1. Dangerous play = red card
Most people have declared that the referee was wrong to red card Nathan Hughes for his kneeing in the head of George North, that left the winger unconscious on the ground, but I disagree. I think the referee was spot on in a decision that could prove to be a landmark one, not dissimilar to Jared Payne’s red for taking Alex Goode out in the Heineken Cup last year. Players are so big these days, and there is so much awareness around injuries and players’ health, that the ‘duty of care’ argument holds more weight than ever. Not for a moment am I suggesting that there was any malicious intent to Hughes’ action, but I do believe he was trying to dislodge the ball from North’s hands with his foot. He missed and accidentally connected with North’s head, which is dangerous play. No-where in the lawbook does it mention intent, so whether he meant to hit North’s head or not is entirely irrelevant. It is a similar situation to the 50/50 aerial challenges we see these days. Finn Russell was (retrospectively) judged to have committed a red card offence when taking out Dan Biggar in the air at Murrayfield – he didn’t mean to do it, he just mistimed his run and couldn’t pull out of it. Sound familiar? If that is worthy of a red card, then the referee’s decision to give Nathan Hughes the same punishment was bang on the money.
2. Winging it
Three of the forgotten men of English wing play roared back into fans’ and, potentially, Stuart Lancaster’s consciousness with brilliant performances at the weekend. At Wembley, in front of a bumper crowd, Dave Strettle and, in particular, Chris Ashton were hugely impressive. Ashton was hungry for work and also looked to have added an extra half a yard of pace to his straight line speed – the way he chased down his kick through and later skipped away from Ross Chisholm for his tries showcased some serious top end speed. Strettle’s volleyed kick through was a moment of genuine skill, and he ended with seven defenders beaten. The issue with these two is, they’ve been tried and tested on the international stage, and found wanting. That cannot be said for Christian Wade, who scored a timely hattrick for Wasps at Saints on Friday night. Sure, his defence can still be shaky at times, but surely the England coaches should be able to mould such a devastating raw talent into a more rounded international player? It’s probably too late for him to press for a World Cup place now, but time is still very much on Wade’s side.
3. Arguing for the defence
Leicester Tigers have scored 26 tries in 18 Premiership games this season. To put that into a bit of context, it is just three more than London Welsh, who have just been relegated without coming close to winning a game. Northampton, champions and league leaders, have 65, while Wasps, who sit two places below the Tigers, have scored 63. It is baffling that they have scored so few tries and yet they sit in fourth, right in the hunt once again for a play-off spot. Talk to any of their fans and it quickly becomes clear that it has been far from a satisfying season, with performances on the pitch lacking the verve of recent times and the Matt O’Connor era. Their defence has got them to where they are, and never was it more obvious than in their repelling of 28 Exeter phases at Welford Road on Friday. They have conceded the joint fewest tries in the league (33, the same as Bath), but any dreams of a title push will surely necessitate a few more tries in the ‘for’ column.
4. The long farewell
And so finally, we say a confirmed good bye to London Welsh. Their stay in the Premiership has been a tortured one, a single point garnered from 18 rounds of competition so far and it looks unlikely that they will add to that. Ironically, it was the side against whom they won that point – a try bonus point at the Rec way back in round two – that confirmed their relegation at the weekend, Bath’s stuttering win finally doing for the Welsh exiles. Whatever your opinions on promotion/relegation, there can be no doubt that Welsh’s second stay in the league was an unmitigated disaster, which is a real shame after they had made such a good fist of it the first time around. It should be an anomaly – both Bristol and Worcester appear much better suited financially to the travails of a stay in the top league – but Welsh will, rightly, continue to rail against the ‘closed shop’ of Premiership Rugby funding that has made their task this year that much more difficult.
5. Seven into four…
… doesn’t go. With four rounds left, there are still seven teams feasibly in the mix for a play-off spot, making this the closest semi-final race for some time. Sale’s impressively comfortable win over Gloucester in round 18 leaves them eight points adrift of the Tigers in fourth, while Wasps have one point more but have just one win in their last four games. Three points separate Saracens in second and Exeter in fifth, and so inevitably eyes now turn to the run in. Of the top four, Bath have comfortably the nicest set of fixtures left, playing the teams currently sat in 8th-11th (Harlequins, Gloucester, Irish and Newcastle). Northampton’s 10 point lead over Saracens should be enough to secure them a home semi-final, although even that is not assured with trips away to Exeter and Leicester to come. The Tigers and Chiefs themselves have difficult but remarkably similar run-ins, both facing away trips to Saracens and Wasps as well as hosting the Saints. Wasps, with trips to both sets of Exiles as well as home games against the two sides immediately above them – Exeter and Leicester – will still fancy their chances. Basically, it is all still up in the air. But if I were a betting man, this would be my top four come the end of the season: 1. Northampton 2. Bath 3. Saracens 4. Leicester.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
22 replies on “Aviva Premiership Round 18: 5 things we learned”
For the Hughes incident, obviously intent is irrelevant – not sure how people can argue that. If he was trying to kick the ball from North’s hands then it is definitely a straight red. However, I still don’t think that is the case.
For the top 4, I’m fairly confident Wasps can sneak in. Of our 4 fixtures, we have Welsh and Irish away with our tough fixtures (Exeter and Leicester) both coming at home. Good chance we can get at least 3, or even 4 wins, which should see if sneak in.
1. Saints 2. Bath 3. Saracens 4. Wasps
It all comes down to whether or not you believe he was trying to kick the ball for me. If he was it’s a straight red and a ban. I really don’t think he was (don’t see how someone can really suggest it with a straight face either), and thus it was just unfortunate, and no sanction.
If Hughes was trying to kick the ball out of North’s hand then why doesn’t he try and follow through with his leg instead of trying to “brake”? It’s clearly not an attempt to kick the ball but rather a big man coming in on a covering line and not being able to stop. Also, North turned into him and that compounded the issue. No intent at all – not a red, just an accident.
Jamie – normally I find you lucid and agreeable, but when the game mandates the refereeing of outcomes then the game dies. Because someone gets injured badly is not proof of illegality and a net consequence of playing rugby.
If this link works you can see another view of the North incident. It has rather changed my view to yours Jamie, Hughes seems to shuffle into his face which is at least very clumsy so I guess red
https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/A630F2E4501193340518596313088_334c40015c1.2.1.6954442583429456059.mp4?versionId=H7pvT_soz81s4B_HBZ.CBCVJLR8nTT57
Guys,
Law 10.4(c) A player must not kick an opponent.
Sanction = Penalty
He kicked him in the head!
Intentionally? Almost certainly not. But that is not relevant.
Gerry – the game does not mandate the refereeing of outcomes, but the refereeing of actions. Which is what happened. Full marks to the lad for making the decision.
Not one person here is arguing that it is ok to kick someone in the head; they’re arguing that he didn’t kick him in the head.
His foot/shin colliding with North’s head and him actually kicking is two completely different acts.
One deserves a red and a ban, the other is just unlucky and he shouldn’t be punished.
Having watched it a load of times, I’m still not 100% sure which but I do lean towards the thinking that it was not a kick and therefore he should not be banned.
Thats an interesting distinction Jacob. I wonder if someone did intentionally “shin” someone in the head, then that would be deemed OK, because it wasn’t with the foot, so technically not a kick.
The Laws state that one cannot trip, or stamp, or strike with the fist, arm, shoulder, head or knee. So this is in between the knee and the foot, therefore a loophole and within the laws? It sounds ridiculous of course. Because it is.
“One deserves a red and a ban, the other is just unlucky and he shouldn’t be punished.” Well, I do agree that he is unlucky. Clumsy, but unlucky that he unintentionally “collided with North’s head with his shin”. I suspect that he will get a minimal ban, and in all honesty I think that would be just.
My distinction was not meant to sound as if it was between his foot or shin – both are kicks.
The distinction is this; just because my foot makes contact with something, it does not mean I have kicked it. Any more than my hand touching someone means I am hitting them.
As I’ve said, if it is deemed that Hughes has attempted to kick the ball then is is a ban. However, if he is simply running in the direction at full speed as North dives and he makes no movement is his foot unnatural in North’s direction, he has not kicked him and therefore deserves no punishment. It looks to me as though he is running and then slightly shortens his step in an attempt to avoid North. That isn’t a kick.
Some of the rubbish I have heard on this incident has really saddened me, I have to say – but you expect it from troll-like children here in the wide-eyed web, – par for the course. But really surprised and disappointed to read an actual ‘rugby journo’ suggest that Hughes was trying to kick the ball away from North and somehow missing and kicking him in the face.
The (ever growing) cynic in me suggests it’s ‘click bait’ in the heading to make sure this page comes alive with nay sayers and a good old argument to boost advertising revenues. Which is sort of sadder still …
I’m with the TMO, Geech and the 1000s of other rugby people who say there was no intention, it was a ridiculous decision and the ref had a bad day at the office that shouldn’t be given the chance to happen again.
As per the TMO, I’d recommend watching in real time and watching the clip all the way from the line-out whilst tracking Hughes’s line and speed – he’s clearly heading off any ‘step-inside’ – a nimbler/smaller guy may have tried to hop over North at the last minute, but Hughes clearly tries to stop (hence the straight legs).
Max, that will be determined “rubbish” as it portrays a view that you disagree with?
Thats perjorative. Which is perfectly fine, but something often associated with “trolls-like children” surely?
“the ref had a bad day at the office that shouldn’t be given the chance to happen again.” – really? He shouldn’t ref again? Or…?
“Shouldn’t be given the chance to happen again” – ie – They (I would say ‘we’ but of course, anything involving refs has to be discussed in secret) need to look at better ways of ‘bedding in’ inexperienced refs. Better Linesmen? New TMO ‘language’ beyond ‘can i show you another angle’ (unofficial for ‘I don’t agree’)? Easier less contentious games? Who knows – but this guy IMO gave into the crowd and was also badgered by Hartley and Dickson all day, once they sniffed the weakness.
I have watched this numerous times now – full speed and slowed down. Even paused it and watched frame by frame (cos I’m that pathetic)
Even if it makes Max sad and makes him think I am one of the “troll-like children” (a comment that says as much about him as it does anyone else writing their opinion on this site), I am sure that Hughes flicks his foot out in an attempt to dislodge the ball.
There’s obviously nothing malicious about it but as has been pointed out many times, it is reckless and dangerous and therefore a red card.
Sorry you feel that way Max, but I’m just writing what I feel – this sort of article is as far from click bait as you can get (does the title actually give any indication of what’s in the article? No.) There’s no ulterior motive here – the point of this site and these articles is to share opinions and get people debating, nothing else.
As for boosting advertising revenues… I’m not really going to dignify that with a detailed response, but suffice to say that none of us are millionaires, and a few extra clicks on this page isn’t going to change that.
Were you calling for a red card when Attwood kicked North in the face and knocked him out during England vs Wales?
I accept you believe that Hughes was going for the ball, and that indeed does make it a red card incident. But what would you think would be a fair decision if Hughes wasn’t going for the ball and was just trying to stop?
No. Because Attwood tried to kick a loose ball, which is entirely legal. Attwood had swung his boot when North had dived and neither could have done a thing about the result.
Kicking the ball out of someone’s hands in the act of scoring is not legal
Had Hughes just been trying to stop without the act of kicking, its should not be a penalty
So in the end, with the exception of Hughes, no one can know and it comes down to opinion
Actually I’d say you could get a biomechanical expert in to take a look at the various angles and confirm if Hughes was moving to make a kick, or trying to slow down.
“Shouldn’t be given the chance to happen again” – ie – They (I would say ‘we’ but of course, anything involving refs has to be discussed in secret) need to look at better ways of ‘bedding in’ inexperienced refs. Better Linesmen? New TMO ‘language’ beyond ‘can i show you another angle’ (unofficial for ‘I don’t agree’)? Easier less contentious games? Who knows – but this guy IMO gave into the crowd and was also badgered by Hartley and Dickson all day, once they sniffed the weakness.
Funny (or not so) how ‘5 things we learned’ turned into 1, i.e., the NH red incident.
I was with you initially (still am in part?) & stated (on the actual NT blog) that I still have an issue (in my gut) with the red . However, as I’ve commented on the Lawes ‘late’ tackle (look @ the slo-mo) as being just that, I found it diff to talk ‘intent’ or ‘marginal’. In the end both incidents could have & in 1 case did, cause injury. The latter concerns me as players need protection & so the onus has to be with the ‘tackler’ (as in both these incidents). However, I also believe that, despite some speculation to the contrary from Uncle Tom Cobley & all, that ‘it’s not a game of tiddlywinks’ (oops!) & that accidents do happen. Seems a case of the latter, as there was NO advantage to be had for NH going in deliberately, but, as GN WAS injured, WAS (and is) the onus on NT (the ‘tackler’)?
I have ambivalent feelings & thoughts on this – still! Especially after reading your comments. In fact I used to be uncertain, now I’m not so sure.
Divided opinion for sure, but the game needs clear, consistently adhered to laws (especially) on potentially dangerous incidents, w’wide & drummed into coaches/captains by refs before each game until players get it.
Regds Dave Strettle and Chris Ashton being found wanting, is that in ‘D’, or in SL’s opinion?
I understand that they were the perm’s top try scorers, they’re exp & so are they likely better all rounders than England’s incumbent wings? As it’s Lancs policy, Easter apart it seems, to stick with yoof, is this part of a blinkered ‘vision’? Always though Strettle was a goer, who played without fear, but that England didn’t really like him. Ashton WAS the big thing, what with all those swan dives & esp with that 100 mile try v Oz. A bit dumb @ times I thought… but he is a finisher. For me the young guns are unproven & make novice mistakes @ times e.g. no fend by carrying the ball under the inside arm, missing catches, getting off side & picking up from in front of their own (spilled) ball catcher & giving away 3. Other WC teams have some exp, so… will Lancs be shown up wing wise?
‘Good bye to London Welsh’. Sad time. Used to watch a few matches @ their old ground… & in their boozer. Right about the £ discrimination. Should be challenged in court IMO. However, the wholesale trading in of a team seemed so wrong & out of kilter with what the game should be about, professional era notwithstanding.
1. Northampton 2. Bath 3. Saracens 4. Leicester. 3 of 4 seem ok, but Exeter for the last spot?
So it seems the RFU panel are as daft as me and have ruled that there was ‘no intent’. If only they had access to all the ‘professionals’ on here to point out ‘flicking feet’ etc. They are however calling the incident ‘reckless’ – which beggars belief and still heaps a ban on top of an incorrect red card (that incidentally, the ref only gave because he believed there WAS intent) for a guy with a clean record. He should appeal, but I’ve no doubt he’d get nothing.
Jamie – the click bait was in the facebook headline however, this is a great site (I know Hutch through TRT) and I’m sure it wasn’t intended.
By the way, some on here need to learn how to debate passionately without taking things so personally – it’s okay to disagree you know.
Hello??? Anyone there? Red card written off today ….. Hello???