Team vs Saints

[Jimmy Skitz]

Murphy said on RL after the game Ford could have played but wasn't risked, same for Reffel and Taute

[h's dad]

be fair we extended our lead when down to 13 men, a decent team would have put at least 1 try on us then, but you can only play the side in front of you

Pure speculation

Not really, its a reasonably well established stat that a team serving a yellow card will, on average, have 7 points scored against them.

It's a bit old and the 2019 GP final may have skewed it but this international referee and analyst says it's actually about 2.5 points;

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feature ... -we-think/

I do wonder about the post card impact after 14 guys have had to bust a gut for 10 minutes and the other has spent the sin bin period recharging his batteries.

If anybody has anything better or more recent could they post it please.

[Jimmy Skitz]

Pure speculation

Not really, its a reasonably well established stat that a team serving a yellow card will, on average, have 7 points scored against them.

It's a bit old and the 2019 GP final may have skewed it but this international referee and analyst says it's actually about 2.5 points;

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feature ... -we-think/

I do wonder about the post card impact after 14 guys have had to bust a gut for 10 minutes and the other has spent the sin bin period recharging his batteries.

If anybody has anything better or more recent could they post it please.

we had 2 players in the bin at the same time was my point, what ever the stats show for being down to 14 men for 13 they must be even higher

[h's dad]

I thought we did seem to be very very poor at securing the ball from an opposition restart, of which there were quite a few. I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it, or am I missing something?

[MCC1964]

Important to keep our heads screwed on for next week, it is good to get the Derby win though. Couldn't watch the game but saw the highlights, what was Lavanini's yellow card for? Also Leatigaga was being a bit silly but was well handled in the end by Barnes and Gengey (although I suspect the former, like Austin, was more worried about his car!).

Lavanini's yellow was pretty much a "team yellow", given we'd been penalised in the red zone several times. I think he was one of a couple that were offside. On reflection, Liebenburg and Steward were the standout players for me yesterday. Hanro put some decent carries in from the restarts. Makes such a difference in terms of exiting. Steward is proving to be solid at 15. Good under the high ball, brave and an elusive runner. I worry about out penalty count. Ok, if you're under pressure I get that penalties are often given away, but the amount of stupid penalties is alarming. Good win though, but still can't get used to no spectators.

Iam getting concerned at the number of yellow cards being given to Lavanini and Wells as these add up to a red disqualification ~ not sure but thinking it is three yellows = a red. Those three yellows stopped our momentum and going for an attacking 4 try bonus and more creditable reports that Tigers played well and beat Saints rather than Saints did not play well.. positive thoughts.

Flippin’ ‘eck. Did you not watch the game or see a previous posting? The card was NOT Lavanini’s fault. Dan Cole charged into the the ruck and more relevantly into TLs back, causing him to crumple to the floor and then the Saints players fell over him. He was not responsible for his actions and the yellow card was given for cumulative TEAM penalties. He was the unfortunate one to be pinged for it. He was perfectly legal before Coley thumped into him generally had a very good game.

[Ian Cant]

Barnes, as always, showed he’s the best ref around. He makes it very clear to the players about how to react. Our cards were deserved, and as I said in a previous post Lavanini was not to blame. The rules are clear and like Saints card, it was a high tackle but in real time not reckless. Barnes also tried to keep the penalties down so for both sides he ignored tackles that started in a safe way but then the arm slid up towards the neck. Well done Barnes.
Again, Saints didn’t play very well in the first half because our line speed was superb and our tackling fair but aggressive. Mike Ford now needs to get the whole squad to defend like that first half. Playing for 10 minute periods with 13 players is always tiring, so towards the end defending became harder.As John The Grif said, “I’d take that win and performance over the lack lustre display we put in at Franklins’ Gardens.
Well done to the coaches, the players and ref. I’ve seen far worse matches both home and away in the local derby. Shame we fans weren’t there to roar the lads on.

[BFG]

The ref was his usual make it up as he goes self, in my opinion.
I thought Lavanini was unfortunate to get his yellow card.
Mr Magoo would see that Cole caused it.
I also thought that direct contact with the head in the tackle is a red card.
It wasn't any different to Farrell's red card tackle.
Had Steward been knocked out would he have shown a red card?
If so that's no way to ref in my opinion.

[ay2oh]

The ref was his usual make it up as he goes self, in my opinion.
I thought Lavanini was unfortunate to get his yellow card.
Mr Magoo would see that Cole caused it.
I also thought that direct contact with the head in the tackle is a red card.
It wasn't any different to Farrell's red card tackle.
Had Steward been knocked out would he have shown a red card?
If so that's no way to ref in my opinion.

Agreed

[Dokie]

The ref was his usual make it up as he goes self, in my opinion.
I thought Lavanini was unfortunate to get his yellow card.
Mr Magoo would see that Cole caused it.
I also thought that direct contact with the head in the tackle is a red card.
It wasn't any different to Farrell's red card tackle.
Had Steward been knocked out would he have shown a red card?
If so that's no way to ref in my opinion.

Lavanini or Cole, let’s be honest it was a yellow card.
In terms of the tackle, he did hit below and slide up a little, so I think Barnes was right there too.

[Tiglon]

Barnes, as always, showed he’s the best ref around. He makes it very clear to the players about how to react. Our cards were deserved, and as I said in a previous post Lavanini was not to blame. The rules are clear and like Saints card, it was a high tackle but in real time not reckless. Barnes also tried to keep the penalties down so for both sides he ignored tackles that started in a safe way but then the arm slid up towards the neck. Well done Barnes.
Again, Saints didn’t play very well in the first half because our line speed was superb and our tackling fair but aggressive. Mike Ford now needs to get the whole squad to defend like that first half. Playing for 10 minute periods with 13 players is always tiring, so towards the end defending became harder.As John The Grif said, “I’d take that win and performance over the lack lustre display we put in at Franklins’ Gardens.
Well done to the coaches, the players and ref. I’ve seen far worse matches both home and away in the local derby. Shame we fans weren’t there to roar the lads on.

Whichever legal definition you apply (objective or subjective) it's pretty clear that it was reckless. How could anyone not foresee that running towards a player with your arm at head height might result in a high tackle or injury? Sorry, but unless there is a third type of recklessness that has been specially created for the laws of rugby (which there may well be, I don't know) then it was undeniably reckless.

Anyway, recklessness it not part of the test for high tackle sanction. Reading the guidelines, and with my likely flawed recollection of the tackle, it seems like a high danger with no mitigation tackle and should therefore be red card.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines/13

[OakhamTiger32]

Barnes, as always, showed he’s the best ref around. He makes it very clear to the players about how to react. Our cards were deserved, and as I said in a previous post Lavanini was not to blame. The rules are clear and like Saints card, it was a high tackle but in real time not reckless. Barnes also tried to keep the penalties down so for both sides he ignored tackles that started in a safe way but then the arm slid up towards the neck. Well done Barnes.
Again, Saints didn’t play very well in the first half because our line speed was superb and our tackling fair but aggressive. Mike Ford now needs to get the whole squad to defend like that first half. Playing for 10 minute periods with 13 players is always tiring, so towards the end defending became harder.As John The Grif said, “I’d take that win and performance over the lack lustre display we put in at Franklins’ Gardens.
Well done to the coaches, the players and ref. I’ve seen far worse matches both home and away in the local derby. Shame we fans weren’t there to roar the lads on.

Whichever legal definition you apply (objective or subjective) it's pretty clear that it was reckless. How could anyone not foresee that running towards a player with your arm at head height might result in a high tackle or injury? Sorry, but unless there is a third type of recklessness that has been specially created for the laws of rugby (which there may well be, I don't know) then it was undeniably reckless.

Anyway, recklessness it not part of the test for high tackle sanction. Reading the guidelines, and with my likely flawed recollection of the tackle, it seems like a high danger with no mitigation tackle and should therefore be red card.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines/13

Think Barnes said the mitigation was that Steward had dipped/was going down just before contact and therefore only a yellow. Red for me but there was a dip by Steward so you can see why Barnes opted for that card I guess

[Red Boots]

Can we play them every week?

[h's dad]

Barnes, as always, showed he’s the best ref around. He makes it very clear to the players about how to react. Our cards were deserved, and as I said in a previous post Lavanini was not to blame. The rules are clear and like Saints card, it was a high tackle but in real time not reckless. Barnes also tried to keep the penalties down so for both sides he ignored tackles that started in a safe way but then the arm slid up towards the neck. Well done Barnes.
Again, Saints didn’t play very well in the first half because our line speed was superb and our tackling fair but aggressive. Mike Ford now needs to get the whole squad to defend like that first half. Playing for 10 minute periods with 13 players is always tiring, so towards the end defending became harder.As John The Grif said, “I’d take that win and performance over the lack lustre display we put in at Franklins’ Gardens.
Well done to the coaches, the players and ref. I’ve seen far worse matches both home and away in the local derby. Shame we fans weren’t there to roar the lads on.

Whichever legal definition you apply (objective or subjective) it's pretty clear that it was reckless. How could anyone not foresee that running towards a player with your arm at head height might result in a high tackle or injury? Sorry, but unless there is a third type of recklessness that has been specially created for the laws of rugby (which there may well be, I don't know) then it was undeniably reckless.

Anyway, recklessness it not part of the test for high tackle sanction. Reading the guidelines, and with my likely flawed recollection of the tackle, it seems like a high danger with no mitigation tackle and should therefore be red card.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines/13

Think Barnes said the mitigation was that Steward had dipped/was going down just before contact and therefore only a yellow. Red for me but there was a dip by Steward so you can see why Barnes opted for that card I guess

I thought any dip by Steward was very minimal, especially compared with Atkinson's.

[Chobbsy]

Whichever legal definition you apply (objective or subjective) it's pretty clear that it was reckless. How could anyone not foresee that running towards a player with your arm at head height might result in a high tackle or injury? Sorry, but unless there is a third type of recklessness that has been specially created for the laws of rugby (which there may well be, I don't know) then it was undeniably reckless.

Anyway, recklessness it not part of the test for high tackle sanction. Reading the guidelines, and with my likely flawed recollection of the tackle, it seems like a high danger with no mitigation tackle and should therefore be red card.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines/13

Think Barnes said the mitigation was that Steward had dipped/was going down just before contact and therefore only a yellow. Red for me but there was a dip by Steward so you can see why Barnes opted for that card I guess

I thought any dip by Steward was very minimal, especially compared with Atkinson's.

I think it was the right result, penalty yellow card, if one of ours had been red carded for that we would have been very unhappy

[sam16111986]

Think Barnes said the mitigation was that Steward had dipped/was going down just before contact and therefore only a yellow. Red for me but there was a dip by Steward so you can see why Barnes opted for that card I guess

I thought any dip by Steward was very minimal, especially compared with Atkinson's.

I think it was the right result, penalty yellow card, if one of ours had been red carded for that we would have been very unhappy

Whilst I thought yellow was the correct call in terms of what I wanted to see as someone who's played the game it is in no way consistent with decisions from recent seasons. Spencer got sent off whilst making an awful lot more of an attempt to tackle at the correct height Vs Wasps. Lavanini and Farrell have both been red carded in the last year against players who dipped more than Steward. Steward is 6ft4 he's a big lad to go high on him is inexcusable and to the letter of the current interpretation of the law it should have been red.

The only thing I can think is that Barnes didn't think there was a lot of force in it but then you get the worrying aspect of if Steward hasn't so honest and had stayed down...