6 Nations 2023

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Post Reply
Scott1
Super User
Super User
Posts: 16756
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:03 pm

Re: 6 Nations 2023

Post by Scott1 »

tigerburnie wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:38 am I have the feeling the law change is to protect the Rugby Unions from litigation rather then protecting the players from harm.
Wouldn't surprise me at all!
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
mightymouse
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:30 pm

Re: 6 Nations 2023

Post by mightymouse »

If you look at a freeze frame of the contact which nobody seems to have done either during the game or subsequently, then you will see Keenan’s head clearly in contact with Stewards bicep. Not his shoulder nor his elbow. That is why there is so much confusion .. some say shoulder and some say elbow .. that’s because it hits bang in the middle. A nice soft muscle to bounce into .. yes he’s a strong boy Freddie but he’s not Popeye!
He does not dip or present his shoulder. The absolute opposite. This committee have to a certain extent bottled it but not saying it was no card. The referee ruined what was until then a great game. England would not have won but the jeopardy would have been there right up till the final whistle which is what we as spectators want to see.
I add I am a neutral watching this game, I have no axe to grind except that I am fed up with seeing the game I have loved for so long being destroyed by foolish law changes and referees who have clearly never played the game
TigerCam
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:41 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: 6 Nations 2023

Post by TigerCam »

northerntiger wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:49 am One thing that is always absent in the refs discussion of red/yellow cards is the question of time ie did he have time to adjust his body height. The narrative always seems to be that the tackling player did not dip, or maintained an upright stanch. In a lot of the situations I don't think the tacking player has enough time to do any of these things, and just reacts instinctively. Slo mo replays really don't help here. As part of the mitigation discussion I would like to see 'did the tackling player have time to adjust' asked as a question.

I've seen posters on other sites say Freddie 'chose' to turn away and present his shoulder. He didn't, he just did it instinctively.
Barclay states that Freddie had 0.06 of a sec to react. Rugby collision only, Knock on, Scrum England.
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
coxey
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: 6 Nations 2023

Post by coxey »

I understand keeping the players safe (used to come back on Saturdays with so many stud marks over my back), but i will have to ask about this. This was in open play after it was blown. The Irish player should not have been there (my thoughts). But I have a wider question, during break downs, coming in to protect the ball. Those contacts are similar to what we have seen. Head on big bodies, defensive line upright, attacking players low coming into contact. The refs are on a hiding to nothing. The whole game needs a shake up.
Nofrontteeth
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:42 pm

Re: 6 Nations 2023

Post by Nofrontteeth »

Perhaps this whole issue of 'duties of care' should be a thread of its own. (Sorry if I've missed similar previous threads.

Professional Rugby equates to being at work with all the duties of care that invokes. Please excuse the legal rambling but -------

Contracts of employment are invariably private be they 'of service' or 'for service '
But should it be made clear if a player is a direct employee of the employer (Player paid by club or the Union?), or self employed contracting their services. Do these contracts include a waiver releasing the employer from resultant liabilities from a recognised hazard whilst at work. A civil defence of volenti non fit injuria (employee knowing and willing to take the risk) may exist if a contractual waiver is agreed.

Our game is running scared/dieing of litigation
Be that the club(s) or the Unions.

Let's stop this shake up, rule changing and get away from "who can I sue for not defending me from myself when I willing and knowingly have taken the risk?"

And before you ask I do have compassion but it is subjective to each circumstance e.g. smoker with lung cancer, or a boxers broken nose

Over to you barrack room lawyers :smt017
Tykger
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:40 am

Re: 6 Nations 2023

Post by Tykger »

ashleytiger wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:10 pm The Irish Player was committing an offence at the time, in that the ball had been knocked on and he had picked it up forward of the knock on. He was attempting to prevent Freddie from picking up the ball legally. Freddie was NOT TACKLING him but running forward to claim the ball, therefore he was not in contravention of Law 9;13. The Irish player in picking up the ball (illegally) then carried on bent forward and ran into him. That is how I saw (and still see it). But of course the committee couldn't throw all four match officials to the wolves.
This is absolutely spot on for me. I thought the first question was ' is there foul play ?'. I don't think there is here. Fred wasn't tackling him and wasn't otherwise impeding lrish play. It was a knock on with advantage to England. Surely it can't even be a yellow.
LE18
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4827
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:13 am
Location: Great Glen

Re: 6 Nations 2023

Post by LE18 »

Offside wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:08 pm Hi, Welcome. I fixed the below for you :smt003

Freddie is clearly trying to avoid a worse collision with an offside player trying to collect a ball clearly knocked on = penalty to England if he gets it and prevents England taking advantage.
Keenan clearly moves forward into the collision lifting to stop England taking advantage of the knock on.
Keenan is low in height (mitigation) trying to interfere with play offside = reduced to yellow against Keenan.
No ban. Rugby collision with Ireland spoiling an advantage -surprise surprise as a very professional outfit.
Slap on the wrist for Peyper
For me anyway.
Love from Leicester
Plus match result reversed, no Grand Slam for Ireland. :smt005
LE18
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4827
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:13 am
Location: Great Glen

Re: 6 Nations 2023

Post by LE18 »

ashleytiger wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:10 pm The Irish Player was committing an offence at the time, in that the ball had been knocked on and he had picked it up forward of the knock on. He was attempting to prevent Freddie from picking up the ball legally. Freddie was NOT TACKLING him but running forward to claim the ball, therefore he was not in contravention of Law 9;13. The Irish player in picking up the ball (illegally) then carried on bent forward and ran into him. That is how I saw (and still see it). But of course the committee couldn't throw all four match officials to the wolves.
Did he actually have hold of the ball, I thought he failed to scoop it up and in doing so ran into Freddie.?
LittleBigG
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:00 pm

Re: 6 Nations 2023

Post by LittleBigG »

Tykger wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:37 pm
ashleytiger wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:10 pm The Irish Player was committing an offence at the time, in that the ball had been knocked on and he had picked it up forward of the knock on. He was attempting to prevent Freddie from picking up the ball legally. Freddie was NOT TACKLING him but running forward to claim the ball, therefore he was not in contravention of Law 9;13. The Irish player in picking up the ball (illegally) then carried on bent forward and ran into him. That is how I saw (and still see it). But of course the committee couldn't throw all four match officials to the wolves.
This is absolutely spot on for me. I thought the first question was ' is there foul play ?'. I don't think there is here. Fred wasn't tackling him and wasn't otherwise impeding lrish play. It was a knock on with advantage to England. Surely it can't even be a yellow.
This is the crux, imo. All talk of mitigation levels and "dominant force", etc is just a distraction. All of it is utterly irrelevant if the answer to "has there been foul play" is "no"

Given that rugby is a contact sport, there will always be freak incidents that happen, and this was one of them - look at what happened to poor Alfie Barbeary when we were played Bath
mol2 wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:11 am Cop out.
Freddy tried to evade contact with a player who ran into him. Irrespective of their player having the ball, which shouldn't because he gathered it having knocked on, he was pulling out of contact and as such the contact was accidental. Not reckless, careless or any way his fault.
Cop out indeed. Peyper should have been fed into the wood chipper, along with the rest of the officials. The TMO is supposed to be there to prevent howlers... not instigate them!

Incidents like this one severely undo all the positive actions towards reducing head collisions because all Steward could take away from the event was "what else could I have possibly done", making the whole initiative start to look like a farce

If they want to improve player safety, the emphasis must be placed on players flying into rucks (an example of which was, ironically posted earlier in this thread... I look forward to reading about the citing...) as the degree of danger with someone being hit while lying prone is so much greater than an event where, arguably, you could place some small degree of "fault" on the attacking player. Actions such as this are deliberate, and intentional (as in hitting the ruck, not taking someone's head off!) - something that you absolutely could not say about Steward's actions
Post Reply