[November Tests 2016 EOYT] Ireland vs. New Zealand (19/11/2016)

[smartcooky]

https://vid.me/Npsg

When you see these angles it does show that the shoulder strikes the head before the head clash, but it also vindicates Cane even more, especially the view at full speed.

Some people might think All Blacks are superhuman, but there is no way that any human could have reacted to Henshaw's pirouette in time. The best he could do was turn his face away to minimise the severity of the head clash, and that is a reflex action, not a wilful action. Even top gun fighter pilots only have reaction times measured in fifths of a second. You would need a reaction time measure in a few milliseconds for Cane to have adjusted his position to put the shoulder in like that.

It is physiologically impossible for Cane to have avoided this. Its a pure accident.

 

[Larksea]

yeah I'll admit I was wrong. Apologies, there are two camera angles and the one which is obviously getting shown more in NZ it clearly looks like a head clash and the other angle shows it was actually Canes shoulder and there was some separation between the heads at the main impact.

Accidental and unintentional but still high and deserves to be sanctioned.

Was actually a short vid circulating on facebook protesting Canes innocence where I saw the other angle. A lot of people are calling it a good hit. Its not, it is high.

 

[corny]

When you see these angles it does show that the shoulder strikes the head before the head clash, but it also vindicates Cane even more, especially the view at full speed.

Some people might think All Blacks are superhuman, but there is no way that any human could have reacted to Henshaw's pirouette in time. The best he could do was turn his face away to minimise the severity of the head clash, and that is a reflex action, not a wilful action. Even top gun fighter pilots only have reaction times measured in fifths of a second. You would need a reaction time measure in a few milliseconds for Cane to have adjusted his position to put the shoulder in like that.

It is physiologically impossible for Cane to have avoided this. Its a pure accident.

I'm through arguing about intent. None of us know what Cane was thinking (probably why refs are told to ignore it) so lets park that. Do you accept Canes shoulder is high in the tackle and he alone is responsible for his right shoulder position?

 

[munstermuffin]

Lads having watched it again I've sympathy for Cane. It was a good hard hit and while it was his shoulder that knocked Robbie out he did hit lower first and Henshaw spinning played part too as it caused Henshaw to dip lower and it grand watch on replay but in real life it was all fast pace

 

[The Jones Boy]

Lads having watched it again I've sympathy for Cane. It was a good hard hit and while it was his shoulder that knocked Robbie out he did hit lower first and Henshaw spinning played part too as it caused Henshaw to dip lower and it grand watch on replay but in real life it was all fast pace

Apologies on my part too, I would never have picked that up if you hadn't shown me.
It's clear that Henshaw turns into Cane, and that Cane is a bit too high. Shoulder does connect first, a fraction of a second before head and body and the arm does wrap after the fact.
It's a bit of a sickener and I feel for Henshaw but thats an accident there's no malice there.
The ref, who was struggling with the pace of the game anyway, he was never going to pick that up at that speed.
I watched what the TMO saw and I thought it's a bit high , penalty, but the runner is bouncing off a tackle and spinning away and it's a head clash with full body contact so penalise and move on.
Thats what the commentators were saying as well, it's a head clash. Nobody could tell because it happened so quickly.
Cane may get sanctioned for that, and I'm ok with that because it never hurts to encourage tacklers to go lower but Fekitoa should be sanctioned more stringently.
It's a bonus that Zebo isn't injured. No thanks to Fekitoa's wild tackle.

Regarding intent Corny, I think you're over attributing the tackler with abilities beyond his station, Cane's not that fast or that clever. There was no malice in what happened because it happened too quickly.
Given the opportunity to think about it Cane is no different to all open side flankers, they're tackling machines.
Thats their job.
They'll belt anything in an opposition jersey they can get their mits on. They'll do it legally because the game is very different now to what it was in the 1980's. If you actively misbehave you will get spotted and you're gone... and so you should be. If you do it illegally then you end up putting your team in jeopardy, and your future selection.
How Fekitoa stayed on the park is beyond me. He jumped in the air with a swinging arm.

 

[GoTheNaki]

I for one, never argued that Sam Cane's shoulder hit Henshaw's head first.. I never thought it was a head clash. I just don't think it was necessary to be cited. Especially played at full speed, how would you ever prevent that happening? You can't. He went in there, full-***, and Henshaw has turned into him. Huge contact. No-one's fault. Not worth citing.

During the match, I said I saw a head-roll by Liam Squire when clearing out, and something by one of the props. Think it was Moody. Fekitoa's tackle was RIDICULOUS. Cite the bejeezus out of him, he honestly needs to learn how to tackle properly. Especially being our centre. That is a huge part of your job, that is why Nonu and Smith were so good. Yes, Nonu got yellowed a fair few times, but still, there was never space through those two, 99%(yes, SA fans, I know) of the time.

However, if Barrett hadn't grounded that try........ Would Sexton have got yellowed? Penalty try? He tackled him around the neck, which is why Barrett got all messed up in the first place.

Anyway, I heard Sexton won't play Australia, which is a shame.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm through arguing about intent. None of us know what Cane was thinking (probably why refs are told to ignore it) so lets park that. Do you accept Canes shoulder is high in the tackle and he alone is responsible for his right shoulder position?

I'll give you an example of why intent is not always dismissed and mitigation.

You are a ball carrier and and as you try to side-step me I grab you by the non-ball carrying arm. I swing you around so hard that your ball-carrying elbow smashes one of my team mates in the face, breaking his nose. You have hit my team-mate high with your elbow, and since your intent isn't relevant, that is a red card for you!

Fair call?

Your on-going meme about intent playing no part in referee's decisions is a load of unmirigated horse cock. The Laws of the Game are full of mentions where players are only penalised if they do what they do intentionally

Law 10.1
(b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
(e) Ball carrier running into team-mate. A player carrying the ball must not intentionally run into team-mates in front of that player.

Law 10.2
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game,
(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
(c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.

I stopped there because it would get tedious., but there are plenty more just like that.

There are TWO and only two edicts from WR where intent is specifically not to be considered in assessing and applying sanctions

1. Tip/Spear tackling
2. Tackling a player whose feet are off the ground.

Perhaps you are privy to guidance from WR that the rest of the refereeing community are not. If so, please post it so that we call all be educated. FYI: here is the latest guidance from WR on dangerous head contact...

http://worldrugby.matchdaymail.com/index.php?action=social&c=dc6a6489640ca02b0d42dabeb8e46bb7.483

Nowhere therein is any mention of intent!!

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I know concussion is a main concern, but with the increased emphasis on head / neck has anything been said about reffing collapsing scrums more strictly? The neck is so vulnerable in those and as the Matt Hampson case showed can result in instant paralysis.

 

[smartcooky]

I know concussion is a main concern, but with the increased emphasis on head / neck has anything been said about reffing collapsing scrums more strictly? The neck is so vulnerable in those and as the Matt Hampson case showed can result in instant paralysis.

Neck injuries from collapsed scrums are nowhere near as common as those from other parts of the game such as high tackles and collapsed rucks and mauls. This is because while there are usually less than a dozen scrums in a match, there can be several mauls, and over 300 tackle/rucks

The big problem with neck injuries from collapsed scrums is that, while they are quite rare, they have the potential to be utterly catastrophic for the victim, and since there is a high public awareness of the injury concerns surrounding scrums, its clear that we need to do something about their collapse

 

[Amiga500]

Meh. Durty barsteward.

Firing squad. At Dawn.

Only solution to this kinda stuff.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I'll give you an example of why intent is not always dismissed and mitigation.

You are a ball carrier and and as you try to side-step me I grab you by the non-ball carrying arm. I swing you around so hard that your ball-carrying elbow smashes one of my team mates in the face, breaking his nose. You have hit my team-mate high with your elbow, and since your intent isn't relevant, that is a red card for you!

Fair call?

Your on-going meme about intent playing no part in referee's decisions is a load of unmirigated horse cock. The Laws of the Game are full of mentions where players are only penalised if they do what they do intentionally

Law 10.1
(b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
(e) Ball carrier running into team-mate. A player carrying the ball must not intentionally run into team-mates in front of that player.

Law 10.2
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game,
(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
(c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.

I stopped there because it would get tedious., but there are plenty more just like that.

There are TWO and only two edicts from WR where intent is specifically not to be considered in assessing and applying sanctions

1. Tip/Spear tackling
2. Tackling a player whose feet are off the ground.

Perhaps you are privy to guidance from WR that the rest of the refereeing community are not. If so, please post it so that we call all be educated. FYI: here is the latest guidance from WR on dangerous head contact...

http://worldrugby.matchdaymail.com/index.php?action=social&c=dc6a6489640ca02b0d42dabeb8e46bb7.483

Nowhere therein is any mention of intent!!

Intentionally tackling a player high isn't there though...

I don't think Cane meant to cause any harm and I don't think he's a dirty player, I do think he recklessly caused a serious brain injury by entering a tackle area way too high, red card regardless of the attacking players actions. To me this is no different to Stander laying out Lambie earlier this year, Stander attempted to do something completely legal, mistimed it and made contact with the head. If world rugby are as serious about player welfare as they say they are and if preventing concussion is at the forefront of this like they say, Cane has to be given two weeks.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Intentionally tackling a player high isn't there though...

I don't think Cane meant to cause any harm and I don't think he's a dirty player, I do think he recklessly caused a serious brain injury by entering a tackle area way too high, red card regardless of the attacking players actions. To me this is no different to Stander laying out Lambie earlier this year, Stander attempted to do something completely legal, mistimed it and made contact with the head. If world rugby are as serious about player welfare as they say they are and if preventing concussion is at the forefront of this like they say, Cane has to be given two weeks.

Yeah, I agree.
It was not intentional but it was a sickener to watch Henshaw collapse, it's horrible seeing any player go like that. The game is so fast now there has to be a bit more deterrent for concussion causing collisions.
Fekitoa should get longer.

 

[saulan]

Intentionally tackling a player high isn't there though...

I don't think Cane meant to cause any harm and I don't think he's a dirty player, I do think he recklessly caused a serious brain injury by entering a tackle area way too high, red card regardless of the attacking players actions. To me this is no different to Stander laying out Lambie earlier this year, Stander attempted to do something completely legal, mistimed it and made contact with the head. If world rugby are as serious about player welfare as they say they are and if preventing concussion is at the forefront of this like they say, Cane has to be given two weeks.

Stander was incredibly reckless with his jump and swung his hip into Lambie's head. Lambie did nothing out of the ordinary or sudden which would have caught Stander off guard. I don't think that what Cane did was in any way reckless, just mistimed due to the spin out of Henshaw and Henshaw ducking into him and Cane suddenly trying to get out of the way of a head clash. Cane really didn't enter that contact way too high, if Henshaw had not ducked I believe that would have been an upper chest hit, which is not illegal. At normal speed it's very difficult to imagine him being able to adjust for the duck in the time he had available. I don't think they are the same at all.

 

[munstermuffin]

Stander was incredibly reckless with his jump and swung his hip into Lambie's head. Lambie did nothing out of the ordinary or sudden which would have caught Stander off guard. I don't think that what Cane did was in any way reckless, just mistimed due to the spin out of Henshaw and Henshaw ducking into him and Cane suddenly trying to get out of the way of a head clash. Cane really didn't enter that contact way too high, if Henshaw had not ducked I believe that would have been an upper chest hit, which is not illegal. At normal speed it's very difficult to imagine him being able to adjust for the duck in the time he had available. I don't think they are the same at all.

Stander simply mistimed too. His line never changed and as for way he turned it happens in every game by nearly every player. They're coached to do that as they land in a position to chase back. Yes it was reckless but let's not get ahead of yourself.
As for Henshaw he didn't duck. It was the spin that fooled him and no he didn't enter high but it did creep up. As I said I have sympathy for him but well I think that argument your making is nowhere near correct. On the Stander incident many similar incidents since have been yellow or not even deemed penalties.
But Alpha is correct in saying it is a similar enough incidents from a governanceissue

 

[corny]

I'll give you an example of why intent is not always dismissed and mitigation.

You are a ball carrier and and as you try to side-step me I grab you by the non-ball carrying arm. I swing you around so hard that your ball-carrying elbow smashes one of my team mates in the face, breaking his nose. You have hit my team-mate high with your elbow, and since your intent isn't relevant, that is a red card for you!

Fair call?

Your on-going meme about intent playing no part in referee's decisions is a load of unmirigated horse cock. The Laws of the Game are full of mentions where players are only penalised if they do what they do intentionally

Law 10.1
(b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
(e) Ball carrier running into team-mate. A player carrying the ball must not intentionally run into team-mates in front of that player.

Law 10.2
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game,
(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
(c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.

I stopped there because it would get tedious., but there are plenty more just like that.

There are TWO and only two edicts from WR where intent is specifically not to be considered in assessing and applying sanctions

1. Tip/Spear tackling
2. Tackling a player whose feet are off the ground.

Perhaps you are privy to guidance from WR that the rest of the refereeing community are not. If so, please post it so that we call all be educated. FYI: here is the latest guidance from WR on dangerous head contact...

http://worldrugby.matchdaymail.com/index.php?action=social&c=dc6a6489640ca02b0d42dabeb8e46bb7.483

Nowhere therein is any mention of intent!!

From a memo a few years back......"The specific provisions of Law 10.4(e) in relation to High Tackles are as follows:.........Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle."

10.4(e) for good measure..... "A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play."

Unmitigated horse cock? Answers on a postcard?

For everyone else....the way i see it....trying to be objective....Cane had his right arm iron bar straight behind him and his right shoulder elevated at the moment of contact (i've seen still frame pictures). Henshaw really doesn't lose that much height (if at all) through his movement.....so its a dangerous high shot. Really dangerous as it turned out.

It was a red all day long if the officials were applying the rules imo. Brings me back to the Welsh TMO He really should lose his job lads. He invented the grounding, was oblivious to Sextons high tackle, ****ed up on the Cane incident and didn't get into the refs ear about Trimbles potential deliberate knock on or TJ's potential forward pass. Other TMO's would have said lets have a look to help Peyper out.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Cane will get a couple of weeks for the tackle being a bit too high, Henshaw was a bit low, so was Cane, IMHO Cane should get 2 weeks because the hit was a bit too high;

Cane could have pulled back at least a tiny bit and that may have been enough to stop Henshaw getting concussion, maybe not, and it still would have seen a tackle effected.

But Corny, you have lost sight of the Fekitoa tackle which looked like a bad tackle attempt with intent.

Yeah ok Sexton went for Barrett's neck but I don't have an issue with that it was small change. Sexton wasn't trying to decapitate Barrett, he was looking to find a way to dislodge the ball.
However, the side on video shows the ball disappear half into the grass and there is no way that Sextons arm is the width of a piece of A4 paper. Thats a stone cold try mate.
Now I have made my apologies and come around to your viewpoint on the shoulder striking first in the Cane/Henshaw situation.
Yet you are still refusing to budge an inch on the video shot that shows the ball disappearing into the turf with no image of any arm flesh underneath it.

But hey, it's your world mate.
Good luck against the Aussies.

 

[corny]

We all have biases...anyone who denies that is a fool. You haven't accounted for Barretts left arm btw. Just saying.

Look, 'clear and obvious' is the guiding principle for the TMO. He has to see the ball, not a shadow that he thinks is the ball. You and I can guess on probability and agree..yeah he probably grounded it at some point in the movement if you really want my opinion. But the TMO? He simply HAS TO see it when asked Try Yes or No.

Peyper knew the laws. TMO says "I would award the try". In other words he's guessing (theres doubt). Peyper immediately says (explaining his job to him) "Mate can you see A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS grounding"...the TMO ****ing crumbles not knowing his job and lies to save face. Peypers body language (and words) to Rory Best are 'Looks like he's full of **** but i have to go with it". Thats what happened.

BTW I've no reason to be dogmatic...This particular incident worked out well for us. The correct decision was 'No i can't see clear and obvious grounding but you need to get Sexton off the pitch and award a penalty try.

 

[The Jones Boy]

It's rugby mate, we don't always get what we want....

 

[corny]

It's rugby mate, we don't always get what we want....

Touché.

 

[Makos]

BTW I've no reason to be dogmatic...This particular incident worked out well for us. The correct decision was 'No i can't see clear and obvious grounding but you need to get Sexton off the pitch and award a penalty try.

Sexton should have been cited and facing a 1 match ban.