Match Thread

[Neils]

Alfie Barbeary's army defy the odds to give Wasps win over Toulouse https://mol.im/a/10406787 via https://dailym.ai/android

[backdoc]

Firstly great team effort, we definitely got a good team ethos.

Biyi Alo was brilliant, what an improvement from him.

Jacob was a yellow, I saw enough mitigation for it to be a yellow. Jacob’s knees are so bent. The Toulouse player hits Jacob in the head not the other way round. How does Jacob get his head out of the way. I hope we challenge the ref card

I couldn’t believe no one mentioned Umaga’s bent knees. The other incident saw the guy use his shoulder not his head. Umaga got "done" by the awkwardness of what happened in a split second, he did his best to move his head. The other guy had a bit more "thinking" time to prepare his technique, so for me was worse. If they’d both been red it would’ve been easier to accept.

Beasties, the photo in the Times is the moment of impact. Jacob's head is turned to the right, and the Toulouse player's nose is squashed!
Jacob's left knee is bent 110º, his right probably 75º [0º is dead straight]. Too high is then all about whether you can bend at the waist and at that speed you can't.

[Mellie]

I didn't think Jacob was attempting a tackle at all but pulling out of it due to Charlie's tackle catapulting the player towards him.

Commentators said he lead with the wrong shoulder. That may have been because he was turning his back to take avoiding action to protect himself from the Toulouse player's head.

It certainly had no element of an attempted dominant tackle, unlike the later incident with Alfie, so should be appealed.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

I didn't think Jacob was attempting a tackle at all but pulling out of it due to Charlie's tackle catapulting the player towards him.

Commentators said he lead with the wrong shoulder. That may have been because he was turning his back to take avoiding action to protect himself from the Toulouse player's head.

It certainly had no element of an attempted dominant tackle, unlike the later incident with Alfie, so should be appealed.

That's an interesting take and does explain Jacob's body position. The problem is that Jacob has form when it comes to poor tackle technique so he's unlikely to get the benefit of doubt.

[Marlow Nick]

As I understand it World Rugby deliberately removed any reference to intent in the red card protocol for head on head collisions. It's hard enough being a ref without having to guess what the player ws thinking. All players at all times have a duty of care to others. I agree it looks like Jacob may have been trying to pull out or at least changed his position too late but that's not a question fir the referee. The protocol asks, did he make contact? Was it with force? Did the other player's movements contribute and therefore give some mitigation?

Jacob hit his head with some force so the only relevant question is if the ball carrier suddenly changed direction or height.

[DGP Wasp]

The thing that I always find baffling about the way head on head collisions are viewed is that there appears to be an automatic assumption that blame for the collision must always lie solely with the tackler and not the ball carrier.  Not saying it was the case in this instance, but simply having a rugby ball in their hands doesn't make a player incapable of a reckless action that could endanger a defending player.  Tacklers are encouraged to get lower, but if the ball carrier goes equally low, then where does that leave the tackler?

[St Bruno]

DGP,
Very good point.
Also, from what I've seen, the only force is coming from the tackled player and not from Jacob.

[Westy68]

Anyone got any idea if we are appealing the red card or when the hearing will be

[Neils]

Hearing will be either Tuesday or Wednesday.  From Lee's Comments after the match it didn't sound as if we were going to contest it but that could be a front.

[Nigel Med]

The thing that I always find baffling about the way head on head collisions are viewed is that there appears to be an automatic assumption that blame for the collision must always lie solely with the tackler and not the ball carrier.  Not saying it was the case in this instance, but simply having a rugby ball in their hands doesn't make a player incapable of a reckless action that could endanger a defending player.  Tacklers are encouraged to get lower, but if the ball carrier goes equally low, then where does that leave the tackler?

Totally agree. Whilst Jacob's technique needs to improve, no argument there, there is precisely zero force coming from him, it's all from the ball carrier. I was tempted to post a decidedly flippant and sarcastic message along the lines of;- "Professional Rugby Coaches at training: Right, forget everything we've taught you about ball retention and body position when you're tackled, we want you to head-butt the nearest player. We've discussed it with our lawyers and it would amount to assault if you did it anywhere else but according to the IRB it will be the other player at fault and he'll be sent off and banned". Not suggesting for a second that this describes what happened on Saturday but with the way that collisions are being officiated it's not too much of a leap to think that players might be encouraged to look for head contact when they are tackled. Hate to be cynical but coaches always look to gain any advantage. The lawmakers need to consider exactly which player is being reckless in any collision. Just because someone is holding a rugby ball shouldn't mean they can get away with idiotic and dangerous behaviour.