Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

RaboDirect Pro12 & Heineken Match Discussion, Referee Retribution, and Player Powwow

Moderators: pedro52, chappo, Ron, Loops

Forum rules
The Edinburgh Rugby Supporters Club is run by fans for fans. Please keep your comments on topic and treat other posters with respect.

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby joe soap on Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:20 pm

Martin Bell wrote:If memory serves, the live angle was from a camera above, so it looked different. At the time, I thought it was an unfortunate collision too and wondered why the ref was asking for a replay. I can understand commentators thinking the same. Then I saw this angle, which tells a different story entirely. Horrific injury and a lengthy ban for Helps looks inevitable. I hope all goes well with George's recovery.


it was a clear red live. The tackle is high, head clash the unfortunate outcome. No intent but the whole point of the high tackle changes is to change behaviour. Always clearly above the shoulder line. Most red card "decisions" got to video review to ensure they are not mistaken, or because the ref may not have had clear sight live of something that happens very fast live. That is good practice, but does not imply any doubt.

I tend to tune out so called commentators and pundits because almost without exception they are rubbish spouting dinosaurs. If they were going "rugby incident" on this one, I rest my case
joe soap
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:23 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby doedin on Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:38 pm

I disagree about the 'no intent' argument! If you are a 6'6" second row and go head first above the shoulders into a smaller winger at speed then surely you are trying to hurt them. He could easily have gone into the tackle lower but chose not to. He would have been fully aware of the rules about tackle hight, why they were introduced and how they would be enforced. His intent to harm was clear by his actions and as such he should be punished accordingly. If I was driving my car at 100mph on the wrong side of the road and kill someone it isn't an accident and I doubt anyone would believe me if I argued I didnt intend to kill someone I just made a mistake in driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road - I would be sent to jail. There is no argument to support the argument that his actions were unintentional, he clearly made the decision to tackle high and head first above the shoulders. He should get a very lengthy ban for a tackle that could have had even more serious consequences than there were.
doedin
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby joe soap on Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:14 pm

doedin wrote:I disagree about the 'no intent' argument! If you are a 6'6" second row and go head first above the shoulders into a smaller winger at speed then surely you are trying to hurt them. He could easily have gone into the tackle lower but chose not to. He would have been fully aware of the rules about tackle hight, why they were introduced and how they would be enforced. His intent to harm was clear by his actions and as such he should be punished accordingly. If I was driving my car at 100mph on the wrong side of the road and kill someone it isn't an accident and I doubt anyone would believe me if I argued I didnt intend to kill someone I just made a mistake in driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road - I would be sent to jail. There is no argument to support the argument that his actions were unintentional, he clearly made the decision to tackle high and head first above the shoulders. He should get a very lengthy ban for a tackle that could have had even more serious consequences than there were.


nice rant.
There was no intent to break his jaw, or get Taylor carried off. It was a very bad tackle, totally reckless and that is how it will be dealt with
You can disagree all you like, that will not change anything. He will not be charged with intent to cripple or maim or kill or anything else.
It will be as damning as they can get for what will likely be a mid entry offence. I'd like it to be top entry and be delighted if it is, but I doubt it.
joe soap
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:23 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby The Feral Goat on Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:41 pm

Ban him for the length of time taylor is out injured (8-12 weeks is expectation)
The Feral Goat
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 3061
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:55 am

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby doedin on Wed Nov 04, 2020 9:24 pm

joe soap wrote:
doedin wrote:I disagree about the 'no intent' argument! If you are a 6'6" second row and go head first above the shoulders into a smaller winger at speed then surely you are trying to hurt them. He could easily have gone into the tackle lower but chose not to. He would have been fully aware of the rules about tackle hight, why they were introduced and how they would be enforced. His intent to harm was clear by his actions and as such he should be punished accordingly. If I was driving my car at 100mph on the wrong side of the road and kill someone it isn't an accident and I doubt anyone would believe me if I argued I didnt intend to kill someone I just made a mistake in driving at 100mph on the wrong side of the road - I would be sent to jail. There is no argument to support the argument that his actions were unintentional, he clearly made the decision to tackle high and head first above the shoulders. He should get a very lengthy ban for a tackle that could have had even more serious consequences than there were.


nice rant.
There was no intent to break his jaw, or get Taylor carried off. It was a very bad tackle, totally reckless and that is how it will be dealt with
You can disagree all you like, that will not change anything. He will not be charged with intent to cripple or maim or kill or anything else.
It will be as damning as they can get for what will likely be a mid entry offence. I'd like it to be top entry and be delighted if it is, but I doubt it.


By definition if you deliberately go in high above shoulder hight and lead with head onto another players head then you are intending to cause harm. If high tackles are outlawed because they are dangerous and have potential to cause harm and the offending player knows this, is coached not to do this and knows the rules then to chose to go in high, which in this case he obviously did chose to, then by definition there is intention to cause harm. It is plain silly to suggest he intended/didnt intend to break jaw, maim, cripple or get the player carried off that is misleading. The intention element is about the offending player choosing to execute an illegal tackle in such a way as to endanger and potentially cause harm to the other player and unfortunately in this case it caused serious harm. There is no defence to say 'yes I chose to tackle the other player dangerously high which I know is illegal because it is dangerous but I didnt mean to break his nose, jaw and cheek bones!'
doedin
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby joe soap on Wed Nov 04, 2020 11:12 pm

doedin wrote:
By definition if you deliberately go in high above shoulder hight and lead with head onto another players head then you are intending to cause harm. If high tackles are outlawed because they are dangerous and have potential to cause harm and the offending player knows this, is coached not to do this and knows the rules then to chose to go in high, which in this case he obviously did chose to, then by definition there is intention to cause harm. It is plain silly to suggest he intended/didnt intend to break jaw, maim, cripple or get the player carried off that is misleading. The intention element is about the offending player choosing to execute an illegal tackle in such a way as to endanger and potentially cause harm to the other player and unfortunately in this case it caused serious harm. There is no defence to say 'yes I chose to tackle the other player dangerously high which I know is illegal because it is dangerous but I didnt mean to break his nose, jaw and cheek bones!'


Look, it was as I said a clear red. High, reckless, dangerous. Caused a bad injury. Common ground. We also agree on why high tackles have been outlawed and the need for deterence.
But to imply that he deliberately led with his head to hit Taylor's face or head is hysterical, as is that it was a deliberate attempt to badly injure. He goes full tilt because he is trying to run down a winger and makes a right horlicks of it technically.
And when the hearing takes place, that will be the description accepted. 6 weeks cut to 3. Take it up with Pro14 and World Rugby if you are unhappy with it
joe soap
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:23 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby doedin on Thu Nov 05, 2020 9:20 am

joe soap wrote:
doedin wrote:
By definition if you deliberately go in high above shoulder hight and lead with head onto another players head then you are intending to cause harm. If high tackles are outlawed because they are dangerous and have potential to cause harm and the offending player knows this, is coached not to do this and knows the rules then to chose to go in high, which in this case he obviously did chose to, then by definition there is intention to cause harm. It is plain silly to suggest he intended/didnt intend to break jaw, maim, cripple or get the player carried off that is misleading. The intention element is about the offending player choosing to execute an illegal tackle in such a way as to endanger and potentially cause harm to the other player and unfortunately in this case it caused serious harm. There is no defence to say 'yes I chose to tackle the other player dangerously high which I know is illegal because it is dangerous but I didnt mean to break his nose, jaw and cheek bones!'


Look, it was as I said a clear red. High, reckless, dangerous. Caused a bad injury. Common ground. We also agree on why high tackles have been outlawed and the need for deterence.
But to imply that he deliberately led with his head to hit Taylor's face or head is hysterical, as is that it was a deliberate attempt to badly injure. He goes full tilt because he is trying to run down a winger and makes a right horlicks of it technically.
And when the hearing takes place, that will be the description accepted. 6 weeks cut to 3. Take it up with Pro14 and World Rugby if you are unhappy with it


Again you read things into what I said! I did not 'imply' that he deliberately led with his head to hit Taylor's face or head. What I am saying is that if he intentionally executed a dangerous high tackle leading with his head, knowing this is illegal and why it is illegal, and chose to do this rather than execute a safe and legal tackle which he could have done then he has intentionally chosen to risk harming the player and should be punished accordingly. He did not just mess up the tackle, it was not a technical horlicks, it was not just a 'rugby incident' - he chose to tackle someone at head hight, he could easily have chosen to tackle him around the waist or legs. The laws are clear, referees have made this clear to players, his club will have made sure he knows this and he would have been coached accordingly, despite this he chose to make a high and dangerous tackle. He needs to accept the consequences of his decision to intentionally execute an illegal tackle and to potentially cause harm and injury to the other player.

This is the premise on which rugby has decided to reinforce the high tackle law and to make sure players know their responsibilities in tackling - it requires players to take the correct decision in making tackles and holds them responsible for their actions if they fail to do so. The 'intention' was his deliberate decision to make a dangerous high tackle which he knew could risk doing harm to another player.
doedin
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby Tichtheid on Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:00 am

It’s not “just” the broken nose, broken cheek and broken jaw, I read Taylor was heavily concussed, we’ve seen that can lead to months and months lay off, see Matt Scott, it ended Dents’ career.

If the authorities are really serious about eradicating this kind of tackle then they should start by hand down proportionate sanctions.
Tichtheid
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 2862
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:51 pm
Location: Alba Bheag

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby liveinhope on Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:33 am

This is an interesting debate none of which sadly will help Taylor but hopefully a "proper" sanction would help the next potential victim of such a shocking tackle.This really should see a severe sentence to detract from it ever happening again (but of course it won't be-probably six weeks at most).
My view is that if the tackler can only get the target by illegal means as here he simply can't make the tackle.If he opts to and his only option is a high tackle then the sentence must surely be punitive.If he could have made the tackle by going in lower but opts not to and goes high then surely that does suggest "intent" as poster above argues.So again the sentence should be punitive.
So Scarlets player only option is to tackle low or lower and if he misses tackle fair enough.If World Rugby are serious about eliminating tackles to the head/face then the various unions in turn have to come down like a ton of bricks in punishing what we saw on Monday so players finally get the message.
liveinhope
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby joe soap on Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:52 am

liveinhope wrote:This is an interesting debate none of which sadly will help Taylor but hopefully a "proper" sanction would help the next potential victim of such a shocking tackle.This really should see a severe sentence to detract from it ever happening again (but of course it won't be-probably six weeks at most).
My view is that if the tackler can only get the target by illegal means as here he simply can't make the tackle.If he opts to and his only option is a high tackle then the sentence must surely be punitive.If he could have made the tackle by going in lower but opts not to and goes high then surely that does suggest "intent" as poster above argues.So again the sentence should be punitive.
So Scarlets player only option is to tackle low or lower and if he misses tackle fair enough.If World Rugby are serious about eliminating tackles to the head/face then the various unions in turn have to come down like a ton of bricks in punishing what we saw on Monday so players finally get the message.


100% correct

6 weeks is mid entry level, and going through the decision making process is where it will end up. And he will get 50% discount.
I don't like that, but it is how I see it going
joe soap
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:23 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby joe soap on Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:01 pm

doedin wrote:
Again you read things into what I said! I did not 'imply' that he deliberately led with his head to hit Taylor's face or head. What I am saying is that if he intentionally executed a dangerous high tackle leading with his head,


so he didn't deliberately lead with his head to taylor's face or head, he intentionally executed a dangerous high tackle leading with his head. Deliberately or intentionally leading with his head. Glad we got that clarity. FFS

No, he made a total horlicks of an attempt at a tackle. For which I'd like a long ban, much longer than he will get.

Even under current discpline set up, and assuming its is a mid level entry, minimum 6 weeks, instead of giving a 50% discount, they could impose extra weeks due to the severity of the outcome and to discourage others. They could, and should, but I won't be holding my breath
joe soap
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:23 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby TheSmidge on Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:18 pm

Objectively speaking, as much as I possibly can, I can't see how this is a mid-level entry point given the serious outcome for George Taylor.

If this is a 6-weeks-down-to-3-weeks sanction because he ordered the panel a nice packet of M&S biscuits each through Ocado (seeing as you can't take the biscuits to the meeting any more) then I will be disappointed, although not surprised.

It was a horrendous tackle with a horrible outcome, so should be dealt with severely, but I'm not holding my breath.
TheSmidge
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:11 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby BigD163 on Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:26 pm

TheSmidge wrote:Objectively speaking, as much as I possibly can, I can't see how this is a mid-level entry point given the serious outcome for George Taylor.

If this is a 6-weeks-down-to-3-weeks sanction because he ordered the panel a nice packet of M&S biscuits each through Ocado (seeing as you can't take the biscuits to the meeting any more) then I will be disappointed, although not surprised.

It was a horrendous tackle with a horrible outcome, so should be dealt with severely, but I'm not holding my breath.


As much as I may not like it, I can't see that the resulting injury can be taken into account. If his face hadn't been broken it is still equally as bad a tackle, should reckless play get less of a ban because the victims bones are slightly stronger or was hit a few cm in the face differently? I don't believe so.

The tackle was very poor (being generous) and he has led with the head and it should be judged on the tackle rather than the resultant injury. For me the tackle regardless of injury or lack of an injury should be dealt with harshly.

I understand the viewpoint that Taylors injury should mean a lengthier ban but even allowing for no injury I still see that as needing a 10+ week ban after deductions.
BigD163
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 10:07 am

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby TheSmidge on Thu Nov 05, 2020 2:18 pm

BigD163 wrote:
TheSmidge wrote:Objectively speaking, as much as I possibly can, I can't see how this is a mid-level entry point given the serious outcome for George Taylor.

If this is a 6-weeks-down-to-3-weeks sanction because he ordered the panel a nice packet of M&S biscuits each through Ocado (seeing as you can't take the biscuits to the meeting any more) then I will be disappointed, although not surprised.

It was a horrendous tackle with a horrible outcome, so should be dealt with severely, but I'm not holding my breath.


As much as I may not like it, I can't see that the resulting injury can be taken into account. If his face hadn't been broken it is still equally as bad a tackle, should reckless play get less of a ban because the victims bones are slightly stronger or was hit a few cm in the face differently? I don't believe so.

The tackle was very poor (being generous) and he has led with the head and it should be judged on the tackle rather than the resultant injury. For me the tackle regardless of injury or lack of an injury should be dealt with harshly.

I understand the viewpoint that Taylors injury should mean a lengthier ban but even allowing for no injury I still see that as needing a 10+ week ban after deductions.


I'm certain that there have been disciplinary decisions in the past that have taken outcome to the tackled player into account. While it is not part of World Rugby's decision framework so cannot be part of the on-field process, it is explicitly one of the factors to be taken into account by the disciplinary panels, as can be found in Regulation 17.19.2(h):

the effect of the Player’s actions on the victim (for example, extent of injury, removal of victim Player from the game)


The full regulation can be found here: https://www.world.rugby/handbook/regula ... -17/reg-17

However, we will have to wait on the disciplinary panel, which should be before the next round of fixtures, i.e. today or tomorrow.
TheSmidge
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:11 pm

Re: Scarlets.v edinburgh 6:45 Sunday 1st nov

Postby TheSmidge on Thu Nov 05, 2020 3:47 pm

TheSmidge
World Cup Star
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Edinburgh Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests

cron