[RWC2023] England vs Argentina (09/09/2023)

[Leonormous Boozer]

Whats the difference between what Stander did here and what Carreras did to Ford?
<iframe ***le="vimeo-player" src="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hit him in the head.

 

[Which Tyler]

Whats the difference between what Stander did here and what Carreras did to Ford?

One's straight to the head, and the other was (apparently, I've still not seen a good view) mostly to the shoulder.

 

[Zed]

Or bring in Lawrence and put Manu at 7

I've read quite a few articles about how Tuilagi is past it, not the player he was etc. I noticed the few balls he did get was slow and static, he was getting passes while he was pretty much stationary with 2+ defenders sitting there waiting for him. Not his fault. Such slow ball from England, no wonder they're kicking the ball away. Reality is, if he gets the ball running flat out, he's going to be hard to put down. If the forwards start firing the backs will go OK.

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

One's straight to the head, and the other was (apparently, I've still not seen a good view) mostly to the shoulder.

Ive watched several replays and Carreras did make contact with Ford's head.

 

[Reiser99]

That's not very accurate. Intent (mens rea) generally has a very low burden of proof once the act (actus rea) is proven.

The way I see it: The offence is contact with the head, the intention is making a tackle and the duty of care tied to this is doing it in a safe manner. Mitigation is considered after.

Curry was upright in that tackle, the duty of care is failed at this point imo. Once you hit a guy in the head with poor body position your only hope is a low force "passive" hit to mitigate.

I'm very ok with the laws like this. There'll be unlucky scenarios like Curry's, because there's not been a prominent incident like this before but players are wise to it now.

I have no issue with Curry's red. As Dawson highlighted, he had Daly right next to him doing the right thing, so while it wasn't malicious, it was a bad tackle technique.

I do have an issue with Carreras, though I've yet to hear officially why it was only a yellow. I believe it's because initial point of contact is the shoulder and then head. If so then the law is flawed here. Some head contacts do happen because a player rides up after initial contact and it's the contact that forces them up. Carreras though was always going to hit Ford in the head. He just got lucky though and hit the shoulder first. The shoulder contact did not force the head contact. For me the shoulder contact should be ignored because it has zero impact on the head contact and it should be a red.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Whats the difference between what Stander did here and what Carreras did to Ford?
<iframe ***le="vimeo-player" src="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That was done with a full mens rear.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

That was done with a full mens rear.

Well done.

 

[Which Tyler]

Ive watched several replays and Carreras did make contact with Ford's head.

Did it hit Ford's shoulder first? Is so, it's a difference
If it hit Ford's shoulder first, how much of the impact did Ford's head take? If "not much" then it's a significant difference

NB: I'm not defending Carerra's actions, or the TMO's decision of yellow only - I haven't seen a good angle to make my own decision.

I have no issue with Curry's red. As Dawson highlighted, he had Daly right next to him doing the right thing, so while it wasn't malicious, it was a bad tackle technique.

I do have an issue with Carreras, though I've yet to hear officially why it was only a yellow. I believe it's because initial point of contact is the shoulder and then head. If so then the law is flawed here. Some head contacts do happen because a player rides up after initial contact and it's the contact that forces them up. Carreras though was always going to hit Ford in the head. He just got lucky though and hit the shoulder first. The shoulder contact did not force the head contact. For me the shoulder contact should be ignored because it has zero impact on the head contact and it should be a red.

1. Agreed
2. Again, I've not seen it well enough to comment on the specifics of that incident. But it's worth pointing out that there will always be edge cases where the law is flawed. Personally, if 95% of Carrera's force goes into Ford's shoulder, then any head contact is insignificant, and yellow is broadly okay. If the shoulder contact was glancing, and 95% of the force went into Ford's head, then it absolutely should be a red card. At some point there's a cut off between the 2, but I can understand a law-as-written not going there.

Carrera's intent was certainly worse than Currys; but I don't see that as being particularly relevant; I'm more interested in how much Mallia/Ford's brains are being shaken about inside the skull.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Carreras hips hit Ford in the upper chest and was the first point of contact. His torso then collided with Ford's head. I'd say Ford's torso took the brunt of the hit whilst his head would have hit the more squishy part of Carreras. However, it was still head contact and arguably more reckless than what Curry did but, on balance, yellow was probably fair although a case could have been made for red.

 

[Rosso Verde e Nero]

All this massive fuss about the minutiae of the level of impact on a player's head during a match is certainly relevant to the laws, but not that relevant to the player's health in the long term. One single impact would rarely lead to the long term mental issues associated with repeated concussion. The repeated batterring the brain takes within the skull during 3 or 4 training sessions during the week has far more cumulative impact. If it's total safety that WR want, they might as well pack up and stop the game. I love the game, but I can't for the life of me work out how the game could be changed to avoid the long term risk of brain damage without making it an entirely different game that we wouldn't recognise.

 

[Which Tyler]

There are other, better threads for discussion this, but it's not about elimination - that's simply not possible in a contact sport, it's about mitigation and education on the risks.
You do what you can, then you let people make informed decisions.

Standing up in court and saying "we knew, but decided not to do anything about it" isn't good enough.
Standing up in court and saying "we knew, but decided only to tinker with things that wouldn't make a difference" isn't good enough.
Standing up in court and saying "we knew, we introduced laws to minimise and mitigate, but didn't apply them" isn't good enough - this seems to be the stage we're at currently, and why the likes of Kriel, Biggar, Sigren etc need to be sited. At least then we can say that we didn't see it in real time, then we looked at it, and took appropriate action - even if the appropriate action is "should have been a yellow, no ban" You have to go through the process, and show willing.

The minutiae detail - that's for us, because we're all rugby nerds

 

[Wasps92]

Must say Eng did well to win but papers over alot of cracks. Still looked nowhere near Tier 1 and never created a chance. Won off the back of Argentina being hot headed poor and ill disciplined which is ironic as England were team with 14

Oh stfu you clown.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Banning players won't change behaviour though when the incidents are accidents that are mostly unavoidable in a game of rugby.

This is different from stopping players tackling others in the air or flying into rucks, this is about players getting their timings/ height wrong. We are punishing accidents and that won't change anything if the player didn't want to do it in the first place and (the key is) doesn't have a reasonable time to adjust.

The only thing they could do is lower the tackle height to armpit or something of the like but they've done that in the amateur game where it isn't needed and won't be as easily coached and ignored the professional game where it would be much easier to implement and have way more of an effect.

 

[Saintjay]

There are other, better threads for discussion this, but it's not about elimination - that's simply not possible in a contact sport, it's about mitigation and education on the risks.
You do what you can, then you let people make informed decisions.

Standing up in court and saying "we knew, but decided not to do anything about it" isn't good enough.
Standing up in court and saying "we knew, but decided only to tinker with things that wouldn't make a difference" isn't good enough.
Standing up in court and saying "we knew, we introduced laws to minimise and mitigate, but didn't apply them" isn't good enough - this seems to be the stage we're at currently, and why the likes of Kriel, Biggar, Sigren etc need to be sited. At least then we can say that we didn't see it in real time, then we looked at it, and took appropriate action - even if the appropriate action is "should have been a yellow, no ban" You have to go through the process, and show willing.

The minutiae detail - that's for us, because we're all rugby nerds

How much of a game would you review if it wasn't seen in real time? Surely you should review the whole game for head on head contact. (not saying you should)

Every head contact should have a HIA ie Ford for England. I don't really get why they don't tbh. My understanding is with subconcusive impacts another issue that's bubbling under the surface. You don't even necessarily have symptoms.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Some say there may not have been head contact

 

[Which Tyler]

Banning players won't change behaviour though when the incidents are accidents that are mostly unavoidable in a game of rugby.

This is different from stopping players tackling others in the air or flying into rucks, this is about players getting their timings/ height wrong. We are punishing accidents and that won't change anything if the player didn't want to do it in the first place and (the key is) doesn't have a reasonable time to adjust.

Exactly the same was said about tackling in the air, and yet carding players did pretty much put a stop to it, and then they were able to ease off and apply more nuance.
I disagree that most head on head collisions are unavoidable by people tackling lower thereby not putting their heads in the same smal volume of space as someone else's head.
But we've had this discussion repeatedly on more relevant threads.

Just like not being in the landing space of someone in the air, change your timing and location, and you won't have to make a split second alteration.

IMO the problem isn't the sanction, it's that the chance of getting caught and sanctioned is too low, so the percentage play is still to go high and accept the (officiating) risk.
Again, this has all been discussed as nauseum in the relevant threads.

How much of a game would you review if it wasn't seen in real time? Surely you should review the whole game for head on head contact. (not saying you should)

After the event, the citing commissioner should absolutely look at the whole of every match, it's literally their job. I would propose the idea that they also look at yellow-card head contacts as well, and just issue them retrospectively, even if not meeting the criteria for a full disciplinary panel.

Every head contact should have a HIA ie Ford for England. I don't really get why they don't tbh. My understanding is with subconcusive impacts another issue that's bubbling under the surface. You don't even necessarily have symptoms.

Agreed, and have said so elsewhere repeatedly.
As for subconcussive impacts, AFAIK there is no test for them, but it's still why we need to reduce head contacts full stop. There's only so far that it's possible to do so, but we have an obligation to go as far as it is reasonably possible.

ETA: the general discussion on head contacts, tackle heights, sanctions really isn't for this tread, and I've no interest in relitigating old specific threads in this match thread, so it's my last word here on such things.
@Rosso Verde e Nero is a new poster, and posed a fair question, which deserved a response, but not a co porte détail into old and tired arguments.

 

[munstermuffin]

Oh stfu you clown.

Obviously you disagree but have no argument. Great call. Or are you saying that if England played like that they'd wipe floor with Ire, Fra, NZ or SA

 

[Zed]

Obviously you disagree but have no argument. Great call. Or are you saying that if England played like that they'd wipe floor with Ire, Fra, NZ or SA

Argentina were poor, but kudos to England for how they played considering the circumstances. England, Steve Borthwick, the media etc need to not get carried away with that win. If that's the style of play they intend to play against decent teams they'll leak 30 points. Kicking so much ball away and not just in their half, in the Argies half, they've got possession and kick it straight to Argentina who did nothing with it. SA, NZ etc will do something with it. Even with 14 players, that didn't make sense.

Simplistic, but playing against a good team, don't you want to keep the ball away from them? Not give them the ball! It does seem the win has injected a bit of passion into the England side, which was missing the last few warm up games.

 

[BPM]

No one is getting carried away.

The media are praising the team for a gritty, backs to the wall win in adversity and lauding Ford's performance. Rightly so IMO. However, the general consensus seems to be that one great result doesn't constitute a revival.

To @Zed's point. The biggest takeaway for me was the 'passion' and intensity we saw. That has been hugely lacking so we even if we're still a bit rubbish, I have a bit more faith that we'll rally on a mental level.

 

[Scotty]

Obviously you disagree but have no argument. Great call. Or are you saying that if England played like that they'd wipe floor with Ire, Fra, NZ or SA

I dont think anyone believes that, it was a great performance and very nice to see consistant pressure applied not letting off for the full game. Not letting the man down hinder us and playing a very well excuted game plan.

But no the teams you've mentioned are much further along than we are. It wasnt papering over the cracks, it was a good performance but no one is saying out att is anything other than terrible or that our defence fixed.