3
Exile
Port Macquarie
"Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows. It’s a very mean and nasty place and I don’t care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain’t about how hard ya hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done! Now if you know what you’re worth then go out and get what you’re worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain’t you! You’re better than that!" - Rocky Balboa
I don’t know why they put Swinton in there . He’s a liability ….. red yellow after 2 minutes 5 minutes who knows??? The squad better practice 14 man rugby as a priority….
Exile
Port Macquarie
"Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows. It’s a very mean and nasty place and I don’t care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain’t about how hard ya hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done! Now if you know what you’re worth then go out and get what you’re worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain’t you! You’re better than that!" - Rocky Balboa
Swinton cleared so he can be sent off in the Wallabies games against the Frogs
https://www.rugby.com.au/news/super-...d-card-2021617
In the most ludicrous, but unsurprising decision of the century, the SANZAAR Judiciary have told serial numbskull Lachie Swinton that he shouldn't have even been carded for deliberately belting the head of a player that wasn't even active in the ruck without using his arms.
Damien McKenzie should be livid
C'mon the
I thought they just said he shouldn’t have been red carded, not carded.
The report in GIGS20's link is ambiguous, "they believe the incident did not warrant the send-off" ... "However, the Committee has found that the level of offending did not reach the red card threshold".
I would love one of our esteemed refereeing types to explain that in the light of the World Rugby protocols. From where I sit it seems they have thrown the match officials under a bus.
Do you think that Red Cards have become an easier option to consider?
Now that it doesn't have the impact of going a man down for the rest of the game?
Exile
Port Macquarie
"Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows. It’s a very mean and nasty place and I don’t care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain’t about how hard ya hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done! Now if you know what you’re worth then go out and get what you’re worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain’t you! You’re better than that!" - Rocky Balboa
Ecky has posted before that the entire process of the judiciary checking and overturning calls I think, since this is a red card he'd probably be OK with it going to judiciary, not sure whether he'd be keen about the call being changed.
Word Rugby Protocols (yes I looked them up are (simply put)
Is there Head contact?
If yes, is there Foul Play?
If yes, assess degree of impact
Head contact with no foul play is play on
If there's foul play, then the degree of danger sets the penalty, low is Penalty, Medium is Yellow High is Red
Mitigating factors can reduce the penalty by ONE STEP ONLY
Mitigating factors include sudden changes of height etc
Let's look at the Swinton hit in that context
Was there head contact - yes
Was there foul play - I say yes, the hit was after the whistle (therefore late) and no arms
So a sanction was required, the next question is the degree of danger
The defending player is off his feet, trapped in the ruck and not presenting a solid target when he is hit. Swinton has impacted with high force to the upper body making direct contact to the head. I would consider this a high degree of danger, so it would meet the standard of a Red card so far.
Mitigating Factors - the defending player is low to the ground with the remnants of the ruck scattered around him on the ground, it could be argued that Swinton couldn't have hit him any other way since a lower hit wouldn't have contacted him, but been into the players on the ground. This is the only possible way the judiciary could have found that a Red wasn't appropriate. I would argue that, since play was dead and the hit didn't need to happen the mitigation provided by this is questionable at best. the player was off his feet, not a threat to the contest, nor was anybody else in the ruck at that point of time. Swinton couldn't be accused of attempting to clean out a player who has rights to the ball, since nobody else was playing the ball, I think the mitigation isn't there.
If no mitigation, Red is the correct call, if no foul play the no penalty is the call, if Mitigation then Yellow is the call
Make up your own mind
C'mon the
He's hit him right between the eyes with the shoulder - that's a Red
I think this one is less interesting than the Jordie Barrett cleanout against the force which was a penalty, the refs explanation was "he's done everything right but there was head contact" the protocol clearly states head contact with no foul play is play on.
He clearly can't have done "everything right" if there's a penalty.there was a high impact, direct to the head so you could say medium severity mitigated by the position of the cleaned out player making it a penalty but not he's done everything right.
Swinton might have got away with a lenient call on mitigation but it could still be within protocols, the Barret call was clearly outside the protocol.
That's the real problem here, there's a clear and rigid protocol which is used for othing more than window dressing when a ref looks at something and makes a gut call.
On the field "that's ugly, he's getting sent off now let's look at the footage and find a way of explaining it to cover our ass"
In judiciary "that's a pretty soft red we don't want to give a sanction, let's review the footage and find a way of explaining it to cover our ass"
It must frustrate the shit out of coaches
C'mon the