Planet Rugby Forum

AS someone who Coached youths Rugby. I Agree with Red Card for French Player ( Correct decision, as one who has to Explain to Parents). Why did AusTralian player (Koroibete) for an equally bad offence not get Red in Melbourne, tackeling a player through 90 degrees and landing him on his head, inexplicable to a future players mother/ parent.

Not remotely the same.

Correct call in each case.

Coog?

Mate pull the other leg, it was not anywhere near as bad an offense. BB could have easily broken his neck on that fall. Kearney comes down relatively softly and was unlikely to be injured in the tackle

To be honest, I was expecting a red card and was relieved not to see one.

I haven't seen either incident so I assume it is a conspiracy.

I just saw the NZ-France card.

It was an absolutely brutal landing, but FFS there was barely anything in it. You can't red card someone because the opposition player landed awkwardly. As genuinely dangerous as the situation was, if BB had landed on his stomach that probably wouldn't even have been a penalty. The French player had his eyes on the ball the entire time, a split second to react, and really barely even "hit" him. It's a massive stretch to call that a tackle in the air. He was just lower than BB, who jumped "over" him and was carthweeled when he hit resistance. BB was in genuine danger of serious injury, but it so is anyone who steps foot on a rugby field and he has to take some responsibility for his own safety too. You can't red card players for that.

The commentators, referee and TMO seemed totally convinced it was incontrovertibly a red card, and big Mathieu Bastaraud didn't even argue, so I guess I've just got to trust their judgement.

It seems very harsh to me and I agree with the OP the Koriobete's seemed much more deliberate and intentional and preventable.

Nolanator wrote:Not remotely the same.

Correct call in each case.

This.

Commentators thought it might be worse and I was very relieved when it wasn't. Not that dangerous a tackle given how he executed it (don't think much of his body weight went onto Kearney). Yellow was absolutely correct.

Mog The Almighty wrote:I just saw the NZ-France card.

It was an absolutely brutal landing, but FFS there was barely anything in it. You can't red card someone because the opposition player landed awkwardly. As genuinely dangerous as the situation was, if BB had landed on his stomach that probably wouldn't even have been a penalty. The French player had his eyes on the ball the entire time, a split second to react, and really barely even "hit" him. It's a massive stretch to call that a tackle in the air. He was just lower than BB, who jumped "over" him and was carthweeled when he hit resistance. BB was in genuine danger of serious injury, but it so is anyone who steps foot on a rugby field and he has to take some responsibility for his own safety too. You can't red card players for that.

The commentators, referee and TMO seemed totally convinced it was incontrovertibly a red card, and big Mathieu Bastaraud didn't even argue, so I guess I've just got to trust their judgement.

It seems very harsh to me and I agree with the OP the Koriobete's seemed much more deliberate and intentional and preventable.

Duty of care is on the guy on the ground. You can't use the excuse that you had your eye on the ball, you have to assume the ball will be taken in the air and have to make sure you don't knock the player over.

Mog The Almighty wrote:I just saw the NZ-France card.

It was an absolutely brutal landing, but FFS there was barely anything in it. You can't red card someone because the opposition player landed awkwardly. As genuinely dangerous as the situation was, if BB had landed on his stomach that probably wouldn't even have been a penalty. The French player had his eyes on the ball the entire time, a split second to react, and really barely even "hit" him. It's a massive stretch to call that a tackle in the air. He was just lower than BB, who jumped "over" him and was carthweeled when he hit resistance. BB was in genuine danger of serious injury, but it so is anyone who steps foot on a rugby field and he has to take some responsibility for his own safety too. You can't red card players for that.

The commentators, referee and TMO seemed totally convinced it was incontrovertibly a red card, and big Mathieu Bastaraud didn't even argue, so I guess I've just got to trust their judgement.

It seems very harsh to me and I agree with the OP the Koriobete's seemed much more deliberate and intentional and preventable.

As Shanky (i think) pointed out, there's a whole sport in Australia dedicated to the contest in the air. This incident wouldn't have even made a highlight reel in the AFL.

CM11 wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:I just saw the NZ-France card.

It was an absolutely brutal landing, but FFS there was barely anything in it. You can't red card someone because the opposition player landed awkwardly. As genuinely dangerous as the situation was, if BB had landed on his stomach that probably wouldn't even have been a penalty. The French player had his eyes on the ball the entire time, a split second to react, and really barely even "hit" him. It's a massive stretch to call that a tackle in the air. He was just lower than BB, who jumped "over" him and was carthweeled when he hit resistance. BB was in genuine danger of serious injury, but it so is anyone who steps foot on a rugby field and he has to take some responsibility for his own safety too. You can't red card players for that.

The commentators, referee and TMO seemed totally convinced it was incontrovertibly a red card, and big Mathieu Bastaraud didn't even argue, so I guess I've just got to trust their judgement.

It seems very harsh to me and I agree with the OP the Koriobete's seemed much more deliberate and intentional and preventable.

Duty of care is on the guy on the ground. You can't use the excuse that you had your eye on the ball, you have to assume the ball will be taken in the air and have to make sure you don't knock the player over.

That's ridiculous. He probably couldn't even see there was an opposition player leaping into him at high speed. His brain probably had a split second to register a black blob in his peripheral vision and it was all over. It was so far from being an intentional tackle in the air, that the French player could almost make the argument that he was simply holding his ground and BB leapt over his head.

If you take a running superman dive over a defender, who grazes you and you land on your head, do they get a red card for a tip tackle? If a scrum collapses and a player hurts his neck, do we red card the opposition prop?

To be clear, BB was clearly in danger of serious injury then, and I'm not making light of that. But i) it's rugby, it's risky. ii) surely he has to take some responsibility for his own well-being too.

Mog The Almighty wrote:I just saw the NZ-France card.

It was an absolutely brutal landing, but FFS there was barely anything in it. You can't red card someone because the opposition player landed awkwardly. As genuinely dangerous as the situation was, if BB had landed on his stomach that probably wouldn't even have been a penalty. The French player had his eyes on the ball the entire time, a split second to react, and really barely even "hit" him. It's a massive stretch to call that a tackle in the air. He was just lower than BB, who jumped "over" him and was carthweeled when he hit resistance. BB was in genuine danger of serious injury, but it so is anyone who steps foot on a rugby field and he has to take some responsibility for his own safety too. You can't red card players for that.

The commentators, referee and TMO seemed totally convinced it was incontrovertibly a red card, and big Mathieu Bastaraud didn't even argue, so I guess I've just got to trust their judgement.

It seems very harsh to me and I agree with the OP the Koriobete's seemed much more deliberate and intentional and preventable.

This is unfortunately where we are, the punishment is decided by the outcome rather than the action, when in fact the player jumping into the air is putting himself at risk while trying to take opponents out of the game.

If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

CM11 wrote:If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

Why shouldn't the jumper exercise the same "duty of care" to ensure that he doesn't jump into an opponent?

He did jump, though, Stats. Just didn't get very high off the ground and BB was up so high that he flipped over the top of Fall.

Jensrsa wrote:

CM11 wrote:If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

Why shouldn't the jumper exercise the same "duty of care" to ensure that he doesn't jump into an opponent?

The guidelines are out there if anyone wants to find them. If you can find them and point to the one which says play on then fair enough but otherwise I believe the decision was in keeping with the laws and guidelines that the players kicked off the test knowing.

Nolanator wrote:He did jump, though, Stats. Just didn't get very high off the ground and BB was up so high that he flipped over the top of Fall.

Hopped maybe!

CM11 wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

CM11 wrote:If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

Why shouldn't the jumper exercise the same "duty of care" to ensure that he doesn't jump into an opponent?

The guidelines are out there if anyone wants to find them. If you can find them and point to the one which says play on then fair enough but otherwise I believe the decision was in keeping with the laws and guidelines that the players kicked off the test knowing.

I don't have a problem with the decision in term of current laws and interpretations.

The weird thing is, if Barrett had missed the ball and Fall had won the ball this wouldn't even have been a penalty

Jensrsa wrote:
I don't have a problem with the decision in term of current laws and interpretations.

The weird thing is, if Barrett had missed the ball and Fall had won the ball this wouldn't even have been a penalty

Wrong. The ref would have call an Obstruction or interference, it's the ABs after all.

lexpat wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:
I don't have a problem with the decision in term of current laws and interpretations.

The weird thing is, if Barrett had missed the ball and Fall had won the ball this wouldn't even have been a penalty

Wrong. The ref would have call an Obstruction or interference, it's the ABs after all.

CM11 wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:I just saw the NZ-France card.

It was an absolutely brutal landing, but FFS there was barely anything in it. You can't red card someone because the opposition player landed awkwardly. As genuinely dangerous as the situation was, if BB had landed on his stomach that probably wouldn't even have been a penalty. The French player had his eyes on the ball the entire time, a split second to react, and really barely even "hit" him. It's a massive stretch to call that a tackle in the air. He was just lower than BB, who jumped "over" him and was carthweeled when he hit resistance. BB was in genuine danger of serious injury, but it so is anyone who steps foot on a rugby field and he has to take some responsibility for his own safety too. You can't red card players for that.

The commentators, referee and TMO seemed totally convinced it was incontrovertibly a red card, and big Mathieu Bastaraud didn't even argue, so I guess I've just got to trust their judgement.

It seems very harsh to me and I agree with the OP the Koriobete's seemed much more deliberate and intentional and preventable.

Duty of care is on the guy on the ground. You can't use the excuse that you had your eye on the ball, you have to assume the ball will be taken in the air and have to make sure you don't knock the player over.

What if the player is not on the ground? Just not jumping, but running?

Mick Mannock wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:I just saw the NZ-France card.

It was an absolutely brutal landing, but FFS there was barely anything in it. You can't red card someone because the opposition player landed awkwardly. As genuinely dangerous as the situation was, if BB had landed on his stomach that probably wouldn't even have been a penalty. The French player had his eyes on the ball the entire time, a split second to react, and really barely even "hit" him. It's a massive stretch to call that a tackle in the air. He was just lower than BB, who jumped "over" him and was carthweeled when he hit resistance. BB was in genuine danger of serious injury, but it so is anyone who steps foot on a rugby field and he has to take some responsibility for his own safety too. You can't red card players for that.

The commentators, referee and TMO seemed totally convinced it was incontrovertibly a red card, and big Mathieu Bastaraud didn't even argue, so I guess I've just got to trust their judgement.

It seems very harsh to me and I agree with the OP the Koriobete's seemed much more deliberate and intentional and preventable.

Duty of care is on the guy on the ground. You can't use the excuse that you had your eye on the ball, you have to assume the ball will be taken in the air and have to make sure you don't knock the player over.

What if the player is not on the ground? Just not jumping, but running?

https://youtu.be/wQt6NmOKzYw

The angle that shows black 13 making contact with blue 15 before he jumps is the kicker for me. So Fall got a shove in the back from Lienert Brown, rights himself enough to get a hip to the face from Barrett, and gets to his feet in time to receive a red from Gardner.

Essentially, Fall gets a red card because Barrett can jump higher than him. Fall made no attempt to tackle, obstruct, or trip Barrett, he was in a position to catch the ball, but Barrett came in from distance, at speed, jumped higher, and tripped over him.

Koroibete, on the other hand, had basically already made a successful tackle in Kearney, and could have brought him safely to ground and that’d be the end of it. Instead, mid-tackle, he changes to deliberately lifting Kearney beyond the horizontal. Kearney’s self preservation kicked in and he stuck his arm out, but even that could have led to a dislocation or a broken arm.

To me, there’s no way what Fall did was worse than what Koroibete did. And it’s been an inconsistency in how these incidents are refereed for quite a while now, dating back to Jared Payne v Sarries and before.

I thought refs had a hold on it in the Euro knockouts 6N this year, with several instances of refs calling “fair contest” when 2 players legitimately jumped for a ball and collided. I think the Fall red is a step back.

If they want to clean this area up, it needs addressed in the laws. For instance, give the non-kicking team priority in the air space (I realize that would go against Fall, but it would at least have warned him off).

DOB wrote:The angle that shows black 13 making contact with blue 15 before he jumps is the kicker for me. So Fall got a shove in the back from Lienert Brown, rights himself enough to get a hip to the face from Barrett, and gets to his feet in time to receive a red from Gardner.

Essentially, Fall gets a red card because Barrett can jump higher than him. Fall made no attempt to tackle, obstruct, or trip Barrett, he was in a position to catch the ball, but Barrett came in from distance, at speed, jumped higher, and tripped over him.

Koroibete, on the other hand, had basically already made a successful tackle in Kearney, and could have brought him safely to ground and that’d be the end of it. Instead, mid-tackle, he changes to deliberately lifting Kearney beyond the horizontal. Kearney’s self preservation kicked in and he stuck his arm out, but even that could have led to a dislocation or a broken arm.

To me, there’s no way what Fall did was worse than what Koroibete did. And it’s been an inconsistency in how these incidents are refereed for quite a while now, dating back to Jared Payne v Sarries and before.

I thought refs had a hold on it in the Euro knockouts 6N this year, with several instances of refs calling “fair contest” when 2 players legitimately jumped for a ball and collided. I think the Fall red is a step back.

If they want to clean this area up, it needs addressed in the laws. For instance, give the non-kicking team priority in the air space (I realize that would go against Fall, but it would at least have warned him off).

Totally agree with all of that.

Koriobete had a massive brain snap. The frenchie basically did sweet FA but the outcome looked horrific.

Agree

I wonder how much the vitriol from the NH this week influenced Gardners decision.

He went through the correct procedure to make his decision but I doubt he was ever going to put himself in the position to be criticized as much as the ref last week was.

CM11 wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

CM11 wrote:If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

Why shouldn't the jumper exercise the same "duty of care" to ensure that he doesn't jump into an opponent?

The guidelines are out there if anyone wants to find them. If you can find them and point to the one which says play on then fair enough but otherwise I believe the decision was in keeping with the laws and guidelines that the players kicked off the test knowing.

You're out of your mind.

Do yourself a favour and watch it again. The French player, Fall, had nothing but eyes on the ball, strafing sideways to get in position, I have almost no doubt that he didn't even see BB until they made contact.

It's an absolutely ludicrous call, and could have far reaching consequences not only on that game, but for Fall's career.

Zero doubt that BB was in a dangerous position, and landed horribly, and I'm sure we're all thankful he wasn't injured seriously, but to be frank, he put himself in it. If that's a red card offence in our game, our game is f--cked.

Mog The Almighty wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

CM11 wrote:If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

Why shouldn't the jumper exercise the same "duty of care" to ensure that he doesn't jump into an opponent?

The guidelines are out there if anyone wants to find them. If you can find them and point to the one which says play on then fair enough but otherwise I believe the decision was in keeping with the laws and guidelines that the players kicked off the test knowing.

You're out of your mind.

Do yourself a favour and watch it again. The French player, Fall, had nothing but eyes on the ball, strafing sideways to get in position, I have almost no doubt that he didn't even see BB until they made contact.

It's an absolutely ludicrous call, and could have far reaching consequences not only on that game, but for Fall's career.

Zero doubt that BB was in a dangerous position, and landed horribly, and I'm sure we're all thankful he wasn't injured seriously, but to be frank, he put himself in it. If that's a red card offence in our game, our game is f--cked.

Welcome to the real world - the game is not a contest anymore because someone could get hurt. It will be just Touch in a decade and then we can have an offshoot called Rugby.

However, the judiciary will confirm Gardener got it 100% correct according to the rules

Jensrsa wrote:

CM11 wrote:If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

Why shouldn't the jumper exercise the same "duty of care" to ensure that he doesn't jump into an opponent?

This.

There’s a lot of flying knees that should be looked at for dangerous play also.

Flametop wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

CM11 wrote:If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

Why shouldn't the jumper exercise the same "duty of care" to ensure that he doesn't jump into an opponent?

This.

There’s a lot of flying knees that should be looked at for dangerous play also.

Far canal mate - piss off to Tiddlywinks - rugby is no place for you.

Just had a look at the footage.
Another ridiculous decision.
Fall is already under the ball in position waiting to make the catch.
Barrett jumps over him and collides, falling heavily.
That’s reckless by Barrett.

Enzedder wrote:

Flametop wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

CM11 wrote:If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

Why shouldn't the jumper exercise the same "duty of care" to ensure that he doesn't jump into an opponent?

This.

There’s a lot of flying knees that should be looked at for dangerous play also.

Far canal mate - piss off to Tiddlywinks - rugby is no place for you.

Is Barrett usually that dirty?

There was a similar one in a Scotland-Wales match a couple years ago, was it Finn Russell on Rhys Patchell? Russell was walking off the pitch still none the wiser about who exactly had blindsided him.

It’s a contentious and potentially dangerous part of the game, where the IRB guidelines and referee decisions have done nothing to clean up the mess and only created more confusion.

That has been a red for quite a long time now.

Its amazing the contortions people are going through to blame Barrett for this. Had the roles been reversed, I have no doubt all of these truth twisters and shape shifters would be screaming blue bloody murder about AB filth.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

But not surprising.

Flametop wrote:Just had a look at the footage.
Another ridiculous decision.
Fall is already under the ball in position waiting to make the catch.
Barrett jumps over him and collides, falling heavily.
That’s reckless by Barrett.

you need help.

Enzedder wrote:

Flametop wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

CM11 wrote:If you're not going to jump for the ball then you have a duty of care to make sure your actions don't knock someone over. That's about it. I know that it wasn't malicious but they're trying to avoid incidents like this and it wasn't a case of Barrett leaping 5m forward over him, it was a straightforward enough catch.

Why shouldn't the jumper exercise the same "duty of care" to ensure that he doesn't jump into an opponent?

This.

There’s a lot of flying knees that should be looked at for dangerous play also.

Far canal mate - piss off to Tiddlywinks - rugby is no place for you.

Hang on, Enz, you’re not seriously pulling the Tuddlywunks card after a French player has been red carded for being kicked in the face by an airborne AB?

Sorry -

But it was a knee, not a kick eh?

obelixtim wrote:That has been a red for quite a long time now.

Its amazing the contortions people are going through to blame Barrett for this. Had the roles been reversed, I have no doubt all of these truth twisters and shape shifters would be screaming blue bloody murder about AB filth.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

But not surprising.

You’ve missed a lot of the debates after those past red cards where it’s been pointed out again and again that it’s completely wrong to penalise, let alone red card, player A for standing his ground under the ball when player B comes in at speed, from the blindside, and jumps into and over A. This point has been repeated consistently and regularly time and again, after club and international games, over the past 5 years or more, regardless of the colours worn by either player or the hemisphere in which the game is played.

As for contortions to blame Barrett, it’s an embarrassment to the laws of the game that the original contortion in all of this somehow managed to apportion all blame in such cases to the bloke who has no notion in the world that he’s about to get smashed in the head by a flying femur.

Enzedder wrote:Sorry -

But it was a knee, not a kick eh?

I'm sure it was planned, and deliberate by filthy BB. It will be doubly worse because he will get off scot free, because he's an AB.

DOB wrote:

obelixtim wrote:That has been a red for quite a long time now.

Its amazing the contortions people are going through to blame Barrett for this. Had the roles been reversed, I have no doubt all of these truth twisters and shape shifters would be screaming blue bloody murder about AB filth.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

But not surprising.

You’ve missed a lot of the debates after those past red cards where it’s been pointed out again and again that it’s completely wrong to penalise, let alone red card, player A for standing his ground under the ball when player B comes in at speed, from the blindside, and jumps into and over A. This point has been repeated consistently and regularly time and again, after club and international games, over the past 5 years or more, regardless of the colours worn by either player or the hemisphere in which the game is played.

As for contortions to blame Barrett, it’s an embarrassment to the laws of the game that the original contortion in all of this somehow managed to apportion all blame in such cases to the bloke who has no notion in the world that he’s about to get smashed in the head by a flying femur.

So its BBs fault because Fall was running around with a blindfold on?

Irrespective, thats how its been reffed for ages now, players know about it. So either Fall was blind, with no spatial awareness, or he was just dumb. Take your pick.

BTW, as soon as the card was given it immediately spoiled the game for everyone, me included. The crowd reaction showed it. A win in those circumstances is rather hollow. But at least the Frogs put up a fight this time around.