Did Reece Hodge deserve at least a yellow card for this tackle?

Just to round out this whole conversation, World Rugby have a real problem on their hands with these front on and close to the ruck tackles. The trial of below the "nipple" was pulled as to many tacklers were getting head knocks close in to the ruck. The Side effect of not being able to tackle with any height was that Ball Carriers were able to dip lower to bump off tacklers who were also set lower. The result the tackler takes a shoulder/upper arm to the head.

I've seen it and Read definitely deserved a yellow. Not sure what that would then equate to in review. Personally don't think it warrants a suspension after the fact. But that may be because my only working eye is playing up :silly: I hope Hodge only gets a week at the most as he clearly didn't have any intent. Even better a warning, but once Yato was injured it deserved to be reviewed.

That’s all fair Wal. Thank you. My testy comment was due to the attention from one side of the ditch given to this seemingly unintentional (but potentially cardable) action. I appreciate the detail you have gone into here. It is all fair. And the process will be sorted in a couple of days. I must confess I was being a little cryptic around the actions of a certain number 8 (yet uncited) who did not concuss anyone but who did intentionally go around the neck of a player well away from the ball. If you need more detail I will provide. It would be only neighbourly of me to help. :happy:

Not sure why such a testy response Ken, The circumstance isn't like anything you described so I am not sure how that is relevant. Tackling a player without the ball is a different Law with different sanctions. Had he once again hit the head of the tacklee then the greater of the 2 sanctions applies. I actually didn't make a call as to which card Hodge should receive only the 2 thresholds and the process involved in deciding which one applies. World Rugby have now have a fantastic site with law interpretation and process. https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=head%20contact&domain=9&guideline=13 This section also has very clear processes for deciding which card etc Based on the mitigating factors World Rugby take into account Hodge might be in a bit of strife. I have bolded the couple of things that I think may tip Hodge from a Yellow card offence to Red Card. VIDEO SIGNS INDICATING HIGHER DEGREE OF DANGER Preparation Tackler draws the arm back prior to contact Tackler may leave the ground Arm swings forward prior to contact Contact Tackler is attempting an active/dominant tackle, as opposed to passive/soak, or “pulling out” of contact Tackler speed and/or acceleration into tackle is high Rigid arm or elbow makes contact with BC head as part of a swinging motion Follow through Tackler completes the tackle (as opposed to immediate release/withdrawal) Factors to consider against mitigation: If the tackler and BC are in open space and/or the tackler has clear line of sight and time before contact Mitigating factors (must be clear and obvious and can only be applied to reduce a sanction by 1 level) Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier’s head BC suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score) Tackler is unsighted prior to contact “Reactionary” tackle, immediate release Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck) Just my opinion but I also don't think any of the mitigating factors apply either. Did Hodge do it intentionally - No Was it Foul play - No Was it a shoulder charge - No Was is dangerous - Yes (Yato failed an HIA because of the tackle) The potential mitigating factor in Hodge's defence is Yato lent into the tackle.

“And then the threshold for a Red Card High tackle with any contact between the tackler’s shoulder or head and the BC’s head or neck, with high degree of danger, and mitigation is not applied Wal, well done. Thanks for popping by to add weight to the ‘hang Hodge’ argument. Sweet of you to help. Out of interest, given how sharp you are with the book, what if the tacklee was without the ball? In fact running towards the play and no where near the ball? And what if there is a clear and obvious intent to commit a foul as described? What does your reading of the book say?

Gloria Arms are irrelevant his shoulder make contact with Yato's head. As the Tackler the responsibility is 100% on him to not do that. World Rugbys Law Clarification is as follows High tackle An illegal tackle causing head contact, where head contact is identified by clear contact to ball carrier’s head/neck OR the head visibly moves backwards from the contact point OR the ball carrier requires an HIA And then the threshold for a Red Card High tackle with any contact between the tackler’s shoulder or head and the BC’s head or neck, with high degree of danger, and mitigation is not applied Or Yellow High tackle with any contact between the tackler’s shoulder or head and the BC’s head or neck, with low degree of danger, and mitigation is not applied Hodge deserved a card which is probably debatable.

https://twitter.com/drew_mitchell/status/1175630431443505152 Looks absolutely fine to me. Play on

The man who wrote the decision pathway for the cup, Tuck, says shoulder + head = red. Being a crap defender with no technique just standing in the way is no excuse. He says thats 2 for 2, a Russian HIA and a Fijian now, with incorrect sanction. All the way back to Warburton in the 2011 semi final, this is about forcing players to make better decision to protect player safety; not malice or intent; and certainly not "oh help he's gonna score I better throw my body in the way".

It was not ok

Another Gloria ruling that conflicts with the laws of the game. Well done

Possibly a yellow. The only replay I saw didn’t show contact with the head, but open to the prospect of it with the right angle. If there is contact then yes, YC. But Hodge was just a deer in the headlights and Yato charged at him. Not sure it’s with force so can’t really be a Red by my understanding.

Referee and TMO both thought it was OK. That'll do me.

I thought hodge was the most courageous player on the park if yato had not changed his line to smash hodge we wouldn't be talking about this accidental victim of circumstances...no malice in the tackle TMO was correct...nothing to see here

At the time it happened I thought Reece escaped any censure because he simply put himself in the path of the Fijian player who then ran into him at pace. I agree it looks bad from some angles but to me it looks as though Reece kept his right arm across his chest as a protective measure [not at all unreasonable given the situation] at the same time attempting to grapple the Fijian with his left. Having seen endless replays my opinion hasn't changed; Reece does not drop his shoulder and run into the Fijian - he just puts himself in the players path and the players speed into him does the rest. A smaller man than Reece would have been flattened so for me it was a try saving move and a great effort.

Doesn't change the tackle at all but i thought it was pretty obvious that the throw never went 5 in the first place

How'd he hit the winger tackking a flanker?

Yato should have been red carded for head butting Hodge’s shoulder. That must be one of the worst defensive efforts by winger since Campo was at his worst. JOC was just as bad. At least it kept Hooper in the forwards for once, smart enough to avoid that treatment. Replays of Lomu have ensured the longevity of his victims . Hodge might be a sixth class winger but he will be famous.

I gave up on the Roar for two seasons because it is so full of PC types who seem to want to get rid of players as if they aren't real people, putting themselves on the line week after week. It isn't PC to have full contact sports so unless people with PC priorities are excluded, Rugby has no future. So what of Reece Hodge's front on tackle? Dangerous. Front on tackles are dangerous. Especially for the tackler. (George Gregan had great technique.) But they are legal. Rules can't influence mistakes. They can influence technique ....bluntly. Look at the sizes of the big blokes in rugby then look at Genia. The little guys have to be tough. Intent is what cards should be about. And there should be fewer of them. Accidents will keep happening. Red cards should be reserved for thuggery and all serious questions decided after the match. Let's get on with the game. It's skilful and it's tough. That's why I like it.

Looking at this in slow motion Hodge is set just outside the %m line and does not move his feet before impact but does brace as Yato steps back in from his outside intending to run through Hodge (successfully!) Hodge does get his left arm up but not his right. I cant see how he can be accused of a shoulder "charge when he is completely stationary and Yato changed direction to run through him.

Gloria I'm an ex ref and for a front on tackle where he attempted but could not get his arms around him, I see no issue with this tackle. I have no idea what the article is about. This is not and never should be a penalty let alone a yellow. Compared to what Farrel the English 10 got away with, that was an imperfect but legal tackle. Hodge could have been injured just as easily, very gutsy tackle and had to be made. I was impressed with how Hodge, having been flattened in the first 5 mins manned up and was very good in the D. We could have done with more like him, this team performance will not be enough against the Welsh.