Tigers v Wasps

[teds]

So from what people are saying they feel that a player should not be allowed to fly hack a ball if it’s bouncing around in case the opposition fall on it.

No. I don’t believe anyone is saying that. It’s generally reasonable to fly hack a ball, BUT sometimes if a player is diving on it, its reckless. This is nothing new.

FWIW I don’t think Simpson is a dirty player, but I don’t think most of the red cards for rugby related incidents are down to dirty players, which is what makes nasty pieces of work like Callum Clarke all the more appalling

Fair enough and we shall see if there is a citing but personally I would be very surprised

I suspect you may be right but it doesn’t make it right.

[Mark62]

No. I don’t believe anyone is saying that. It’s generally reasonable to fly hack a ball, BUT sometimes if a player is diving on it, its reckless. This is nothing new.

FWIW I don’t think Simpson is a dirty player, but I don’t think most of the red cards for rugby related incidents are down to dirty players, which is what makes nasty pieces of work like Callum Clarke all the more appalling

Fair enough and we shall see if there is a citing but personally I would be very surprised

I suspect you may be right but it doesn’t make it right.

Possibly but if the players were reversed how many on here would be saying Harrison should have been carded

[Coleshillad]

Whether people think JPD is right or wrong, depends on what colour shirt they're following, or what coloured tinted spectacles they're wearing. The foot connecting with the head, involved an incident which in it's entirety was over in less than a second. The ball was available. The try, he couldn't see it. Nobody could see it. How can he give it? Guess it was a try? Or guess that it wasn't? Who wants a game won or lost by guesswork. In fairness to JPD, he took time looking at the replays. In slow motion, and in real time, both of which are important. Having looked at it, he decided on a course , and explained rationally why he was going down that road. Like it or not, it's the system we've got. Even better, it gives the fans something to discuss

[Mark62]

Whether people think JPD is right or wrong, depends on what colour shirt they're following, or what coloured tinted spectacles they're wearing. The foot connecting with the head, involved an incident which in it's entirety was over in less than a second. The ball was available. The try, he couldn't see it. Nobody could see it. How can he give it? Guess it was a try? Or guess that it wasn't? Who wants a game won or lost by guesswork. In fairness to JPD, he took time looking at the replays. In slow motion, and in real time, both of which are important. Having looked at it, he decided on a course , and explained rationally why he was going down that road. Like it or not, it's the system we've got. Even better, it gives the fans something to discuss

Well said far too sensible for here

[G.K]

Obviously it wasn't a try as no clear grounding could be seen, that's the law. Anyway the player concerned was wearing a stupid shirt with a picture of a wasp on it - that confirms it beyond doubt.

[Big Dai]

Whether people think JPD is right or wrong, depends on what colour shirt they're following, or what coloured tinted spectacles they're wearing. The foot connecting with the head, involved an incident which in it's entirety was over in less than a second. The ball was available. The try, he couldn't see it. Nobody could see it. How can he give it? Guess it was a try? Or guess that it wasn't? Who wants a game won or lost by guesswork. In fairness to JPD, he took time looking at the replays. In slow motion, and in real time, both of which are important. Having looked at it, he decided on a course , and explained rationally why he was going down that road. Like it or not, it's the system we've got. Even better, it gives the fans something to discuss

Well said far too sensible for here

That's it in a nutshell. It's not something to be settled by legislation or sanction. If it was the guy sees red. It should be down to a sensible interpretation. The same applies to tackles where, in a split second, there is not time to adjust.

[WhitecapTiger]

The same applies to tackles where, in a split second, there is not time to adjust.

I think though that this is where some have an issue with the decision on Saturday, the same consideration did not apply when, for example, Spencer was red carded at Wasps for his tackle when the ball carrier, Taylor, dropped his body position slightly into the tackle.

No common sense applied there by referee Tempest.

Different match. Different ref. But very little empathy shown in Spencer's card (and subsequent ban).

I don't think Simpson's 'kick' was a red card but in the big scheme of things, the end result of the rugby incident was a player leaving the field through injury - quite sure that Taylor didn't remain off the field - Not saying sanctions should be based on outcomes (like I don't think taking man out in the air should be solely on outcome of landing position) it is merely an observation.

Whilst checking a fact on my comment, I looked at this article:

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport ... t-15159003

Wasps director of rugby Dai Young believes the red card awarded to Leicester Tigers' Will Spencer was harsh - but understands why referee Ian Tempest made the tough decision in Sunday's pulsating Midlands derby.

But can't understand why JP Doyle made his decision(s) in an equally pulsating Midlands derby.....

and also said:

"We've had a directive that any tackle direct to the head is a red card," said Young.

So why does a kick to the head (equivalent to a tackle maybe in this instance), in similar unintentional circumstances, not attract a similar sanction? (I don't think Spencer targeted the head in his tackle). I'm not saying it automatically should - but let's have some parity of treatment, most frustrating thing for me.

Next week, or further in the future, something similar will happen and a player will be carded - yellow or red and lots will agree with the decision.

Youngs comments then and after Saturday's match show how a DOR/Coach can see things very differently when a) on the winning side and b) when under different pressures. Being magnanimous in victory is a pretty easy (and often hollow) thing to do.

[Big Dai]

The same applies to tackles where, in a split second, there is not time to adjust.

I think though that this is where some have an issue with the decision on Saturday, the same consideration did not apply when, for example, Spencer was red carded at Wasps for his tackle when the ball carrier, Taylor, dropped his body position slightly into the tackle.

No common sense applied there by referee Tempest.

Different match. Different ref. But very little empathy shown in Spencer's card (and subsequent ban).

I don't think Simpson's 'kick' was a red card but in the big scheme of things, the end result of the rugby incident was a player leaving the field through injury - quite sure that Taylor didn't remain off the field - Not saying sanctions should be based on outcomes (like I don't think taking man out in the air should be solely on outcome of landing position) it is merely an observation.

Whilst checking a fact on my comment, I looked at this article:

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport ... t-15159003

Wasps director of rugby Dai Young believes the red card awarded to Leicester Tigers' Will Spencer was harsh - but understands why referee Ian Tempest made the tough decision in Sunday's pulsating Midlands derby.

But can't understand why JP Doyle made his decision(s) in an equally pulsating Midlands derby.....

and also said:

"We've had a directive that any tackle direct to the head is a red card," said Young.

So why does a kick to the head (equivalent to a tackle maybe in this instance), in similar unintentional circumstances, not attract a similar sanction? (I don't think Spencer targeted the head in his tackle). I'm not saying it automatically should - but let's have some parity of treatment, most frustrating thing for me.

Next week, or further in the future, something similar will happen and a player will be carded - yellow or red and lots will agree with the decision.

Youngs comments then and after Saturday's match show how a DOR/Coach can see things very differently when a) on the winning side and b) when under different pressures. Being magnanimous in victory is a pretty easy (and often hollow) thing to do.

You have caught my drift........and dilemma.

[WhitecapTiger]

You have caught my drift........and dilemma.

Absolutely

[Hot_Charlie]

The way rugby is going it wouldn’t have been a surprise to see Simpson given a red (or yellow) card.

Well explained thought process and logic by JPD.

[strawclearer]

The way rugby is going it wouldn’t have been a surprise to see Simpson given a red (or yellow) card.

Well explained thought process and logic by JPD.

JPD's comment was "Very hard to say it's a deliberate or wilful act - or reckless even."

His main concern was whether the act was deliberate or wilful but intent is irrelevant under the laws. For JPD, the consideration of it being reckless was as an afterthought or adjunct to intent yet "reckless or not" should have been his only thought.

The law states "Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others."

"Reckless" is defined as "heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous." So - the question is very definitely not one of intent. It is simply - was Simpson kicking at a ball in close proximity to another player's head a rash or impetuous act and did it disregard the possibility of injury?

On that question - and that question alone without intent coming in to it - yes, in my opinion, he acted rashly, impetuously and heedless of the danger he was putting Shazzam in. So - red card.

But others will disagree!

[drc_007]

I wonder if the decision to give a card is more a function of the desire to modify players behaviour.

The authorities want to change tackle height so they are more willing to impose sanctions.

[northerntiger]

[/quote]
JPD's comment was "Very hard to say it's a deliberate or wilful act - or reckless even."

His main concern was whether the act was deliberate or wilful but intent is irrelevant under the laws. For JPD, the consideration of it being reckless was as an afterthought or adjunct to intent yet "reckless or not" should have been his only thought.

The law states "Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others."

"Reckless" is defined as "heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous." So - the question is very definitely not one of intent. It is simply - was Simpson kicking at a ball in close proximity to another player's head a rash or impetuous act and did it disregard the possibility of injury?

On that question - and that question alone without intent coming in to it - yes, in my opinion, he acted rashly, impetuously and heedless of the danger he was putting Shazzam in. So - red card.

But others will disagree!
[/quote]

Here's a surprise for you - I do!
If you look at it slo mo, it looks bad. Real time, Shazzam diving on the ball and Simpson attempting to fly hack are simultaneous. In my view, its an unfortunate incident, which happens in the game. I'm not entirely sure what else Simpson could have done - a player can't stop, look around, then decide whether it is safe to complete a course of action. I suspect that if it had been the other way round, and a card the outcome, most posters would be up in arms

[Mark62]

Agree totally with northern tiger, but others won’t.

Very nice to have a civil debate though

[ellis9]

JPD's comment was "Very hard to say it's a deliberate or wilful act - or reckless even."

His main concern was whether the act was deliberate or wilful but intent is irrelevant under the laws. For JPD, the consideration of it being reckless was as an afterthought or adjunct to intent yet "reckless or not" should have been his only thought.

The law states "Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others."

"Reckless" is defined as "heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous." So - the question is very definitely not one of intent. It is simply - was Simpson kicking at a ball in close proximity to another player's head a rash or impetuous act and did it disregard the possibility of injury?

On that question - and that question alone without intent coming in to it - yes, in my opinion, he acted rashly, impetuously and heedless of the danger he was putting Shazzam in. So - red card.

But others will disagree!
[/quote]

Here's a surprise for you - I do!
If you look at it slo mo, it looks bad. Real time, Shazzam diving on the ball and Simpson attempting to fly hack are simultaneous. In my view, its an unfortunate incident, which happens in the game. I'm not entirely sure what else Simpson could have done - a player can't stop, look around, then decide whether it is safe to complete a course of action. I suspect that if it had been the other way round, and a card the outcome, most posters would be up in arms
[/quote]

Agreed. Rugby is a contact sport and incidents like this happen occasionally. No one was at fault. Put it another way and you could argue Harrison shouldn't have gone to ground to pick the ball up and then he wouldn't have got kicked!

It's a rugby collision.

As I say- sport hurts. Go hard or go home!