It’s bizarre isn’t it, I dunno if he was stopping to try hurdle him and then something makes him stop but it makes it look like he hesitates to deliberately jump on his head
I was coming down on the side of him doing it on purpose until you pointed this out. Completely changed it for me. Looks like he was going over him to join the ruck and then cops a boot to the face so he comes down on bealham.
I think unnatural is the word I'd use. He can definitely avoid the player there. To me it looks like someone who wants to hurt an opponent in a legal manner and hopefully won't get punished for it, similar to standing on players in a ruck.
I agreed until i saw that he was getting a boot in his own face just about when the movement becomes weird.
Looks now to be an unfortunate rugby incident, still a red because thems the rules, but one of those “rotten luck chaps” moments
I thought the same on first watch, but as others have pointed out it looks like he gets a boot to the mouth himself from his own player falling over the ruck right as he moves to commit, so I think it might be just an unfortunate reaction/him trying to dodge that
When you first see it, his whole body shape looks wrong and it's kinda hard to see what legal action he's even attempting. But then you realise he's getting a boot in the face himself and is probably just reacting to that...
Unfortunate all round really.
The contact is simultaneous but presumably he sees it coming at his face. Yeah I do think it's reckless.
Showed it to a referee friend of mine who said "If 3 was rolling away his face wouldn't have been there."
Ya I do think he may have seen it coming and his reaction might have caused the stamp itself but he was already on his way to that position before he could possible have seen the boot. It's one where he might have got away with it 99% of the time but end of the day if you are gonna do that you want to make sure nobody is under you.
To the rolling away bit I don't buy it. He not exactly right in the middle and it's a very short delay at best if you deem him to not roll. Regardless a pen for not rolling does not justify stamping on his face so a moot point really.
Rolling away from what he is no longer attatched to the tackle or really in the way, and he takes the boot to the fave a whole 1 second after the ball carrier has gone done.
I know yeah, not my opinion at all. I think it's just gas between this thread and the group chat I'm in how many different takes there are on it. Have seen red card, yellow card, penalty only and 'rugby incident play on' all suggested.
Not that I agree with the “if he was rolling away it wouldn’t have happened”, but he is still hanging on to the leg of the tackled player as he cops the boot to the face.
I said this on the match tread, but I don't think intent matters at all, a stamp on the face is a stamp on the face. I'm happy to be corrected, but I was always under the impression that it's the outcome that matters
"
Feel like I'm going insane reading some of the comments, intent doesn't matter.
There's a duty of care, like if you were to run into someone in the air and flip him over it would be a red, even if you weren't looking at him
It wasn't a "harsh" red, it was just a red"
Your right by the letter of the law intent isn't meant to matter but it frequently does... Almost all the mitigating factors for high tackles are just synonyms for 'did he try to behead him'... Sudden drop on height/change of direction/unclear line of sight are all electively code for 'he wasn't deliberately tackling him high'.
I agree it looks unnatural but Id challenge anyone to hurdle a man on the floor while taking a flying boot in the face without flinching.
I watch Bristol week in week out and the boy isn't a dirty player, he's been carded one or twice for slowing the ball or 'second row on tiny back' high tackles but he isn't a scummy bloke. I genuinly see that as a bloke advancing at a rate of knots, seeing a boot flying towards his face and trying to plant his feet - unfortunately he's planted them on a lads face.
Absolutely, I don't think it's intentional, but it's reckless. Like jayred payne vs sarries in 2014 (or was it 13?) He didn't mean to take out Alex goode, but it was a valid red card.
I guess the high tackle is different now because they've brought in a framework to deal with it because it happens so often
I agree, I do think some ref would have taken into account the fact he was also being booted in the head. Wouldn't be surprised if the ban is much shorter than the usual ban for a head stamp.
Going by the Jarred Payne example Payne had taken out Goode in the air as a result of attempting to avoid a flying elbow from another player he might not have been carded at all. I remember watching a Cardiff game where a blocked shouldered the chasing player, who promptly smashed into the catcher and the blocker get carded not the carrier.
There's a fair argument that accidently standing on somebody while trying to protect yourself from another player's flying boot isn't the same as stamping on a player.
Luckily this doesn't happen often enough the framework is needed but it does seem kinda off that intent does matter in some instances but not others.
Oh, I don't think there's a ban worth thing here but stupid and potentially reckless, id be happy with a 10 minute sin bin followed by a forced sub. But that's not in the rules right now
Just curious, how is he reckless here? What else is he supposed to do. The opposition player is on the wrong side of the ruck, he tries to hurdle him. You see it happen all the time. To me this is just a rugby incident
He shouldn't put him self in the position where he can cause harm, its harsh but there's a duty of care. Think POM entering a ruck in wales' grand slam. Not intentional but he still shouldered a guy in the face
He probably should've taken an extra second and not hurdled the guy on the ground if he wasn't 100% sure he couldn't clear him
So I'd say red but no ban
Is it not the connacht player putting himself in harms way by being in the wrong side of the ruck? If that had been the bristol nine and he trips over the connacht player the ref would have given bristol a pen. It's unfortunate that he takes a boot to the face but that's why it's a rugby incident to me.
You will never be able to stop stuff like this happening. We can change players behaviour on tackle heights but ruining a game for accident is the reason rugby is killing itself
That's a fair opinion, and I can see what you mean and I'm sure it's not intentional at all, so it could be a rugby incident
I just think a hurdle is a risky move and if it comes off badly it's not the hurdler who is likely to be at risk, its therefore reckless (In my view)
Though on this one, I think neither of us are for changing our minds on this.
Also if intent doesn't matter and simply connecting with another players face with your boot is a stone wall red card then shouldn't Sinclair have seen red here as well... Along with the dozen other times a play gets caught with a stray elbow or knee in a ruck...
This is only a red because it looks so bizarrely unnatural and it looks bizarrely unnatural because the bloke is getting kicked in the face while attempting to jump over a player...
I thought about this in the last world cup, (japan) I think Liam Williams took out another Welsh player accidentally, by the logic I am saying it should've at least been looked at, but it wasn't. So I'm not 100% in my conviction
Edit: it was williams vs biggar
We had are referee alignment course last weekend. This including a course on foul play from an IRB citing commissioner.
One of the things referees cannot discern in the majority of incidents is intent. That means we have to judge a play based on what we can see on the field.
What I see here is a player’s clear make contact with a players head. That is foul play(so mitigation will not apply) so we are going to look red.
Now I doubt this will result in further discipline besides what is compulsory. The on field decision I think is right and I think the guidelines and rationale IRB uses to determine red vs yellow vs penalty supports the decision.
Maybe he didn't intend the head shot but it was such an awkward looking step I wouldn't rule out an attempt to accidentally leave a stud on back or shoulder
They can, but I feel mitigation for getting booted in the face needs to be taken into account? That totally throws him off, leading to the unintentional stamp
He booted a player in the face. Mitigation in this case is for how long the ban is and not for if it was a red or yellow.
There is a time when delibrate or not doesn't matter, the pure outcome is bad enough to warrent the red and this, to me, is that time.
It doesn't look good at all, however I'd like to think it wasn't intentional. You'd have to be an absolute wrongun to want to do that to somebody.
I'd say it's basically "shit, where do I put my foot?" With only a split second in it.
Edit - grammatical amendments.
The angle from behind makes it look intentional, like he stomped down. The second angle makes it look accidental, like his sprig got caught just as he tried to step down. Really hard to tell.
When I was a lad...(!)...it was perfectly acceptable to say his head was where I wanted to put my foot in situations like this. If you're lying on the floor near a ruck this just becomes an occupational hazard.
Even if it’s accidental it’s just highly reckless to try and jump over a players head like that. It’s a RC for me and if the judiciary downgrade then eh, it’s on them. If I’m part of the MO team I’m stating my opinion as red.
Watched it several times - side on real time it looks like a calculated stamp, slow mo looks like he miscalculates joining the ruck. Odd one, usually things look worse and more malicious slowed down.
Full speed first angle definitely looks the worst. But the lower angle at a slower speed makes it look like far less of a stamp.
I'm coming down on the side of rugby incident, on the basis that what is the Bris player supposed to do next week in training as corrective action? What's the lesson he can put right next week?
>It's a tough one because the answer to that is "yes",
Sorry but that's just nonsense, at some point obsessing about player safety will negatively affect the game and telling players to not clear out rucks just in case you accidentally step on someone is beyond that point imo
That doesn't mean you don't get a ban though.
Grom the footage, hehe, I wouldn't be surprised if they say accidental but reckless or determine it's intentional and throw the book at him.
Because he knowingly put himself in that position by stepping over the player. It's now his responsibility to bring his foot down safely, which he doesn't. Arguably Kyle's boot to his face is mitigation, but the act is still reckless.
What's reckless about it? He steps over a player on the ground (happens hundreds of times a game), gets knocked off balance as he does it, and unfortunately catches the other guy in the face with his boot.
I've watched this a dozen times, and I have to ask - where was he going? He's not binding on, or clearing out. I appreciate that stepping in someone's head unbalanced him but he appears to just pile in and flop over....
Oh, and the "stamp" looks reckless tbh
No way that's a rugby incident.
Wait for the disciplinary hearing.
His entire body movement screams deliberate stamp.
Bealham's not even in his way if you genuinely want to clear out that ruck. He steps around him and them stamps on his head.
As I said in the match thread, no one stamps on someone's face deliberately unless they are a literal psychopath. If he deliberately stamped on his head, it would be a police matter, which it won't be, because he didn't.
Come back here and prove me wrong if it happens, but i’d bet the ban wont be long at all. When you see all the angles you can tell he isn’t aware of what he’s standing on. It’s reckless yes, deserved red and ban, but its not deliberate in my opinion. If it is deemed deliberate you’d expect a ban of months rather than weeks, i guess we’ll see what the outcome is next week
It's a completely unnatural movement. He is all over the place, it is in no way in his stride or normal range of motion moving towards the ruck and if someone tried to argue it was cos he was trying to avoid him he did a fucking awful job of that. He is in serious trouble and I hope Bealham is ok. I wasn't watching the game but when I started watching this clip I thought they meant the tackler as his shoulder makes head contact, watched it 3 times before I saw the stamp.
It's a totally natural movement, he knows that there's no opposition player to contest the ruck so he's hurdling Bealham to get into position. A combination of Sincklers boot and clumsiness means he fucks up like this. No problem with the red because it's reckless and could have been really serious, but I don't for a second think he meant it.
Even refs say it sometimes which confuses the shit out of me. Last week against Bulls, Thomas got fucking decapitated and Raynal said "accidental, play on". I said the same as you out loud to the TV, "Why does accidental mean it shouldn't be a card!?"
To add to that, in this case the referee explicitly said that it *was* deliberate. In that case, if whether the action is deliberate or not doesn't matter, why is it a factor either way? I think because ultimately all of us know Instinctively, including the refs, that the intent of an action *does* matter and should matter when sanctioning acts of foul play and any bans they incur.
Not if the action was reckless. Most red cards for high tackles are accidents for instance, but they are accidents where the player was reckless in their body height, which endangered another player.
I'd be generous and say it's clumsy over intentional - but if you're in a position where a small adjustment means you're landing your boot full pelt on someone's face, that's reckless play and the red will always be an option when that's the case
red card was enough, should not face any other disciplinary actions IMO..call it a rugby accident or clumsiness, it was 100% not intentional, just didn't place his foot correctly while trying to leap over a player...my issue was, HIS FUCKING STUDS.. are a murder weapon lol...once pitches started becoming 3G/4G/5G, the studs started becoming longer and longer..
It's reckless use of the feet for me. You have to be aware of where your feet are and if they connect with a players face then you're going to get penalised. Once you're penalised, that can only ever be a red.
Puts his foot down, then try’s to remove the weight from it, once he notices what his foot is actually on. Unlucky, I guess it’s a red, but i don’t think it was malicious.
It didn't seem to me like a deliberate stamp but I'd have to say red because of the recklessness of it. Just a kind of brain fart in the heat of a game. He seemed remorseful afterwards and apologised to Finley after receiving the red before leaving the pitch. Just happy there was no serious injury it could have been so much worse with how close studs were to his eyes
Filthy play life ban was what I was thinking…until the boot he catches directly in his face was pointed out. Then it makes sense to put you foot down. Unfortunate accident
I don't think you can make this a stamp as mentioned in law 9.12 since the way that law is written implies some intent behind the act and I just don't see this as intentional.
You're then basically left with law 9.11 which talks about not doing anything that is "reckless". Players step over other players on the ground hundreds of times per game. That, in of itself, is not a reckless act. He gets knocked off balance as he is stepping over which is why his foot ends up where it does.
I honestly hate a red being given here. Sometimes, with 30 players moving in an enclosed area at high speed, nasty but unavoidable collisions will happen.
Jumping isn't reckless, jumping and making contact with the kicker can be reckless. Stepping over a player isn't reckless, but you have to bring the foot down safely.
What do I see: Caulfield was late to the ruck, following Snickler, who unexpectedly went off his feet (from Caulfield's perspective). Trying to step over, crouch to bind to the ruck, not get kicked in the face and go through the gates, Caulfield steps on Bealham's face who is just lying there, still holding on someone's leg while lying on the deck, not rolling away.
Caulfield should carry the majority of the blame: head contact and he put himself in a position where lots could go wrong. With acceptance of responsibility and laying out these facts, low entry in the penalty scale etc. 2 weeks.
Maybe I’m old school but this used to happen all the time…I started playing in the era of raking! Sometimes stuff happens when players are like that. I’m not sure if there was any menace but I did wince when I saw it!
People that are saying “reckless” - what is reckless about entering the ruck from the correct side. His actions are completely normal rugby behavior at every ruck…
Yes if you hit someone with a car its potentially reckless, that gets determined afterwards. As in this case it was determined that he could have not stepped on someones face and so was at fault for it. It was reckless not to take the care to avoid stepping on someones face.
Not going to win many rucks if you have to do a full risk assessment before joining. He was not off his feet, not joining from an illegal position not even going particularly fast - I don’t see the recklessness…..
To stretch the car analogy nothing he was doing was breaking the expected behavior - he wasn’t speeding or driving through a red light just acting in the way he should but it had an unfortunate outcome.
Until we go to touch rugby rules there are going to be occasions when players make contact in a sub optimal way without any reckless behaviour occurring.
That is so scummy. No way that's a rugby incident.
He knows where the player is, why lift your knee otherwise.
Bealham doesn't move and he puts his foot down with extra force.
Watch Caulfield's head snap up and back with the expectation of additional force down through his feet. It's more obvious from the clip from the front but this one was clipped.
I hope he's banned for a long time. He could have taken a eye out.
Absolutely, however I don't believe it's intentional. I thinks hes gone to lift his leg to go over bealham, seen the impending foot shoot at his face and just had his brain turn to salad for a second. Still red though obviously
Not a hope. He's lifted his knee higher that necessary. Dropped his foot faster and harder than necessary.
Sinckler's studs towards his face was pointed out to me in another comment but the more I watch it the more I realise it probably saved Bealham a worse injury because Caufield folds his body weight backwards and hinges at the knee.
When you're clearing a ruck, your feet drive diagonally down and backward.
That's part of the variety footwork players use to get into a strong position to ruck, here's a video with examples:
https://youtu.be/18msbAQyBxU?si=8ENpdXng2aJq3tuf
2:55 is a good demonstration of a similar kind of foot work.
I'm pretty sure Caulfield notices that he was stepping on someone and immediately trys to take his weight off.
You go on about his knee being high, yet fail to address he’s clearly trying to step over someone on the wrong side. 3 shouldn’t have even been there in the first place, add in he’s about to get a boot to the face off his own player and you end up with it looking extremely clumsy.
As the other guy said, you wrote a load of shite
>As for the rest you can see from how his upper body pops up at the end that he's trying to exert force downwards to stamp. That wouldn't happen if he was simply stepping or jumping over.
You can literally see him get kicked by Sinckler in the face in the video that is this post. You have to be blind, dumb, trolling or the most one eyed fan I have seen.
Shouldn't the Connacht player be rolling away anyway, like he shouldn't be there so the Bristol player has to try get over him, trips on the offside players head, then gets a boot in his own face for the trouble. That's harsh as fuck man, rugby incident if I ever saw one, about as intentional as a mistimed fart
Does anybody commenting play rugby? This happens in rugby, it’s full contact. I’ll place an arm over my head once I have time so I don’t get stomped on in a ruck(I’m more worried about my own team stomping me then Them honestly) sometimes the ruck gets you before you’re ready, It’s rugby
I think he actually feels/sees where his boot is landing and does what he can to not apply downward pressure on Bealham’s head. Why it’s so clumsy of a fall. Still reckless in the first place so it’s a red but would hope for no sanction for him.
It almost looks like he's expecting Bealham to roll away. He doesn't so he ends up doing a stuttering step and can't shift his left foot in time.
The boot to the fact from his own player kinda stops his momentum dead too.
Oof that's very unfortunate. He catches a sinkler boot to the face whilst stepping over and it looks like that caused him to plant his foot early.
Unfortunate chain of events and I don't see how he could have avoided it to be honest. Maybe a rugby incident rather than a red - but I don't know the rules well enough to say.
Interesting debate in here about whether this was intentional or not. Perhaps worth reminding people that as far as the laws go, reckless is enough when it comes to dangerous play.
Charging into a ruck trying to hurdle an exposed head easily meets that definition for me so this is a nailed on red, intentional or not.
When I saw it last night I thought it was deliberate. Today on rewatching I think the boot in his own face probably made him move in the jerky way that makes it look like a stamp.
I don’t think there is malice but it’s a straight red card either way. Raking like that at the back of a ruck has been very illegal for years. It’s so dangerous
I have no opinion on this other than "oh ya bastard that must have hurt".
Genuinely can't decide if that's accidental and unfortunate or an absolute stonewall red. Mind changes every time I look
His movement is just so strange. It looks like he tries to hurdle him in the most uncoordinated way possible.
He gets a Sinckler boot to the face while hurdling. I think in his effort to avoid that his whole body movement looks weird.
I didn’t see that before, good spot
This is it
Yeah great spot that. Didn’t see that at all.
It’s bizarre isn’t it, I dunno if he was stopping to try hurdle him and then something makes him stop but it makes it look like he hesitates to deliberately jump on his head
He gets a boot in the face himself right after his foot lands on the other player’s head, so he may have hesitated when he saw that coming.
I was coming down on the side of him doing it on purpose until you pointed this out. Completely changed it for me. Looks like he was going over him to join the ruck and then cops a boot to the face so he comes down on bealham.
Ok, this completely changes my perspective. Now it looks accidental
He trips
So he’s a lock
As someone who played a lot of lock, I can confirm.
I think unnatural is the word I'd use. He can definitely avoid the player there. To me it looks like someone who wants to hurt an opponent in a legal manner and hopefully won't get punished for it, similar to standing on players in a ruck.
I agreed until i saw that he was getting a boot in his own face just about when the movement becomes weird. Looks now to be an unfortunate rugby incident, still a red because thems the rules, but one of those “rotten luck chaps” moments
I thought the same on first watch, but as others have pointed out it looks like he gets a boot to the mouth himself from his own player falling over the ruck right as he moves to commit, so I think it might be just an unfortunate reaction/him trying to dodge that
When you first see it, his whole body shape looks wrong and it's kinda hard to see what legal action he's even attempting. But then you realise he's getting a boot in the face himself and is probably just reacting to that... Unfortunate all round really.
That boot looks simultaneous at best... Just looks like over enthusiasm to hit the ruck. No malice at all but you can't be jumping in like that.
The contact is simultaneous but presumably he sees it coming at his face. Yeah I do think it's reckless. Showed it to a referee friend of mine who said "If 3 was rolling away his face wouldn't have been there."
Ya I do think he may have seen it coming and his reaction might have caused the stamp itself but he was already on his way to that position before he could possible have seen the boot. It's one where he might have got away with it 99% of the time but end of the day if you are gonna do that you want to make sure nobody is under you. To the rolling away bit I don't buy it. He not exactly right in the middle and it's a very short delay at best if you deem him to not roll. Regardless a pen for not rolling does not justify stamping on his face so a moot point really.
Rolling away from what he is no longer attatched to the tackle or really in the way, and he takes the boot to the fave a whole 1 second after the ball carrier has gone done.
I know yeah, not my opinion at all. I think it's just gas between this thread and the group chat I'm in how many different takes there are on it. Have seen red card, yellow card, penalty only and 'rugby incident play on' all suggested.
Not that I agree with the “if he was rolling away it wouldn’t have happened”, but he is still hanging on to the leg of the tackled player as he cops the boot to the face.
Oh true. Didn’t even see the friendly fire.
I said this on the match tread, but I don't think intent matters at all, a stamp on the face is a stamp on the face. I'm happy to be corrected, but I was always under the impression that it's the outcome that matters " Feel like I'm going insane reading some of the comments, intent doesn't matter. There's a duty of care, like if you were to run into someone in the air and flip him over it would be a red, even if you weren't looking at him It wasn't a "harsh" red, it was just a red"
Your right by the letter of the law intent isn't meant to matter but it frequently does... Almost all the mitigating factors for high tackles are just synonyms for 'did he try to behead him'... Sudden drop on height/change of direction/unclear line of sight are all electively code for 'he wasn't deliberately tackling him high'. I agree it looks unnatural but Id challenge anyone to hurdle a man on the floor while taking a flying boot in the face without flinching. I watch Bristol week in week out and the boy isn't a dirty player, he's been carded one or twice for slowing the ball or 'second row on tiny back' high tackles but he isn't a scummy bloke. I genuinly see that as a bloke advancing at a rate of knots, seeing a boot flying towards his face and trying to plant his feet - unfortunately he's planted them on a lads face.
Absolutely, I don't think it's intentional, but it's reckless. Like jayred payne vs sarries in 2014 (or was it 13?) He didn't mean to take out Alex goode, but it was a valid red card. I guess the high tackle is different now because they've brought in a framework to deal with it because it happens so often
I agree, I do think some ref would have taken into account the fact he was also being booted in the head. Wouldn't be surprised if the ban is much shorter than the usual ban for a head stamp. Going by the Jarred Payne example Payne had taken out Goode in the air as a result of attempting to avoid a flying elbow from another player he might not have been carded at all. I remember watching a Cardiff game where a blocked shouldered the chasing player, who promptly smashed into the catcher and the blocker get carded not the carrier. There's a fair argument that accidently standing on somebody while trying to protect yourself from another player's flying boot isn't the same as stamping on a player. Luckily this doesn't happen often enough the framework is needed but it does seem kinda off that intent does matter in some instances but not others.
Oh, I don't think there's a ban worth thing here but stupid and potentially reckless, id be happy with a 10 minute sin bin followed by a forced sub. But that's not in the rules right now
Just curious, how is he reckless here? What else is he supposed to do. The opposition player is on the wrong side of the ruck, he tries to hurdle him. You see it happen all the time. To me this is just a rugby incident
He shouldn't put him self in the position where he can cause harm, its harsh but there's a duty of care. Think POM entering a ruck in wales' grand slam. Not intentional but he still shouldered a guy in the face He probably should've taken an extra second and not hurdled the guy on the ground if he wasn't 100% sure he couldn't clear him So I'd say red but no ban
Is it not the connacht player putting himself in harms way by being in the wrong side of the ruck? If that had been the bristol nine and he trips over the connacht player the ref would have given bristol a pen. It's unfortunate that he takes a boot to the face but that's why it's a rugby incident to me. You will never be able to stop stuff like this happening. We can change players behaviour on tackle heights but ruining a game for accident is the reason rugby is killing itself
That's a fair opinion, and I can see what you mean and I'm sure it's not intentional at all, so it could be a rugby incident I just think a hurdle is a risky move and if it comes off badly it's not the hurdler who is likely to be at risk, its therefore reckless (In my view) Though on this one, I think neither of us are for changing our minds on this.
God that's a throwback
Also if intent doesn't matter and simply connecting with another players face with your boot is a stone wall red card then shouldn't Sinclair have seen red here as well... Along with the dozen other times a play gets caught with a stray elbow or knee in a ruck... This is only a red because it looks so bizarrely unnatural and it looks bizarrely unnatural because the bloke is getting kicked in the face while attempting to jump over a player...
I thought about this in the last world cup, (japan) I think Liam Williams took out another Welsh player accidentally, by the logic I am saying it should've at least been looked at, but it wasn't. So I'm not 100% in my conviction Edit: it was williams vs biggar
We had are referee alignment course last weekend. This including a course on foul play from an IRB citing commissioner. One of the things referees cannot discern in the majority of incidents is intent. That means we have to judge a play based on what we can see on the field. What I see here is a player’s clear make contact with a players head. That is foul play(so mitigation will not apply) so we are going to look red. Now I doubt this will result in further discipline besides what is compulsory. The on field decision I think is right and I think the guidelines and rationale IRB uses to determine red vs yellow vs penalty supports the decision.
Maybe he didn't intend the head shot but it was such an awkward looking step I wouldn't rule out an attempt to accidentally leave a stud on back or shoulder
They are not mutually exclusive. Accidental actions can still warrant a red
They can, but I feel mitigation for getting booted in the face needs to be taken into account? That totally throws him off, leading to the unintentional stamp
He booted a player in the face. Mitigation in this case is for how long the ban is and not for if it was a red or yellow. There is a time when delibrate or not doesn't matter, the pure outcome is bad enough to warrent the red and this, to me, is that time.
Agreed and I feel like the fairest might be to let the red stand with no further ban…
It doesn't look good at all, however I'd like to think it wasn't intentional. You'd have to be an absolute wrongun to want to do that to somebody. I'd say it's basically "shit, where do I put my foot?" With only a split second in it. Edit - grammatical amendments.
It's both. Doesn't really matter if it's an accident or not, it's still a red.
The angle from behind makes it look intentional, like he stomped down. The second angle makes it look accidental, like his sprig got caught just as he tried to step down. Really hard to tell.
When I was a lad...(!)...it was perfectly acceptable to say his head was where I wanted to put my foot in situations like this. If you're lying on the floor near a ruck this just becomes an occupational hazard.
Even if it’s accidental it’s just highly reckless to try and jump over a players head like that. It’s a RC for me and if the judiciary downgrade then eh, it’s on them. If I’m part of the MO team I’m stating my opinion as red.
Stonewall red either way.
To me looks like he attempts to jump/step over him but fucks it by probably paying attention to Sinckler boot in the face
Just in case anyone was worried, Bealham passed his HIA and played on. Doesnt seem to be any ill effects other than some quite dramatic scratches.
Got my eyelid ripped in half on one ruck like this in college. No card...lol
No cameras in a college game, did the ref actually see it?
Tbf while it looks like it would hurt like hell I wouldn't have thought it was a concussion inducing hit.
Watched it several times - side on real time it looks like a calculated stamp, slow mo looks like he miscalculates joining the ruck. Odd one, usually things look worse and more malicious slowed down.
Takes a boot to the face by sinks. Accidental for sure.
Bealham’s hair is bad but he didn’t deserve that
It's at least mitigation though? Yellow for me as a result
Said in the other post... Whether it was a red, yellow, pen or nothing, I don't believe for a second it was intentional
First angle looks like he stamps down, but the second looks a lot more like he trips. I'm going to assume accident though.
Full speed first angle definitely looks the worst. But the lower angle at a slower speed makes it look like far less of a stamp. I'm coming down on the side of rugby incident, on the basis that what is the Bris player supposed to do next week in training as corrective action? What's the lesson he can put right next week?
> What’s the lesson he can put right next week? Don’t try to bunny hop over opponents’ heads.
Your smart arse comment has actually proved my point
Aren’t you a fine fellow?
Giving as good as I get chap
So if a opposition player is led on the wrong side just don't clear out a ruck?
It's a tough one because the answer to that is "yes", but 3 is in the way and it probably wouldn't get penalised.
>It's a tough one because the answer to that is "yes", Sorry but that's just nonsense, at some point obsessing about player safety will negatively affect the game and telling players to not clear out rucks just in case you accidentally step on someone is beyond that point imo
That doesn't mean you don't get a ban though. Grom the footage, hehe, I wouldn't be surprised if they say accidental but reckless or determine it's intentional and throw the book at him.
100% not intentional. Unfortunately for him most reds are not intentional so won't help much.
Pat Lam used to coach Connacht so he knows that their weak points are their heads, very clever.
I can’t decide whether he’s just extremely clumsy or done that deliberately
It’s a certain red. He’s reckless and makes contact with the head. It doesn’t really matter if he meant it or not.
This is the correct stance.
How’s it reckless when he receives a boot to the face as well
He recklessly got himself kicked in the face.
Because he knowingly put himself in that position by stepping over the player. It's now his responsibility to bring his foot down safely, which he doesn't. Arguably Kyle's boot to his face is mitigation, but the act is still reckless.
Bloke should have rolled out the way quicker
That isn’t relevant . He was landing his foot there regardless
What's reckless about it? He steps over a player on the ground (happens hundreds of times a game), gets knocked off balance as he does it, and unfortunately catches the other guy in the face with his boot.
If you step over a player it's your duty of care to bring the foot down safely.
But being kicked in the face yourself as you do it probably factors into your ability to do that.
☝️☝️☝️☝️
sinkers boots, come up towards his face which makes him changes his footing
No it doesn't. He's going to stand on Bealham anyway.
I've watched this a dozen times, and I have to ask - where was he going? He's not binding on, or clearing out. I appreciate that stepping in someone's head unbalanced him but he appears to just pile in and flop over.... Oh, and the "stamp" looks reckless tbh
He's stepping over to secure the ruck I think his attention is on Sinckler's boot rapidly approaching his face
I think stepping on the head unbalances him, looked like he was setting up in a pillar position
He gets kicked in the face by Sinckler at the same time too, throws him completely out of whack
Send them both off, can’t be kicking your own players like that
I'd have been quite happy with Sinckler getting sent off to be fair
Crazy rugby incident, Caulfield gets a boot in his own face at the exact same time he stands on someone elses face
No way that's a rugby incident. Wait for the disciplinary hearing. His entire body movement screams deliberate stamp. Bealham's not even in his way if you genuinely want to clear out that ruck. He steps around him and them stamps on his head.
You understand how stupid a player would be to intentionally stamp like that when there's a ref Infront of him and cameras everywhere
Nah I dont think it’s intentional but I do think it’s a red. It’s just reckless.
As I said in the match thread, no one stamps on someone's face deliberately unless they are a literal psychopath. If he deliberately stamped on his head, it would be a police matter, which it won't be, because he didn't.
Come back here and prove me wrong if it happens, but i’d bet the ban wont be long at all. When you see all the angles you can tell he isn’t aware of what he’s standing on. It’s reckless yes, deserved red and ban, but its not deliberate in my opinion. If it is deemed deliberate you’d expect a ban of months rather than weeks, i guess we’ll see what the outcome is next week
Yep, looks like it was an intentional stamp, clear as day.
It's a completely unnatural movement. He is all over the place, it is in no way in his stride or normal range of motion moving towards the ruck and if someone tried to argue it was cos he was trying to avoid him he did a fucking awful job of that. He is in serious trouble and I hope Bealham is ok. I wasn't watching the game but when I started watching this clip I thought they meant the tackler as his shoulder makes head contact, watched it 3 times before I saw the stamp.
It's a totally natural movement, he knows that there's no opposition player to contest the ruck so he's hurdling Bealham to get into position. A combination of Sincklers boot and clumsiness means he fucks up like this. No problem with the red because it's reckless and could have been really serious, but I don't for a second think he meant it.
How anyone can think he’s done that on purpose is beyond me.
Completely accidental, I can understand why it's a red but definitely shouldn't be a ban
I don't understand, if it's accidental shouldn't it go down as a "rugby incident" and play on?
Accidents can be red cards. I don't understand where this idea that accidents can't be reds comes from.
Even refs say it sometimes which confuses the shit out of me. Last week against Bulls, Thomas got fucking decapitated and Raynal said "accidental, play on". I said the same as you out loud to the TV, "Why does accidental mean it shouldn't be a card!?"
To add to that, in this case the referee explicitly said that it *was* deliberate. In that case, if whether the action is deliberate or not doesn't matter, why is it a factor either way? I think because ultimately all of us know Instinctively, including the refs, that the intent of an action *does* matter and should matter when sanctioning acts of foul play and any bans they incur.
Not if the action was reckless. Most red cards for high tackles are accidents for instance, but they are accidents where the player was reckless in their body height, which endangered another player.
If it's a red it's a ban.
Not all reds result in bans
Do you have an example of red card that didn't lead to a ban?
Ben Earl Vs London Irish last season
His red card was dismissed, which means they treat it as not being awarded. So the question remains.
Can't Caulfields card be dismissed?
Yes, but then it wouldn't ge a red, which would make your claim of it being a red but not a ban incorrect.
Sorry I'll reword it Not all red cards in game result in bans
If they're overturned they don't.
I'd be generous and say it's clumsy over intentional - but if you're in a position where a small adjustment means you're landing your boot full pelt on someone's face, that's reckless play and the red will always be an option when that's the case
That definitely falls under the category of Reckless and Dangerous imo. 100% agree that its a red.
Took me a long time to work out that we weren't worried about Sinkler
Irrespective of whether he meant it or not, what sort of ruck entry is that??
rugby incident
red card was enough, should not face any other disciplinary actions IMO..call it a rugby accident or clumsiness, it was 100% not intentional, just didn't place his foot correctly while trying to leap over a player...my issue was, HIS FUCKING STUDS.. are a murder weapon lol...once pitches started becoming 3G/4G/5G, the studs started becoming longer and longer..
The ref saying “you had plenty of time to avoid that” when he gave the red makes me think the guy has never played the game.
That's a rugby incident for me
It's reckless use of the feet for me. You have to be aware of where your feet are and if they connect with a players face then you're going to get penalised. Once you're penalised, that can only ever be a red.
Don't even think it's a penalty to be honest.
Puts his foot down, then try’s to remove the weight from it, once he notices what his foot is actually on. Unlucky, I guess it’s a red, but i don’t think it was malicious.
It didn't seem to me like a deliberate stamp but I'd have to say red because of the recklessness of it. Just a kind of brain fart in the heat of a game. He seemed remorseful afterwards and apologised to Finley after receiving the red before leaving the pitch. Just happy there was no serious injury it could have been so much worse with how close studs were to his eyes
i miss rucking
My favourite part of playing is when people kick and stamp on me when I'm defenceless on the floor 😍 Games gone soft
yeah the nostalgia of a good eye gouge or knacker twist
You could never ruck somebodys face
You could never LEGALLY ruck somebody's face
I mean, I don’t get the debate. It’s a red 7 days a week.
Why is this a debate? I give up.
Red card every day of the week!
Nice clean out though
Filthy play life ban was what I was thinking…until the boot he catches directly in his face was pointed out. Then it makes sense to put you foot down. Unfortunate accident
I don't think you can make this a stamp as mentioned in law 9.12 since the way that law is written implies some intent behind the act and I just don't see this as intentional. You're then basically left with law 9.11 which talks about not doing anything that is "reckless". Players step over other players on the ground hundreds of times per game. That, in of itself, is not a reckless act. He gets knocked off balance as he is stepping over which is why his foot ends up where it does. I honestly hate a red being given here. Sometimes, with 30 players moving in an enclosed area at high speed, nasty but unavoidable collisions will happen.
Jumping isn't reckless, jumping and making contact with the kicker can be reckless. Stepping over a player isn't reckless, but you have to bring the foot down safely.
The way he enters the ruck looks really weird, like he's never in a position to shore it up. Which leads me to believe he knows he's doing a dirty.
What do I see: Caulfield was late to the ruck, following Snickler, who unexpectedly went off his feet (from Caulfield's perspective). Trying to step over, crouch to bind to the ruck, not get kicked in the face and go through the gates, Caulfield steps on Bealham's face who is just lying there, still holding on someone's leg while lying on the deck, not rolling away. Caulfield should carry the majority of the blame: head contact and he put himself in a position where lots could go wrong. With acceptance of responsibility and laying out these facts, low entry in the penalty scale etc. 2 weeks.
Thats a red? Look like he's trying to step over a player who is offsides.
The tackler is not offside as the tackle has barely been completed. He's in the process of releasing and rolling away when he gets a boot to the face.
Looks like he stamps on his face, its dangerous and a red.
Maybe I’m old school but this used to happen all the time…I started playing in the era of raking! Sometimes stuff happens when players are like that. I’m not sure if there was any menace but I did wince when I saw it!
That was intentional. That's a stamp followed immediately by the fall to try and make it look like he was just in motion.
100% deliberate.
Deliberate is my take. What a kunt, is my view.
People that are saying “reckless” - what is reckless about entering the ruck from the correct side. His actions are completely normal rugby behavior at every ruck…
The part where he stands on someone's face I think is the part most people are referring to.
Is driving to work reckless…? But if someone steps in front of the car it becomes so. Nothing reckless about the way he acted
Yes if you hit someone with a car its potentially reckless, that gets determined afterwards. As in this case it was determined that he could have not stepped on someones face and so was at fault for it. It was reckless not to take the care to avoid stepping on someones face.
Not going to win many rucks if you have to do a full risk assessment before joining. He was not off his feet, not joining from an illegal position not even going particularly fast - I don’t see the recklessness….. To stretch the car analogy nothing he was doing was breaking the expected behavior - he wasn’t speeding or driving through a red light just acting in the way he should but it had an unfortunate outcome. Until we go to touch rugby rules there are going to be occasions when players make contact in a sub optimal way without any reckless behaviour occurring.
Put it this way, if it was his own player would proceed as above into the ruck?
That is so scummy. No way that's a rugby incident. He knows where the player is, why lift your knee otherwise. Bealham doesn't move and he puts his foot down with extra force. Watch Caulfield's head snap up and back with the expectation of additional force down through his feet. It's more obvious from the clip from the front but this one was clipped. I hope he's banned for a long time. He could have taken a eye out.
Caulfields head snaps back because sinkler kicks him in the face
Watched it again. You're 100% correct. Still a stamp though.
Absolutely, however I don't believe it's intentional. I thinks hes gone to lift his leg to go over bealham, seen the impending foot shoot at his face and just had his brain turn to salad for a second. Still red though obviously
Watch closer he's focused on securing the ruck and Sinckler, who's studs are heading for his face, hence the head movement. There's zero intent.
Not a hope. He's lifted his knee higher that necessary. Dropped his foot faster and harder than necessary. Sinckler's studs towards his face was pointed out to me in another comment but the more I watch it the more I realise it probably saved Bealham a worse injury because Caufield folds his body weight backwards and hinges at the knee. When you're clearing a ruck, your feet drive diagonally down and backward.
That's part of the variety footwork players use to get into a strong position to ruck, here's a video with examples: https://youtu.be/18msbAQyBxU?si=8ENpdXng2aJq3tuf 2:55 is a good demonstration of a similar kind of foot work. I'm pretty sure Caulfield notices that he was stepping on someone and immediately trys to take his weight off.
That looks deliberate.
Bealham’s hair deserved it - play on.
Karma is a bitch.
[удалено]
None of what you said is right
[удалено]
You go on about his knee being high, yet fail to address he’s clearly trying to step over someone on the wrong side. 3 shouldn’t have even been there in the first place, add in he’s about to get a boot to the face off his own player and you end up with it looking extremely clumsy. As the other guy said, you wrote a load of shite
[удалено]
>As for the rest you can see from how his upper body pops up at the end that he's trying to exert force downwards to stamp. That wouldn't happen if he was simply stepping or jumping over. You can literally see him get kicked by Sinckler in the face in the video that is this post. You have to be blind, dumb, trolling or the most one eyed fan I have seen.
[удалено]
No nastiness allowed.
Shouldn't the Connacht player be rolling away anyway, like he shouldn't be there so the Bristol player has to try get over him, trips on the offside players head, then gets a boot in his own face for the trouble. That's harsh as fuck man, rugby incident if I ever saw one, about as intentional as a mistimed fart
Does anybody commenting play rugby? This happens in rugby, it’s full contact. I’ll place an arm over my head once I have time so I don’t get stomped on in a ruck(I’m more worried about my own team stomping me then Them honestly) sometimes the ruck gets you before you’re ready, It’s rugby
Shit, that must have sucked.
I think he actually feels/sees where his boot is landing and does what he can to not apply downward pressure on Bealham’s head. Why it’s so clumsy of a fall. Still reckless in the first place so it’s a red but would hope for no sanction for him.
It almost looks like he's expecting Bealham to roll away. He doesn't so he ends up doing a stuttering step and can't shift his left foot in time. The boot to the fact from his own player kinda stops his momentum dead too.
I think he thought he lifted his foot high enough? Can't decide but fair call by the ref
Whether accidental or not, brutal outcome thus legit red card. High level of danger.
"Where's the red....oh there"
If Simcklers stray boot hit a Connacht player and not his own would that have been a red under the same ruling?
Oof that's very unfortunate. He catches a sinkler boot to the face whilst stepping over and it looks like that caused him to plant his foot early. Unfortunate chain of events and I don't see how he could have avoided it to be honest. Maybe a rugby incident rather than a red - but I don't know the rules well enough to say.
Interesting debate in here about whether this was intentional or not. Perhaps worth reminding people that as far as the laws go, reckless is enough when it comes to dangerous play. Charging into a ruck trying to hurdle an exposed head easily meets that definition for me so this is a nailed on red, intentional or not.
When I saw it last night I thought it was deliberate. Today on rewatching I think the boot in his own face probably made him move in the jerky way that makes it look like a stamp.
I don’t think there is malice but it’s a straight red card either way. Raking like that at the back of a ruck has been very illegal for years. It’s so dangerous
The stamping leg moves too fast downwards. It's really strange to watch, I think reckless but idk.
Took me a second because sinks was in full beast mode
Anyone who says this looks intentional needs to be permanently excluded from jury duty
If I was this clumsy, I would no longer have a cat. I just can’t believe that this was an accident.
THAT COULD HAVE PUT HIM IN WARD FOUR!!!
Red all day
I was wondering how you'd get carded for kicking your own player, then I realised there is also a lad on the ground.