Guy Porter red card - Update - 3 week ban

[ABClub]

Porter's a defender hitting the man without the ball. Had it not been a card I don't think anyone would argue against that being a penalty as it's clear foul play. Add head contact to foul play and it's a red unless there's mitigation.

Lee isn't in an illegal position, obstructing the play, ahead of the ball carrier, changing his line, etc. There's no foul play on Lee's part, so no question of a card for him. Also no mitigation there as there could've been had Lee stepped into Porter's path to obstruct him.

Porter hits him off the ball. Foul play. He also makes head contact. So it starts at red unless there's mitigation, which there isn't. Porter not realising the Lee is there isn't mitigation.

Had Porter intercepted the ball then Lee hit him high with head contact then Lee would've been sent off. That's not what happened though!

[Scott1]

Think folk just like to get technical sometimes and im afraid we are creating a monstrosity of what was just essentially an unfortunate accident. They happen sometimes and they will continue to happen with 16/17/18 stone elite athletes running around a rugby pitch. Just can't be helped,the letter of the law is red but im afraid the law is wrong. I find it very easy to distinguish the differences between foul play,recklessness and genuine unfortunate rugby incidents/accidents.

[LE18]

Completely fair call for me.

Porter flies out the line and hits Lee without the ball, which is foul play. It's foul play with head contact which everyone now knows starts at red, then can come down to yellow with mitigation. There's not really any mitigation.

A few Tigers fans have suggested Porter not realising Lee is there, or having eyes on the ball rather than Lee as mitigation but it isn't. Lee is in a legal position to take the ball. He isn't ahead of the ball carrier, he doesn't alter his line to block Porter which would be obstruction or crossing. Porter just hits him off the ball and there's clear head contact. Straightforward red for me.

Unfortunate for Porter as he's been playing fantastically but it was a clumsy bit of defence that resulted in a dangerous collision.

I was there, like I posted earlier from the Station, Tigers were rushing into tackles very very effectively, Clermont were undone by our speed of tackle until this moment when Guy rushed up, slightly out of line, aka Manu, he was going to tackle Lee really hard to win the ball, they were going backwards because of our tenacity, Lee was watching for the 10 to pass the ball to him, but I am sure the 10 saw Guy rushing in and so didn't make the pass, I don't think Guy could pull out and ended up clattering into Lee, that's how I saw it.
I'm going to add a bit of nonsense now, should the 10 have been binned for not making the pass thus causing the crash?

[Tykger]

Porter's a defender hitting the man without the ball. Had it not been a card I don't think anyone would argue against that being a penalty as it's clear foul play. Add head contact to foul play and it's a red unless there's mitigation.

Lee isn't in an illegal position, obstructing the play, ahead of the ball carrier, changing his line, etc. There's no foul play on Lee's part, so no question of a card for him. Also no mitigation there as there could've been had Lee stepped into Porter's path to obstruct him.

Porter hits him off the ball. Foul play. He also makes head contact. So it starts at red unless there's mitigation, which there isn't. Porter not realising the Lee is there isn't mitigation.

Had Porter intercepted the ball then Lee hit him high with head contact then Lee would've been sent off. That's not what happened though!

I'm almost there with you on this. The only bit I don't see is Porter hitting Lee. I see that they hit each other. It's a 50/50 collision.

[Tiglon]

should the 10 have been binned for not making the pass thus causing the crash?

Finally, some common sense!

[ABClub]

Completely fair call for me.

Porter flies out the line and hits Lee without the ball, which is foul play. It's foul play with head contact which everyone now knows starts at red, then can come down to yellow with mitigation. There's not really any mitigation.

A few Tigers fans have suggested Porter not realising Lee is there, or having eyes on the ball rather than Lee as mitigation but it isn't. Lee is in a legal position to take the ball. He isn't ahead of the ball carrier, he doesn't alter his line to block Porter which would be obstruction or crossing. Porter just hits him off the ball and there's clear head contact. Straightforward red for me.

Unfortunate for Porter as he's been playing fantastically but it was a clumsy bit of defence that resulted in a dangerous collision.

I was there, like I posted earlier from the Station, Tigers were rushing into tackles very very effectively, Clermont were undone by our speed of tackle until this moment when Guy rushed up, slightly out of line, aka Manu, he was going to tackle Lee really hard to win the ball, they were going backwards because of our tenacity, Lee was watching for the 10 to pass the ball to him, but I am sure the 10 saw Guy rushing in and so didn't make the pass, I don't think Guy could pull out and ended up clattering into Lee, that's how I saw it.
I'm going to add a bit of nonsense now, should the 10 have been binned for not making the pass thus causing the crash?

I know youre being tomgue in cheek there but for sake of debate is that not the same as anything in rugby though...?

If Lee is passed the ball and Porter hits him legally, with good timing and no head contact it's a great hit. But he didn't. He hit Lee high and off the ball. If we create a hypothetical where neither bit of foul play occurred of course it'd be a different outcome!

If Warburton doesn't drop Clerc on his in the semi it's a brilliant hit. But he did drop him on his head.

If Wilko's drop goal drifts left it's not three points. I don't think many of us would view that as an argument England shouldn't have won the final though.

Sadly for Porter he hit Lee off the ball with clear head contact.

[Scott1]

Yes he did,accidentally! That's the whole crux of the argument. I know we are trying to eliminate as much head contact as we can all we are asking is a bit of common sense to be used and rugby incidents/accidents treated different to foul play and recklessness instead of the same. Don't think it's sinking in with some folk.

[ABClub]

The rugby incident argument creates grey areas that are almost impossible to referee though. Hence the ruling that foul play with head contact starts at red then gets reduced if there's mitigation. It's a good ruling in my opinion and I support it.

It's not that the counterargument hasn't sunk in. It's that I, and many others, feel that significant change to the game is needed in light of growing evidence around long term affects of concussion. That is more important for the game in my opinion than defenders being able to hit someone off the ball, with head contact and not get a card due to the flimsy assertion that they didn't know the gigantic Samoan they were marking was in front of them.

[Scott1]

Heard this one before and its boring! Apparently because you deem it a rugby incident you don't care about players welfare as much as others,its a very poor argument and complete nonsense of course.

[Pellsey]

Heard this one before and its boring! Apparently because you deem it a rugby incident you don't care about players welfare as much as others,its a very poor argument and complete nonsense of course.

Completely agree Scott.

Do people really believe though that red cards will actually stop things like this happening? If players are "reckless" when they have a quick line speed, then aren't good defensive lines always reckless?

The only ways I can think of stopping such "incidents" are as follows:

1. Make defenders run only forwards, slowly and straight -> dumb idea
2. Make defenders run with their heads at waist height -> dumb idea
3. Attackers should only run straight -> dumb idea
4. Helmets and pads -> extremely dumb idea (even less vision!!)
5. ?...

IMO, as long as rugby is rugby, accidents like this will always happen, and ruining the game by giving red cards will not prevent them or, by the definition of an accident, discourage them.

[Pellsey]

...defenders being able to hit someone off the ball, with head contact and not get a card due to the flimsy assertion that they didn't know the gigantic Samoan they were marking was in front of them.

By this logic though, every time a player accidently knocks down the referee, he should be sent off, as you "should never hit a referee". This does happen quite a bit. There must be common sense.

[wigworth]

This probably deserves its own thread but it is also relevant here, it seems as if the 20 minute red card is going to be trialed globally, however the article does not give a specific date and says it could come after the world cup next year.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... inute-red/

Additionally the 50:22, goal line dropout and scrum brake foot global law trials will be adopted permanently as well.

[mol2]

For me Kelly looked like he was going for an interception or to out himself between the passer and the likely receiver rather than to make a tackle, thus forcing the ball carrier to throw a longer or deeper pass or even turn inwards. He (Kelly) was facing in at the 10 not the player he collided with. Neither Kelly or the Clermont player were illegitimately in that space.

The assumption that this was a mistimed tackle on a player without the ball and thus never legal is not one I share. It was an unfortunate collision between two players who happened to end up in the same space at the same time. The Clermont player never received it because Kelly's run prevented it. If it was a late high tackle then a red would have been the correct sanction.

[Scuttle]

For me Kelly looked like he was going for an interception or to out himself between the passer and the likely receiver rather than to make a tackle, thus forcing the ball carrier to throw a longer or deeper pass or even turn inwards. He (Kelly) was facing in at the 10 not the player he collided with. Neither Kelly or the Clermont player were illegitimately in that space.

The assumption that this was a mistimed tackle on a player without the ball and thus never legal is not one I share. It was an unfortunate collision between two players who happened to end up in the same space at the same time. The Clermont player never received it because Kelly's run prevented it. If it was a late high tackle then a red would have been the correct sanction.

Agree with this. If the Porter red becomes the benchmark for off the ball collisions from now on we could end up playing 7s by the end of a match (yes I accept a bit extreme for sake of emphasis). The outcome of this was serious and I don't want to minimise it, but there are alot of such collisions which, even if no head contact, must be deemed foul play based on Porter's incident, thus incurring a miriad of penalties which would do little for the spectacle.

[Chobbsy]

sorry for me it was a collision in open play neither player looking at each other how can you give blame to one and not the other?