Rugby World Cup warm up games

[Tigerbeat]

This is very subjective and the tackle is made in a fraction of a second. If there is any deviation by players this would affect the reaction time for a player to make a tackle which would be seen as legal. The fact that there was a push or W20 was propelled in the direction of E10 does reduce the reaction time in effecting a legal tackle. It was definitely foul play which is in no doubt. Mitigation........this has been presented to the panel.
Player welfare has to be at the forefront but in some cases head contacts are unavoidable and should be seen as rugby incidents. Protocols are in place to ensure that players undergo HIA protocols and have independent match doctors.

[ourla]

"Before W20’s contact with E2, the Player is positioned to make a legal tackle on W20 on his initial running line. That tackle would be on the right side of W20 and also on the Player’s right side. The Player’s knees and hips are bent"

This is the point of contention, as far as I can see.

I'd agree it is the point and I would say what is written in quotes is rubbish.

[Scott1]

"Before W20’s contact with E2, the Player is positioned to make a legal tackle on W20 on his initial running line. That tackle would be on the right side of W20 and also on the Player’s right side. The Player’s knees and hips are bent"

This is the point of contention, as far as I can see.

I'd agree it is the point and I would say what is written in quotes is rubbish.

Absolute rubbish,there's never any attempt to tackle low whether right,left or centre!!

[Scott1]

This is very subjective and the tackle is made in a fraction of a second. If there is any deviation by players this would affect the reaction time for a player to make a tackle which would be seen as legal. The fact that there was a push or W20 was propelled in the direction of E10 does reduce the reaction time in effecting a legal tackle. It was definitely foul play which is in no doubt. Mitigation........this has been presented to the panel.
Player welfare has to be at the forefront but in some cases head contacts are unavoidable and should be seen as rugby incidents. Protocols are in place to ensure that players undergo HIA protocols and have independent match doctors.

It's the consistency that's the problem. I present PSDT red card. Whether you think he propelled himself after or not,the push on him by Kwagga Smith was significantly harder than the one by George. I know they are not completely similar but he was hung on here. I just think fans think they are a bit edgy because they are backing Farrell,any other player I believe that they would call is as it is

[westwinds31]

And we wonder why rugby union crowds/audiences are falling

[wigworth]

England team for the weekend:

Steward; Watson, Marchant, Tuilagi, Daly; Ford, Youngs; Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Ribbans, Lawes (capt), Earl, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Dan, Marler, Sinckler, Chessum, Willis, Care, Smith, Lawrence

[Scott1]

Good side, good bench! Only gripe is I would've left Billy V out. And played one of Curry or Earle at 8 with the other one on the bench with Willis at 7. Billy's carrying will be bread and butter to Ireland, we needed work rate and breakdown

[Darc Tiger]

Chessum

[Scott1]

Chessum

Great news!

[LE18]

In defence of Farrell, I saw a picture in DT where they were comparing his tackles and in the latest, he was crouching with legs bent arms out waiting for W20 to arrive, but then the next photo has him in a standing hit, was the intervention by E2 the cause of Farrells change in stance? I think the review panel must have thought so, hence the let off.

[Scott1]

Nice and crouched there,textbook!

[Scott1]

Williams and Biggar out of the SA game

[Scott1]

What I would like to know is,what has that “push” got to do with Farrell still being high? Now I could understand if George pushed him from behind and Basham fell forward into the tackle losing his feet but it’s from the side and Basham is still nearly at full height. Now if you are saying that the push from the side has pushed Basham into Farrells path then it doesn’t matter because Farrell is still high and reckless. It’s just complete nonsense to me all round.
I remember the Porter incident when I pointed out that it was an accident and he didn’t see the player until late and I was told by quite a few on here that it doesn’t matter if it was an accident or he saw the player late because Porter being upright was reckless. So what’s changed? Why does it matter about the push now? Is Farrell not upright and reckless?!

[Tiglon]

What I would like to know is,what has that “push” got to do with Farrell still being high? Now I could understand if George pushed him from behind and Basham fell forward into the tackle losing his feet but it’s from the side and Basham is still nearly at full height. Now if you are saying that the push from the side has pushed Basham into Farrells path then it doesn’t matter because Farrell is still high and reckless. It’s just complete nonsense to me all round.
I remember the Porter incident when I pointed out that it was an accident and he didn’t see the player until late and I was told by quite a few on here that it doesn’t matter if it was an accident or he saw the player late because Porter being upright was reckless. So what’s changed? Why does it matter about the push now? Is Farrell not upright and reckless?!

Agreed. It was reckless at best, regardless of what happened afterwards he went into a tackle upright and with arm tucked, then pushed his shoulder forward into the tackle with force. Clearly not attempting a legal tackle.

Plus it's his own player doing the pushing. Will we now regularly see one tackler push the ball carrier first, so the eventual tackler can't be done for going high?

Farrell may have crouched before the tackle, but he chose to raise his height before impact. That wasn't affected by the push.

[Scott1]

What I would like to know is,what has that “push” got to do with Farrell still being high? Now I could understand if George pushed him from behind and Basham fell forward into the tackle losing his feet but it’s from the side and Basham is still nearly at full height. Now if you are saying that the push from the side has pushed Basham into Farrells path then it doesn’t matter because Farrell is still high and reckless. It’s just complete nonsense to me all round.
I remember the Porter incident when I pointed out that it was an accident and he didn’t see the player until late and I was told by quite a few on here that it doesn’t matter if it was an accident or he saw the player late because Porter being upright was reckless. So what’s changed? Why does it matter about the push now? Is Farrell not upright and reckless?!

Agreed. It was reckless at best, regardless of what happened afterwards he went into a tackle upright and with arm tucked, then pushed his shoulder forward into the tackle with force. Clearly not attempting a legal tackle.

Plus it's his own player doing the pushing. Will we now regularly see one tackler push the ball carrier first, so the eventual tackler can't be done for going high?

Farrell may have crouched before the tackle, but he chose to raise his height before impact. That wasn't affected by the push.

This is the thing I can’t get. Please correct me if I’m wrong,but we’ve seen plenty of instances where there has been another player in the tackle area who has affected the incident,players not seeing the other player until very late,last second dropping of height etc. I don’t remember many,if any at all, being downgraded that were so clear cut as this. Sure there has been ones like Freddy Steward which was very clearly unavoidable and deserved being rescinded but my point is regardless of very questionable mitigation if it’s high and reckless and this tackle fits both that criteria then I just can’t see the difficulty here. Maybe it’s me,it’s the last I’ll say on it but I think I’ve tried to break it down quite well.