Six Nations 2023 - Ireland v France Match Thread, Sat 11th Feb, KO 2:15PM - TV: RTÉ2, ITV, France2

Ardillaun

I think the vast majority of these high tackles are unintentional. It’s difficult to change ingrained patterns of behaviour and get low every time esp. if you are enormous yourself. If the tackling rule was below the rib cage then these tackles would be wildly out of step. As it is a slight miscalculation can turn a tackle around the chest into a higher one.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120238296#Comment_120238296

They're professional. They can't do it they shouldn't be at that level

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120238296#Comment_120238296

Listening to ROG discussing it from coach & player point of view was interesting. Basically depending on where you are, how isolated is the tackled player, the size differential and a couple of other factors determines the choices the tackling player will make, some of it is about dislodging the ball, some is to increase the likelihood of a steal on the ground, some to slow down ruck speed, prevent an offload, or just to get a big shot on the other guy. So potentially a lot of decisions being made very quickly. Big high shots are part of the repertoire but if you get it wrong it's a card. Overall his point was that it's not just as simple as lowering the tackle height from a player point of view because you trade that against any advantage you can win legally in the tackle.

Ardillaun

There is a legitimate safety issue to be addressed and all proposed solutions have drawbacks. I can see a lot more red cards coming as refs try to protect players and players try to adjust their game.

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120238349#Comment_120238349

This.

The biggest single challenge facing rugby, both domestically and internationally and at both amateur and professional levels is player safety. Tinkering with the Laws will not be sufficient. A radical change in approach at World Rughy level may see the game expand beyond the traditional powerhouses of Tier 1 countries. Anything less will prompt a decline in children starting to play, and thus eventual decline in Pro & International player quality, making professional rugby financially non viable.

BoardsMember

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120238328#Comment_120238328

That tells a story in itself though, right? As in, coach perspective is still that a high hit is something that is acceptable or expected in some circumstances. It needs to become not worth the risk. The balance has to swing far closer to player safety, and away from the margins of interpretation of whether the initial hit may have been marginally body first or not, for example.

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120238551#Comment_120238551

I think what shows it is that wherever the law is coaches and players will come right up to it and in doing so they'll cross it at times. So if the law says chest high hits are ok then we will have guys trying to hit the chest at certain moments in any game, some of those efforts will go wrong and you get head contact. The laws the problem here, given that we know players will always take it to the line. If you want to get rid of head contact then tackles have to be lower than the chest, that will at least diminish the number of contacts like Antonio's we see. You still get elbows, knees and hips, but that's another issue.

Ardillaun

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120238486#Comment_120238486

So what should be done?

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120238349#Comment_120238349

"More red cards" is what was happening 4-5 years ago. What we've seen in the last couple of years is a drift in the other direction, to more mitigation for high hits and shorter suspensions for anyone who is sent off.

And since some unions want to go even further and get rid of red cards completely, I don't think we're going back to the way it was tbh

Edit: to confirm, I hate that it's going this way, I'd much prefer the zero tolerance approach.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120237809#Comment_120237809

Ah yes, the old big bad All Blacks beating up their poor, sweet, innocent opponents. Like no team ever went out to deliberately hurt McCaw or Carter.

molloyjh

I think Barnes was fine overall on Saturday. He let a lot go which contributed to a good game. And I think most people appreciate that. There were 4 incidents on the day that possibly warranted a different outcome but I don’t think any had a bearing on the result.

The first was the Atonio card. As clear cut a red as you see. Moving forward into the contact, no effort to reduce height, direct contact with the shoulder (with his arm straight and braced for that contact) to the head and with force. The mitigation really did seem like he was trying to find any reason he could come up with to avoid the red. Which I get to a degree, but there’s a line between being fair to the tackler and adhering to the player welfare standards set out. He was the wrong side of the line this time IMO. Maybe what happened last year played into that, but in a way it’s as well that we won against 15 as opposed to 14.

The Lowe try was another incident. He was in touch, but we only saw conclusive proof of that from photographs after the fact. Nothing the officials could do there as the footage wasn’t “clear and obvious”. So they made the right decision with the evidence at hand. However even if they hadn’t awarded the try there’s a real case for having a look at the Penaud hit on Lowe. It was a no arms tackle and so technically should have been a penalty try and a yellow for Penaud. Ireland got 5 points from the decision that was made, but could have gotten 7 and Penaud in the bin potentially. So it wasn’t a bad outcome for either side really.

Barnes did award a penalty to us for Dumortier taking Hansen out in the air on a kick chase. That was harsh. I think Barnes thought the French winger wasn’t making a genuine attempt to get the ball, but I think he probably was. A minor error that will happen in any game.

And the last one I noticed was for one of Murray’s snipes where he was short Ntmack actually tackled him from a offside position. Possible yellow there for a cynical infringement in a scoring position. Missed completely by the officials. But we got a try a min later through Porter so it made no real odds in the end.

The only really glaring errors for me were the Atonio card and the Dumortier penalty. For the former was a really poor error, but from the perspective of the game and the result it did mean no excuses for the French loss. The Dumortier one was incredibly minor. So Barnes had no real bearing on the result and did officiate a good game. So for the most part did his job well. You could argue the result could have been more favourable to Ireland had Barnes made some of those calls above but then we also botched a bunch of chances ourselves so I’d rather we focused on that tbh.

aloooof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120239407#Comment_120239407

I'd agree with a lot of that, molloy. But one point on this:

The Lowe try was another incident. He was in touch, but we only saw conclusive proof of that from photographs after the fact. Nothing the officials could do there as the footage wasn’t “clear and obvious”. So they made the right decision with the evidence at hand.

It was discusssed on Second Captains that footage of the angle with the foot in touch was from a 4th TMO camera angle, but that was only shown as a replay after the conversaion had been taken (so try stands at that point). So in theory, they had access to that footage at the time.

One thing I'm not certain about; the replays we see on the TV feed, is that exactly what the TMO and refs are looking at in realtime too? Just a curiosity.

I agree overall tho, I don't think Barnes had an impact on the outcome at all.

prawnsambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120239479#Comment_120239479

I think a replay showing the foot possibly in touch was shown very early on and another when they were looking at the touchdown (although that one was inconclusive imo). I definitely remember remarking on the possibility of that foot touching the grass during the process and was watching for it in all the replays. I was quite convinced by the time the decision was made that there was clear evidence that his toe was in contact with the ground. But time constraints meant that they really couldn't look back on it, having dismissed it early on as well.

TMO has access to all angles. He picks out the ones to show the ref. So we only see those ones and any that the broadcaster might pick up as well.

Interested Observer

Thought it was pretty clear from what they showed on TV during the TMO deliberations that his foot was in touch. His foot moves in a way it only could if it brushed the ground.

crisco10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120239479#Comment_120239479

They've moved on from the conversion being the back stop for checking, it's now the kick off after the try. But I'm not sure if any of that applies to a situation where officially the TMO has already been used to come to the decision.

aloooof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120239585#Comment_120239585

Wasn't aware of that, sound.

crisco10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120239563#Comment_120239563

Me too, being honest I couldn't believe they awarded it (and I think Hugh and Donal were equally surprised!). And the "new" angle after the try didn't show anything different to me - it was still a no try. At the time, I thought we got very lucky with Barnes' question.

I'm also less convinced it was a no arms tackle from Penaud, I think he does just enough to wrap his arms around Lowe's chest/belly to be seen to wrap. He is certainly far from arms by his side.

Buer

I think for the Lowe try, the question asked steered the situation significantly. This comes back to how Barnes was officiating and I believe he had a mindset to have a free flowing, attacking based game.

He awarded the try onfield which changes the remit of the TMO somewhat. They need clear evidence to overturn that which they couldn't find. Now, if Barnes had asked whether a try had been scored (try, yes or no?) the TMO's scope to influence the moment broadens and might well have said that there's a hint of the foot grazing the grass or the ball touching the whitewash and denied the try.

Barnes was 20m+ away and running when the ball was grounded. The AR was about 7-10m away and completely blinded as to the grounding by Penaud and Lowe. I've no idea how Barnes decided it was a try on the field immediately as I think most of us, including the commentary team, believed he was out and Lowe's own reaction suggested the same.

Interested Observer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120239600#Comment_120239600

I didn't have an issue with the tackle. It wasn't dangerous and the laws actually explicitly say you can push an opponent, which is what I think he was trying to do. Trying to tackle a large winger flying through the air is going to be pretty difficult.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120239624#Comment_120239624

What was more obvious was the no arms tackle on Lowe, Barnes should have headed under the posts and awarded a penalty try.

prawnsambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120239624#Comment_120239624

I don't think they ask the "try, yes or no" question any more. It's just onfield decision yay or nay and up to the TMO to overturn that.

CIARAN_BOYLE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120239479#Comment_120239479

The angles we see are the feed shown on the big screen in the stadium.

In theory it is the tmo choosing what to show the referee.

The tmo has access to all angles in theory.

Sometimes it feels like the tmo only picks up certain angles if the television director shows a replay before the tmo starts. That would be a skill failure from the tmo.

Occasionally the tmo will say something like I'm looking at other angles and the television director will put a previous angle on screen while waiting for the tmo to show something to the referee but the referee would see that as its being shown on the big screen.

pickarooney

According to law 10.4 you're simply not allowed tackle a player diving for the line so wrap or no wrap it's illegal.

Fortunately some common sense applies and that's ignored, and Penaud made every attempt to wrap there and put Lowe in no danger not caused by Lowe himself.

I can't find the clip back but some French fans were furious about a late tackle (I think Keenan on Dumortier ?) moments before Dumortier himself was penalised for tackling (Murray?) in the air.

AdamD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120240076#Comment_120240076

The tackle on Lowe seemed fine to me, I was shocked to see everyone gloss over the massively late hit on Sexton after his break down the touchline though.

Buer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120240076#Comment_120240076

It was when Dumortier chipped Keenan just inside the 22 and Keenan collided with him. You certainly see them given but Barnes was never giving it on that day. Keenan is steaming across to make a tackle and is chipped in a tight spot as they're about to meet. I don't see how contact can be avoided in any way aside from Keenan just not being there.

Buer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120240132#Comment_120240132

It was picked up and I believe it was advantage. Sexton gave the pass on the halfway line though and we were turned over on their 5m line so advantage was deemed over.

Barnes went and spoke to Penaud when play had stopped.

Lowe was also hit late when he started that move in his own 22 by Flament or Alldritt. It was that sort of game. Barnes wasn't going to be stopping play for much. He even declared the Atonio tackle was fine in real time until the next break in play forced him to have a look.

tmc1963

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120235105#Comment_120235105

It's great that Matt Carley has made such a dramatic improvement in capability since back in November 2022 he was apparently 'inept', 'a joke', 'atrocious' etc etc

Interested Observer

Listening to the House of Rugby podcast and Greg O'Shea seems to think because Antonio has "made a good read" it's play on and carding him is punishing good play. Apparently it's inconceivable to him that Antonio could have just simply made his huge tackle without belting Herring in the head. I have listened to this so you don't have to. Avoid.

Ardillaun

Lowering the maximum height of tackles makes sense for the game and player safety IMO. At the moment, there’s too fine a line between a ‘good’ tackle and a red card offence.

MaybeMaybe

I'm sure it has been said already but I see no reason why Fickou wasn't binned a few phases after Herring/Antonio incident. he tackled McCloskey just short of the line and then lay there.