'So many s--t emotions:' Distraught Cane says he'll have to live with red card pain 'forever', Foz questions Kolisi escape

Players go into the game knowing the consequences of high tackles. With due respect tackling lower is not difficult. You make it sound like it’s a monumental shift, it’s not. In fact the vast majority of tackles are legal so that completely disproves your assertion. It’s the same principle as raising kids, no consequences for actions results in no change of behaviour. What puzzles me is why you support high tackles. You may not care if future litigation ruins the game financially but you would be in the extreme minority. Governing bodies would be negligent in the extreme to not mitigate against this. Why are high tackles an important part of the game. It’s just rubbish to say players cannot adjust their height down, a bend at the knees and lowering of shoulders entering the contact zone. It’s not difficult and with the hours spent training to say that some players are incapable of adjusting holds little water. Finally there is a framework for Refs to follow in deciding sanctions high tackles. Annoying are some of the comments of so called expert commentators whose lack of knowledge or wilful ignoring of the framework carry on like pork chops. They are paid to do a job but either cannot control their own biases or emotions and make unsubstantiated comments which of course influences public opinion.Both the sanctions to Cane and the SA Captain complied with the framework. Finally whatever you think is irrelevant. There may be adjustments to how the sanctions are managed but the overall goal will not change which is to have protocols to reduce the incidences of head contact.

In your latter point Scrum, I would say fine them but don't send them to jail. I would add that most of these incidents are deliberate and intentional and therefore, if a serious outcome happens, then throw the book. Sam Cane got fined and sent to jail in Rugby's pinnacle game. I didn't watch the match live, only saw highlights (and lowlights) but I note that Peter Du Toit had a mighty game. Well done him. BUT, he tackles with his own style and capabilities - they all don't tackle like him - because they can't. The same as everyone doesn't run the same or step the same. The risk of head contact has already been reduced - how far do you want that to go until you're happy? Contrary to what you think, I believe it is very difficult for some players (if not all) to drop their height in an instance - defenders are always at risk too and you admitted injuries occur in low tackles because of incorrect head placement. I'm not sure what you mean about "head in the sand" attitudes. I'm all about hoping that this current mob don't continue wrecking the game by over-regulation and it seems I have much support out there. Sam Cane, who I have never supported in my life, was given the short straw and should receive an apology on what was dished out to him. And to be fair, the SA guy was extremely lucky not to suffer the same fate from whoever was TMO.

How come Peter Du Toit made 28 tackles in the final and not one approached head contact zone. He is 6ft 6 and made very dominant legal tackles. Behaviour can be changed and that is the aim. “,Head in the sand “ attitudes “ do not cut it anymore. Many of the injuries in low tackles come from incorrect head placement. Nothing is going to totally eliminate head contact, it’s about reducing risk. As for change of height and direction that is covered under mitigation. It’s not that difficult to drop your height by a foot in general. Head protection does not reduce brain damage, that is confirmed by medical opinion . As a parallel red light traffic fines have not stopped entirely people running red lights, should we on that basis stop fining people.

Punishment is usually considered a deterrent. Next Easter long weekend I'll bet there's not one Australian state that will run a campaign letting us all know that traffic fines and demerit points will be halved over said weekend. Your argument that the punishment can be reduced without impacting on the detterent is somewhat novel. And the sole basis of that reduction in penalty is the fans viewing delight. And I dunno about your but I found the RWC final a pretty enthralling game

Agree Sheek. Of course there will be good games from time to time but over-regulation and ignorance is disrupting the progress of this once great game. R & Y/C's are a current scourge on the game and WR is unlikely to change anytime soon. They will continue to lose support especially in Oz where the game is at an alltime low.

If they are litigated out of existence, then so be it. I'm pretty certain that nobody, including me, wants an injury of any nature to occur to any footballer. Let's get that straight. And I have no objection to low tackles being effected. However, in the real world of RU/RL/Aussie Rules, that is an impossible dream. Things happen in an instant for varying reasons, players are of different shapes and sizes, some have the ability to swerve and step better than others - do you want me to go on? Tackling + 110 kgs players is not much fun and tackling low is also fraught with danger, in particular to the defender. Perhaps WR should make it mandatory to wear head protection. And perhaps put a bit more onus on ball runners to protect themselves better rather than blaming the defender on every occasion. I'm not recommending that because it is unrealistic to expect that. In the meantime, the game is being ruined by over-regulation. What purpose was served in punishing Sam Cane like they did? He was Y/C by Barnes, had 3 points scored against his team. Isn't that sufficient punishment for his unintentional action? To be happy to have 14 against 15 is foolhardy. Put Clive Woodward in charge and let him sort it out because the current batch are not up to it.

i thought many ppl were complaining that Boks just look for boring forward penalties

14 + Barnes?

How do you know it wasnt reviewed? The TMO's job is to pick up on everything the referee might have missed. Just because they didn't tell you it's legal, they let play go on....as so many of you are calling for. It was still checked.

Would you guys be happier if the wrong call was made? It wasn't an obscure, hidden, little knock in a ruck that no one saw. The whole world saw it in real time.

World Rugby doesn’t care about head injuries. They only want to be seen to be doing something to avoid litigation in the future. It’s not going to take the worlds best lawyer to challenge WR in the future if Kriel ends up with long term head injury. A simple statement of “so your officials not only deemed my client took direct contact to the head your officials actively labeled it “high degree of danger” yet they allowed him to play on without carrying out an HIA putting my client at risk which had lead us here today.”

Problem with Siyas hit and the precedent that WR set when they doubled down on Owen Farrell is that when you’re always illegal you cannot get the benefit of mitigation. Siya was offside and therefore by the laws mitigation cannot be applied.

Touché

You are either serious in reducing head contact or you are not. You can think what you like but if governing bodies do not take action to mitigate against brain injuries they will be litigated out of existence. That’s no fantasy . The NFL has paid out multi millions in compensation and Rugby in England is currently being litigated against. And what’s the huge objection to lowering tackle height. It will benefit the game not only in a reduction of head contact but raise the possibility of more offloads in contact thus producing a more exciting game. At the moment your highly skilled internationals are going high to either prevent offloads or hold the player up to force a maul. Neither of those results add to the spectacle of the game.

From what I could see he got every major decision right. The Savea penalty was 50-50, but I can certainly see why he gave the penalty. What aspect did you think he didn't 'ref well?'

Barnes didn't 'apologise.' It's been misinterpreted.

It's well known that Dallaglio is the entirety of the 'English' media.

He got every major decision right. The only 50-50 one was Savea. And, no, he didn't 'apologise' to Savea for getting it wrong.

No. He didn't 'apologise.' You're making the mistake of listening to the Kiwi media. Characteristically, they've heard what they wanted to hear and misunderstood.

No. He didn't admit to a mistake on the field.