Champions Cup; and the other one if someone wants to comment

First topic message reminder :

Couldn't see another thread on a quick look so sorry if I've missed it.

This weeks fixtures as follows (lifted from the beeb):

Friday
POOL 1
Connacht v Bordeaux Bègles
20:00

POOL 3
Glasgow Warriors v Northampton Saints
20:00

EUROPEAN CHALLENGE CUP
POOL 3
ASM Clermont Auvergne v Edinburgh
20:00

....Guernsey vs Bury St Edmonds as well which is a biggy

Saturday
POOL 1
Bulls v Saracens
17:30

Bristol v Lyon
20:00

POOL 2
Bath v Ulster
15:15

Toulouse v Cardiff Rugby
15:15

POOL 3
Toulon v Exeter Chiefs
13:00

Munster v Bayonne
17:30

EUROPEAN CHALLENGE CUP
POOL 1
Zebre v Cheetahs
13:00

Sharks v Pau
15:15

Dragons v Oyonnax
20:00

POOL 2
Ospreys v Benetton
17:30

POOL 3
Black Lion v Gloucester
13:00

Castres v Scarlets
15:15

Sunday
POOL 2
Racing 92 v Harlequins
17:30

POOL 4
Sale v Stade Francais
13:00

La Rochelle v Leinster
15:15

Leicester Tigers v Stormers
15:15

EUROPEAN CHALLENGE CUP
POOL 2
Perpignan v Lions
13:00

Newcastle Falcons vMontpellier
15:15

Heaf wrote:Bayonne player virtually on his knees and Chiefs player bent at waist and wraps - not sure what else he can do there

Yeah personally he's bent and the carrier dips. I'd have given a pen and no yellow.

Not sure I'd even give a pen and not just put it down to a rugby incident when the tackler has done nothing wrong - he was as low as he could go, wrapped and the ball carrier dropped his height significantly almost being on his knees.

It has to be said, this year’s format has certainly delivered a tense final weekend - almost every team had something to play for, and even those who had qualified were waiting on the results of the later games.

The knockout brackets are a little disappointing, though. The seeding approach means that there are no less than five rematches from the group stages (UBB v Saracens, Saints v Munster, Bulls v Lyon, Stormers v La Rochelle and Leinster vs Leicester) and two between teams from the same country (Exeter vs Bath, Toulouse vs Racing) - only Quins v Glasgow is a completely new pairing.

They may need to tweak that for next season. On the other hand, three of the four semi finals are guaranteed to be between teams from different leagues - only the 4th semi could throw up Quins v Saracens.

Poorfour wrote:It has to be said, this year’s format has certainly delivered a tense final weekend - almost every team had something to play for, and even those who had qualified were waiting on the results of the later games.

The knockout brackets are a little disappointing, though. The seeding approach means that there are no less than five rematches from the group stages (UBB v Saracens, Saints v Munster, Bulls v Lyon, Stormers v La Rochelle and Leinster vs Leicester) and two between teams from the same country (Exeter vs Bath, Toulouse vs Racing) - only Quins v Glasgow is a completely new pairing.

They may need to tweak that for next season. On the other hand, three of the four semi finals are guaranteed to be between teams from different leagues - only the 4th semi could throw up Quins v Saracens.

While it looked like a tense weekend on paper, only Saracens vs Lyon and Munster vs Saints were really competitive matches. Bulls vs Bordeaux and Stade vs Stormers were close but qualification wasn't on the line. Not all scores were blowouts but there was a sense of inevitability about the eventual winners from early on. I'll concede that my perspective might have been influenced by watching from a timezone where the earliest match started at 10pm, and the latest at 5am.

Agree on those pairings for the knock-out stages.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Poorfour wrote:It has to be said, this year’s format has certainly delivered a tense final weekend - almost every team had something to play for, and even those who had qualified were waiting on the results of the later games.

The knockout brackets are a little disappointing, though. The seeding approach means that there are no less than five rematches from the group stages (UBB v Saracens, Saints v Munster, Bulls v Lyon, Stormers v La Rochelle and Leinster vs Leicester) and two between teams from the same country (Exeter vs Bath, Toulouse vs Racing) - only Quins v Glasgow is a completely new pairing.

They may need to tweak that for next season. On the other hand, three of the four semi finals are guaranteed to be between teams from different leagues - only the 4th semi could throw up Quins v Saracens.

While it looked like a tense weekend on paper, only Saracens vs Lyon and Munster vs Saints were really competitive matches. Bulls vs Bordeaux and Stade vs Stormers were close but qualification wasn't on the line. Not all scores were blowouts but there was a sense of inevitability about the eventual winners from early on. I'll concede that my perspective might have been influenced by watching from a timezone where the earliest match started at 10pm, and the latest at 5am.

Agree on those pairings for the knock-out stages.

Qualification was relatively assured, but exactly who played whom was very sensitive to the exact results. As a Quins fan, we had already qualified in the last round, but to get a home R16 game we needed to beat Ulster with a BP, then the Toulouse v Bath and Bayonne v Exeter games to go our way… And although the final results had big margins, the Bath game was tied at half time (and Bath only needed a fourth try to overtake us) and Exeter only really lost their grip on their game either side of half time. It made for compelling viewing if the exact permutations of who plays whom and where matter to you.

Last-16 fixtures
(1) Toulouse v Racing 92 (16)

(2) Leinster v Leicester Tigers (15)

(3) Northampton v Munster (14)

(4) Bordeaux Begles v Saracens (13)

(5) Harlequins v Glasgow Warriors (12)

(6) Bulls v Lyon (11)

(7) Stormers v La Rochelle (10)

(8) Exeter Chiefs v Bath (9)

No 7&1/2 wrote:Last-16 fixtures
(1) Toulouse v Racing 92 (16)

(2) Leinster v Leicester Tigers (15)

(3) Northampton v Munster (14)

(4) Bordeaux Begles v Saracens (13)

(5) Harlequins v Glasgow Warriors (12)

(6) Bulls v Lyon (11)

(7) Stormers v La Rochelle (10)

(8) Exeter Chiefs v Bath (9)

Leicester, Saracens and LaRochelle the likely road teams to pull off an away victory?

I'd genuinely be less surprised if Tigers lost by 40+ than if they turn Leinster over in Dublin!

Tigers have already played Leinster 3 times in the last 3 seasons. This game will be the 3rd consecutive season they've met in the KOs. The first half on Saturday was probably the best I've seen from Tigers against Leinster in that period. They still came up well short. That was at Welford Road too.

The one glimmer I guess is that the next round comes just after the Six Nations, which pretty much the Leinster entire first team will be heavily involved in. Whereas the Tigers non-Six Nations players will be able to put their feet up for a decent part of the next 2 months after the coming weekend. That might play into their favour. It could also lead to the Tigers first XV looking like they met in the car park when the Prem restarts the weekend after the Six Nations. They certainly looked that way at the start of this season. Leinster are also very good at getting their players peaking for the Champions Cup as that is really their only concern.

I don't have much hope but a lot can change in 2 months. Tigers injury list is getting brutal currently. Whilst Montoya and Pollard have had some of their worst performances for the club recently. I'm hoping the SH stars who were at the RWC come back refreshed and closer to their best.

I think the club downtime during the Six Nations puts us into some uncharted territory. I can't recall having two months with only some training and a couple of 'pre-season' matches to get ready to finish the season. This is more like the start of a whole new season and I can't imagine if teams will retain their form, get better or worse.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Last-16 fixtures
(1) Toulouse v Racing 92 (16)

(2) Leinster v Leicester Tigers (15)

(3) Northampton v Munster (14)

(4) Bordeaux Begles v Saracens (13)

(5) Harlequins v Glasgow Warriors (12)

(6) Bulls v Lyon (11)

(7) Stormers v La Rochelle (10)

(8) Exeter Chiefs v Bath (9)

Leicester, Saracens and LaRochelle the likely road teams to pull off an away victory?

Not for me, Id say Glasgow, LaRochelle, Munster and Bath are the most likely however, everyone has a chance except Saracens who were already buried by Bordeaux.

I'm finding it difficult to look past Saints beating Munster on recent form. It would be good to see Northampton play one of Leinster, Toulouse or La Rochelle - they've been in great form but surely that'd be their toughest test yet.

Caulfield's red has been overturned.

mikey_dragon wrote:I'm finding it difficult to look past Saints beating Munster on recent form. It would be good to see Northampton play one of Leinster, Toulouse or La Rochelle - they've been in great form but surely that'd be their toughest test yet.

Yeah Saints should win for sure, its just Munster have a habit of pulling off huge away wins when it really matters. On recent form it would seem unlikely though to be fair.

Leinster and Stormers away last year come to mind.

Collapse2005 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I'm finding it difficult to look past Saints beating Munster on recent form. It would be good to see Northampton play one of Leinster, Toulouse or La Rochelle - they've been in great form but surely that'd be their toughest test yet.

Yeah Saints should win for sure, its just Munster have a habit of pulling off huge away wins when it really matters. On recent form it would seem unlikely though to be fair.

Leinster and Stormers away last year come to mind.

Munster seem to have that annoying habit regardless where they play. I'm sure this game will be close just like the last two.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Caulfield's red has been overturned.

The full judgement will make interesting reading. Caulfield argued it wasn't foul play but, according to Muray Kinsella's tweet, the panel rejected that defence. Downgrading would have made more sense if they had agreed it wasn't foul play.

If it is foul play, then no mitigation can be applied, regardless of the chain of events which led Caulfield to commit an act of foul play.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Caulfield's red has been overturned.

The full judgement will make interesting reading. Caulfield argued it wasn't foul play but, according to Muray Kinsella's tweet, the panel rejected that defence. Downgrading would have made more sense if they had agreed it wasn't foul play.

If it is foul play, then no mitigation can be applied, regardless of the chain of events which led Caulfield to commit an act of foul play.

I don't think that's correct.

From memory no mitigation can be applied for intentional acts. Mitigation can be applied (as presumably it has here) for things like a late change in the dynamics.

Agreed MW - if you listen to the officials for head contact they start off saying "so we have foul play so now let's go through the process to see if there's mitigation" or words to that effect ...

Heaf wrote:Agreed MW - if you listen to the officials for head contact they start off saying "so we have foul play so now let's go through the process to see if there's mitigation" or words to that effect ...

The way officials start is "We have head contact, so let's go through the process". That process would then determine if the head contact should be deemed foul play. This is the World Rugby checklist

1.Has head contact occurred?
2. Was there foul play?
Considerations:
- Intentional
- Reckless
- Avoidable
3. What was the degree of danger?
Considerations:
- direct vs indirect contact
- high force vs low force
- dynamic
4. Is there any mitigation?
Considerations:
- line of sight
- sudden & signifcant drop in height
- clear attempt to reduce height
- level of control
- passive tackler

Mitigation will not apply for intentional or always illegal acts of foul play

Under the old way of looking at these incidents, probably up to the Tom Curry red card, once Caulfield's action was deemed foul play, it would have stayed as red, because a boot in the face is an "always illegal act of foul play". Whether you agree with the way the process reaches that outcome or not, that's how it used to be implemented.

Which is why the decision to downgrade would have made more sense if the panel had decided it wasn't foul play. That's the point in the process at which you could argue it wasn't intentional or reckless.

However, what probably happened is that the panel tried to look at the incident as a whole, rather than go through the checklist. If that's what we are doing now, then that shift needs to be fomally acknowledged, so we all know the protocol.

Something is clearly going awary at the moment, as this tweet pointed out:

This is the 5th red card or citing that has been overturned/dismissed by an EPCR Disciplinary Committee so far this season.

To this point, only 4 red cards or citings have been upheld.

https://twitter.com/topofthemoonGW/status/1749852055022207166

See, what constitutes an 'always illegal act' is open to interpretation and isn't clearly defined, but I think the protocols as they stand were followed.

Jumping/stepping over a player is a legal act, but if it goes wrong and you tread on a player's face, it's going to be deemed as reckless and get a red card in the absence of mitigation. In a similar way to a heavy chest high tackle being a legal act, but when it goes wrong and your shoulder connects with the ball carrier's head, you're looking at a red as a starting point again.

Margin_Walker wrote:See, what constitutes an 'always illegal act' is open to interpretation and isn't clearly defined

While every instance of an"always illegal act" isn't specified, if a boot in the face is deemed to be foul play, then that's very definitely an "always illegal act" which can't be mitigated.

A boot in the face can be deemed not foul play, if the circumstances in which it happened are judged to be an unforseeable rugby incident. Once it is called out as foul play, the door closes on mitigation.

Without a full judgement, then we have no way of knowing how the panel reached that outcome. Below, is the text of the panel's statement. It's interesting that it doesn't once mention that Caulfield made contact with Bealham's head.

Caulfield was sent off by the referee, Pierre Brousset (France), in the 13th minute of the match for stamping on the Connacht Rugby prop, Finlay Bealham, in contravention of Law 9.12.

Law 9.12 A player must not stamp on an opponent

Under World Rugby’s Sanctions for Foul Play, Law 9.12, stamping or trampling, carries the following sanction entry points - Low End: 2 weeks; Mid-range: 6 weeks; Top end: 12 to 52 weeks

An independent Disciplinary Committee comprising Paul Thomas (Wales), Chair, Marcello D’Orey (Portugal) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa) viewed footage of the incident and heard evidence by video conference from Caulfield who did not accept that he had committed an act of foul play. The committee also heard submissions from the player’s legal representative, Sam Jones.

Also present on the conference call were the Bristol Bears Director of Rugby, Pat Lam, the Bristol Bears Team Manager, Jack Targett, and the EPCR Disciplinary Officer, Liam McTiernan.

The committee determined that Caulfield had committed an act of foul play, however, it found that the offence did not warrant a red card, and the red card decision was therefore overturned.

Caulfield is free to play immediately and EPCR has the right to appeal the decision.

Unlike some pundits on these incidents, I don't have a strong view on what stance rugby should be taking on head contact. I just want roughly consistent officiating so we don't keep overturning cards, and confusing the rugby public about what sanctions are warranted.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:See, what constitutes an 'always illegal act' is open to interpretation and isn't clearly defined

While every instance of an"always illegal act" isn't specified, if a boot in the face is deemed to be foul play, then that's very definitely an "always illegal act" which can't be mitigated.

That just brings it back to the same point though. Ultimately it's deemed an unintentional boot to the face as a result of recklessness that's then been mitigated. An intentional boot to the face would meet the threshold of always illegal (i.e a clearly deliberate stamp). An unintentional boot to the face is the end result of the legal action of stepping over a prone player, so not always illegal for and thus able to be mitigated as a result of a late change to the dynamics.

Anyway, we'll see what the judgment says when it's released

Actually RF I think they start with - was there head contact - yes.

Do we have foul play? If no then play on, if yes then what's the level of danger and is there any mitigation etc.

So the statement "If it is foul play, then no mitigation can be applied" is not correct.

The process stops if there is no foul play, so there wouldn't be any point looking at level of danger and mitigation if it couldn't be applied for any foul play.

It's seems the difference between the ref and the panel is although they agreed there was foul play, the ref decided it was intentional and therefore no mitigation, but the panel decided it wasn't intentional and therefore could apply mitigation.

Heaf wrote:Actually RF I think they start with - was there head contact - yes.  

Do we have foul play?  If no then play on, if yes then what's the level of danger and is there any mitigation etc.

So the statement "If it is foul play, then no mitigation can be applied" is not correct.

The process stops if there is no foul play, so there wouldn't be any point looking at level of danger and mitigation if it couldn't be applied for any foul play.

It's seems the difference between the ref and the panel is although they agreed there was foul play, the ref decided it was intentional and therefore no mitigation, but the panel decided it wasn't intentional and therefore could apply mitigation.

The important point in the World Rugby list is the last one. "Mitigation will not apply for intentional or always illegal acts of foul play".

A boot in the face can be unintentional. That's a rugby incident, and not foul play. However, as soon as the panel decided that Caulfield's action constituted foul play, then they have deemed it intentional, reckless, avoidable or some combination of those (probably reckless and avoidable). A boot in the face is an "always illegal act of foul play". Not all acts of foul play are "always illegal acts of foul play" but a boot in the face is definitely one.

The only way you get around that, is by deciding the boot in the face was unintentional etc, and so did not constitute foul play.

What people are doing above is to assume that the mitigation stage is where you consider intention. It isn't. Intention is a factor taken into account to decide whether it's foul play.

Nigel Owens makes exactly the same point, probably more concisely than me:

How can they say this is foul play but not red card. If it’s not foul play and complete accident then play on. If It’s reckless and foul play then it has to be RC. For what it’s worth it’s a RC for me as it’s not a natural action of rucking  and reckless.
Glad I retired

https://twitter.com/Nigelrefowens/status/1749839562501722510

A stamp on the head is a RC. So it’s either no foul play just pure accident or if it’s foul play it’s a RC.
You’re either driving over the speed limit and get points or your not and drive on

Owens is asked the following:

Would you not account for the fact he himself took a boot to the face a split second before?

He replies:

If you think that causes this then play on no foul play. Am not to sure myself so if it is foul play then it has to be RC

Heaf and Margin Walker, what you are both saying is entirely reasonable, and may be the way we ought to adjudicate these incidents. My point is that World Rugby's guidance is not written that way and, up until very recently, not the way officials have interpreted it.

When a disciplinary panel overturns an on-field referee's decision, we ought to be able to point to where he got the law wrong, or else got the facts wrong. In this case, the panel almost appears to be saying that the referee got the facts and the law right but came up with the wrong decision, which makes no sense.

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with the way the guidance is written. A boot to the face is not an always illegal act, the act is attempting to hurdle a player. This is where the 'stamp' language isn't helpful, as that does seem to imply intent. An intentional stamp where a player has targeted a prone player would be an always illegal act.

By the same token you could say a shoulder to the head is an always illegal act. When in most cases the act itself is an attempted tackle that has gone wrong.

You have to wonder about the direction of travel of a game when the talking points tend to be the laws and how they were applied rather than the actual rugby.

It's an emotive subject though. Caulfield was frankly getting a shed of abuse calling him a thug etc even Nigel Owens on twitter was basically saying it was deliberate. When the opposing view is he caught a boot and flinched causing the incident you're bound to get a lot of comments

No 7&1/2 wrote:...even Nigel Owens on twitter was basically saying it was deliberate...

Owens didn't say it was deliberate, he said he thought it was reckless.

One of the difficulties with the laws of rugby is that they use terms which have wide ranging meanings in general conversation but very specific meanings in law. "Intentional", "reckless" and "avoidable" are the three terms in World Rugby's guidance for determining foul play. General conversation about mitigation, even by TV pundits, almost always has a variation on "he didn't mean it" but that's a factor which is considered earlier in the process, through those three terms.

Mitigation is about specific situational factors which affected the outcome, like a sudden change in direction, drop in height or a player being unsighted. Conversationally, we might take a drop in height as evidence that a player "didn't mean it" when he caught someone in the wrong place but mitigation would come from the drop in height, not because the player "didn't mean it".

Lostinwales is correct that talking about the laws so much is poisonous for the game. Rugby does itself no favours in not being transparent about the way it deals with incidents like this.

I am still wondering how the Langdon card can be upheld, when the Ahern fell/was driven across the ruck into his moving knee a foot off the floor. When he started to enter the ruck the guy was a foot higher and even further away from the point of contact.

For me, it's much harder to see any mitigation with the Langdon incident. The first contact is dynamic with lots happening, but on the second, Ahern is stationary on the ground below him when Langdon pulls up his knee.

If we are talking about the same thing, Langdon's knee just brushes him and he when he steps over and stands astride Ahern's head protecting it from anything else.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:If we are talking about the same thing, Langdon's knee just brushes him and he when he steps over and stands astride Ahern's head protecting it from anything else.

That second impact more than just brushes him for me. Ahern's head jolts back again, like it did on the first contact.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...even Nigel Owens on twitter was basically saying it was deliberate...

Owens didn't say it was deliberate, he said he thought it was reckless.

One of the difficulties with the laws of rugby is that they use terms which have wide ranging meanings in general conversation but very specific meanings in law. "Intentional", "reckless" and "avoidable" are the three terms in World Rugby's guidance for determining foul play. General conversation about mitigation, even by TV pundits, almost always has a variation on "he didn't mean it" but that's a factor which is considered earlier in the process, through those three terms.

Mitigation is about specific situational factors which affected the outcome, like a sudden change in direction, drop in height or a player being unsighted. Conversationally, we might take a drop in height as evidence that a player "didn't mean it" when he caught someone in the wrong place but mitigation would come from the drop in height, not because the player "didn't mean it".

Lostinwales is correct that talking about the laws so much is poisonous for the game. Rugby does itself no favours in not being transparent about the way it deals with incidents like this.

Yeah but he said it wasn't a natural action. Reading between the lines there...

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I am still wondering how the Langdon card can be upheld, when the Ahern fell/was driven across the ruck into his moving knee a foot off the floor. When he started to enter the ruck the guy was a foot higher and even further away from the point of contact.

At the time of the 2nd knee he's trapped and stationary. Reckon it wouldn't have been a red if not for that.

[quote="No 7&1/2"]

Rugby Fan wrote:Yeah but he said it wasn't a natural action. Reading between the lines there...

There's no need to read between the lines, as Owens has openly stated he thinks it was reckless.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Yeah but he said it wasn't a natural action. Reading between the lines there...

There's no need to read between the lines, as Owens has openly stated he thinks it was reckless.

Owens is not party to all the information, though, is he? He's a retired ref who doesn't have privileged access to what the citing panel saw.

Wayne Barnes is pretty scathing in his book about former refs criticising decisions or disagreeing with what is said on the field, because it creates an environment where refs are open to criticism and abuse from fans. Barnes himself tends to explain why he thinks decisions were reached rather than give his own opinion, which I think is a better tactic.

(And I know I am not above offering my own take on why certain decisions were right or wrong. But I don't have a global platform and I know that even you lot ignore me...)

RF this statement:

"The only way you get around that, is by deciding the boot in the face was unintentional etc, and so did not constitute foul play."

Implies that foul play must equal intentional, which clearly it can't do as otherwise there could never be any mitigation for foul play?

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Yeah but he said it wasn't a natural action. Reading between the lines there...

There's no need to read between the lines, as Owens has openly stated he thinks it was reckless.

Not a natural action. That to me says he has deliberately done something that he wouldn't normally do.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I am still wondering how the Langdon card can be upheld, when the Ahern fell/was driven across the ruck into his moving knee a foot off the floor. When he started to enter the ruck the guy was a foot higher and even further away from the point of contact.

At the time of the 2nd knee he's trapped and stationary. Reckon it wouldn't have been a red if not for that.

I had only seen the side view that stopped before the second knee hit, I was assuming the second hit was the left knee which hit and then brushed against Ahearn's head. Having looked around for another video, I agree it was red and he was lucky to only get 4 weeks.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I am still wondering how the Langdon card can be upheld, when the Ahern fell/was driven across the ruck into his moving knee a foot off the floor. When he started to enter the ruck the guy was a foot higher and even further away from the point of contact.

At the time of the 2nd knee he's trapped and stationary. Reckon it wouldn't have been a red if not for that.

I had only seen the side view that stopped before the second knee hit, I was assuming the second hit was the left knee which hit and then brushed against Ahearn's head. Having looked around for another video, I agree it was red and he was lucky to only get 4 weeks.

I know I am in a vast minority (possibly a minority of one), even amongst Saints supporters who mostly agree about the red, but I think the slo mo made it look a lot worse.  It looked to me as if he was driving over and his knee jammed.  Before everyone comes after me as if you are all Tony Soprano, just try to control your own knee - in normal speed - like that.  I'd like to hear it.  I can't.

With a "high grade complex tear" medial meniscus, plus some minor ligament damage to my left knee, plus an arthritic right knee, I have trouble controlling either knee at any time at any speed,

Heaf wrote:RF this statement:

"The only way you get around that, is by deciding the boot in the face was unintentional etc, and so did not constitute foul play."

Implies that foul play must equal intentional, which clearly it can't do as otherwise there could never be any mitigation for foul play?

There can be mitigation for foul play. A standard case is where the attacker dips into a tackle, leading the tackler to clip him in the face with his shoulder. The high tackle is foul play, because it was at least avoidable (tackler could have gone lower), though not necessarily intentional. If it was a no-arms tackle, then that would be an always illegal act, and no mitigation would apply. However, most tacklers use their arms in a tackle, which is not an always iilegal act. There would be mitigation, because the drop in the attacker's height contributed to the outcome.

In Caulfield's case, most people who believe the red card was harsh, think Caulfield saw Bealham, and was trying to hop, or hurdle, over him. When Sinckler kicked his face, it caused him to lose direction, and his boot came down on Bealham's face. You could make the case - though Connacht fans would likely protest - that this was an accident. If so, it would be a rugby incident, and not foul play.

The panel, however, decided there was foul play. As soon as that happens, then there is no mitigation, because there's no rugby reason for a boot in the face unless it's an accident, and the panel ruled that option out. The same is true for a finger in the eye. It can happen by accident on a rugby pitch but if you rule it foul play, then it's an always illegal act. That's why, though the laws were slightly different at the time, Schalk Burger's yellow card in the Lions 2nd Test made no sense.

If rugby administrators want an outcome where Caulfield gets a yellow, then the guidance needs to be rewritten.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I am still wondering how the Langdon card can be upheld, when the Ahern fell/was driven across the ruck into his moving knee a foot off the floor. When he started to enter the ruck the guy was a foot higher and even further away from the point of contact.

At the time of the 2nd knee he's trapped and stationary. Reckon it wouldn't have been a red if not for that.

I had only seen the side view that stopped before the second knee hit, I was assuming the second hit was the left knee which hit and then brushed against Ahearn's head. Having looked around for another video, I agree it was red and he was lucky to only get 4 weeks.

Yeah I saw versions of both these incidents and thought it was a red for Caulfield and vice versa. Then extended vids and different angles completely changed my mind. I really don't know how anyone can see the boot to Caulfields face and think it hasn't completely altered his stride tho.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:With a "high grade complex tear" medial meniscus, plus some minor ligament damage to my left knee, plus an arthritic right knee, I have trouble controlling either knee at any time at any speed,

Sounds to me as if you need a good doctor......

Got any recommendations?

Hopefully BUPA will sort me out, problem being that the original injury is old, just been made worse in recent times.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Got any recommendations?

Hopefully BUPA will sort me out, problem being that the original injury is old, just been made worse in recent times.

Wish i had a good reco for you. I can ask for recommendations...
The older injuries never seem to get better, do they?

doctor_grey wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Got any recommendations?

Hopefully BUPA will sort me out, problem being that the original injury is old, just been made worse in recent times.

Wish i had a good reco for you.  I can ask for recommendations...
The older injuries never seem to get better, do they?

I can't really complain, pushing the big 70 now, played until I was nearly 50 so body has been abused to the limit

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:With a "high grade complex tear" medial meniscus, plus some minor ligament damage to my left knee, plus an arthritic right knee, I have trouble controlling either knee at any time at any speed,

Ouch. I can't help with a meniscus tear; that's one for the professionals.

But I have recently made a big difference to my own knees just by minimising the amount of time they spend locked straight. The biggest difference has come from recognising that when I sleep on my back my legs were tending to be straight all night, and putting something behind the knee to make sure they are slightly bent. Even a pillow made a big difference, and now I have one of those travel neck pillows for each knee. Looks very odd, but the difference it has made in a few days is huge.

Thanks Poorfour, I have found the same thing with straight legs, I have found a much more pleasant way to keep it bent, I just intertwine it with my better half's in bed and as she tends to wriggle a bit at night, I get some movement as well.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Thanks Poorfour, I have found the same thing with straight legs, I have found a much more pleasant way to keep it bent, I just intertwine it with my better half's in bed and as she tends to wriggle a bit at night, I get some movement as well.

My better half snores worse than I do. For my left knee which has 'severe tri-compartmental osteoarthritis' (basically my left knee is screwed all over), years ago I bought a fairly inexpensive exercise bike which I use mostly for range of motion. 10-15 minutes a couple of times per day keeps my knee moving without much discomfort. My mornings sound like yours. I also use the knee lubricant injections (treatment is good mostly for 6 months) and have good success even though there are some questions about it. Not a drug, just a lube.

Tigers a bit fortunate with that Quins pass that went astray - looked like H-C touched it as it went over his head and was caught by the Tigers player in front ....