England v Argentina - 09.00 GMT, 05/10/19 - Match thread

[BamBam]

First topic message reminder :

England: 15. Elliot Daly; 14. Anthony Watson, 13. Manu Tuilagi, 12. Owen Farrell (c), 11. Jonny May; 10. George Ford, 9. Ben Youngs; 1. Joe Marler, 2. Jamie George, 3. Kyle Sinckler; 4. Maro Itoje, 5. George Kruis; 6. Tom Curry, 7. Sam Underhill, 8. Billy Vunipola.

Replacements: 16. Luke Cowan-Dickie, 17. Mako Vunipola, 18. Dan Cole, 19. Courtney Lawes, 20. Lewis Ludlam, 21. Willi Heinz, 22. Henry Slade, 23. Jack Nowell.

Argentina: 15. Emiliano Boffelli, 14. Matías Moroni, 13. Matias Orlando, 12. Jeronimo de la Fuente, 11. Santiago Carreras, 10. Benjamin Urdapilleta, 9. Tomas Cubelli, 8. Javier Ortega Desio, 7. Marcos Kremer, 6. Pablo Matera (c), 5. Tomas Lavanini, 4. Guido Petti Pagadizabal, 3. Juan Figallo, 2. Julian Montoya, 1. Nahuel Tetaz Chaparro

Replacements: 16. Agustín Creevy, 17. Mayco Vivas, 18. Santiago Medrano, 19. Matias Alemanno, 20. Tomas Lezana, 21. Felipe Ezcurra, 22. Lucas Mensa, 23. Bautista Delguy

Thought it was time for a match thread

[Rugby Fan]

...There’s too great an amount of bad luck in these red card events...

It's funny, an another rugby site we both read, I made exactly that point, and got called a NZ-hater when I said even the All Blacks would start getting reds under the new law interpretations. It's pleasing to see a New Zealand supporter finally agreeing with me.

[Taylorman]

...There’s too great an amount of bad luck in these red card events...

It's funny, an another rugby site we both read, I made exactly that point, and got called a NZ-hater when I said even the All Blacks would start getting reds under the new law interpretations. It's pleasing to see a New Zealand supporter finally agreeing with me.

Yeah for me it’s just the sudden swing with the rule and it’s interpretation. Head? Red. Is all it takes.

We’ll get them alright because with our winning percentage, we stop more players than anyone else from scoring. We will have more instances where that line could be crossed. I think the ABs already have 14 man game plan scenarios depending on who goes off. They all should but it’s like the ABs to cater for every eventuality. Scrums, lineouts, defensive setups, where to best hide that missing player. If it’s a prop, they’ll do this, a wing, they’ll do that.

[Guest]

We’ll get them alright because with our winning percentage

Or because of tackling/shoulder charging people in the head. One of the two. I mean, one of those things seems more important than the other when it comes to getting red cards. Not sure which. But, probably one of the two...

[Taylorman]

That goes without saying, I’m referring to the frequency we get put in those positions and don’t yield. How we stop players becomes paramount.

Personally I think the AB way of managing these are to have a 14 player game plan thoroughly worked out. All part of the just get on with it attitude.

The players know they shouldn’t do it, some are better than others, some have poor technique etc etc. we aren’t unique in that way.

But if it happens, you have x minutes left to win the test.

[Guest]

That goes without saying, I’m referring to the frequency we get put in those positions and don’t yield. How we stop players becomes paramount.

You're overthinking it and trying to fit a narrative to the circumstances. Reality is, All Blacks don't 'yield' because they're good, first of all, but ultimately it's also because they push the boundaries of legality beyond what most tier 1 nations will by nature. Hence receiving more red cards than most tier 1 teams for such infringements. Seems to me the attitude is it's an acceptable sacrifice to make to maintain standards of competitiveness - as it's always been. The issue now is that cynical penaltie and the odd yellow don't compare to how damaging a red card can be, and so, instead of adapting, the solution is always to look in to changing the laws. Nothing new, and you hear it from Kiwis every time this happens. It's just another, off field facet of doing what it takes to stay on top. All the pseudo-machismo and ref intimidation is all part of that as well - and is nothing new, as we saw with Umaga in 2003, and ofc goes much further back. 'Stopping players' begins long before the Haka for NZ. Ultimately, on this issue, it's pretty cut and dry - players are responsible for their tackles. If ABs or any other team can't adapt and change their game accordingly, you'd hope they keep getting red cards. Those are the laws. It's not arbitrary. The game is different to what it was even 10 years ago. Go and speak to Shontayne Hape if you want to understand why.

[Guest]

And just to clarify, unfortunately, so far, Oz and NZ keep getting away with cheap, off the ball stuff, and high tackles. Australia were fortunate against Wales, despite the furore, and again yesterday. ABs bad against the Boks, and again, fortunate not the receive a red this morning.

[No 7&1/2]

Twisted ankle for billy vunipola. Doesn't sound that serious.

[Taylorman]

That goes without saying, I’m referring to the frequency we get put in those positions and don’t yield. How we stop players becomes paramount.

You're overthinking it and trying to fit a narrative to the circumstances. Reality is, All Blacks don't 'yield' because they're good, first of all, but ultimately it's also because they push the boundaries of legality beyond what most tier 1 nations will by nature. Hence receiving more red cards than most tier 1 teams for such infringements. Seems to me the attitude is it's an acceptable sacrifice to make to maintain standards of competitiveness - as it's always been. The issue now is that cynical penaltie and the odd yellow don't compare to how damaging a red card can be, and so, instead of adapting, the solution is always to look in to changing the laws. Nothing new, and you hear it from Kiwis every time this happens. It's just another, off field facet of doing what it takes to stay on top. All the pseudo-machismo and ref intimidation is all part of that as well - and is nothing new, as we saw with Umaga in 2003, and ofc goes much further back. 'Stopping players' begins long before the Haka for NZ. Ultimately, on this issue, it's pretty cut and dry - players are responsible for their tackles. If ABs or any other team can't adapt and change their game accordingly, you'd hope they keep getting red cards. Those are the laws. It's not arbitrary. The game is different to what it was even 10 years ago. Go and speak to Shontayne Hape if you want to understand why.

Aha. I write a sentence and you write War and Peace and I’m over thinking it?

Wrong again. We will continue to lead in this area because we let less through. Where one side will let a player through we would be fractionally less likely to. We’ll have someone in the way. Simple logic. We are no more or less likely to do this than anyone else...we haven’t been red carded here yet. But once again today showed how poor the rules are. Two tackles involved the head a meter off the ground. When the head is the first thing that is closest to you what do you do? Go around? Under? Players are going to be diving forward head first after a while. The ‘treasure’ of the red card too enticing not to.

And if you can’t see this tournament is already being ruined by the cards then perhaps we’ll just wait until that happens to your side/s. Then watch the syllables fly. Entirely predictable fare.

[No 7&1/2]

Just watched the match. The fact both players being tackled were low meant the cards weren't red. Really poor technique in both instances.

[robbo277]

So France squeak through against Tonga. I saw the first half and France looked fairly comfortable?

Park any talk of an easier draw finishing second, we should be going to win and win handsomely. That being said, we can afford to rest any players with knocks (Marler, Vunipola) and look to rehabilitate Mako, Nowell and Slade some more. We can effectively tailor their involvement more to their needs than the teams needs. Should we aim to start them all?

Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis, Curry, Underhill, Wilson, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Slade, Nowell, Daly
Cowan-Dickie, Genge, Cole, Lawes, Ludlam, Heinz, Tuilagi, Watson

Marler and Billy on the treatment table. Singleton, Launchbury, Francis, Joseph, Cokanasiga and McConnochie possibly on pads for the rest of the tournament unless there are any more injuries.

[lostinwales]

Fact is that, especially with Mako fit, we have carriers who can take up the slack from Billy being absent.

He's not been on great form anyway to be honest.

[Guest]

Aha. I write a sentence and you write War and Peace and I’m over thinking it?

Yep. I'm bang on correct and, deep down, you know it.

When the head is the first thing that is closest to you what do you do? Go around? Under? Players are going to be diving forward head first after a while. The ‘treasure’ of the red card too enticing not to.

1. That's what the rest of the world has been working out for the last few years. Keep up. Adapt or die.
2. That's literally never going to happen. Not only is it dangerous - again, talk to Shontayne Hape, or do you always just ignore the strongest points everyone makes because you're a bit of an intellectual coward? - but, selfishly, a player is likely to go off with an HIA if that happened. No player is going to want that. Your 'hypothetical' is crazy and irrelevant. The fact you think that's possible means you're living in fantasy land, genuinely.

And if you can’t see this tournament is already being ruined by the cards then perhaps we’ll just wait until that happens to your side/s. Then watch the syllables fly. Entirely predictable fare.

Wrong again. How can you keep being so wrong? It's embarrassing, really. Foul play ruins tournaments/games - bad officiating ruins games. Cards don't. They change it as a contest, yes. But they're a consequence of action. You haven't grasped that there are consequences to high tackles now - something, again, that's not entirely your fault, as you come across like a victim of your country's media more than anything else. But no. Red cards aren't ruining tournaments. The 3 (?) red cards handed out so far have been totally fair and dangerous play. Spear tackle; two head high 'shots'. Could have been plenty more yellow cards for the antipodeans as well. Wales did learn, they were on the rough end of a red card 8 years ago, and, surprise, surprise, adapted their game.

As I said, NZ need to adapt to the laws. Every time they fall foul of them, it's the laws that are the problem. Swinging arms to the head - twice in this game. Very lucky not to get red cards. Same issue with Australia. Adapt or die.

[Taylorman]

I’m only wrong it your eyes, which gives comfort that Im right. I mean, you support Wales. 31 straight losses and counting. They weren’t lucky not to be reds. The rule is clear, they were going down, max yellow. A meter off the ground, easy decisions.

Things have a way of sorting out, and we’ll just keep hearing your know it all rubbish until the real rugby starts, then watch the floodgate of moaning.

Happened last tournament, geez that was painful.

[Rugby Fan]

Yes, especially when it’s the other side getting the reds. Wait till it’s yours, then we’ll see the crying.

You've misjudged the audience here. Perhaps the All Blacks spent so long not being awarded on-field red cards, that the effect of them has never sunk in for their supporters until now. The rest of the rugby world has lived with this truth for years. Not only at Test level but regularly at club level. Just ask Danny Cipriani.

Like New Zealand, England have two red carded players in their squad. Daly got one against Argentina for a tip tackle, while Launchbury was cited and sanctioned after the match for reckless play (he fly-hacked at the ball and kicked a head). New Zealand might have had two more: if Malakai Fekitoa had stuck around to compete for a squad spot, or Sam Cane's illegal tackle in Dublin been judged more harshly.

Think of that for a moment. New Zealand hadn't seen a Test red card since Colin Meads in 1967 but might have gone into this World Cup with four red-carded players. And yet I've hardly ever seen any media reflection on All Black discipline. You will more likely see talk of terrible refs and poor process.

Perhaps a side which has prided itself on "taking the referee out of the equation" will keep playing close to the edge, in the expectation that it can survive a red card. England survived Daly's early red card, while New Zealand almost beat the Lions with 14 men. Against top teams teams like NZ, Wales, Ireland, and Australia, England need all 15 men, so our emphasis has been on warning players to avoid red cards. If we get it wrong, I'll be devastated, but not because the laws are at fault.

[Taylorman]

I don’t think it’s the period between the meads and SBW reds though, it the last two to three years that reds have stepped up. There was concern pre World Cup two things might blight this tournament, refs and reds. Both have realised so far. This was not the case four years ago. The under 20s got hit and now this tournament is.

So far the ABs have taken the ref out of the game and we are no worse than anyone else so far. But this tournament hasn’t even started. Quarters is where it matters and those that don’t qualify aren’t good enough to win it anyway. In terms of winning this Pool play is a way of clearing the wood for the trees.

Ref talk is purely academic at the moment. The real impact is what happens knockouts, and I think the ABs will already have 14 man strategies thoroughly sorted. Everyone should, the chances of at least one red come knockouts is high.

[Guest]

I’m only wrong it your eyes, which gives comfort that Im right. I mean, you support Wales.

I struggle to believe you are personally successful in anything you do with that mindset. No way does that translate to growth. You're a total bigot, right down to your core. Everything you write is thinly veiled bigtory because you want to get a kick from this website - a NH based rugby forum. Haha. Jeez. It's so pathetic.

You don't seem to understand people are individuals, and just because you've got unhealthy psychological boundaries between yourself and...errrrrr...a sports team...!?!...the team we supports means literally next to nothing in terms of merit of opinion, as well as anything else. For starters, you don't even seem to have a solid understanding of the basics of rugby. You literally never contribute anything beyond vague references to style. That's about as good as it gets from you. Dunning Kruger effect in action.

You're the worst poster on this site, WUMs included. You literally want to take personal credit for, and ego boost from, and fraternity with SH coaches' personal success - not realising that there are attributes like a growth mindset, and, you know, not being a bigot that are pre-requisites for both stepping outside a comfort zone, and succeeding in a new environment. You have literally nothing in common with someone like Jamie Joseph. Nothing. Maybe you had similar upbringings, maybe there are some threads of similarity that, once, made you similar - yet look at him and look at you. Look at the vast, vast difference. Weird and sad that, for whatever reason, all the last 2 years of your bitterness comes down to is thinking you're better than all of us on here because...wait for it...the sports team you follow and where you live. Rugby's become your Brexit - bigotry instead of dealing with reality. No idea why, but I cba with you anymore. Your issues are you own - if you can't face looking inside yourself and realising what personal failure or unfulfillment is leading to this need to literally show off like a child in front of strangers on the internet, it's no excuse to just keep p1ssing in the collective pool. You drag every topic down - blocking you would be pointless. You NEED to feel superior to us - and if you don't get your fix on a Kiwi thread, you'll come looking until you can find one where you can. Sad, sad, sad.

Bore off and take your views elsewhere. It's a bad enough world cup having to listen to the Australians whine and b1tch like brats at every media opportunity, don't need to have the same thing from you on here. The ABs are a great rugby team - you're just a bigot.

[Poorfour]

Ref talk is purely academic at the moment. The real impact is what happens knockouts, and I think the ABs will already have 14 man strategies thoroughly sorted. Everyone should, the chances of at least one red come knockouts is high.  

You talk about that like it’s some sort of magic thing that only the All Blacks do. Every team has 14 man strategies, and have done for ages. England used to spend extended periods playing 11 against 15 as far back as 2003. It’s one of the reasons they actually came out ahead during that famous period of being 13 against 15 in New Zealand.

Not all teams have the fitness to play for an extended period a man down, but most of them do. England did it for 75 minutes against Argentina a couple of years back. Wales effectively do it in the first match of most series due to Warren Gatland’s penchant for picking players who aren’t completely match fit. Argentina held out against England for a decent period after their red card.

Planning for how to handle a card is a standard part of the coaching repertoire. Planning for how to not to commit tackles that incur red cards ought to be, but it seems that some coaching teams are a little slow to catch on.

[Rugby Fan]

I don’t think it’s the period between the meads and SBW reds though, it the last two to three years that reds have stepped up.

No! The tip tackle red goes back to Warburton in 2011. Guess who awarded the card? Allain Rolland. I wonder who is in charge of referees today? Allain Rolland.  

You are only just now noticing the new high tackle framework but the increasing trend to awarding reds for dangerous play has been building for years.

[Guest]

One thing that's noticeable - Umaga coming out with the 'game's gone soft' warning are mirrored in this year's tournament. Can't help but notice it's no surprise that the NH is just as strong this year - not just a resurgent England, but Wales are looking decent, and Ireland are still in with a shot as well. It's all about laying the groundwork to maybe, hopefully, get away with foul play - like Hooper did more then Kerevi against Wales - in those match ups. Trying to 'put a marker down' off the ball, or 'manning up' and tackling around the head. Of making the opposition doubt themselves, play within themselves, and hopefully suffer yellow instead of red. All fine 20 years ago - well, accepted. Not fine anymore. Too much power, too much danger.

Also worth noting England won in 2003, of course. The last 4 years have been troubling for SA, tricky for Oz, and a wake up call for NZ, with 2 losses to Ireland and a drawn Lions series. The success they had in the first half of this decade hasn't been sustained. No surprise there's so much focus on the laws, now - we all now there's nothing new with these directives, that red cards and specific directives have been slowly added for tip tackles 8 years ago, contact in the air 4 years ago, and now tackles this year.

It's all about player safety. It's not just some point scoring thing on the field, or even off it on a forum.

Look at Shontayne Hape.

Look at the concussion issues in the NFL with chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

4 - FOUR - rugby players have died from injuries in France recently.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/nathan-soyeux-dead-fourth-french-rugby-player-dies-nicolas-chauvin-france-a8721256.html

Adapt or die shouldn't mean the opposition. Happy for red cards to 'ruin' games if it means teams now fear the consequence of possibly ruining peoples' lives. The game's changed. Got to grow up and move on.

[Poorfour]

I totally agree, miaow.

Player safety is a critical issue for rugby. Rugby is under scrutiny, especially in the wake of the NFL concussion crisis, and rugby needs to respond or risk declining interest, lawsuits and government intervention.

This isn’t a question of the game going soft. It’s a question of the game self-regulating to take out the actions that are most likely to lead to serious injury. Umaga may feel the game has gone soft, but then Umaga didn’t dislocate his shoulder through a double spear tackle off the ball, did he?

Most countries have got the message, but it seems that a couple of SH ones feel that the laws shouldn’t apply to them.

[TightHEAD]

Players need to man up, this is rugby. If this continues players will duck into tackles to get the opposition sent off, then our sport will be no better than Soccer!

[No 7&1/2]

That's a painfully poor wum even if you've set it up and waited 2 weeks for the punchline.

[No 7&1/2]

I'm intrigued how jones will play next week. Bit of a bonus having no pressure and the ability to mix up his team again should he choose to. No need to go chasing a bonus point either. Presumably he'll start with his favoured team but possibly means he can empty the bench pretty early doors.

[Guest]

To clarify, Poorfour, Umaga's comments about rugby 'not being tiddlywinks' were made in 2003. Just trying to demonstrate that this is line of thought is nothing new, and typically when under threat.

It is a weird tone to the world cup that is souring what's been a great tournament so far. All feels very fake news, with the Australians and Cheika going all-out Trump-esque in the media, and NZ seemingly living in their own media echo chamber. A bit more communication - about the rise in deaths, and the injuries - wouldn't go amiss, but no doubt there's cynicism driving the narratives further up the hierarchy that are designed to keep the commercial machines, particularly the ABs, ticking over.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Debate points, not people. Respect posters who don’t want to read your squabbles.

[quinsforever]

Question...

Opinions on Daly...and would he be in your starting lineup?

no. not a chance if watson, may and nowell are fit

[quinsforever]

Oh, and it was a nailed on red. The standards have been set, and there was no way it wasn't going to be red.

only way its not a red, apparently, is if one is a kiwi supporter.

what i can't figure out is whether thats because they are scared of England?

Dont understand the law changes?

or yearn for a game where scalping opponents with your studs if they are on the wrong side is the only game worth its bacon?

[quinsforever]

Feel a little for Lavanini because he's clearly bent at the waist and Farrell is dropping as he braces for impact. We've seen lots of those not given as red cards, even for England against the USA, Samoa got away with about three the other weekend with two as yellows. Arguably the Samoan ones were worse. With the high tackle witch hunt coming from world rugby as soon as Nigel was told to review, even though he'd already called no foul play twice over the mic in play, you knew he was going to flash the red.

Worries for England, Billy V carrying a niggle and playing at about 75% and Farrell looked really poor. His kicking for goal was awful and as a support runner he was anonymous leaving Ford isolated where he should have been there for the pass.

Youngs looked a little more lively than in previous weeks. All three England flankers looked the business.

Agree, Farrell was clearly dipping.

I'd have liked to see it downgraded to a yellow on that basis. Player is dipping and Lavanini is bending at the waist. Those tackles need to be filtered out but it's the American tackle on Farrell or Hodge on Yato that are the far more dangerous ones that need instant action. Where there's no attempt to bend at the waist and a shoulder is used straight to face.

Sorry Sam, but Lavanini had to go. His challenge was like a more violent version of the one Spencer was sent off for last season for Tigers.

I know Farrells quite a tough little player, or at least he likes to think he is but you’ve gotta wonder how his confidence is going on the ball with the attraction his head seems to be drawing. He’ll likely be up against the ABs who might just throw another his way the way he’s a magnet to them currently.

ah

so its my second and third suggestions

dont know laws

and prefer it dangerous

[quinsforever]

Sure, if you have time to go lower, and, go lower than the player, ie Farrell, does.  That slight dip, made sure it was red, intended or not.

Hey I’m all for not hitting the head in tackles, I just don’t think the current situation is tenable in its current form. The primary goal of player safety is certainly being addressed, but to what trade off?

I’m thinking the increase in regularity will mean the player should be replaced, even if after ten or 20. The safety risk is removed, that goal is met. It might just mean players will just keep getting sent off and replaced regularly until the message, and the techniques, change. That will take time. But it doesn’t need to ruin the game.

Let’s say England lose two players in the first five minutes of the final. Game over, nobody’s gonna bother watching it as a contest, the whole thing finishes in a flop. And that is no less likely than it is for Japan to beat Ireland.

one of the dumbest proposals i have ever read

your plan would be a green light to an enforcer permanently removing a player from the game knowing a red card isnt really a red card for his own team. how long would sexton last?

you need to think a bit more before you post some of this rubbish.

[kingelderfield]

1 number 8?

[Collapse2005]

Sure, if you have time to go lower, and, go lower than the player, ie Farrell, does.  That slight dip, made sure it was red, intended or not.

Hey I’m all for not hitting the head in tackles, I just don’t think the current situation is tenable in its current form. The primary goal of player safety is certainly being addressed, but to what trade off?

I’m thinking the increase in regularity will mean the player should be replaced, even if after ten or 20. The safety risk is removed, that goal is met. It might just mean players will just keep getting sent off and replaced regularly until the message, and the techniques, change. That will take time. But it doesn’t need to ruin the game.

Let’s say England lose two players in the first five minutes of the final. Game over, nobody’s gonna bother watching it as a contest, the whole thing finishes in a flop. And that is no less likely than it is for Japan to beat Ireland.

one of the dumbest proposals i have ever read

your plan would be a green light to an enforcer permanently removing a player from the game knowing a red card isnt really a red card for his own team. how long would sexton last?

you need to think a bit more before you post some of this rubbish.

I think its a good idea, Sexton is targeted in every game as is. They have that sanction in other sports. It could be a permanent replacement and still subject to a ban or you cant replace them for 20 minutes and so they are down to 14 for 20 mins then you can replace them.

Was at the SA v Italy game in Shuzioka. Game was completely ruined by the red. Sucks for fans.

[LondonTiger]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/rwc-2019-japan/116368455/rugby-world-cup-2019-why-the-wallabies-could-be-going-home-early

One section from this:

4. Dinosaurs like Tomas Lavanini should be refereed into extinction

One hopes that the Argentina second-rower was shaking his head at his own stupidity after being sent off against England, not at the decision by referee Nigel Owens.

A shoulder to the head, with that amount of force, is a red card all day long even if Farrell did dip into it a little bit.

Lavanini is a serial offender and for those who moan there is no future in the game for 'that type of player', ask yourself what 'that type of player' is. If his role in the team is going around smashing people with his shoulders – and there is precious little evidence he has developed much beyond this brief – Lavanini has been utterly let down by his coaches.

People say things like, 'Brad Thorn wouldn't survive in today's game' but that's completely wrong. He would have been coached differently and adapted. Tight-five forwards remain an incredibly tough bunch of men, but the good ones have moved with the times.

I cannot agree that teams should be allowed to replace the sent off player. Should it be allowed there will be coaches who select players with the intent of putting an opponent out of the game with an injury (something that used to be rife in NHL).

[SecretFly]

Winning the game is the objective.  Players aren't all saints...in the head.  It doesn't matter what they might say in public, not all of them, when games are in hot mode and emotions are high, are angels

So.... yes, a concentration on tackles that make contact with the head - an obvious visual warning sign for a referee to either just pull a red out quick or certainly go to the TMO to see what he can see.

And if it's robustly - and fairly - used, cheap-shot merchants or naturalised 'enforcer' players will either have to seriously adapt their 'methods' or they'll get red carded out of the game as coaches will be afraid to pick them

But.... that idea of adapting their methods.  Not all players are angels remains unfortunately a true statement.  So they'll try to find other ways of achieving the same objectives - taking important players out of games?

For example - in my mind I see players falling or being twisted awkwardly in breakdown melee situations.  Some parts of their bodies - and not always heads - vulnerable to a final twist that would mean a pretty substantial thigh/hip/shoulder/ankle injury.  Pardon the expression, but to players with malice in mind, such positions are like red flags to a bull.
Now in these circumstances the hits can be legal but still the intent might be to injure the opponent enough that his time on the field is over.  How do you know or establish intent of a legal hit that produces a desired crack, to be brutal about it.

In my opinion, it's the same crime.  It may not be a head, but players with bone-breaking intent in legal moves are for me straight reds too.  But how the hell can you ever establish intent in those circumstances?  "I didn't mean it, sir.  His body was in the wrong position."

[LondonTiger]

Just because it is possible for players to cause horrible injuries legally does not mean we should give a carte blanche to thuggery. If that is not your point then sorry for misunderstanding.

[SecretFly]

It wasn't my point at all. The very opposite. Just because a hit is 'legal' doesn't mean that the intent is not thuggery.

[TightHEAD]

In the old days players policed the game themselves, if you continuously slowed the ball down you were given a shoeing at the next available chance.

The red card yesterday for the Sarries player was over the top, if you are being held you reactions is to get your held body part free.

[SecretFly]

In the old days players policed the game themselves, if you continuously slowed the ball down you were given a shoeing at the next available chance.

The red card yesterday for the Sarries player was over the top, if you are being held you reactions is to get your held body part free.

By inserting it in the mouth of the holder?

What happened? He flung a boot, arm or head?

[TightHEAD]

Its rugby not tiddlywinks.

[Old Man]

I get that World Rugby wants to look after player safety. But currently the law doesn’t take in consideration when players dip.

If the law is below should height, then it stands to reason when a player dips below shoulder height common sense should prevail

It is damn difficult to reset your height as a tackler once you are committed to the tackle.

For those blatantly at shoulder height and above I understand the red card, however there are extenuating circumstances in cases where ball carriers go on the dip.

[Soul Requiem]

I get that World Rugby wants to look after player safety. But currently the law doesn’t take in consideration when players dip.

If the law is below should height, then it stands to reason when a player dips below shoulder height common sense should prevail

It is damn difficult to reset your height as a tackler once you are committed to the tackle.

For those blatantly at shoulder height and above I understand the red card, however there are extenuating circumstances in cases where ball carriers go on the dip.

I think this is taken into account and misinterpreted to some degree by a lot people on here. Lavanini and Quill not only made contact with the head with force but there was very little attempt to wrap the arms something which saved Francis.

[Old Man]

I get that World Rugby wants to look after player safety. But currently the law doesn’t take in consideration when players dip.

If the law is below should height, then it stands to reason when a player dips below shoulder height common sense should prevail

It is damn difficult to reset your height as a tackler once you are committed to the tackle.

For those blatantly at shoulder height and above I understand the red card, however there are extenuating circumstances in cases where ball carriers go on the dip.

I think this is taken into account and misinterpreted to some degree by a lot people on here. Lavanini and Quill not only made contact with the head with force but there was very little attempt to wrap the arms something which saved Francis.

I agree no arms tackles the height isn’t really the first requirement.

The way I see it.

No arms tackle, yellow immediately. There is no place for that kind of tackle. You could debate whether there was an attempt to wrap arms or not.

No arms tackle to the head, red card.

Legal tackle with contact to the head where carrier dips is where I ask for common sense.

[formerly known as Sam]

I get that World Rugby wants to look after player safety. But currently the law doesn’t take in consideration when players dip.

If the law is below should height, then it stands to reason when a player dips below shoulder height common sense should prevail

It is damn difficult to reset your height as a tackler once you are committed to the tackle.

For those blatantly at shoulder height and above I understand the red card, however there are extenuating circumstances in cases where ball carriers go on the dip.

Well one of the annoyances for me currently is that sometimes refs make an allowance for the ball carrier dipping and sometimes they don't. Samoa got away with two yellow cards that had just as much head contact as Lavanini with the mitigation that the player was dipping. They made considerably less effort to lower their tackle height.

Geordan Murphy said it last season after Spencer got sent off for a similar challenge to Lavanini's, you have to look at what the ball carrier does before contact and take that into account, if they don't dip would it be high?

The refs should also consider where the tackling player starts and where he makes the challenge. Does the tackling player bend at the waist. Lavanini was "always high" according to the commentary team and the the TMO at the weekend, he wasn't he made an effort to drop his height into the tackle, there is a good degree of bend at the waist. The kind of tackles that we need to outlaw and really target are those where the tackler makes no effort to bend at the waist and makes contact with the head. That is the dangerous tackling style, see Hodge earlier in the tournament or Polotau-Nau this weekend.

The current interpretation is attempting to offer a black and white solution to something that is shades of grey.

[LondonTiger]

Spencer's was quite different to Lavanini. In a still they look the same, but Spencer was waiting for the player to come to him, while Lavanini was quite deliberately making a violent hit. He lowered and drove upwards with force intending (probably) to intimidate the player. He got it wrong and deserved to walk. He was lucky to get no sanction against Tonga.

[No 7&1/2]

The law does take into account a player dipping; its built into the consideration for the punishment and application. In the Argentina game Owen's does discuss this point and says theres not enough of a dip for mitigation.

[No 7&1/2]

Also got to bear in mind in terms of the ball carrier they will brace for impact or even be changing direction/stepping. Very rarely you'll get someone standing at their full height. It's up to the tackler to adapt to that as well and not be reckless.

[LondonTiger]

The law does take into account a player dipping; its built into the consideration for the punishment and application. In the Argentina game Owen's does discuss this point and says theres not enough of a dip for mitigation.

I would disagree slightly in that they look at the height of the ball carrier to assess mitigation - and can mitigate all the way down to no offence. The two kiwis sin binned at the weekend would have not even conceded a penalty if they had not hit the man with a swinging arm. If as the tackler you are doing everything correctly and there is no reckless behaviour then contact with the head will not be deemed an offence. However as they now start from the top sanction and work down, we will see more players getting cards than previously. However under the new guidelines it is likely that the kind of tackle Spencer did last season would have been a YC as some mitigation for the dip (not enough to save him) combined with a lack of force.

[No 7&1/2]

I agree with that so must have explained my point badly.

[Old Man]

The law does take into account a player dipping; its built into the consideration for the punishment and application. In the Argentina game Owen's does discuss this point and says theres not enough of a dip for mitigation.

I would disagree slightly in that they look at the height of the ball carrier to assess mitigation - and can mitigate all the way down to no offence. The two kiwis sin binned at the weekend would have not even conceded a penalty if they had not hit the man with a swinging arm. If as the tackler you are doing everything correctly and there is no reckless behaviour then contact with the head will not be deemed an offence. However as they now start from the top sanction and work down, we will see more players getting cards than previously. However under the new guidelines it is likely that the kind of tackle Spencer did last season would have been a YC as some mitigation for the dip (not enough to save him) combined with a lack of force.

That sounds fair, let’s see some consistency n rulings then.

[LondonTiger]

The law does take into account a player dipping; its built into the consideration for the punishment and application. In the Argentina game Owen's does discuss this point and says theres not enough of a dip for mitigation.

I would disagree slightly in that they look at the height of the ball carrier to assess mitigation - and can mitigate all the way down to no offence. The two kiwis sin binned at the weekend would have not even conceded a penalty if they had not hit the man with a swinging arm. If as the tackler you are doing everything correctly and there is no reckless behaviour then contact with the head will not be deemed an offence. However as they now start from the top sanction and work down, we will see more players getting cards than previously. However under the new guidelines it is likely that the kind of tackle Spencer did last season would have been a YC as some mitigation for the dip (not enough to save him) combined with a lack of force.

That sounds fair, let’s see some consistency n rulings then.

There will always be some lack of consistency on the pitch, which should be sorted by citings and disciplinary hearings.

Are there any red cards, retrospective or otherwise, that you feel were inconsistently applied?

[Old Man]

The law does take into account a player dipping; its built into the consideration for the punishment and application. In the Argentina game Owen's does discuss this point and says theres not enough of a dip for mitigation.

I would disagree slightly in that they look at the height of the ball carrier to assess mitigation - and can mitigate all the way down to no offence. The two kiwis sin binned at the weekend would have not even conceded a penalty if they had not hit the man with a swinging arm. If as the tackler you are doing everything correctly and there is no reckless behaviour then contact with the head will not be deemed an offence. However as they now start from the top sanction and work down, we will see more players getting cards than previously. However under the new guidelines it is likely that the kind of tackle Spencer did last season would have been a YC as some mitigation for the dip (not enough to save him) combined with a lack of force.

That sounds fair, let’s see some consistency n rulings then.

There will always be some lack of consistency on the pitch, which should be sorted by citings and disciplinary hearings.

Are there any red cards, retrospective or otherwise, that you feel were inconsistently applied?

Main one I disagreed with was Hodge’s three match ban. At the time of the tackle I thought it was sloppy, but deserved of a three match ban, I didn’t think so.

Usually I would criticise a card or penalty at the time it happens, but then soon forget about it. My biggest concern is the legal attempts being carded where contact with the head is penalised or carded.

Once committed to a tackle it is difficult to change momentum when the ball carrier is going down mere milliseconds before contact, especially when there is a double tackle with one tackler going low, or alternatively ball carriers diving to score or trying to slide under a tackle.

Another one is when two players are trying to hold the ball up in a tackle and inevitably the ball carrier tries to get a knee to the ground to force the tackler to release and his arm slides up over the shoulder.

We must remember it is a contact sport, sure the illegal reckless tackles must be punished, but not every tackle is illegal or reckless when there is contact with the head/neck area. We also need to be aware that sometimes the ball carrier contributes to the danger he puts himself in.

Yes I realise it is difficult to police 100% all the time, but common sense should be part lf the process.

[Sponsored content]