Utter Rubbish - Manus Red Card v Wales

[JP14]

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ ... 56432.html

It’s behind a paywall but I have never seen such rubbish, it’s almost laughable!

[CitizenSmiff]

Pure clickbait, let's not rise to it and give them traffic (headline is 'Manu Tuilagi's latest red card confirms it - he should never be let on a rugby field again'). There are a lot of sports journalists currently flailing around in the dark chasing commissions and not all of them are going to be good people.

[kk20gb30]

Going to get 'journalism' of this type at this time as there is nothing else better to 'write' about. There is plenty more to come , brace yourselves.

[wellstiger]

Cheap journalism.Hacks with too much time on their hands.Creating news and reports and sensationalising to get ahead of the competition.
Tomorrows chip paper ( as we used to say)

[Tigerbeat]

Interesting article in Rugby Paper

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feature ... o-courage/

[sam16111986]

Interesting article in Rugby Paper

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feature ... o-courage/

That's a good summary to be fair. North knew there was no intent from Manu hence the embrace before Manu left the field. O'Keefe was given no option by the TMO's description but also did not reflect on anything he'd seen first hand. Not good officiating and the TMO was completely incompetent for the entirety of the game.

The fact the article at the top of the thread quotes a YouTube video tells you just how desperate these sports writers are for content. They are normally self employed so get paid for output.

[Not a jock]

There's a spectrum of opinion on this with seemingly the majority of people in two camps at opposite ends. On one end is the "I hate England/Tigers/Manu and he should be banned for life." The journalist who wrote the Irish Independent piece is probably close to this end. At the other end is the "Manu is a saint (whoops!)/it would have been a superb try-saving over tackle had Slade not tackled North first." Most Tigers supporters will be much nearer the latter than the former.

I still haven't seen a video or even a screen shot taken from the other angle ie from behind the try line. Does anyone have one such that they could post? If they could, it might clarify whether or not Many had his LEFT arm extended to attempt to make a legal tackle. If not, then this article (admittedly from a Welsh publication so may not be neutral) explains why many referees think it was the correct decision in the laws of rugby union:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... u-17886629

[Robespierre]

Cheap journalism.Hacks with too much time on their hands.Creating news and reports and sensationalising to get ahead of the competition.
Tomorrows chip paper ( as we used to say)

After panic buying has cleared the supermarket shelves of bog paper, I can think of a better use for The Independent.

[Baz]

Definition of a "journalist": someone who couldn't get a proper job!

[DingDong]

Any person who compares incidents on the pitch to those on the streets are devoid of any reality and therefore deserve no respect. Rugby is not so much a contact sport but more a collision sport, and in the dynamics of those collisions errors occur, deliberate or accidental and the laws (hopefully!) deal with them appropriately.

Too many hacks write nonsense these days to stir interest so the papers get a return on their advertisers 'impressions' ie every time you open that web page it counts as an 'impression' for which they pay a lot to the papers for. Sad but unfortunately unavoidable if you want to read the original transcripts.

[Tiglon]

I'm in the "it was probably within the range of things that you would expect the possibility of receiving a red card for" camp, so I have no issue with the decision to send Manu off. And that is even though I love Tigers, England and Manu.

However, to say he shouldn't be allowed back on a rugby field is disgraceful. The tackle wouldn't make it anywhere near a top 100 violent things to happen on a rugby field this year list, but as has been said these idiots need to sell papers and make a living.

Would the reaction be so strong if Manu was not a Pacific Islander?

[loretta]

I'm in the "it was probably within the range of things that you would expect the possibility of receiving a red card for" camp, so I have no issue with the decision to send Manu off. And that is even though I love Tigers, England and Manu.

However, to say he shouldn't be allowed back on a rugby field is disgraceful. The tackle wouldn't make it anywhere near a top 100 violent things to happen on a rugby field this year list, but as has been said these idiots need to sell papers and make a living.

Would the reaction be so strong if Manu was not a Pacific Islander?

Agreed, on all points.

[Longshanks]

Written by the same hyprocrits who will be clapping in the media centre next time Manu performs for the British and Irish Lions.

[h's dad]

Until North went down there was no certainty that Slade's tackle was going to be successful, until North started to go to his knees it looked as if he could break or skip out of Slade's tackle. Even then nobody could predict how far North was going to slide. Tuilagi had to attempt the tackle exactly where he did, to either tackle North or divert his slide. Also there simply wasn't time to pull out after Slade's tackle was shown to be successful.

At the point of contact North was a foot further back than Tuilagi was expecting and had just gone to his knees but both of Tuilagi's arms were out forward. The left arm did not make contact as North was further back than expected, The right arm was pushed back as Tuilagi's hand contacted with North's elbow - the first point of contact. Yellow for the eventual head contact which wasn't with force as evidenced by North staying conscious.

That's how I see it.

[mol2]

The problem is with the current laws which fail to consider that a player can be committed to a tackle at a legal height only to find the player has been tacked, stumbles or simply leans forwards bringing his head into the collision.

If the tackler is committed and there is no time to pull out then it should not be a penalty.

If the player is already down before the tackler is committed then the sanctions must apply.

If the tackle was "illegal" in terms of no arms then sanctions must apply.

Personally I think Manu was committed and had his left arm out (there is no need to wrap with both) and finds himself with a falling player coming at him. No time to pull out so it makes it look clumsy. This also changes the point of contact on North. Had North not been falling as a result of Slade's tackle, he would have been a stide further on and Manu would have been making the tackle from the side/behind North.

The other issue I have is that none of the video angles shown to the TV match official actually showed contact between Manu's arm or shoulder and North's head. Each angle viewed alone make it look like contact was made but when you look at them in "split screen" the time when one angle suggests contact it shows none and at the tme the other angle suggests contact it again shows none. That's my beef with the adjudication - it doesn't show the contact so is based on assumption not clear evidence. It doesn't look good but that's not the point.