CHOOSE to play the sport?
I very much doubt it.
Blimey we will finish up with something that reflects a bare knuckle fight in a back door warehouse.
Its the new reality and as people mentioned when the issue was first highlighted it has the potential to bankrupt the sport if not dealt with correctly.
ellis9 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:07 pm
No. I don't believe players should be getting a red card for those types of tackles in a contact sport.
A swinging arm to the head or a deliberate shoulder to the head is different.
So reckless tackles that result in contact with the head are OK?
I'd agree that doing something deliberately is worse than doing something accidentally but that doesn't mean the latter should be without sanction.
It's the same as driving without due care and attention. Do you think I should be able to run someone over driving my car as long as it was accidental and I didn't mean to?
Pedestrians crossing the road should expect that sort of thing to happen shouldn't they...
Well if they choose to cross the road (which by the way vehicles have right of way on) when a car is approaching, then yes, pedestrians have only got themselves to blame if they get hit.
There is a very fine line between what would have been a legal tackle and the term ‘reckless’. Agree that the Rugby World need to be looking at how to protect players and look after their interests. In the case of Spencer and Smith, there was no intent to hit the player above the shoulder.
In Smiths there were mitigating circumstances which were accepted by the panel and no further punishment dished out.
In Spencers case the panel felt differently and took the decision to hand out a ban.
Accidents are going to happen in rugby and in some cases common sense needs to be applied. I did not think that it was more than a yellow card at the time but in the aftermath a panel have decided differently.
Red cards should be handed for foul play and accidents should be accepted as part of the game.
I would be really pleased if they enforced offside and truly believe they are eliminating head contact when the authorities issue red for flying into the ruck. Until then, measures are half-assed simply because foot rucks were eliminated as bad for the image of the sport and the 'breakdown' became somewhere a brave player put their head for hitting instead of players having to engage their arms. Stamping BTW has always been outlawed so the red was always available for 'climbing' over a player or raking.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Just to remind every one.
Rugby is a contact sport. Attempts are made to protect and limit injury, Quite rightly.
However if we go too far and reduce contact we get a game of tag rugby which is great for juniors but would destroy the game at senior level.
I feel rugby league (sorry) officials have the right balance with TMO. However I for one would not wish uncontested scrums in the Union game.
Therefore can we please get back to common sense officiating and restrict red cards to Acts of deliberate intention rather than potential outcomes.
I've seen more rugby tackles in the goal area in wendy ball go unpunished.
