jezzer wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 8:45 am
Surprised so many on here think the Baird incident was an act of foul play. I thought the ref team got it right.
All three players are converging on the ball at full speed. All have eyes on the ball. Abrahams actually flicks his eyes towards Baird as they're getting closer and Baird is still on the ground. Then Baird leaps, with his knee out to protect himself (something that could have made the collision even worse if Abrahams had been on a slightly different line). All three players are going for the ball and all of them are committed. That Baird gets knocked off his trajectory and lands horribly is more a function of his decision to jump in the first place than any coming together.
It's a pure "rugby incident", which is a stupid phrase when you consider the injury to Baird and what might have been for Abrahams if he got Baird's knee to the temple.
I agree that it wasn't foul play. I think that why people think it was is that over the last couple of years 'rugby incidents' have been referreed almost entirely on an 'outcome' basis rather than on the act itself, we've become used to that approach and it has coloured our thinking as to what constitutes foul play. Since the start of the summer I think that World Rugby are trying to rebalance that equation between the act and the outcome.
Taking a jumping players legs out when you're not competing at all is not foul play? Cop on. Eyes on the ball means nothing. If you're moving into the area you have a duty of care to jumping players as a non jumping player - this has been shown time and time again.
Cop on?!
Ok, moving on. Three players are running full tilt for a ball, all three converging on a point. A collision is inevitable unless one or more players pulls out of the chase. With only a few metres to go to the inevitable collision, one player decides "fück this, I'm going up to get this" and jumps. Neither of the other two are in a position to do anything about this decision, even if they had looked up to see Baird jump, which they clearly didn't. They're all fixed on the convergence point, ie the ball.
As Dave says, the outcome is shocking (and could even have been much worse). The outcome is not what should be reffed though. The actions of the three players are simply to tear after a ball on converging paths.
If you want to criticise a player for disregard to player safety, then you have to apply it to all three and it's their own personal safety they were jeopardizing in the moment.
I agree that it wasn't foul play. I think that why people think it was is that over the last couple of years 'rugby incidents' have been referreed almost entirely on an 'outcome' basis rather than on the act itself, we've become used to that approach and it has coloured our thinking as to what constitutes foul play. Since the start of the summer I think that World Rugby are trying to rebalance that equation between the act and the outcome.
Taking a jumping players legs out when you're not competing at all is not foul play? Cop on. Eyes on the ball means nothing. If you're moving into the area you have a duty of care to jumping players as a non jumping player - this has been shown time and time again.
Cop on?!
Ok, moving on. Three players are running full tilt for a ball, all three converging on a point. A collision is inevitable unless one or more players pulls out of the chase. With only a few metres to go to the inevitable collision, one player decides "fück this, I'm going up to get this" and jumps. Neither of the other two are in a position to do anything about this decision, even if they had looked up to see Baird jump, which they clearly didn't. They're all fixed on the convergence point, ie the ball.
As Dave says, the outcome is shocking (and could even have been much worse). The outcome is not what should be reffed though. The actions of the three players are simply to tear after a ball on converging paths.
If you want to criticise a player for disregard to player safety, then you have to apply it to all three and it's their own personal safety they were jeopardizing in the moment.
Two players are moving in parralel to each other competing for the ball, both jump.
Another player coming in at a right angle to them at speed does not jump and takes out a player in the air.
The player coming in at a right angle has another choice - avoid the collision, as he is the one who causes it.
Clear as day red card and anything else is anti player saftey, and supporting any other outcome is anti player saftey.
Having been critical of him after the Zebre game, I must say how impressed I was by Rob Russell in this fixture - he really grew into the game and played very well.
If the situation was reversed and Baird had run under the defender we would have accepted that as a red card. An accident rather than anything nasty but we would have recognised the duty of care and that it's not enough to just be looking at the ball. You don't have to deliberately hit someone high to get a red card for a high tackle, you have to be careless or reckless.
They were always going to collide because of the line the defender took. That collision ended up being a bad one. Recognising that players have to avoid putting themselves in positions like that has reduced the incidence of these dangerous collisions. Maybe there's a better protocol that will encourage even safer behaviour and and a better contest for possession.
World Rugby were right to bin the concept that it was necessary to prove intent.
Dave Cahill wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 9:23 am
Having been critical of him after the Zebre game, I must say how impressed I was by Rob Russell in this fixture - he really grew into the game and played very well.
He was really good.
Got a nice early run and then looked confident after that.
I agree that it wasn't foul play. I think that why people think it was is that over the last couple of years 'rugby incidents' have been referreed almost entirely on an 'outcome' basis rather than on the act itself, we've become used to that approach and it has coloured our thinking as to what constitutes foul play. Since the start of the summer I think that World Rugby are trying to rebalance that equation between the act and the outcome.
Taking a jumping players legs out when you're not competing at all is not foul play? Cop on. Eyes on the ball means nothing. If you're moving into the area you have a duty of care to jumping players as a non jumping player - this has been shown time and time again.
Cop on?!
Ok, moving on. Three players are running full tilt for a ball, all three converging on a point. A collision is inevitable unless one or more players pulls out of the chase. With only a few metres to go to the inevitable collision, one player decides "fück this, I'm going up to get this" and jumps. Neither of the other two are in a position to do anything about this decision, even if they had looked up to see Baird jump, which they clearly didn't. They're all fixed on the convergence point, ie the ball.
As Dave says, the outcome is shocking (and could even have been much worse). The outcome is not what should be reffed though. The actions of the three players are simply to tear after a ball on converging paths.
If you want to criticise a player for disregard to player safety, then you have to apply it to all three and it's their own personal safety they were jeopardizing in the moment.
I don't think it's about the outcome, it's about the duty of care a player on the ground has to a player in the air. Abrahams comes across and runs in directly under Baird. Abrahams doesn't jump, he takes the guy jumping out.
It's an unfortunate one and clearly an accident, but we've seen this exact thing be red carded multiple times in the last few years.
jezzer wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 8:45 am
Surprised so many on here think the Baird incident was an act of foul play. I thought the ref team got it right.
All three players are converging on the ball at full speed. All have eyes on the ball. Abrahams actually flicks his eyes towards Baird as they're getting closer and Baird is still on the ground. Then Baird leaps, with his knee out to protect himself (something that could have made the collision even worse if Abrahams had been on a slightly different line). All three players are going for the ball and all of them are committed. That Baird gets knocked off his trajectory and lands horribly is more a function of his decision to jump in the first place than any coming together.
It's a pure "rugby incident", which is a stupid phrase when you consider the injury to Baird and what might have been for Abrahams if he got Baird's knee to the temple.
I agree that it wasn't foul play. I think that why people think it was is that over the last couple of years 'rugby incidents' have been referreed almost entirely on an 'outcome' basis rather than on the act itself, we've become used to that approach and it has coloured our thinking as to what constitutes foul play. Since the start of the summer I think that World Rugby are trying to rebalance that equation between the act and the outcome.
Rugby incident is a frackin awful term; and foul play doesn't apply here, is calling it "reckless play" more apt? An act where there is no cynicism that results in injury. The incident with Baird to me is no different to what Payne received a red for against Quinns, a bit of consistency in officiating would be a fine thing, especially since player safety is paramount.
Every season World Rugby seems to have this narrative around specific infringements and they become the bête noire du jour, a few years back it was the spear or tip, more recently it was players running into jumpers, now it is the shoulder to the head. All these acts require consistency in officiating and eradicating from the sport.
RoboProp wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 9:32 am
Rugby incident is a frackin awful term; and foul play doesn't apply here, is calling it "reckless play" more apt? An act where there is no cynicism that results in injury. The incident with Baird to me is no different to what Payne received a red for against Quinns, a bit of consistency in officiating would be a fine thing, especially since player safety is paramount.
Every season World Rugby seems to have this narrative around specific infringements and they become the bête noire du jour, a few years back it was the spear or tip, more recently it was players running into jumpers, now it is the shoulder to the head. All these acts require consistency in officiating and eradicating from the sport.
What's needed is a clear step-by-step decision-making framework like they did for high tackles - that was successful both for referees and supporters. There should be one published for each of the law-outlined acts of dangerous play
Perhaps the real issue is players leaping into the air at speed without due care for their own safety.
How that could be enshrined in the laws I'm not sure.
Starting with only being allowed to tap the ball backwards as opposed to catching the ball.
Risk, reward and penalty.
Duty of care is on all players.
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall who's the greatest player of them all? It is Drico your majesty.
Dave Cahill wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 9:23 am
Having been critical of him after the Zebre game, I must say how impressed I was by Rob Russell in this fixture - he really grew into the game and played very well.
Yeah. He was hungry to get on the ball where as I thought he looked like he was shitting himself against Zebre whenever the ball was coming his way. He looked a lot faster than I thought he was also. It was like watching two different players. Fair play to him.
"Horrocks went one way, Taylor the other and I was left holding the bloody hyphen!"
jezzer wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 8:45 am
Surprised so many on here think the Baird incident was an act of foul play. I thought the ref team got it right.
All three players are converging on the ball at full speed. All have eyes on the ball. Abrahams actually flicks his eyes towards Baird as they're getting closer and Baird is still on the ground. Then Baird leaps, with his knee out to protect himself (something that could have made the collision even worse if Abrahams had been on a slightly different line). All three players are going for the ball and all of them are committed. That Baird gets knocked off his trajectory and lands horribly is more a function of his decision to jump in the first place than any coming together.
It's a pure "rugby incident", which is a stupid phrase when you consider the injury to Baird and what might have been for Abrahams if he got Baird's knee to the temple.
I agree that it wasn't foul play. I think that why people think it was is that over the last couple of years 'rugby incidents' have been referreed almost entirely on an 'outcome' basis rather than on the act itself, we've become used to that approach and it has coloured our thinking as to what constitutes foul play. Since the start of the summer I think that World Rugby are trying to rebalance that equation between the act and the outcome.
I thought the 2 players competing for the ball was a fair contest but the player who took out Baird never left the ground and wasn't jumping, his only contribution to the incident was taking out Ryan. I was very surprised he wasn't carded If you take out a player in the air and never leave the ground you're on thin ice.
Dave Cahill wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 9:23 am
Having been critical of him after the Zebre game, I must say how impressed I was by Rob Russell in this fixture - he really grew into the game and played very well.
Yeah. He was hungry to get on the ball where as I thought he looked like he was shitting himself against Zebre whenever the ball was coming his way. He looked a lot faster than I thought he was also. It was like watching two different players. Fair play to him.
In light of the horror-show vs Zebre, I too was thrilled how well the game went for Russell. And after being shunted into touch within millimetres of the whitewash only minutes earlier, he finally got his first try in blue (seniors) on his debut in the RDS courtesy of a gutsy looped pass by Foley. As Ringer alluded too in his post-match interview, I think the coaches will be heartened by how seamlessly the injury replacements slotted in and performed.
Ruckedtobits wrote: ↑October 9th, 2022, 10:45 am
A lot to be learned from this game, not least where our defensive set-up has left spaces. We'll never know whether this was McNamara or Everitt, but either way, it's a long time since we were opened up quite so clinically from two starter moves as Fassi's try or Kok's try set up by Abraham's movement (which was a direct first-phase starter).
Whether that was an interview for Lancaster's role or just a reminder of his coaching prowess, it's clear that Noel McNamara has continued to grow his CV and expand his accomplishments. It would be great to see him back in Leinster about next June.
Well, at least 2 games ago anyway! Zebre similarly opened us up twice form first phase moves.
It's clearly a worry.
I think Ngatai is a bit of a common denominator. Hopefully he gets more comfortable with what's expected of him as he looks really good in attack.
I'd agree with that. Teams are opening us up pretty easily. Ringrose and Henshaw are very quick to the line but we are defending deeply and the gaps are massive and part of that is Ngatai getting used to the defensive systems. Last year we had the best defense in the league conceding just 15 points a game, now we're close to 22. Need to fix that quickly or we'll be badly exposed.
jezzer wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 8:45 am
Surprised so many on here think the Baird incident was an act of foul play. I thought the ref team got it right.
All three players are converging on the ball at full speed. All have eyes on the ball. Abrahams actually flicks his eyes towards Baird as they're getting closer and Baird is still on the ground. Then Baird leaps, with his knee out to protect himself (something that could have made the collision even worse if Abrahams had been on a slightly different line). All three players are going for the ball and all of them are committed. That Baird gets knocked off his trajectory and lands horribly is more a function of his decision to jump in the first place than any coming together.
It's a pure "rugby incident", which is a stupid phrase when you consider the injury to Baird and what might have been for Abrahams if he got Baird's knee to the temple.
I agree that it wasn't foul play. I think that why people think it was is that over the last couple of years 'rugby incidents' have been referreed almost entirely on an 'outcome' basis rather than on the act itself, we've become used to that approach and it has coloured our thinking as to what constitutes foul play. Since the start of the summer I think that World Rugby are trying to rebalance that equation between the act and the outcome.
I thought the 2 players competing for the ball was a fair contest but the player who took out Baird never left the ground and wasn't jumping, his only contribution to the incident was taking out Ryan. I was very surprised he wasn't carded If you take out a player in the air and never leave the ground you're on thin ice.
The jumping player/s do so at the last second and it's by no means a given that anybody has to jump. Abrahams isn't somehow obliged to jump, he obviously calculated he would reach it at ground level. Everyone's watching the ball, everyone converges and Baird in the air ends up tipping over.
It's very different to your classic box kick scenario where a high ball is hung up over the head of the three quarter. The three quarter takes his/her fully-expected running jump up to claim the ball and an opposition player on the kickchase just ploughs though the clearly visible jumping player for having mistimed their catch attempt. That's foul play all day. The Baird incident was just three guys going for the same ball. Sure one guy chose not to jump last second but it's not like the laws oblige him to if he's 100% going for the ball.
The jumping player/s do so at the last second and it's by no means a given that anybody has to jump. Abrahams isn't somehow obliged to jump, he obviously calculated he would reach it at ground level. Everyone's watching the ball, everyone converges and Baird in the air ends up tipping over.
It's very different to your classic box kick scenario where a high ball is hung up over the head of the three quarter. The three quarter takes his/her fully-expected running jump up to claim the ball and an opposition player on the kickchase just ploughs though the clearly visible jumping player for having mistimed their catch attempt. That's foul play all day. The Baird incident was just three guys going for the same ball. Sure one guy chose not to jump last second but it's not like the laws oblige him to if he's 100% going for the ball.
Anyway, to each their own interpretation.
He's not obliged to jump.
He is obliged if he doesn't jump to have a duty of care for the person in the air and not do anything reckless.
It is the same as a box kick scenario. If you don't jump you can't just crash into someone who has jumped.
I've given the Lowe example above. Remember Jared Payne against Sarries also?
I wish I could share the screenshot of the three players just as Baird leaves the ground. (Dunno how to save it in the cloud so as to get a usable link to paste.)
They're all fully committed, at full tilt and within about 1 metre of each other, looking at the ball. There was no room or time to think about duties of care. Baird almost takes Abrahams head off with his forward knee. He's the person displaying the greatest "lack of duty of care" in that sense, if we're reffing process and not outcome.
But in reality it's just a play on the ball where nobody wanted to pull out and all three took the consequences.
