Parling takes head knock v Saracens

[Mark62]

I do worry that with young Maxwell Keyes in charge this afternoon there will be a few cards for both sides. Remember him sending Hughes off wrongly for treading on North

[mol2]

As stated at half time the word accidental no longer exists when adjudicating on high tackles and head collisions

Well I'm afraid that's a farce IMO!!

Quite agree. Barrington went in to try and make a tackle. After Barritt's illegal tackle he had, through no fault of his own, Parling's head collide front on with his shoulder.
Parling is a tall man and there is no way Barrington's shoulder could deliberately hit his head. I didn't see the collision as a no arms tackle.

Whoever came up with this directive failed to consider the fact that players run stooped over and not bolt upright. Consequently if you run more stooped with the ball you only present your legs for the tackle. As a result a law aimed to reduce head injuries will probably result in more for the tackler as it has become very difficult to access the waist of the ball carrier and slide down onto the legs of the player you tackle. You will either let the player run past and tackle from behind or fly in at the knees.

It will become a game hunched up players!

All they needed to do was to penalise consistently high tackles and perhaps redraw the definition of a high tackle as above the armpit than the shoulder and if a player dips into a tackle too bad, that's not the tackler's fault.

[jgriffin]

This really has not been thought through, has it, just like the 'legs above the head' which was originally to prevent a player being speared like BOD. This then mutated into 'due care' and then how the player landed regardles - the shift to outcome, not the actual incident in total. So two seasons ago we got players sent off for getting a jumping catcher in their face because the catcher then landed on their back. We also now have the situation where the perfectly legal and traditional 'dump and rip' front driving tackle could attract a card (lands on back with legs higher = sanction) and now a complete licence for attackers to run hunched up knowing they can hardly be tackled at all.
The common sense would be to call a tackle below the armpit line at first contact legal, only illegal if there is a drive onto the head (i.e. as before) and to outlaw the bowling ball 'tackle', which is still being executed this weekend.

[teds]

I do worry that with young Maxwell Keyes in charge this afternoon there will be a few cards for both sides. Remember him sending Hughes off wrongly for treading on North

Treading? Do you mean the incident where Hughes went in knee first NZ style when it was clear he couldn't prevent a try?

[Mark62]

I do worry that with young Maxwell Keyes in charge this afternoon there will be a few cards for both sides. Remember him sending Hughes off wrongly for treading on North

Treading? Do you mean the incident where Hughes went in knee first NZ style when it was clear he couldn't prevent a try?

No I mean the incident where he physically couldn't put his leg/foot anywhere else, and which was later rescinded

[Tigerbeat]

The game was at Franklin Gardens and North scored in the right hand corner and was knocked out in the follow up.

[teds]

I do worry that with young Maxwell Keyes in charge this afternoon there will be a few cards for both sides. Remember him sending Hughes off wrongly for treading on North

Treading? Do you mean the incident where Hughes went in knee first NZ style when it was clear he couldn't prevent a try?

No I mean the incident where he physically couldn't put his leg/foot anywhere else, and which was later rescinded

That's the incident. While hitting North in the head was not the intended outcome, it would be difficult to conceive of any intention that was not reckless. Now the emphasis has been put onto outcome it would be unlikely he would avoid a ban for that this season. Somehow, I suspect that next time he will be physically able to avoid contact.

[Christophelp]

Barritt cited, hearing to take place tomorrow along with Barrington's:

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/rf ... d-barritt/

Barritt cited and charged under 10.4(e) Dangerous Tackle; for which the mid-end entry point sanction is 6 weeks.

Barrington charged under 10.4(g) Dangerous Charge; for which the mid-end entry point sanction is 5 weeks.

I specifically mention the mid-end entry point sanctions because the new sanctions (of which interestingly 10.4(g) is not one) frequently state, "...a strike to the head shall result in at least a mid-end entry point sanction."

Quick Google search doesn't find any evidence of either having had disciplinary hearings before, so with clean records and guilty pleas entered, you'd expect a 3 week ban for both.

Credit to Barritt for this: https://twitter.com/bradbarritt/status/ ... 6226000896

[strawclearer]

Fissler: Richard Barrington found not guilty of dangerous charging. Brad Barritt admits high tackle on Geoff Parling and is banned for three weeks.

So...Richard Barrington was sent off by mistake and Barritt was allowed to stay on by mistake.

[WhitecapTiger]

So...Richard Barrington was sent off by mistake and Barritt was allowed to stay on by mistake.

Barritt, who then went on to be very influential in rescuing something from the game for Sarries (IMO)....I suppose you have to balance that by saying we'd never know how much impact Barrington would have had if Barritt had gone instead, I'm guessing nowhere near as much. If both had gone? Different outcome, possibky harsh on Sarries in light of panel's decision re Barrington.

I would hope that following this matter that Mr Tempest is being 'educated' and may even see some lower tier action for a week or two, he clearly identified that Barritt's tackle was high (illegal) he said as much in his summing up on the pitch, and Barritt has now been punished by the powers that be, and having had new direction on sanctions for such tackles....managed to do absolutely nothing about it.

At least he apologised to Barrington in advance (as he sent him off.....incorrectly now a it turns out although I'd said/thought it was worthy of a card at the time)