Rugby Championship 2023

I see nothing there about the actual incident but a lot of academic work, most of which is covered in the laws anyway.

The comment about a drop in height was to highlight how bad the incident was, not to provide an example of something 'unavoidable.' So you've went on a a tangent there and had fun with it, but I apologise if I wasn't clear. The situations you've highlighted aren't 'slightly different' in any case, your blatantly ignoring the difference in the level of control the players have.

Anyway, adjust your run, adjust your jump, tie your shoe-laces instead. Let's not legalise assault.

'Given that you're now claiming' - ugh, I retract my apologies. It was clear enough.

Didn't say the incident itself was assault, i said allowing that play to go would be equivalent to legalising ie. the open season on flyhavles stuff. Nice try though.

There was a tackle in the Leinster vs La Rochelle final that the ref allowed to play on even though their was contact with the head. Player pretty much couldn't have gone lower and the Leinster attacker, at the last moment, made an unnatural dip. I'm fine with play-on in those cases because the defender has done as much as he could reasonably have expected to do. I'm not sure what the exact laws are but I don't believe there was a citation.

As always, I'd like to take this time to encourage everyone not to knock out kickers.

This incident is no way 'equivalent' to assault - no one from the ref, to his team, to the citing team believed it was.

I never said they didn't deem it as a red card. My point was to call out the other poster's clear hyperbole throwing around the term assault.

I'll again go back to my previous example of a player going for a high ball and catching it but his hip/torso hitting the player in the head who stayed on the ground. I've never seen a ref or citing commissioner call that against the player catching the ball, however we've all seen many times the player on the ground being sanctioned if the player in the air tips.

It clearly wasnt a straightforward case for the citing team. If WR want to make contact with the kicker illegal they can take in the rules in the NFL to protect kickers, as pulling from current vague laws regarding recklessness for me isnt the right way to go about it and the citing team seemed to agree given their statement and sanction.

Again, as you didn’t understand the first two times, I did not call the incident in question assault. Allowing the play to happen unpunished would lead to tactics implementing it. Not hyperbole.

Theres nothing vague about hitting a stationary players head with no mitigation. I’m unsure what further clarification you need there.

You've absolutely twisted yourself in a knot now.

It is pretty simple, if you didn't want to imply this incident was assault then there was absolutely no reason to use the term.

No point in going around in circles any further. Maybe tone down the hyperbole a bit and there wont be misunderstandings.

@Locke_Lamora I don't think any player goes out there with the intention of knocking an opponent out. Unless they're a psychopath or the red mist has taken over. But it is a collision sport. So knock outs will happen. The laws will try to lessen this but will never eliminate it. So saying that letting an incident go that resulted in a player being knocked out is like legalising assault, that's hyperbole.

Maybe they should just outlaw charge downs if theres no guarantee that the kicker won't be assaulted in the process. Then players can concentrate on diving at their standing leg to put them off.

😂🙄

I'm sure we could conjure up some sort of situation in which a chargedown allows contact with the head, but that seems like a lesson in pedanticism. I've already admitted in previous posts that I'm fine with contact with the head being going unpunished in certain, narrow, instances. The contact with the head in this case was clearly illegal though, it was reckless and dangerous because of the significant chance of serious injury to the head.

Absolutely and I never said otherwise, but the fact that you are asking that makes me question whether you have understood what I have written. Numerous times. I almost wish you just posted redundant smileys again.

Recklessness does not require a deliberate and most red cards and bans do not stem from intentional foul play. However, once again, allowing this play to go unpunished will only encourage deliberate tactics targeting kickers. Please tell me you understand that?

Of all the hills for the ‘just a rugby incident’ clan to die on, this just isn’t it.

A player stationary player was knocked out, no mitigation could be applied and it wasn’t reckless to you? That’s where we’ll never agree because that’s an incredible statement to make. Thankfully the laws don’t agree with you.

’Some other posters’ - just one actually.

targeting a kickers head is not part of the game.

‘Do you think letting this incident go would result in players targeting the kicker's head in future?’ I knew you weren’t reading what I was writing and begged you to read carefully. In my last post I literally stated that allowing this play to go unpunished would only encourage it deliberately. I’ve stated this almost word for numerous times and you still have the empty mindedness to post almost exactly what I have written, phrased as a question, and stated that I’m being unclear. Astounding.

Thankfully the laws agree with me.

But what had the possibility of him faking a kick got to do with being clobbered in the head? Like, I’m not sure of the relevance in determining whether or not this play was reckless. He didn’t fake a kick and he didn’t move enough to change the outcome for me.

Jump straight at them.