European and South African teams in Champions' Cup 2023/24

[Scott1]

Caulfields red card for his accidental stamp overturned! What's the point any more?!

[TigerFeetSteve]

Caulfields red card for his accidental stamp overturned! What's the point any more?!

I dunno the laws... neither does the chap Nigel Owens either as he agrees with me, but what does he know...

Law states:
Reckless boot to the face is red (regardless of intent)
If it's foul play, a boot to the face has to be considered reckless.
Therefore it's either foul play and a red card, or it is play on, not foul play.
For the citing panel to say it IS foul play but doesn't meet the red card threshold is decidedly at odds with the laws...


https://twitter.com/Nigelrefowens/statu ... VCWaA&s=19

[Tiglon]

Caulfields red card for his accidental stamp overturned! What's the point any more?!

I dunno the laws... neither does the chap Nigel Owens either as he agrees with me, but what does he know...

Law states:
Reckless boot to the face is red (regardless of intent)
If it's foul play, a boot to the face has to be considered reckless.
Therefore it's either foul play and a red card, or it is play on, not foul play.
For the citing panel to say it IS foul play but doesn't meet the red card threshold is decidedly at odds with the laws...


https://twitter.com/Nigelrefowens/statu ... VCWaA&s=19

Genuine question, where does it say in the laws that reckless boot to the face is red?

As an aside, it isn't regardless of intent, because reckless itself is a level of intent. This is used to determine whether something is foul play, rather than the other way around - accidental is not foul play, reckless or deliberate is foul play.

I believe the panel have judged that it was reckless, therefore it was foul play, however did not reach the threshold for a red card - I would guess because they did not believe there was a high level of danger, but I can't find a full report.

[wardy]

Caulfield didn't just put his foot to the head, he stamped on it with all the bulk he carries. Reckless it wasn't. That stamp had intention written all over it. Red card all day long.

[LekkerTigers]

Caulfield didn't just put his foot to the head, he stamped on it with all the bulk he carries. Reckless it wasn't. That stamp had intention written all over it. Red card all day long.

There was no intentional stamp. Don't be daft.

[Rugbygramps]

Caulfield didn't just put his foot to the head, he stamped on it with all the bulk he carries. Reckless it wasn't. That stamp had intention written all over it. Red card all day long.

There was no intentional stamp. Don't be daft.

Your right it wasn’t intentional and the argument will be that he arrived at pace and the player was in an unusual position I just think he could have been a lot more careful and as I said on the other thread for him to get nothing and Langdon 4 weeks is awful

[Scott1]

Caulfield didn't just put his foot to the head, he stamped on it with all the bulk he carries. Reckless it wasn't. That stamp had intention written all over it. Red card all day long.

There was no intentional stamp. Don't be daft.

Of course there was! He was never gonna land there and changed his trajectory,my opinion of course. Smith would've been proud of that mid air goose step! Or should that be a hitch kick?

[Rugbygramps]

Final venues for the next 2 years have been announced

2025 - Cardiff
2026 - Bilbao