Investec Champions Cup 23/24 - Rd 4

[munstermuffin]

TBF we didn't really try then

I do think ye will have a rattle. Can't see it going in your favour but will go down fighting. An 8 point defeat or something.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Leinster fans seem pretty confident

no idea what you're talking about. I've only felt empty since the World Cup.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I do think ye will have a rattle. Can't see it going in your favour but will go down fighting. An 8 point defeat or something.

Let's be real we will be lucky to get within 20

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Genuinely baffled by this one.

I have no idea where the game is at with head contact since the WC. Seems a lot looser than previous seasons.

 

[munstermuffin]

Let's be real we will be lucky to get within 20

Leinster are always a bit iffy after 6 Nations. Not to the extent of getting caught but more rusty and will do enough to get it done.

The extra few weeks is where they ramp it up.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I think it's the right call, should've been a yellow card on the pitch

 

[Rinkadink]

Justice for Caulfield at least, if sadly not the club and fans.

Pleased for him.

(Now back to doomongering about the upcoming annihilation at home, delivered by b*th. Perhaps if it's as bad as we fear there will be much needed change at Bristol)

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I think it's the right call, should've been a yellow card on the pitch

I just don't see how the laws of the game as they're written allow that. Foul play is intentional, reckless OR accidental and reckless is, from my interpretation, a red card. High tackles are the only act of foul play with mitigation and a reckless strike to the head is a red card.

Basically if he's committed an act of foul play there it should be a red card end of, in my interpretation and opinion. It's a reckless act that has potential to cause a concussion or someone to lose an eye or it's a really unfortunate accident. I don't like the middle ground here at all and I don't like how unclear / inconsistently applied the laws are.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I just don't see how the laws of the game as they're written allow that. Foul play is intentional, reckless OR accidental and reckless is, from my interpretation, a red card. High tackles are the only act of foul play with mitigation and a reckless strike to the head is a red card.

Basically if he's committed an act of foul play there it should be a red card end of, in my interpretation and opinion. It's a reckless act that has potential to cause a concussion or someone to lose an eye or it's a really unfortunate accident. I don't like the middle ground here at all and I don't like how unclear / inconsistently applied the laws are.

Laws are wrong, then, IMO
He got kicked in the face by his own teammate in the process and put his foot down towards turf and then at the last second the connacht player moved his head in the way - both should be mitigating factors

Accept that the laws are crap at the moment if they don't allow for any mitigation in a very obvious accidental bit of foul play, though, so in this case a red card being a just punishment and him getting no ban is the best possible outcome from the situation

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Laws are wrong, then, IMO
He got kicked in the face by his own teammate in the process and put his foot down towards turf and then at the last second the connacht player moved his head in the way - both should be mitigating factors

Accept that the laws are crap at the moment if they don't allow for any mitigation in a very obvious accidental bit of foul play, though, so in this case a red card being a just punishment and him getting no ban is the best possible outcome from the situation

Well if it's accidental it's not a penalty. If that's not a penalty the game is ******. World Rugby are sitting in the middle ground and taking things case by case with no obvious use of precedent or framework.

I think he's raised his foot and caused himself to be unbalanced with another player, detached from the ruck underneath him. That's reckless, he's caused the dangerous situation, should be a red card.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I just don't see how the laws of the game as they're written allow that. Foul play is intentional, reckless OR accidental and reckless is, from my interpretation, a red card. High tackles are the only act of foul play with mitigation and a reckless strike to the head is a red card.

Basically if he's committed an act of foul play there it should be a red card end of, in my interpretation and opinion. It's a reckless act that has potential to cause a concussion or someone to lose an eye or it's a really unfortunate accident. I don't like the middle ground here at all and I don't like how unclear / inconsistently applied the laws are.

100%. That's my interpretation and I've yet to see enough details from the hearing to explain why the panel disagrees with us.

 

[Rinkadink]

accidental and reckless is, from my interpretation, a red card.

Well, there's your problem. It just isn't automatically a red card.

By your logic Sinckler should also have been red carded for kicking Caulfield in the face, studs up, during the same incident, correct? Bristol down to 13 men after 11 minutes (and 12 shortly after) definitely seems an appropriate punishment for what every player I've observed call "a rugby incident"/total accident. They scumbags totally deserve it.

 

[Saintjay]

I can't remember the article but after the Tom Curry red at the RWC. It was noted refs especially in the prem are factoring in mitigation more now for head contact. I think the stats started showing more yellows for what would have been red.

Some parts of the game like the netflix doc are advertising and embracing what rugby really is. Tough, physical and big blokes smashing each other. Of course the RFU and WRU are having kittens over it. The last thing they want is the six nations biggest hits videos doing the rounds.

 

[die_mole]

Yeah it's either a red card or nothing. From the video I lean more towards red card cause that looks more like a curb stomp than a clear out.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Well, there's your problem. It just isn't automatically a red card.

By your logic Sinckler should also have been red carded for kicking Caulfield in the face, studs up, during the same incident, correct? Bristol down to 13 men after 11 minutes (and 12 shortly after) definitely seems an appropriate punishment for what every player I've observed call "a rugby incident"/total accident. They scumbags totally deserve it.

Reckless play is a red. Accidental isn't. So, not my logic.

 

[Rinkadink]

Reckless play is a red.

Wrong.

 

[die_mole]

Wrong.

It all depends on what the reckless play is.

 

[Rinkadink]

It all depends on what the reckless play is.

Precisely.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Precisely.

Yeah it's either a red card or nothing. From the video I lean more towards red card cause that looks more like a curb stomp than a clear out.

Exactly

 

[RedruthRFC]

Wrong.

Assuming that the below is up to date, reckless head contact is a red. It can be mitigated down to a yellow if it is deemed not to be intentional or highly reckless, which is what it appears to me that the panel have concluded.

https://resources.world.rugby/world...f-18e02e7f7e24/Head_Contact_Process_EN_v1.pdf