Van der mervha red

[Aimless ponderings]

View attachment 13559
That is next a hand off, there is no excuse for leading with the forearm on a hand off.

What constitutes a hand off? I always thought it was straight arm as in you couldnt propell your arm into them. But not sure on this.

I have no doubt Van de Merwe had no intent to hurt and was it high force but to me it is a clear red due to the rules regardless of your personal thoughts.

As this still frame beautifully highlights, the incident was caused by the tackling player arriving into contact way to high.
Had van der merve nit offered a fend at all the other player would have been penalises for a high tackle!!
Which amply demonstrates the inconsistencies to which I previously alluded.

 

[Scotty]

As this still frame beautifully highlights, the incident was caused by the tackling player arriving into contact way to high.
Had van der merve nit offered a fend at all the other player would have been penalises for a high tackle!!
Which amply demonstrates the inconsistencies to which I previously alluded.

But both of the tacklers arms are below the shoulder at time time of contact and he isnt going for a big hit, at worst youd get an accidental clash of heads or seatbelt tackle but thats far from guarenteed,

The player was upright (not foul play) and if your upright yet grab the player low and drag him down its not a penalty and if VDM hands him off legally(below the shoulder with the hand) then also no penalty.

There is no argument if he lead with a forearm(pen), to the face (red), player was at a constant level so no mitigation(also leading with the forearm means its foulplay so they dont look for mitigation, i may be wrong on this point)

 

[Aimless ponderings]

But both of the tacklers arms are below the shoulder at time time of contact and he isnt going for a big hit, at worst youd get an accidental clash of heads or seatbelt tackle but thats far from guarenteed,

The player was upright (not foul play) and if your upright yet grab the player low and drag him down its not a penalty and if VDM hands him off legally(below the shoulder with the hand) then also no penalty.

There is no argument if he lead with a forearm(pen), to the face (red), player was at a constant level so no mitigation(also leading with the forearm means its foulplay so they dont look for mitigation, i may be wrong on this point)

He had ample time and oppurtunity to lower his tackle hight.
He could of and should of tackled him around his knees.
The vast majority of these incidents are caused by poor tackle technique.

 

[Which Tyler]

Has anyone worked out yet why Aimless ponderings is so determined to place the blame on the victim here?

Duane is responsible for his own actions - which were to strike an opponent in the face. The fend was always too high, and was never a fend. It starts with a hand to the face (ETA from the 90* angle, it starts with a forearm to the face), and ends with an elbow to the face - both of which are red card offences.
The tackler has not committed any foul play (though it IS possible that accidental foul play would occur if the tackle completes - but it's unlikely to happen as it's already a side-on tackle). Had the tackler gone lower, then Duane's fend would have missed him entirely. Given that Duane is looking straight at him, I think it would be hard to claim that Duane didn't know how high the tackler was.

Duane should have aimed lower.
He has no excuse for not doing so.
His failure to aim lower made it a strike to the head, which has been a red card offence for as long as red card offences have existed.


Quite honestly, I'd be more interested in discussing the Ford concussion - and lack of action and HIA, as a far more ridiculous decision - from what I've heard, without having seen any footage yet.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

He had ample time and oppurtunity to lower his tackle hight.
He could of and should of tackled him around his knees.
The vast majority of these incidents are caused by poor tackle technique.

The tackler in that situation is waiting for the player to fend so as to get under it, if you go low early it's an easy hand off for VdM.

It's easy to duck a legal handoff, not so much a forearm which rises far later.

 

[ncurd]

Yup looking at one still unsure what tacklers is supposedly doing wrong there is no requirement of standing position just tackle is made below the neck, his arms are positions well below. VDM had made contacts with his hand/arms at force to the head of an upright opponent. Its a red with no mitigation to be worked down. Can't imagine the ref spent too much time over it.

 

[Aimless ponderings]

Has anyone worked out yet why Aimless ponderings is so determined to place the blame on the victim here?

Duane is responsible for his own actions - which were to strike an opponent in the face. The fend was always too high, and was never a fend. It starts with a hand to the face (ETA from the 90* angle, it starts with a forearm to the face), and ends with an elbow to the face - both of which are red card offences.
The tackler has not committed any foul play (though it IS possible that accidental foul play would occur if the tackle completes - but it's unlikely to happen as it's already a side-on tackle). Had the tackler gone lower, then Duane's fend would have missed him entirely. Given that Duane is looking straight at him, I think it would be hard to claim that Duane didn't know how high the tackler was.

Duane should have aimed lower.
He has no excuse for not doing so.
His failure to aim lower made it a strike to the head, which has been a red card offence for as long as red card offences have existed.


Quite honestly, I'd be more interested in discussing the Ford concussion - and lack of action and HIA, as a far more ridiculous decision - from what I've heard, without having seen any footage yet.

The Ford incident directly resulted again from the tackling player starting off way to high, it was mitigated down from a red to yellow because the officials decided that ford had stepped at the last second, thus the tackling player was unable to adjust sufficiently quickly, this completely ignores the fact that he was always to high to begin with!!.
Are these decisions outcome driven or intent driven?.
As I've said the process is riven with inconsistencies.
And I've no idea why ford wasn't sent for an HIA.
Another inconsistency.

 

[Groundhog]

Yeah it's a red. You can't lead with the elbow. Seeing people on Twitter mentioning the tacklers height, intent, whether his hand hit first and it's all irrelevant, because he's fended him with his forearm which is letter of the law a red. What may have happened had he not fended him is not relevant. The tacklers height one in particular is a silly one. The tacklers wraps his arms on the waist and there's no reason to believe he was going to make anything other than a legal tackle. Tackle height is being trotted out without the understanding it has to be paired with a dangerous hit to have any relevance.

I don't get the argument that VdM had no choice but to forearm fend him? Just don't make the fend and go down if you don't have the distance for a hand off. Rough for him as it's not particularly dangerous and people get away with these type of fends, but at pro level with TMO it's an easy decision. There should be no ban though, red is the max sanction for me.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Are you VDM or something? I've never seen someone so ardently argue something that really wasn't a particularly controversial decision... Forearm to the face is up there with a clothesline as one of the more cut and dry red card cases.

 

[Groundhog]

Looking into it, he's likely to cop a 2 week ban. Don't think he can escape one in this case.

 

[Goodey]

Looking into it, he's likely to cop a 2 week ban. Don't think he can escape one in this case.

Bit harsh to ban him from the forum even if you don't agree with him imo

 

[Groundhog]

Bit harsh to ban him from the forum even if you don't agree with him imo

I don't make the rules, I just blindly enforce them with prejudice

 

[Aimless ponderings]

I don't make the rules, I just blindly enforce them with prejudice

Your names not Vladimir is it.‍

 

[RedruthRFC]

As this still frame beautifully highlights, the incident was caused by the tackling player arriving into contact way to high.

 

[Scotty]

He had ample time and oppurtunity to lower his tackle hight.
He could of and should of tackled him around his knees.
The vast majority of these incidents are caused by poor tackle technique.

Where id this written in the rules? Please show me. Your not allow to make head contact but if i tackle you on your upper chest with alot of force and am an inch below your chin but i dont hit your chin...then its a perfectly legal tackle.

Its an illigal hand off even if the player was lower if VDM uses his forearm/elbow then its foul play

No where does it say in the rules that if you arrive high in to a tackle you deserve to get punched in the face(although it might make players tackle lower )

 

[duncanb]

3 week ban .

 

[RedruthRFC]

Does anyone have a link to the judgement? The most recent one on the RFU website is 24/2.

 

[duncanb]

Usually takes a few days before up on site.
Just is plenty of time to make a legal hand off but hit with forearm High degree of danger ,no mitigation noted no adverse outcome to tackler.

 

[duncanb]

Full disciplinary on rfu site now.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Full disciplinary on rfu site now.

Thanks. It's much easier to understand the decision having read that. To me, the only source of contention is the panel's assessment of the level of danger. I guess that as the forearm made contact with the head, it's couldn't be considered low end, but a bit more clarity on this would have been nice. All in all, it seems fair enough and I don't really see how anyone could quibble too much, but I doubt any of the "game's gone soft" brigade will bother to read the judgement or try to understand the citing process and the judgement will be wrong for reasons that they won't be able to articulate.