Leinster v Ulster Sat 3rd December 19.35 TG4

[Oldschoolsocks]

So in good news we have Church available for selection, in nit so good news the sport is nit really taking bliows to the head seriously

He got sent off on the night.

When I was playing, a clash of heads like that had no sanction – not even a penalty. Getting sent off is a really significant tariff to pay. I think that shows the bodies who oversee the sport are taking blows to the head seriously, by instructing referees to punish players [and their teams] severely in order to disincentivise any slackness in carrying out actions that could lead to head collisions.

From my point of view, that was very clearly an accident. Head-on-head collisions almost always are, and unfortunately, they are always going to happen in rugby, as long as the game is played. If you look at the incident, Healy has his knees pretty much completely flexed, i.e. a 90º angle, his hips are low, he's coming up a bit as Stewart is coming down a bit ... it's just an accident. It's not an egregious failure of technique or a cheapshot, he's not a recidivist high tackler. Hume got a yellow card for his head collision with Ringrose because it was [again] accidental.

Healy already paid a high price by getting sent off early in the game. I was expecting him to get a two week ban with one week off, but I'm happy that he didn't. I seem to be in the online minority here, but I don't think that he should have had to serve any ban or suspension at all. He already had sufficient sanction.

I’m not sure what the lack of sanctions for head on head clash when you played has any bearing on what should happen now. I’m pretty confident that if you took a straw poll of lads on here who played more than say 10 years ago a significant number would have played while concussed, and as we now know that’s not a good thing.

As for whether the clash of heads was accidental sure, maybe it was? Neither player was fully upright in the tackle. But that’s not the decision tree. The assessment of the foul play was degree of danger and degree of mitigation, I don’t remember degree of intent being a part of the decision.

Agreed, it is a big sanction to be sent off and whilst I’m happy from a Leinsterfan POV that Church is available for selection I’m less comfortable that the red card was overturned. I think it sends the wrong message to the referee community. Head clashes are hazardous and the long term health risks warrant stiff penalties for the good of players and the good of the game in general…

[the spoofer]

So in good news we have Church available for selection, in nit so good news the sport is nit really taking bliows to the head seriously

He got sent off on the night.

When I was playing, a clash of heads like that had no sanction – not even a penalty. Getting sent off is a really significant tariff to pay. I think that shows the bodies who oversee the sport are taking blows to the head seriously, by instructing referees to punish players [and their teams] severely in order to disincentivise any slackness in carrying out actions that could lead to head collisions.

From my point of view, that was very clearly an accident. Head-on-head collisions almost always are, and unfortunately, they are always going to happen in rugby, as long as the game is played. If you look at the incident, Healy has his knees pretty much completely flexed, i.e. a 90º angle, his hips are low, he's coming up a bit as Stewart is coming down a bit ... it's just an accident. It's not an egregious failure of technique or a cheapshot, he's not a recidivist high tackler. Hume got a yellow card for his head collision with Ringrose because it was [again] accidental.

Healy already paid a high price by getting sent off early in the game. I was expecting him to get a two week ban with one week off, but I'm happy that he didn't. I seem to be in the online minority here, but I don't think that he should have had to serve any ban or suspension at all. He already had sufficient sanction.

I’m not sure what the lack of sanctions for head on head clash when you played has any bearing on what should happen now. I’m pretty confident that if you took a straw poll of lads on here who played more than say 10 years ago a significant number would have played while concussed, and as we now know that’s not a good thing.

As for whether the clash of heads was accidental sure, maybe it was? Neither player was fully upright in the tackle. But that’s not the decision tree. The assessment of the foul play was degree of danger and degree of mitigation, I don’t remember degree of intent being a part of the decision.

Agreed, it is a big sanction to be sent off and whilst I’m happy from a Leinsterfan POV that Church is available for selection I’m less comfortable that the red card was overturned. I think it sends the wrong message to the referee community. Head clashes are hazardous and the long term health risks warrant stiff penalties for the good of players and the good of the game in general…

The team I coach has had three concussions this year for head clashes. Not one was a red card as all were rugby collisions. Healy dipped, Stewart led with head. The only alternative is to bring tackle height below the waist and I'm not sure that will reduce concussions as a knee to the head is as likely to cause a concussion as head on head.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I've said this a few times at this stage but that Healy red incident is essentially him being punished for an environment that World Rugby has created. If they want to cut these accidental clashes out and fairly punish the tackler then they have to tell them they can't tackle above the nipple line (or lower) so that any tackler not bending is illegal. But they haven't done that and tackling in an upright position is legal and therefore these incidents will continue to happen. Take something like the choke tackle, not only is there no law against it but there's actually an incentive to tackle someone high because you could win the ball back, how ridiculous is that when they clearly want to eradicate contact with the head?

At the moment they're trying to crowbar incidents into existing laws instead of changing the laws in the radical way that's needed, and has been needed for the guts of ten years at this stage. What they need to do is start from scratch with every possible incident involving foul play, high tackles, head collisions etc etc and line up the laws, the officials, and the disciplinary process. At the moment there are incidents they want to eradicate from the game that they simply haven't catered for. Is throwing across the lineout still not covered specifically in the laws? I remember giving out about Itoje killing us in one game with that a few years back but Dave pointed out that it's not in the laws and I didn't believe him but he was right. The refs have been hot on it again since the start of last year, but why? I'm open to correction but I couldn't find any mention of it when I checked the laws a few minutes ago. How can players be sent to tackle school and then play a game that allows upright tackles upon their return? It's a mess.

I'm not just saying all this because of Leinster bias, I thought Lowe should have been sent off and again I think the laws are a mess on that front. I can't see any mention in the laws but refs used to say that the ball carrier was okay if they "pushed" the tackler away with their arm. That may not be part of the process now but the principle makes sense to me and I think Lowe's action was far more than a push. I know others disagree but if I went to tackle someone and a forearm came up like that I'd be fuming, the ball carrier really has to absorb the hit before lifting their arm in a situation like that.

One last thing not related to the laws, I really thought Ringrose should have gone for a HIA when he went for a big hit in the first half and seemed quite stunned initially and then didn't look totally right to me in the minutes that followed, including when he dropped a pass that had been a little behind him. It seemed like a textbook example of what the HIA should be there for.

[Oldschool]

I've said this a few times at this stage but that Healy red incident is essentially him being punished for an environment that World Rugby has created. If they want to cut these accidental clashes out and fairly punish the tackler then they have to tell them they can't tackle above the nipple line (or lower) so that any tackler not bending is illegal. But they haven't done that and tackling in an upright position is legal and therefore these incidents will continue to happen. Take something like the choke tackle, not only is there no law against it but there's actually an incentive to tackle someone high because you could win the ball back, how ridiculous is that when they clearly want to eradicate contact with the head?

At the moment they're trying to crowbar incidents into existing laws instead of changing the laws in the radical way that's needed, and has been needed for the guts of ten years at this stage. What they need to do is start from scratch with every possible incident involving foul play, high tackles, head collisions etc etc and line up the laws, the officials, and the disciplinary process. At the moment there are incidents they want to eradicate from the game that they simply haven't catered for. Is throwing across the lineout still not covered specifically in the laws? I remember giving out about Itoje killing us in one game with that a few years back but Dave pointed out that it's not in the laws and I didn't believe him but he was right. The refs have been hot on it again since the start of last year, but why? I'm open to correction but I couldn't find any mention of it when I checked the laws a few minutes ago. How can players be sent to tackle school and then play a game that allows upright tackles upon their return? It's a mess.

I'm not just saying all this because of Leinster bias, I thought Lowe should have been sent off and again I think the laws are a mess on that front. I can't see any mention in the laws but refs used to say that the ball carrier was okay if they "pushed" the tackler away with their arm. That may not be part of the process now but the principle makes sense to me and I think Lowe's action was far more than a push. I know others disagree but if I went to tackle someone and a forearm came up like that I'd be fuming, the ball carrier really has to absorb the hit before lifting their arm in a situation like that.

One last thing not related to the laws, I really thought Ringrose should have gone for a HIA when he went for a big hit in the first half and seemed quite stunned initially and then didn't look totally right to me in the minutes that followed, including when he dropped a pass that had been a little behind him. It seemed like a textbook example of what the HIA should be there for.

Perhaps banning the choke tackle would be a good place to start.

[Oldschoolsocks]

He got sent off on the night.

When I was playing, a clash of heads like that had no sanction – not even a penalty. Getting sent off is a really significant tariff to pay. I think that shows the bodies who oversee the sport are taking blows to the head seriously, by instructing referees to punish players [and their teams] severely in order to disincentivise any slackness in carrying out actions that could lead to head collisions.

From my point of view, that was very clearly an accident. Head-on-head collisions almost always are, and unfortunately, they are always going to happen in rugby, as long as the game is played. If you look at the incident, Healy has his knees pretty much completely flexed, i.e. a 90º angle, his hips are low, he's coming up a bit as Stewart is coming down a bit ... it's just an accident. It's not an egregious failure of technique or a cheapshot, he's not a recidivist high tackler. Hume got a yellow card for his head collision with Ringrose because it was [again] accidental.

Healy already paid a high price by getting sent off early in the game. I was expecting him to get a two week ban with one week off, but I'm happy that he didn't. I seem to be in the online minority here, but I don't think that he should have had to serve any ban or suspension at all. He already had sufficient sanction.

I’m not sure what the lack of sanctions for head on head clash when you played has any bearing on what should happen now. I’m pretty confident that if you took a straw poll of lads on here who played more than say 10 years ago a significant number would have played while concussed, and as we now know that’s not a good thing.

As for whether the clash of heads was accidental sure, maybe it was? Neither player was fully upright in the tackle. But that’s not the decision tree. The assessment of the foul play was degree of danger and degree of mitigation, I don’t remember degree of intent being a part of the decision.

Agreed, it is a big sanction to be sent off and whilst I’m happy from a Leinsterfan POV that Church is available for selection I’m less comfortable that the red card was overturned. I think it sends the wrong message to the referee community. Head clashes are hazardous and the long term health risks warrant stiff penalties for the good of players and the good of the game in general…

The team I coach has had three concussions this year for head clashes. Not one was a red card as all were rugby collisions. Healy dipped, Stewart led with head. The only alternative is to bring tackle height below the waist and I'm not sure that will reduce concussions as a knee to the head is as likely to cause a concussion as head on head.

I've no idea what happened to your lads who got concussed, so I can't really talk about it.
I can however talk about the Healy incident: (Courtesy of neil_m)

from the disciplinary panel:

The Disciplinary process related to Cian Healy Red Card in the BKT United Rugby Championship Round 9 game against Ulster on Saturday December 3 has been overturned.

After an act of foul play against Ulster player No 2 (Tom Stewart), referee Christophe Ridley showed the Player a Red Card in the 20th minute of the game under Law 9.13 – A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.

Upon review of the incident, the Panel overseeing the disciplinary process (Robert Milligan KC (Chair, Scotland), Nigel Williams (Wales), Simon Thomas (Wales), deemed that there was sufficient mitigating factors to reduce the Red Card to a Yellow Card. Therefore the Red Card was not upheld and the Player can return to play effective immediately.​

did Healy tackle the player above the line of the Shoulder? - YES
therefore was the tackle foul play ? - YES
was there a high degree of danger in the tackle? - YES
was there enough mitigation to reduce the sanction to a Yellow Card? - Ref said NO, disciplinary panel said YES

nowhere is the incident referred to as a rugby collision therefore it wasn't a rugby collision, So the only decision to make is the colour of the card. I think it was crazy to reduce it to a yellow card,

when you say that "The only alternative is to bring tackle height below the waist" you are presenting a false dichotomy. The law is designed to all tackles must be executed below the line of the shoulder, so the line could be the line of the shoulder; the nipple line; the belly button or waist, legs only; no front on tackles or f%~k just anything goes - each presents it's own set of problems

[the spoofer]

I’m not sure what the lack of sanctions for head on head clash when you played has any bearing on what should happen now. I’m pretty confident that if you took a straw poll of lads on here who played more than say 10 years ago a significant number would have played while concussed, and as we now know that’s not a good thing.

As for whether the clash of heads was accidental sure, maybe it was? Neither player was fully upright in the tackle. But that’s not the decision tree. The assessment of the foul play was degree of danger and degree of mitigation, I don’t remember degree of intent being a part of the decision.

Agreed, it is a big sanction to be sent off and whilst I’m happy from a Leinsterfan POV that Church is available for selection I’m less comfortable that the red card was overturned. I think it sends the wrong message to the referee community. Head clashes are hazardous and the long term health risks warrant stiff penalties for the good of players and the good of the game in general…

The team I coach has had three concussions this year for head clashes. Not one was a red card as all were rugby collisions. Healy dipped, Stewart led with head. The only alternative is to bring tackle height below the waist and I'm not sure that will reduce concussions as a knee to the head is as likely to cause a concussion as head on head.

I've no idea what happened to your lads who got concussed, so I can't really talk about it.
I can however talk about the Healy incident: (Courtesy of neil_m)

from the disciplinary panel:

The Disciplinary process related to Cian Healy Red Card in the BKT United Rugby Championship Round 9 game against Ulster on Saturday December 3 has been overturned.

After an act of foul play against Ulster player No 2 (Tom Stewart), referee Christophe Ridley showed the Player a Red Card in the 20th minute of the game under Law 9.13 – A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.

Upon review of the incident, the Panel overseeing the disciplinary process (Robert Milligan KC (Chair, Scotland), Nigel Williams (Wales), Simon Thomas (Wales), deemed that there was sufficient mitigating factors to reduce the Red Card to a Yellow Card. Therefore the Red Card was not upheld and the Player can return to play effective immediately.​

did Healy tackle the player above the line of the Shoulder? - YES
therefore was the tackle foul play ? - YES
was there a high degree of danger in the tackle? - YES
was there enough mitigation to reduce the sanction to a Yellow Card? - Ref said NO, disciplinary panel said YES

nowhere is the incident referred to as a rugby collision therefore it wasn't a rugby collision, So the only decision to make is the colour of the card. I think it was crazy to reduce it to a yellow card,

when you say that "The only alternative is to bring tackle height below the waist" you are presenting a false dichotomy. The law is designed to all tackles must be executed below the line of the shoulder, so the line could be the line of the shoulder; the nipple line; the belly button or waist, legs only; no front on tackles or f%~k just anything goes - each presents it's own set of problems

What happens when someone ducks and therefore the shoulders are down around the waist? Both Healy and Stewart had dipped significantly. I can understand why the ref went red but I can also see why the INDEPENDENT disciplinary hearing ruled it a yellow.

[alanair]

I've said this a few times at this stage but that Healy red incident is essentially him being punished for an environment that World Rugby has created. If they want to cut these accidental clashes out and fairly punish the tackler then they have to tell them they can't tackle above the nipple line (or lower) so that any tackler not bending is illegal. But they haven't done that and tackling in an upright position is legal and therefore these incidents will continue to happen. Take something like the choke tackle, not only is there no law against it but there's actually an incentive to tackle someone high because you could win the ball back, how ridiculous is that when they clearly want to eradicate contact with the head?

At the moment they're trying to crowbar incidents into existing laws instead of changing the laws in the radical way that's needed, and has been needed for the guts of ten years at this stage. What they need to do is start from scratch with every possible incident involving foul play, high tackles, head collisions etc etc and line up the laws, the officials, and the disciplinary process. At the moment there are incidents they want to eradicate from the game that they simply haven't catered for. Is throwing across the lineout still not covered specifically in the laws? I remember giving out about Itoje killing us in one game with that a few years back but Dave pointed out that it's not in the laws and I didn't believe him but he was right. The refs have been hot on it again since the start of last year, but why? I'm open to correction but I couldn't find any mention of it when I checked the laws a few minutes ago. How can players be sent to tackle school and then play a game that allows upright tackles upon their return? It's a mess.

I'm not just saying all this because of Leinster bias, I thought Lowe should have been sent off and again I think the laws are a mess on that front. I can't see any mention in the laws but refs used to say that the ball carrier was okay if they "pushed" the tackler away with their arm. That may not be part of the process now but the principle makes sense to me and I think Lowe's action was far more than a push. I know others disagree but if I went to tackle someone and a forearm came up like that I'd be fuming, the ball carrier really has to absorb the hit before lifting their arm in a situation like that.

One last thing not related to the laws, I really thought Ringrose should have gone for a HIA when he went for a big hit in the first half and seemed quite stunned initially and then didn't look totally right to me in the minutes that followed, including when he dropped a pass that had been a little behind him. It seemed like a textbook example of what the HIA should be there for.

You may well think that Lowe should have been sent off, but none of the Referee, his assistants, the TMO , or the Match Citing Commissioner think the same as you, so obviously , as far as the laws go, you are incorrect

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I've said this a few times at this stage but that Healy red incident is essentially him being punished for an environment that World Rugby has created. If they want to cut these accidental clashes out and fairly punish the tackler then they have to tell them they can't tackle above the nipple line (or lower) so that any tackler not bending is illegal. But they haven't done that and tackling in an upright position is legal and therefore these incidents will continue to happen. Take something like the choke tackle, not only is there no law against it but there's actually an incentive to tackle someone high because you could win the ball back, how ridiculous is that when they clearly want to eradicate contact with the head?

At the moment they're trying to crowbar incidents into existing laws instead of changing the laws in the radical way that's needed, and has been needed for the guts of ten years at this stage. What they need to do is start from scratch with every possible incident involving foul play, high tackles, head collisions etc etc and line up the laws, the officials, and the disciplinary process. At the moment there are incidents they want to eradicate from the game that they simply haven't catered for. Is throwing across the lineout still not covered specifically in the laws? I remember giving out about Itoje killing us in one game with that a few years back but Dave pointed out that it's not in the laws and I didn't believe him but he was right. The refs have been hot on it again since the start of last year, but why? I'm open to correction but I couldn't find any mention of it when I checked the laws a few minutes ago. How can players be sent to tackle school and then play a game that allows upright tackles upon their return? It's a mess.

I'm not just saying all this because of Leinster bias, I thought Lowe should have been sent off and again I think the laws are a mess on that front. I can't see any mention in the laws but refs used to say that the ball carrier was okay if they "pushed" the tackler away with their arm. That may not be part of the process now but the principle makes sense to me and I think Lowe's action was far more than a push. I know others disagree but if I went to tackle someone and a forearm came up like that I'd be fuming, the ball carrier really has to absorb the hit before lifting their arm in a situation like that.

One last thing not related to the laws, I really thought Ringrose should have gone for a HIA when he went for a big hit in the first half and seemed quite stunned initially and then didn't look totally right to me in the minutes that followed, including when he dropped a pass that had been a little behind him. It seemed like a textbook example of what the HIA should be there for.

You may well think that Lowe should have been sent off, but none of the Referee, his assistants, the TMO , or the Match Citing Commissioner think the same as you, so obviously , as far as the laws go, you are incorrect

The same referee, assistants, and TMO that were wrong about Healy?

[Oldschoolsocks]

The team I coach has had three concussions this year for head clashes. Not one was a red card as all were rugby collisions. Healy dipped, Stewart led with head. The only alternative is to bring tackle height below the waist and I'm not sure that will reduce concussions as a knee to the head is as likely to cause a concussion as head on head.

I've no idea what happened to your lads who got concussed, so I can't really talk about it.
I can however talk about the Healy incident: (Courtesy of neil_m)

from the disciplinary panel:

The Disciplinary process related to Cian Healy Red Card in the BKT United Rugby Championship Round 9 game against Ulster on Saturday December 3 has been overturned.

After an act of foul play against Ulster player No 2 (Tom Stewart), referee Christophe Ridley showed the Player a Red Card in the 20th minute of the game under Law 9.13 – A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.

Upon review of the incident, the Panel overseeing the disciplinary process (Robert Milligan KC (Chair, Scotland), Nigel Williams (Wales), Simon Thomas (Wales), deemed that there was sufficient mitigating factors to reduce the Red Card to a Yellow Card. Therefore the Red Card was not upheld and the Player can return to play effective immediately.​

did Healy tackle the player above the line of the Shoulder? - YES
therefore was the tackle foul play ? - YES
was there a high degree of danger in the tackle? - YES
was there enough mitigation to reduce the sanction to a Yellow Card? - Ref said NO, disciplinary panel said YES

nowhere is the incident referred to as a rugby collision therefore it wasn't a rugby collision, So the only decision to make is the colour of the card. I think it was crazy to reduce it to a yellow card,

when you say that "The only alternative is to bring tackle height below the waist" you are presenting a false dichotomy. The law is designed to all tackles must be executed below the line of the shoulder, so the line could be the line of the shoulder; the nipple line; the belly button or waist, legs only; no front on tackles or f%~k just anything goes - each presents it's own set of problems

What happens when someone ducks and therefore the shoulders are down around the waist? Both Healy and Stewart had dipped significantly. I can understand why the ref went red but I can also see why the INDEPENDENT disciplinary hearing ruled it a yellow.

OK, we’re almost in agreement. I understand why the ref gave a red, I also understand why it was downgraded. I just don’t agree that it should have been.

To sum it up I’m happy he’s available for selection, but I don’t think he should be.

And to answer what if someone ducks down etc?
Well… if you’ve ever talked to a teenager you’ll discover that there is an almost infinite set of what ifs and every one cannot be individually coded into the laws of the game. The laws are published and it’s up to the referee to interpret them on the pitch and in the fine tradition of the sport we play(ed) and love we accept the decision of the referee.

[Ruckedtobits]

Baffling red card reversals leave fans wondering when will powers that be wake up?

The article by Owen Doyle on both Healy's Red and Dupont's suspension reduction is on the ball. Both these decisions are wrong for the future of Rugby and should be 'appealed' by World Rugby.

Players making a tackle must be placed under a duty of care and severely sanctioned when they don't exercise it.

[Flash Gordon]

I've said this a few times at this stage but that Healy red incident is essentially him being punished for an environment that World Rugby has created. If they want to cut these accidental clashes out and fairly punish the tackler then they have to tell them they can't tackle above the nipple line (or lower) so that any tackler not bending is illegal. But they haven't done that and tackling in an upright position is legal and therefore these incidents will continue to happen. Take something like the choke tackle, not only is there no law against it but there's actually an incentive to tackle someone high because you could win the ball back, how ridiculous is that when they clearly want to eradicate contact with the head?

At the moment they're trying to crowbar incidents into existing laws instead of changing the laws in the radical way that's needed, and has been needed for the guts of ten years at this stage. What they need to do is start from scratch with every possible incident involving foul play, high tackles, head collisions etc etc and line up the laws, the officials, and the disciplinary process. At the moment there are incidents they want to eradicate from the game that they simply haven't catered for. Is throwing across the lineout still not covered specifically in the laws? I remember giving out about Itoje killing us in one game with that a few years back but Dave pointed out that it's not in the laws and I didn't believe him but he was right. The refs have been hot on it again since the start of last year, but why? I'm open to correction but I couldn't find any mention of it when I checked the laws a few minutes ago. How can players be sent to tackle school and then play a game that allows upright tackles upon their return? It's a mess.

I'm not just saying all this because of Leinster bias, I thought Lowe should have been sent off and again I think the laws are a mess on that front. I can't see any mention in the laws but refs used to say that the ball carrier was okay if they "pushed" the tackler away with their arm. That may not be part of the process now but the principle makes sense to me and I think Lowe's action was far more than a push. I know others disagree but if I went to tackle someone and a forearm came up like that I'd be fuming, the ball carrier really has to absorb the hit before lifting their arm in a situation like that.

One last thing not related to the laws, I really thought Ringrose should have gone for a HIA when he went for a big hit in the first half and seemed quite stunned initially and then didn't look totally right to me in the minutes that followed, including when he dropped a pass that had been a little behind him. It seemed like a textbook example of what the HIA should be there for.

You may well think that Lowe should have been sent off, but none of the Referee, his assistants, the TMO , or the Match Citing Commissioner think the same as you, so obviously , as far as the laws go, you are incorrect

That's an interesting one. The officials were completely right in my view on the Cooney tackle on Lowe. Lowe is running with the ball, Cooney tackles Lowe on the upper arm and falls back hitting his head and gets injured. Cooney's tackle position was poor, that's why he got injured. There's an obligation on Cooney to get his angles right in my view which he didn't. Just because he got injured isn't a reason for Lowe to be penalised. Unless Lowe was running with his arms behind his back there wasn't really much he could do.

The Healy call by the officials was fair. I'm glad he's available because we really need him but I don't understand how they came to the conclusion they did.

Ultimately, the only way to deal with this is to drop the tackle line to just below the shoulders - they might even draw a line on the shirt for that purpose. I know some are suggesting below the wait but that will just kill the game as good teams will just offload all day till they reach the try line.

It really is difficult for players given the speed of the game and fact that players change direction at such pace. The hit on Ringrose was a yellow and maybe a red but the tackler clearly just couldn't follow Ringrose's change of trajectory.