Gallagher Premiership - Round 3

First topic message reminder :

Friday 14th September

19:45 Gloucester v Bristol (BT Sport)


Saturday 15th September

15:00 Exeter v Sale
15:00 Harlequins v Bath (BT Sport)
15:00 Northampton v Saracens
15:00 Worcester v Newcastle


Sunday 16th September

15:00 Wasps v Leicester (BT Sport)



Gloucester and Exeter should be far too strong for Bristol and Sale and should both secure TBP wins.
Quins were good against Sale, poor against Saints. Bath were woeful in week 1 and only started playing after 35 minutes in week 2. If Quins are indeed making progress under Gustard they have to put Bath away with some ease.
My gut feel says that Saints are improved this season and should not suffer yet another thrashing from Sarries (4 last season?). Though still looking to shake of the early season rustiness, the champs should however secure an away win.
The two teams at the bottom meet at Sixways. Newcastle should be stronger but will be nervous as while not a must win game, with the fixtures both sides face in the following two weeks a win would be very useful.
Even at full strength, the Wasps pack does not look the strongest. With the injuries they currently face usually Leicester would travel down the M69 with some confidence. However without a miraculous improvement in the defense Tigers could have a new bumhole ripped for them by the Wasps backline.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Howler being mays 2nd?

Not stopping the quick conversion and then reviewing the final pass was certainly a howler. Whether it would have been overturned not sure, looked forward to me but then so did some of the actions in a previous Wasps try.


I suspect we will always discuss refs, and in free flowing games there are more chances for perceived errors. Personally I do not feel that globally the standards of reffing are at a high, but I would say that the standards in the Pro14 are probably worse than in the GP.

Cracking game yesterday, real threat from bo0th sides with Bassett and Ford having very good games.

Cole's "tackle" was a yellow all day long, real cheap shot and very lucky to get away with that one. Spencer's was harsh.......but he went in with no arms and it was shoulder to the head, ref went with the directive and he got a red. It's not something I'd personally agree with like many others, but you can see why he got red.

Credit to Tigers for sticking in the game and almost getting the win.

Sarge,

I found the reasoning behind not sanctioning Cole very odd. Of course if he had dealt with Cole he would also have to deal with Johnson who ran in from 10m away and punched Cole with sufficient force to draw blood. Ref seemed to be blaming Robson for creating the situation by ignoring his instruction that he was in front of the mark which is a little bit strange to say the least.

Very much so. I think he was insinuating that he'd blew the whistle so everything was ok.

LondonTiger wrote:Sarge,

I found the reasoning behind not sanctioning Cole very odd. Of course if he had dealt with Cole he would also have to deal with Johnson who ran in from 10m away and punched Cole with sufficient force to draw blood. Ref seemed to be blaming Robson for creating the situation by ignoring his instruction that he was in front of the mark which is a little bit strange to say the least.

I was confused by the referee's logic.  He seemed to be saying that it was not a late tackle because the ball was not in play after he had blown the whistle.  On that basis it was a hit after the whistle had gone which is also foul play.

Essentially the only time when it is legal to tackle a player is if the ball is in play AND the tackled player has the ball. Neither applied in this case and there was not much use of the arms either.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Cracking game yesterday, real threat from bo0th sides with Bassett and Ford having very good games.

Cole's "tackle" was a yellow all day long, real cheap shot and very lucky to get away with that one. Spencer's was harsh.......but he went in with no arms and it was shoulder to the head, ref went with the directive and he got a red. It's not something I'd personally agree with like many others, but you can see why he got red.

Credit to Tigers for sticking in the game and almost getting the win.

There was plenty of arms in the Spencer tackle. Perfectly legal tackle until Taylor ducks in to the contact. Then it's contact on the head and instant red. A number of Tigers fans on the offy are very annoyed by the swinging arm high tackle from Gaskell on Thompson that wasn't looked at. If we're going to be zero tolerance then it should be consistent. There was a blatant Thompson seat belt tackle on Johnson in the second half that BT showed replays of that the TMO didn't even mention despite Wasps losing possession in the next phase.

Cole was lucky because it's a late hit. There's a clear step after Robson passes where he could pull out instead he makes sure he puts a big hit in with minimum shoulder use. He was perfectly entitled to tackle Robson as Robson was attempting to go quickly and Cole was onside. Cole just wasn't quick enough to get there legally. Turned out to be a bit of a master stroke because it knocked Robson right out of his stride and there were no more quick taps.

I did find it odd that neither the ref nor the TMO were in the least bit interested in Johnson running in for retaliation, he ran at least 10m to get involved in something that's nothing to do with him and that caused the pile in. Seen penalties reversed for similar.

Its good to see a number of the England hopefuls really staking some claims. And a few of the starting England lads seem to be finding some form.

Lets just hope Eddie doesn't smash it out of them...

They have an England training camp in a couple of weeks

Yeah that's the worrying thing LT....

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Cracking game yesterday, real threat from bo0th sides with Bassett and Ford having very good games.

Cole's "tackle" was a yellow all day long, real cheap shot and very lucky to get away with that one. Spencer's was harsh.......but he went in with no arms and it was shoulder to the head, ref went with the directive and he got a red. It's not something I'd personally agree with like many others, but you can see why he got red.

Credit to Tigers for sticking in the game and almost getting the win.

There was plenty of arms in the Spencer tackle. Perfectly legal tackle until Taylor ducks in to the contact. Then it's contact on the head and instant red. A number of Tigers fans on the offy are very annoyed by the swinging arm high tackle from Gaskell on Thompson that wasn't looked at. If we're going to be zero tolerance then it should be consistent. There was a blatant Thompson seat belt tackle on Johnson in the second half that BT showed replays of that the TMO didn't even mention despite Wasps losing possession in the next phase.

Cole was lucky because it's a late hit. There's a clear step after Robson passes where he could pull out instead he makes sure he puts a big hit in with minimum shoulder use. He was perfectly entitled to tackle Robson as Robson was attempting to go quickly and Cole was onside. Cole just wasn't quick enough to get there legally. Turned out to be a bit of a master stroke because it knocked Robson right out of his stride and there were no more quick taps.

I did find it odd that neither the ref nor the TMO were in the least bit interested in Johnson running in for retaliation, he ran at least 10m to get involved in something that's nothing to do with him and that caused the pile in. Seen penalties reversed for similar.

I like how Taylor is being blamed for "ducking" into the tackle when he stays at the same height for most of the play. It would be quite impressive to catch a ball, offload and duck all at the same time. Spencer hits him with a shoulder to the head.......that's the jist of it. His arms are never wrapped, he makes a half hearted attempt when Taylor is falling to the ground.

I know you're rather one eyed, but you can't seriously suggest that Taylor was in any way to blame for that??

If you watch the incident on slomo, Spencer actually starts lower and gets higher as he makes contact....no excuse imo.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

If you watch the incident on slomo, Spencer actually starts lower and gets higher as he makes contact....no excuse imo.

Agree. Given the rule is its now a high tackle if its above the nipple, this was always going to be a high tackle. It was made worse by the fact that Taylor dipped, which is the natural motion when passing the ball to generate power through the hips.

Nevertheless, this rule really shouldn't be in place as there has to be some allowance for taller players. The difficulty is that if they introduce a common sense approach, the officiating will become inconsistent.

On a related note, I think its the Eggchasers podcast who have highlighted that the smaller players seem to get away with high shots on a regular basis.

HongKongCherry wrote:
Given the rule is its now a high tackle if its above the nipple, this was always going to be a high tackle.

I thought that was only trialed in the JWC and now in the Championship Cup - not in place for all other rugby yet.

Other than Spencer is taller, the incident is, for me, awfully similar to the George Smith one from last week (again noting that Wray is taller than Taylor), with initial contact just appearing to be with the shoulder. Will be interesting to see what the disciplinary panel make of it.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Cracking game yesterday, real threat from bo0th sides with Bassett and Ford having very good games.

Cole's "tackle" was a yellow all day long, real cheap shot and very lucky to get away with that one. Spencer's was harsh.......but he went in with no arms and it was shoulder to the head, ref went with the directive and he got a red. It's not something I'd personally agree with like many others, but you can see why he got red.

Credit to Tigers for sticking in the game and almost getting the win.

There was plenty of arms in the Spencer tackle. Perfectly legal tackle until Taylor ducks in to the contact. Then it's contact on the head and instant red. A number of Tigers fans on the offy are very annoyed by the swinging arm high tackle from Gaskell on Thompson that wasn't looked at. If we're going to be zero tolerance then it should be consistent. There was a blatant Thompson seat belt tackle on Johnson in the second half that BT showed replays of that the TMO didn't even mention despite Wasps losing possession in the next phase.

Cole was lucky because it's a late hit. There's a clear step after Robson passes where he could pull out instead he makes sure he puts a big hit in with minimum shoulder use. He was perfectly entitled to tackle Robson as Robson was attempting to go quickly and Cole was onside. Cole just wasn't quick enough to get there legally. Turned out to be a bit of a master stroke because it knocked Robson right out of his stride and there were no more quick taps.

I did find it odd that neither the ref nor the TMO were in the least bit interested in Johnson running in for retaliation, he ran at least 10m to get involved in something that's nothing to do with him and that caused the pile in. Seen penalties reversed for similar.

I like how Taylor is being blamed for "ducking" into the tackle when he stays at the same height for most of the play. It would be quite impressive to catch a ball, offload and duck all at the same time. Spencer hits him with a shoulder to the head.......that's the jist of it. His arms are never wrapped, he makes a half hearted attempt when Taylor is falling to the ground.

I know you're rather one eyed, but you can't seriously suggest that Taylor was in any way to blame for that??

If you watch the incident on slomo, Spencer actually starts lower and gets higher as he makes contact....no excuse imo.

He turns passed and drops his shoulder anticipating the hit. He drops quite a bit before the contact. It's not about blame, Taylor is trying to get a shoulder to shoulder contact and save his ribs. Understandable. He drops too quickly and Spencer is head down making the tackle, there's also plenty of arms as well as a big shoulder.

It's not about blame it's about understanding the situation. Red cards are supposed to be for violent play not for a player trying to make a legal tackle who gets caught out by a player moving before the contact.

As for rising in the tackle, that how I was taught to tackle. Start low and drive up into the hit because it breaks the balance of the ball carrier and makes the tackle completion easier. It also makes it harder for the ball carrier to hand you off.

Games changing. The rules are there to encourage players to tackle lower.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Games changing.  The rules are there to encourage players to tackle lower.

I didn't say it wasn't a penalty and yellow card. Duty of care after all.

Red is fine. It was dangerous. Tackle lower and you won't get sent off. Players need to get the message.

It's one of those you could line up 50 people and 25 will day yellow and 25 red.

https://www.englandrugby.com/ertv/video/george-smith-bristol-bears-red-card/?spMailingID=4098040&spUserID=MzQ1MTY5MTM2MTYS1&spJobID=1110599933&spReportId=MTExMDU5OTkzMwS2

My feeling, admitting I am biased, is that the red card was on the harsh side - but fully accept that it comes down to interpretation.

Still feel that Smith's challenge last week was worse even if the panel did let him off. Smith persuaded them it was legal, yet it is borderline where contact was made first and it was far more "violent" a contact leading to concussion for Jackson Wray.

As above the greater concern was that Taylor was given a test was he?

No 7&1/2 wrote:As above the greater concern was that Taylor was given a test was he?

I do not believe any HIA was made on Taylor - though it may have been done at HT.

mid_gen wrote:Red is fine. It was dangerous. Tackle lower and you won't get sent off. Players need to get the message.

The argument is that it was an attempted legal tackle. He doesn't start high. Taylor's backside finishes in line with his knee as he ducks into the tackle. That's a significant drop in height as the player enters contact.

The rules regarding contact with the head were meant to discourage the swinging arm desperation cover tackle or the rugby league high shoulder style tackle. Those types of tackles where the tackler makes no attempt to bend and make a legal tackle and where significant force is placing the ball carriers head at risk.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Red is fine. It was dangerous. Tackle lower and you won't get sent off. Players need to get the message.

The argument is that it was an attempted legal tackle. He doesn't start high. Taylor's backside finishes in line with his knee as he ducks into the tackle. That's a significant drop in height as the player enters contact.

The rules regarding contact with the head were meant to discourage the swinging arm desperation cover tackle or the rugby league high shoulder style tackle. Those types of tackles where the tackler makes no attempt to bend and make a legal tackle and where significant force is placing the ball carriers head at risk.

Mid_gen, you cannot change your body position that quick, when Taylor came into the tackle he was face on, in the last half yard he dropped and turned through 90 degrees putting himself in danger. Spencer was set for the tackle of a man running in to the collision 9" higher.

I agree with fkas, the law change was to stop the swinging arm and the like, tackles that had the potential to seriously hurt someone, getting pinged and carded for putting your arms over the ball carriers shoulder when both running in the same direction and therefore offering no trauma to the head of neck is plain daft.

If you haven't seen it, Alan Quinlan talks about this incident on Off The Ball. He's not impressed with the idea the game has gone too PC, or that big players can't tackle lower.

Mr 51 weeks banned poacher turned game keeper I see.

Off the ball? Not seen it before but that show needs some editing. Quinlan seems like he’s on Mogadon.

[quote="WELL-PAST-IT"][quote="formerly known as Sam"][quote="mid_gen"]Red is fine. It was dangerous. Tackle lower and you won't get sent off. Players need to get the message.[/quote]

The argument is that it was an attempted legal tackle. He doesn't start high. Taylor's backside finishes in line with his knee as he ducks into the tackle. That's a significant drop in height as the player enters contact.

The rules regarding contact with the head were meant to discourage the swinging arm desperation cover tackle or the rugby league high shoulder style tackle. Those types of tackles where the tackler makes no attempt to bend and make a legal tackle and where significant force is placing the ball carriers head at risk.[/quote]

Mid_gen, you cannot change your body position that quick, when Taylor came into the tackle he was face on, in the last half yard he dropped and turned through 90 degrees putting himself in danger. Spencer was set for the tackle of a man running in to the collision 9" higher.

I agree with fkas, the law change was to stop the swinging arm and the like, tackles that had the potential to seriously hurt someone, getting pinged and carded for putting your arms over the ball carriers shoulder when both running in the same direction and therefore offering no trauma to the head of neck is plain daft.[/quote]

Sorry, but firstly I disagree that he was dropping , and secondly it's no excuse. If you're 6'10" and a small guy is running at you, you can't just dip your shoulder a couple of inches and hope you don't take his head off. If anything, Spencer is rapidly lifting his shoulders in an attempt to get the big hit in, it was clumsy and reckless and a well deserved red.

The rule is correct and it's there to protect the players and ultimately the sport. The sooner players stop risking those big standup borderline high hits, the sooner we can stop having red cards spoiling matches.

Spencer found guilty and banned for four weeks. While I can accept that, acquitting George Smith last week for a challenge that made more contact to the head, was far more physical and was a smaller man driving upwards into a bigger man really grates.

I'm not surprised LT you're frustrated with that decision. The sensible decision would have been to have the same panel adjudicate as those that saw Smith and therefore a bit of consistency with the decision. I'm still amazed Smith got off, as you rightly point out it was definitely worse. I agree with Spencer's red, but unlike Smith, he wasn't attempting to smash the living daylights out of Taylor.

On a different note, its interesting to see the stats for their actual height. Spencer is 6'7" and Taylor 6'2". It does suggest Spencer was always going high.

Wiki has Taylor at 6ft2 but Wasps website appears to have Taylor at 6ft. I'd say both look like they are overstating him, that or Tigers are understating Spencer at 6ft7.

I think this one is down to stupidity from the Tigers legal team sadly. We apparently tried to argue that contact only occurred with the top of the shoulder and not the head. That was optimistic at best as was the not guilty plea. We should have advised him to plead guilty and then argue mitigation down to yellow card. Initial contact clips shoulder on way to head and sudden drop in ball carrier height. He would have had a further reduction in his sanction had he plead guilty.

And the ref has his redemption.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And the ref has his redemption.

Hardly it was a shockingly bad game from the ref.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/spencers-high-tackle-red-card

Murphy having had a chance to cool off and think about it, now being a lot more circumspect about the incident.

Good to see he realises that what he said at the time was wrong, fair play.

Yeah of the moment stuff.

Have to agree though, rugby is in a mess. 5 weeks for an intential act of could play (forearm smash to a prone player) and 4 weeks for a unintential tackle

And yet on reflection welly he got most of the decision s correct.

Yea the ban makes little sense globally, when you see Bastaroud get a 5 week ban for a deliberate late hit and then a cheap forearm smash to the head of the same opponent when he's on the floor. World rugby need to look at the whole system.

Very true. You do see a few short bans in France and a few too many convenient bans when it comes to internationals.

Yea they don't even try to hide it now. It's odd that world rugby never say anything though.

The big match up is coming........

Going well at welford road then