Warriors vs Wests. First trial for 2024.

[Rich102]

Warriors v Wests Tigers​

Zyon Maiu'u (Warriors)

• Grade 2 Reckless High Tackle on Declan Casey (20 min)
• Base penalty 5 matches
• His options:
  5 matches: Guilty at judiciary or plea of no contest
  OR 4 matches: Guilty - early plea
• PLEA: TBC

 

[Izz]

Just read in Stuff that they're going to contest it. Dunno how that'll work out but i guess it's only 1 game extra if they lose

 

[Thatwasnthighref]

It was a horrible collision and hopefully the Tigers lad is all good but I'm on the no-red side of this one.

Even under union's far more punitive rulings, the late change in direction of the ball carrier caused by the first impact would be a mitigating factor.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

A 5 week base penalty offence seems harsh to me (particularly in light of him already being sent off) and certainly leads me to think either that the judiciary are being as haphazard and random as ever or have as usual managed to overlook any mitigating factors when it's a Warrior at fault.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

A 5 week base penalty offence seems harsh to me (particularly in light of him already being sent off) and certainly leads me to think either that the judiciary are being as haphazard and random as ever or have as usual managed to overlook any mitigating factors when it's a Warrior at fault.

Worth contesting, just to get a downgrade.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

I absolutely hate using rugby terminology like mitigating factors etc, but I don’t think you can really claim that anyway, where that photo shows that the big unit makes no attempt to bend his back making the tackle, the contact area is always going to be borderline

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I absolutely hate using rugby terminology like mitigating factors etc, but I don’t think you can really claim that anyway, where that photo shows that the big unit makes no attempt to bend his back making the tackle, the contact area is always going to be borderline

Mitigating circumstances is legal terminology not rugby terminology. Given this is the judiciary it’s appropriate.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

I absolutely hate using rugby terminology like mitigating factors etc, but I don’t think you can really claim that anyway, where that photo shows that the big unit makes no attempt to bend his back making the tackle, the contact area is always going to be borderline

Yeah I'm with this. I'm wondering if I'm saying this more confidently because it's not a guy who would have been in our XVII to start the season...but I felt it was bordering on reckless. If this incentivises young players in particular getting their tackling technique right and not haphazardly flying into tackles at chin height, then so be it.

Yes, Casey does change direction somewhat with the initial contact but that should be expected to some degree. If Maiu'u looks to hit him in the sternum and brings his contact point down by bending his back, probably no issue. Casey didn't duck much at all.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

He didn't duck much, but the last second sideways movement changed the impact point from what Maiu'u was attempting to do (make a tackle with his shoulder and arms) to what actually happened (basically a collision with the inside part of Maiu'u's shoulder, almost a headclash). Maiu'u pretty much entirely missed the tackle he was attempting to make.

He's gone in too high and with poor technique which caused an inherent risk of what happened, that's why it's an offence and worthy of punishment. I'm just saying that it should be a lesser offence than if he had hit him exactly where he was aiming. Aiming a tackle at someone's head is worse than recklessly aiming at their sternum and collecting their head when the target area moves, even if the latter is still unduly risky. If we are truly concerned about the latter tackle then why aren't we penalising guys who do the tackle Maiu'u did but don't contact the head? Do we actually care about the tackle, or are we just dishing out token suspensions based on outcomes?

I also hate this legalistic and technique-based rugby union way of assessing things (I literally never heard "poor technique" constantly invoked to explain high tackles until it started popping up on rugby union socials a few years ago) but I guess that's just me pandering a bit to the modern way rather than being full on "game's gone soft".

 

[Thatwasnthighref]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/35018...u-gets-reckless-high-tackle-charge-downgraded

Downgraded to 2 matches. No details yet on the judiciary's rationale though.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

He didn't duck much, but the last second sideways movement changed the impact point from what Maiu'u was attempting to do (make a tackle with his shoulder and arms) to what actually happened (basically a collision with the inside part of Maiu'u's shoulder, almost a headclash). Maiu'u pretty much entirely missed the tackle he was attempting to make.

He's gone in too high and with poor technique which caused an inherent risk of what happened, that's why it's an offence and worthy of punishment. I'm just saying that it should be a lesser offence than if he had hit him exactly where he was aiming. Aiming a tackle at someone's head is worse than recklessly aiming at their sternum and collecting their head when the target area moves, even if the latter is still unduly risky. If we are truly concerned about the latter tackle then why aren't we penalising guys who do the tackle Maiu'u did but don't contact the head? Do we actually care about the tackle, or are we just dishing out token suspensions based on outcomes?

I also hate this legalistic and technique-based rugby union way of assessing things (I literally never heard "poor technique" constantly invoked to explain high tackles until it started popping up on rugby union socials a few years ago) but I guess that's just me pandering a bit to the modern way rather than being full on "game's gone soft".

Yeah, you're right. It was a lesser offence and what you're saying has been vindicated with the downgrade.

Potentially poor technique is the wrong way to word it...it's just a bit misaimed. Reckless is certainly a word I would never have used. Careless? Maybe a bit more care would've helped, but mostly just a bit of lack of experience in that situation.

Again, I love the communication and the message from Webster/Walker in that article posted above. He got it slightly wrong, no malice, he struggled a bit early in the week in training but we got around him and he'll be fine. Love it.

 

[Meth]

2 matches for that is a great outcome. Excellent contesting. Misses a trial and Round 1, which he probably wasn't in line for any way.

 

[Rich102]

2 matches for that is a great outcome. Excellent contesting. Misses a trial and Round 1, which he probably wasn't in line for any way.

Apparently the trials don't count.

 

[idunno]

Apparently the trials don't count.

They should..

Glad it was down graded..

 

[Rich102]

They should..

Glad it was down graded..

Makes sense doesn't it?
If you get the penalty in a trial then you should be able to serve it in a trial.

 

[Nutz]

Makes sense doesn't it?
If you get the penalty in a trial then you should be able to serve it in a trial.

You could near kill someone then come back a week or two later and play??
Suspensions for head/neck contact should be used to get one's tackling up to speed. This sort of tackle happens quiet often in trials caused either by bad technique or poor timing /fatigue
Then again it would depend on what it's for. Calling a ref a dickhead could be served in a trial I guess because it's not safety related. Just a thought.

 

[Meth]

of course trials should count. As Rich says, if you are suspended in a trial, you can serve suspension in a trial.

of course, people can use off-season internationals and trials to mitigate the impact of suspensions, but that’s just how it goes…or at least, how it should go.

 

[Rich102]

You could near kill someone then come back a week or two later and play??
Suspensions for head/neck contact should be used to get one's tackling up to speed. This sort of tackle happens quiet often in trials caused either by bad technique or poor timing /fatigue
Then again it would depend on what it's for. Calling a ref a dickhead could be served in a trial I guess because it's not safety related. Just a thought.

See your logic.
But I am not commemnting about the sentence but how/when it should be served.
The sentence is up to the judiciary, and I am in favour of stamping out dangerous play.
Glad this incident didn't result in any ongoing harm and I know the player has learnt a lesson.

 

[Meth]

It’s the same logic as a 1-2 match suspension rubbing you out of Round 2 or 3, versus the same act attracting the same suspension rubbing you out of a Grand Final.

dems the breaks