Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Post Reply
Scott1
Super User
Super User
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:03 pm

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by Scott1 »

fentiger wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:47 pm
Scott1 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:14 pm
fentiger wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:13 pm Davies banned for 3 weeks.
Key line from citing commissioner's report: “I do not accept that the dominance of the ball-carrier in falling forward post the collision to be a reason for this to suggest a low degree of danger.”
Was that their defence?! Hahahaha 🤦
I think it featured in the discussion between ref and TMO?
I could accept that statement for the Scott/Vunipola incident if that hadve escalated
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
Tigers86asw
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:46 pm

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by Tigers86asw »

Proves the point that the terms ‘dominant’ and ‘passive’ are not really used accurately. Davies hit him with force to the head- it doesn’t matter that he weighs 5 stone less than Montoya and that he didn’t knock him out, it’s still a red card.

The ref seemed to think that the size of the two players meant it was just a yellow. So inconsistent.
Tiglon
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by Tiglon »

Tigers86asw wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:50 pm Proves the point that the terms ‘dominant’ and ‘passive’ are not really used accurately. Davies hit him with force to the head- it doesn’t matter that he weighs 5 stone less than Montoya and that he didn’t knock him out, it’s still a red card.

The ref seemed to think that the size of the two players meant it was just a yellow. So inconsistent.
The problem is that these considerations of dominant/passive aren't even in the laws. They've been introduced to help referees reach a conclusion as to the level of danger, but it seems referees are ignoring the level of danger part and therefore not following the laws - as demonstrated by Davies yellow card only and subsequent ban.

I'm glad the laws have now been retrospectively enforced.
Tigerbeat
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7250
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:14 pm
Location: The big wide world

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by Tigerbeat »

fentiger wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:47 pm
Scott1 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:14 pm
fentiger wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:13 pm Davies banned for 3 weeks.
Key line from citing commissioner's report: “I do not accept that the dominance of the ball-carrier in falling forward post the collision to be a reason for this to suggest a low degree of danger.”
Was that their defence?! Hahahaha 🤦
I think it featured in the discussion between ref and TMO?
Just goes to show how subjective each situation is and we have seen differences in decisions throughout the season. One player was cited and found not to have been worthy of a red card.
In the opinion of the Citing commission "I do not accept that the dominance of the ball-carrier"
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk
wigworth
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1231
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by wigworth »

Tigerbeat wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:08 pm
fentiger wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:47 pm
Scott1 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:14 pm

Was that their defence?! Hahahaha 🤦
I think it featured in the discussion between ref and TMO?
Just goes to show how subjective each situation is and we have seen differences in decisions throughout the season. One player was cited and found not to have been worthy of a red card.
In the opinion of the Citing commission "I do not accept that the dominance of the ball-carrier"
Hopefully the ruling will set a precedent that it is not a mitigating factor for referees to use a justification in their decisions.
wormus
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1567
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:23 pm
Location: "The Home of the Game!"

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by wormus »

Here is the RFU ruling ~ https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/b3/b ... tJun22.pdf

For those that like the exact detail. Cannot accept the 19:11:8h Effect on the match ~ if a red card had been shown at the time of the incident then Saracens with 14 men then the game would have had a big effect?
Nevermind we beat them fair and square...... :smt027
TigerFeetSteve
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7417
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by TigerFeetSteve »

wormus wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:34 am Here is the RFU ruling ~ https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/b3/b ... tJun22.pdf

For those that like the exact detail. Cannot accept the 19:11:8h Effect on the match ~ if a red card had been shown at the time of the incident then Saracens with 14 men then the game would have had a big effect?
Nevermind we beat them fair and square...... :smt027
There wasn't any wider impact, there may have been if we lost...
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
northerntiger
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by northerntiger »

The thing that really concerns me is that Montoya passed an initial on field assessment but then failed a subsequent one in the second half. This presumably means he was playing on while a delayed concussion (if there is such a thing) was occurring. Given the concerns with later brain injury in ex players, should this be looked at? Any blows to the head to be taken off the field?
Scott1
Super User
Super User
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:03 pm

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by Scott1 »

northerntiger wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:26 am The thing that really concerns me is that Montoya passed an initial on field assessment but then failed a subsequent one in the second half. This presumably means he was playing on while a delayed concussion (if there is such a thing) was occurring. Given the concerns with later brain injury in ex players, should this be looked at? Any blows to the head to be taken off the field?
Yes! I’ve said before ,any head contact that is deemed to be looked at as potential foul play and/or a dismissal should mean the player receiving the blow should be moved from the field for the rest of the game. It is very rare but there is a type of secondary concussion and afaik it can be fatal. I believe it’s called second impact syndrome
Last edited by Scott1 on Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
TigerFeetSteve
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7417
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by TigerFeetSteve »

northerntiger wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:26 am The thing that really concerns me is that Montoya passed an initial on field assessment but then failed a subsequent one in the second half. This presumably means he was playing on while a delayed concussion (if there is such a thing) was occurring. Given the concerns with later brain injury in ex players, should this be looked at? Any blows to the head to be taken off the field?
Agree, I am interested to know what happened to tge trial (I think it was Newcastle) where they essentially wore accelerometers on their heads to measure impacts...

Could do HIAs immediately if a threshold impact is measured. Also if ref has the info you can set a threshold of what a high force impact is then there's no guesswork for the ref, force of impact is given as a red or yellow on screen automatically, then ref only looks for mitigating factors...
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
Tigerbeat
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7250
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:14 pm
Location: The big wide world

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by Tigerbeat »

The Independent Match Day doctor and club medics have access to live streaming and playback and are able to review any impacts to determine what level of force has been used, where the contact is and assess as to whether the player should undertake a full HIA.
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk
TigerFeetSteve
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7417
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by TigerFeetSteve »

Tigerbeat wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:17 pm The Independent Match Day doctor and club medics have access to live streaming and playback and are able to review any impacts to determine what level of force has been used, where the contact is and assess as to whether the player should undertake a full HIA.
I understand, but
1. Impacts can be missed on TV
2. It's still subjectively trying to work out from a 2d video the acceleration & jerk (rate of change of acceleration) on the head.

If you have the players instrumented (like they wear gps info) doctors and officials can have realtime data on the severity not assumptons
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
Scott1
Super User
Super User
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:03 pm

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by Scott1 »

As I've said before (even though I'm not sure they are still using them just on their own) players are faking their base concussion tests on purpose so their HIA test isn't that far off so they can get back on the field,crazy I know!
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
mol2
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:48 pm
Location: Cosby

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by mol2 »

Scott1 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:33 am
northerntiger wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:26 am The thing that really concerns me is that Montoya passed an initial on field assessment but then failed a subsequent one in the second half. This presumably means he was playing on while a delayed concussion (if there is such a thing) was occurring. Given the concerns with later brain injury in ex players, should this be looked at? Any blows to the head to be taken off the field?
Yes! I’ve said before ,any head contact that is deemed to be looked at as potential foul play and/or a dismissal should mean the player receiving the blow should be moved from the field for the rest of the game. It is very rare but there is a type of secondary concussion and afaik it can be fatal. I believe it’s called second impact syndrome
Whether or not the head contact is foul play is irrelevant to whether the player needs to be removed from the game. The severity of the impact any given blow to the head is the relevant factor. That’s why there are concussion protocols and simply removing a player who has suffered an illegal blow to the head is no more or less justified than a blow to the head from a knee in a legitimate tackle.

We need processes to protect players from their own bravery, pressure or altered awareness from concussion from keep on playing for their own safety. Irrespective of the cause of the head injury.

Did Montoya come off because of secondary concussion, another head knock or was it that he was knackered and the previous foul play related head injury offer an option to minimise the risk of losing a player if Clare were to get injured too and we went to uncontested scrums. Not saying anyone was cheating or that it was the scenario but it would be an opportunity to protect the team from a potential 14 man consequence.
Scott1
Super User
Super User
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:03 pm

Re: Premiership Final v Saracens - 18th June 2022 KO 15:00

Post by Scott1 »

mol2 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:24 pm
Scott1 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:33 am
northerntiger wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:26 am The thing that really concerns me is that Montoya passed an initial on field assessment but then failed a subsequent one in the second half. This presumably means he was playing on while a delayed concussion (if there is such a thing) was occurring. Given the concerns with later brain injury in ex players, should this be looked at? Any blows to the head to be taken off the field?
Yes! I’ve said before ,any head contact that is deemed to be looked at as potential foul play and/or a dismissal should mean the player receiving the blow should be moved from the field for the rest of the game. It is very rare but there is a type of secondary concussion and afaik it can be fatal. I believe it’s called second impact syndrome
Whether or not the head contact is foul play is irrelevant to whether the player needs to be removed from the game. The severity of the impact any given blow to the head is the relevant factor. That’s why there are concussion protocols and simply removing a player who has suffered an illegal blow to the head is no more or less justified than a blow to the head from a knee in a legitimate tackle.

We need processes to protect players from their own bravery, pressure or altered awareness from concussion from keep on playing for their own safety. Irrespective of the cause of the head injury.

Did Montoya come off because of secondary concussion, another head knock or was it that he was knackered and the previous foul play related head injury offer an option to minimise the risk of losing a player if Clare were to get injured too and we went to untested scrums. Not saying anyone was cheating or that it was the scenario but it would be an opportunity to protect the team from a potential 14 man consequence.
Yes you're right!
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
Post Reply