New Zealand v Ireland - Test 3 - 16 July 2022

[Reiser99]

In fairness you could see the massive difference in force exerted in the collisions on each occasion
I actually dont mind this, I mean I hate head contact and I like the penalising of it, I think lower tackle heights which will result eventually create a more offloading based game of rugby and we'll see some real high skills, but in the meantime we dont want every touch of the head being red carded, this is a game where blokes are running hard at each other and accidents happen. In looking to absorb the collision you could see that porter didnt impact the head with the same force as tu'ungafasi, who although accidental was completely out of control in terms of his body and its momentum. Interesting though that both happened on inside balls, which a tackler wouldnt necessarily be as aware to and have the time to adjust his tackle height down (because he doesnt naturally expect to make a tackle). Similarly I thought last week when Hansen was in the air and hit, should've been penalty only, no attempt to hit the player, just a charge down with a lot of hang time and speed...

I disagree. Retallick is going to try and hit the defender with as much power as possible to get over the gain line. Even if Porter isn't going forward with momentum the fact that he tackles upright still leads to a significant impact, hence Retallick's cheekbone. It's Porter's responsibility to tackle lower and avoid a head impact, especially as we're seeing the results already of players who have taken too many hits (Ryan Jones and many others).

Personally I'd go red for head on head where the tackler is upright as it's not a legal tackle and even if they are absorbing the impact it can still result in serious injury or concussion.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I disagree. Retallick is going to try and hit the defender with as much power as possible to get over the gain line. Even if Porter isn't going forward with momentum the fact that he tackles upright still leads to a significant impact, hence Retallick's cheekbone. It's Porter's responsibility to tackle lower and avoid a head impact, especially as we're seeing the results already of players who have taken too many hits (Ryan Jones and many others).

Personally I'd go red for head on head where the tackler is upright as it's not a legal tackle and even if they are absorbing the impact it can still result in serious injury or concussion.

Agreed, I also don't like chest first then head contact being seen as a lesser offence. In that case a tackler is rising upwards into an already relatively high tackle and can still cause damage.

Mitigation for the carrier dipping is fine with me, as is rare cases of extremely low force (e.g ball ricocheted into the air and players are standing almost still underneath ready to catch) but otherwise head contact needs to go and red cards are the best deterrent.

 

[Reiser99]

2023 Rugby World Cup - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Was just looking at it. Realistically need to top pool B - that means beating the Boks, then NZ (assuming France top pool A) then the winner of C and RU of D (so Aus/Wales and Eng./Arg/Japan) in the semis.

I love the optimism. Talking about what might happen in the semis as if that's a real option.

 

[die_mole]

Agreed, I also don't like chest first then head contact being seen as a lesser offence. In that case a tackler is rising upwards into an already relatively high tackle and can still cause damage.

Mitigation for the carrier dipping is fine with me, as is rare cases of extremely low force (e.g ball ricocheted into the air and players are standing almost still underneath ready to catch) but otherwise head contact needs to go and red cards are the best deterrent.

yeah there was an incident in the qualifier where our guy smashed a guy in the face but since he grazed the chest before hand it was mitigated to yellow. Big surprise it was Pearce as the referee.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

 

[Amiga500]

Regardless of porter (which should probably have been a red IMO)

When are the IRB gonna put some responsibility onto the ball carrier?

Should ducking into a tackle and leading with the head not also be a sanctionable offence?

 

[Smurfy]

The first time I saw the upright chest hit up close was when I was coaching our local u16 side about 20 years ago. A few of our guys were away at a Summer camp with Connacht, and after they came back we started into our league. In one of the early games the opposition took a tap penalty and our no. 8, who went on to play with Munster and Connacht, absolutely cleaned the ball carrierwith what would even now be considered to be a perfectly legal chest high tacke. The ref penalised him and threatened to send him off if he repeated it as our guy tried to explain that this was the way the coaches at the Connacht camp wanted them to tackle. I met the ref afterwards and he asked me if this was true, and I said unfortunately yes. He was stunned and predicted huge problems down the line if this was the route rugby was going. He wasn't wrong as our then no. 8 subsequently retired very early with serious concussion issues.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I love the optimism. Talking about what might happen in the semis as if that's a real option.

Yeh, it's just a projection. But a hella of lot can happen in 15 months. I think one will be Foster getting the sack for NZ; only a matter of when. But realistically we know the quarter finalists, just not which order in terms of 1st and 2nd. Unless Japan can spring another surprise (away from home). Don't think Scotland can, but be pleasantly surprised if they do.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I wanted Robertson to be the Welsh saviour (still do) but I fear he will be New Zealand's. No matter how poor a state people thonk NZ are in come WC I would find it hard to go against them getting to at least a semi final.

 

[Five Meters Out]

Re the head clashes.
What I saw in both cases (Kiwi in the 2nd test, Irish in the 3rd) was two, big, dumb props caught unaware by the speed at which the ball carrier arrived.
Put it in super-slow motion and they have all the time in the world to bend at the waist. But that's not real life.
They're accidents - both of them.
Bundee Aki's was more deserving of a card. He lined the AB up. Having said that, I'm glad Barnes just ignored it, cause I hate cards. They stuff the game up.

 

[Reiser99]

Re the head clashes.
What I saw in both cases (Kiwi in the 2nd test, Irish in the 3rd) was two, big, dumb props caught unaware by the speed at which the ball carrier arrived.
Put it in super-slow motion and they have all the time in the world to bend at the waist. But that's not real life.
They're accidents - both of them.
Bundee Aki's was more deserving of a card. He lined the AB up. Having said that, I'm glad Barnes just ignored it, cause I hate cards. They stuff the game up.

Said it before and I'll say it again. If you object to cards for head collisions because it makes the game less entertaining then you are essentially saying that your entertainment is more important than player's health.

I don't disagree the tackles were clumsy, but that's the point of the cards, to make players work and train harder to tackle properly because if it keeps going as it has done you will have a generation of rugby players suffering long term problems from playing and it will kill the game, either by discouraging people to play or unions getting used into bankruptcy for not doing more when they could have.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Porter citing dismissed... I'd like a rules change here tbh.

 

[Reiser99]

Porter citing dismissed... I'd like a rules change here tbh.

Definitely inconsistencies that need addressing.

 

[Eleutherarch]

It is definitely the inconsistencies that rile everybody up. There is such a disparity in post-TMO outcomes and that is the unacceptable part. Real-time is often hard but it's been referred upstairs! The clock has been stopped and play has already been interrupted. There can be no excuse for not doing the analysis properly.

We all see it happen in real time and we think "Ah, we know the protocols, that's going to be a red". We hear the recapitulation - "No change in line, no significant dip, no attempt to go low, no mitigating factors" yada yada yada.

Referee: "So that's a yellow card, is that correct?"

*Big, pregnant, pause*

TMO: "That is correct, yes".

It's a general scenario and you can substitute the yellow for an incorrect red. But I give up when it happens. I just give up. It's a freaking lottery man. In the Porter instance, he had oodles of time to get low and he didn't. Ta'avao didn't have the same luxury defending against a very sudden change in line - he had no time to readjust. Under the laws, it is still a red and fair enough (and Peyper was really apologetic about iirc).

Card them all appropriately or do not card at all. It is that simple.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Said it before and I'll say it again. If you object to cards for head collisions because it makes the game less entertaining then you are essentially saying that your entertainment is more important than player's health.

I don't disagree the tackles were clumsy, but that's the point of the cards, to make players work and train harder to tackle properly because if it keeps going as it has done you will have a generation of rugby players suffering long term problems from playing and it will kill the game, either by discouraging people to play or unions getting used into bankruptcy for not doing more when they could have.

I agree with you but playing devils advocate, would you ban boxing? The whole point of boxing is to damage you opponent for the entertainment of the fans. You could argue this to a lesser extent in other contact sports.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I agree with you but playing devils advocate, would you ban boxing? The whole point of boxing is to damage you opponent for the entertainment of the fans. You could argue this to a lesser extent in other contact sports.

I think its different insofar as when a boxer steps into a ring they know part of the sport is getting hit in the head every time you fight, they should know the risks associated with that and I hope its made clear before anyone is allowed to spar but that's an issue for the governing of boxing.

In rugby you step onto the pitch knowing that you risk blows to the head but also that in the vast majority of cases its against the rules with harsh penalties that should see players sent off for doing so and therefore reduce the risk. Getting hit in the head isn't part of the sport, its collateral.

Equally, I would guess amateur boxing is generally reffed with safety as a greater consideration than the pro game. Rugby isn't like that, refs are worse, err on the less controversial side of a decision and are often card shy. The last game I played I was on the wrong end of two red card offences, a high speed shoulder charge to my exposed back when I was no longer an active part of the ruck and a charlie Ewels style headbutt tackle, neither were penalised. There were a number of other times this season that that has happenedto me alone and I only played about 5 games because I was stood down for concussions.

I think we need to go forward with an almost zero tolerance attitude towards head contact, mitigation based on force for amateur refs who only get to see it once is a cop out that we don't need for general player welfare. Dipping/slipping is the only mitigation factor I think should be considered for head contact in the tackle.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I think its different insofar as when a boxer steps into a ring they know part of the sport is getting hit in the head every time you fight, they should know the risks associated with that and I hope its made clear before anyone is allowed to spar but that's an issue for the governing of boxing.

In rugby you step onto the pitch knowing that you risk blows to the head but also that in the vast majority of cases its against the rules with harsh penalties that should see players sent off for doing so and therefore reduce the risk. Getting hit in the head isn't part of the sport, its collateral.

Equally, I would guess amateur boxing is generally reffed with safety as a greater consideration than the pro game. Rugby isn't like that, refs are worse, err on the less controversial side of a decision and are often card shy. The last game I played I was on the wrong end of two red card offences, a high speed shoulder charge to my exposed back when I was no longer an active part of the ruck and a charlie Ewels style headbutt tackle, neither were penalised. There were a number of other times this season that that has happenedto me alone and I only played about 5 games because I was stood down for concussions.

I think we need to go forward with an almost zero tolerance attitude towards head contact, mitigation based on force for amateur refs who only get to see it once is a cop out that we don't need for general player welfare. Dipping/slipping is the only mitigation factor I think should be considered for head contact in the tackle.

I agree with almost everything you say but I would say, certainly in times gone by in the 90s and naughties, that professionals knew that getting a whack on the head now and then was part of the game. It still is, though to a lesser degree. But I agree with your important distinction in that it's collateral and not part of the game like it is with boxing.

However, head on head is a little different for me as 99 times out of 100 it is purely accidental and sometimes quite hard to prevent so perhaps we can look at it differently but it's tricky for sure.

Like most things it's a balance. I think everyone agrees we need to do more but then everyone would agree that we wouldn't want to see touch rugby either. We're still in the early days of this and it's not going to happen overnight. Hope we get the balance right. I think we're on the right track, for what it's worth.

 

[miccloarch]

come WC I would find it hard to go against them getting to at least a semi final.

That's a low bar for a team that's dominated the sport for most of its existence.

 

[Welsh Exile]

That's a low bar for a team that's dominated the sport for most of its existence.

True, but they haven't dominated the WC since it's existence (though recent record ain't to shabby)

Also the draw being what it is with NZ being on the tough side makes it a little trickier. If they were on England and Australias side I'd say pretty much guaranteed a final.

 

[miccloarch]

Personally, I don't put all my eggs in one basket with the World Cup; too random, with what the players and coaches can control, it's unlikely the team most likely to win will have a more than 50 per cent chance of winning. I'd venture that only 2007 did a team go in with a more than 50 per cent odds of winning, oh and they got knocked out in the quarterfinal.

World Cup is pressure. ABs have a history of choking under pressure (or more precisely, the pressure of fulfilling expectation) at World Cups. The only thing that's "random" is the ref but that's no different from a regular test match.

Also, yes foster isn't a great coach (and the assistants aren't that great either - why is no one asking for a new defence coach?), but actually Ireland are a great team and could have won even if the all blacks did have a good coach. So just give them their dues. This series was a big thing not some test of whether the all blacks coach is good enough to take us to a World Cup that we will probably lose even with the greatest coach in the world.

Ireland were brilliant but from an AB perspective, we stink. We haven't been this bad in a long, long time, and it's not just results. We're playing like a bunch of clueless school boys. If you're not that bothered about World Cups you're still ignoring the blatantly obvious -- the ABs right now are a pathetic shadow of their usual selves and it's mainly down to the coach.