Fair points, I do get where you're coming from on player safety but I still can't get my head around this being anything other than an accidental clash between two players
Yes it sadly ended up with a player coming out of it concussed but I still maintain there's next to nothing Steward could have done - If he dips to make a tackle (baring in mind Keenan didn't have the ball at the time and if he didn't regather the dropped ball it's a big hit off the ball): Keenan was bent double with his head further forward than any other point - that tackle likely would've hit the head first
If he didn't try and get out of the way by turning then Keenan is still taking contact head first - either chest or hip to the head, still dangerous
Steward makes two decisions which result in the second most dangerous possible outcome behind head to head contact in my mind. Firstly, he jumps, without his feet on the ground he has very little control of what he's doing. Secondly he turns his shoulder towards Keenan, maybe instinctively shouldn't matter after the first bad decision, if he opens up his body it delays contact ever so slightly and increases the chance of Keenan hitting his torso which increases the chance of there being no injury.
I've maintained the whole way that he was very unlucky but that two small bad decisions ended up with the worst possible result - it's enough for me to show red if we're actually serious about this.
Which ended with a shoulder directly to a trapped players face - as mentioned somewhere above, either he entered recklessly and hit Ludlam's head or he entered in a controlled fashion and hit Ludlam's head. If Steward's actions are being judged on outcome (tried to get out the way and hit someone in the head) then trying to ruck legally and hitting someone in the head should be judged under the same microscope
I think the incident being low paced and in a static situation is the difference. Look, I wouldn't be upset if we start being more serious with them but that's not where the game is and I don't think anyone arguing for a red there is doing so with sufficient knowledge and/or in good faith.
But what's the action that is going to be replicated? Trying to jump out of the way and twisting your body in such a way that a bending player turns directly into your elbow? No one's going into a dropped ball situation thinking about regardless if it's a red or a yellow or a play on
I've never seen this kind of incident ever, at any level, that I can recall
It's two players going for a loose ball. I keep saying that rugby has lost its mind over a knock on. If Hansen puts a delicate kick through there and the same happened no one would argue the result. We have advantage in rugby so you play the whistle, I don't think Steward did.
Andy Dunne is a really good pundit over here, he thinks Steward tried to get away with a sneaky one using the knock-on as an excuse. Now I don't think that's true for a second, it's a rare case of him being wrong, but it's far less ridiculous to suggest a player using a breakdown in play as cover to get a borderline hit in than it is that a player would go looking for head contact to get the opposition a red card as has been suggested here.
If we want to allow this in the pro game, and it's clear that most people do, we have to have separate head contact rules for pro and amateur rugby. Until then we have to do better.
I have no issue with you arguing the Steward incident should be a red under the argument of player safety, the issue is then making excuses for 3 other incidents of head contact, all of which the player had way more time to decide what to do. You argue there is less force but I have seen 3 instances of players running into contact and in the Aki case, a defender can be completely static in such a situation and still get a red as an "active" defender if they drive their shoulder up into a players face and knock them (which is what happened).
You don't know that's what happened, you've seen one angle of it. I also said in my first response to you it was probably a red but I couldn't say for sure without more angles.
In the Ryan case, he went into that at the pace a player would go in to clear out a ruck. There is clear precedent of red cards for players entering a ruck and smacking someone in the face that way. Sure he may not have absolutely flown in but he did line Ludlam up from a distance, who was trapped before he ran in, and clobbered him in the head. Circumstances didn't change in the ruck, there was nothing he could have thought he was achieving by hitting a trapped player like that so either he wasn't in control or he was in control and intentionally targeted the head of a trapped player.
Again you're making stuff up here to suit your view. Firstly, he's not clearing out the ruck, he's securing the ball by latching on to Irish players, Sheehan and VdF if I'm not mistaken. Secondly, Ryan doesn't run in, he has both feet on the ground entering the ruck. And thirdly, he just absolutely doesn't clobber him, there's no recoil, no whiplash, he pushes him with his shoulder.
We just don't see incidences like this given cards, maybe we should and I wouldn't be against it.
Your defence was we were all whinging and the citing offers didn't agree with us, therefore we are wrong. Now the citing officers disagree with you on the red and you're calling their credibility into question, exactly as we were. It's the double standards you are being called up on, not necessarily arguing Steward should have had a red. Whether a player goes off for an HIA and / or whether they pass it is not the be all and end all of whether they were hit in the head with force, our experiences with North should show that clearly.
I never made that argument, I said I didn't have a hot take because the officials and citing commissioner agree.
I shouldn't be put on the back foot, or ridiculed because of bad faith arguments like these. I am of the opinion right now that had Keenan hit Steward in a reverse of the incident we'd all mostly be in agreement that he should have seen red, Olyy and a couple of others would be the exceptions. This is a very anglo-centric website, it is very hard to voice an opinion against the English position and not be berated from all angles by posters who aren't even giving you the respect to read your posts correctly. Every point I've made I've relayed back to the laws of the game and evidence we have, and yet I've been ridiculed or called a hypocrite directly or indirectly by at least three other members. Do a bit better.