DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116450--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: FishQuin
Date: December 2, 2023, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was watching on mute so I didn’t hear any of the chat from ref
or commentators. I was convinced it was going to be a red card
when Hill was called over. Couldn’t believe it was only a
penalty.
Here’s the framework for anyone interested:
HTML https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2021/03/10/e597c9c8-e852-4e19-875f-18e02e7f7e24/Head_Contact_Process_EN_v1.pdf
I’m under the impression that ‘head contact’ constitutes
anything above the shoulders. Working through the framework, yes
there was head contact (forearm to throat), yes it was foul play
(penalty was given) yes it was dangerous (my mind went straight
to Catrakillis, as mentioned above) yes it was intentional
(obvious).
The only thing that could be disputed in that framework is
whether it was dangerous. I would argue it’s extremely
dangerous. It doesn’t take much force to crush a windpipe and it
can be fatal. Imagine someone had piled onto the top of the
pile, applying unexpected additional forces through Hill’s arm?
That’s all it would have taken. Incredibly dangerous.
#Post#: 116452--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: December 2, 2023, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
He doesn't strike him in the throat. It's nothing like what
happened to Catrakilis. He pins CCS with his forearm, and that
doesn't seem to match any of the things talked about in that
document for head contact.
That's not to say it can't be a red - Moriarty essentially
strangled Sanchez to get a red card - but Catrakilis fractured a
bone in his throat after being struck hard by a shoulder, not
from someone pushing on his neck.
To me - and I get that I'm seeing this differently to a lot of
people - it's no more dangerous than a regulation high tackle
where the wrap ends up around the neck, as opposed to a swinging
arm or a shoulder to the head. That's the closest analogue I can
think of for foul play featuring head contact.
It's much less worse than the two red cards Andre picked up for
striking people in the head, which I do remember many people on
this board being very upset about!
#Post#: 116453--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: Yareet
Date: December 2, 2023, 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FishQuin link ---
>
> I was watching on mute so I didn’t hear any of the chat from
ref or commentators. I was convinced it was going to be a red
card when Hill was called over. Couldn’t believe it was only a
penalty.
>
> Here’s the framework for anyone interested:
>
HTML https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2021/03/10/e597c9c8-e852-4e19-875f-18e02e7f7e24/Head_Contact_Process_EN_v1.pdf
>
> I’m under the impression that ‘head contact’ constitutes
anything above the shoulders. Working through the framework, yes
there was head contact (forearm to throat), yes it was foul play
(penalty was given) yes it was dangerous (my mind went straight
to Catrakillis, as mentioned above) yes it was intentional
(obvious).
>
> The only thing that could be disputed in that framework is
whether it was dangerous. I would argue it’s extremely
dangerous. It doesn’t take much force to crush a windpipe and it
can be fatal. Imagine someone had piled onto the top of the
pile, applying unexpected additional forces through Hill’s arm?
That’s all it would have taken. Incredibly dangerous.
>
--- End Quote ---
My understanding is that the framework is primarily (only?) to
be used around tackles.
The link you included also states that:
--- Quote ---
>
>
> The process can be applied to: • High tackles • Shoulder
charges • Dangerous cleanouts • Head-to-head collisions •
Leading elbow / forearm
--- End Quote ---
I’m not sure which of these would apply. It’s not really a
leading forearm.
#Post#: 116454--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: A222Quin
Date: December 2, 2023, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One of those that could be anything from penalty to red
depending on interpretation. Either way, it will have cemented
Hill’s reputation as a bit of a hot head that probably can’t be
trusted in the heat of summer international competition.
#Post#: 116455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: FishQuin
Date: December 2, 2023, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that, Yareet. It states the process can apply to
leading forearms, as you’ve quoted, as well as high tackles. So
not just high tackles. I would class this as a leading forearm.
Maybe I’m wrong in that regard, but taken literally I don’t see
how it isn’t a leading forearm.
It also states that a red card can be given for any reckless or
dangerous act.
#Post#: 116456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: December 2, 2023, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FishQuin link ---
>
> Not sure about that, Yareet. It states the process can apply
to leading forearms, as you’ve quoted, as well as high tackles.
So not just high tackles. I would class this as a leading
forearm. Maybe I’m wrong in that regard, but taken literally I
don’t see how it isn’t a leading forearm.
>
> It also states that a red card can be given for any reckless
or dangerous act.
>
--- End Quote ---
A leading forearm is referring to striking a player in open play
with an arm away from the body, vs legally using it to fend with
a push. It's not relevant here. But as you say, the laws allow
for anything sufficiently dangerous or reckless to be a red.
#Post#: 116457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: Yareet
Date: December 2, 2023, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FishQuin link ---
>
> Not sure about that, Yareet. It states the process can apply
to leading forearms, as you’ve quoted, as well as high tackles.
So not just high tackles. I would class this as a leading
forearm. Maybe I’m wrong in that regard, but taken literally I
don’t see how it isn’t a leading forearm.
>
> It also states that a red card can be given for any reckless
or dangerous act.
>
--- End Quote ---
I’ve never seen that action described as a leading forearm. They
are generally when a player is carrying the ball and therefore
have more force
#Post#: 116458--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: Quinky
Date: December 2, 2023, 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd have said it was dangerous. Hill actively placed his arm on
CCSs neck, and applied pressure for a prolonged period of time.
#Post#: 116459--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: FishQuin
Date: December 2, 2023, 5:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JammyGit link ---
>
> A leading forearm is referring to striking a player in open
play with an arm away from the body, vs legally using it to fend
with a push. It's not relevant here.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree that is the context in which it is typically used in
rugby, because those are the scenarios you typically see in
rugby, but I also believe it should be applied here.
The way I see it, talk of the arm being away from the body is a
safety and practicality issue. We don’t want to get into a
position where every carry is leading with the forearm. So that
wording allows some flex.
However, that wording isn’t intended to allow players to use
their forearm as a weapon in any situation in which they are not
carrying the ball.
Or, put another way, fending with the ball is the only rugby
situation in which a player is likely to want to lead with their
forearm for rugby gains. So that is the only scenario
specifically focussed on in the rules/by commentary. But you’re
still not allowed to use your forearm in any other situation.
Especially not to the throat.
To be honest, I think it’s just common sense (which could be the
problem, it’s often missing from rugby). The head and neck are
protected by the laws of the game. Doing anything which risks
damage to the head or neck area is a serious offence. Doing so
intentionally is even worse. Doing so when the ball isn’t in
play is more serious still.
Out of interest (as I say, I had it muted) what was the penalty
actually given for?
Edit: I’ve just watched it again on the link provided by SiB. On
second viewing, it’s not even a forearm, it’s the elbow which is
on CCS’s throat. Pause on 19 seconds for the perfect view. I
think that probably makes it worse in my opinion, though I
expect it’s the same in the view of the laws.
Edit2: And his arm definitely isn’t tucked. It’s out in front
of him, away from his body.
#Post#: 116460--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why no card…citing?
DIR By: RodneyRegis
Date: December 2, 2023, 6:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What?
Its not a leading forearm. We all know what a leading forearm
is.
It like saying the push on ccs which broke the hoarding was a
flying wedge.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page