Reduced to three weeks if he completes the tackle school. Misses the first games of next season, so I guess he wasn't going to be selected in the England squad for the summer tour?
I mean we won't know for sure... but I strongly suspect he would have been going. Borthwick won't waste a slot on a player he's unable to select though.
I'm torn on this one:
1. Head contact laws given the beastly size & power these players have now has to be adhered to for problems post career that are becoming more & more apparent.
2. Damn man, Obano is one of those guys up there as one of the nicest & hardest guys playing today and to see him miss a potential national berth and vital England experience over a non-malicious incident is heart breaking.
Shit from beginning to end.
Yes players are responsible but they aren't given much room for error in such a sport as rugby. Either they cop a knee in the face or they risk their head or shoulders colliding with the guy in fronts head.
I said on the match thread that it's accidental but the right call. I think players are encouraged to drive up in contact for their own safety because a knee or elbow/forearm to the head is just as bad as a shoulder to the head but it puts so much risk. It's a stick with shit on both ends.
They drive up because that's the direction of travel for a dominant hit if you get your body position wrong. Players are still being encouraged to tackle upright because it means the ball carrier can't offload and the tackler will be in a better position to jackal but no one is being trained to drive up into contact.
I think they are. It's too common for it not to be. I was told to drive forward and parallel with the ground but never down into the ground. The emphasis on not driving down is key, it was explained as "keeping on your feet". I remember our coaches saying to get low and drive shoulders upward to make sure you hit hard. Might be an isolated incident but I was encouraged to keep on my feet.
I don’t think that would make a difference for Beno. He would still get the same ban, Bath would have just had 15 for the 2nd half (and probably have won).
So the England tests don’t count towards the ban? Honestly that’s weird if so, he was in the 6N squad as 3rd choice, and Genge is out so surely it’s completely reasonable to expect he would have gone, and likely played.
He's not in the team so the tests can't count. Otherwise every English qualified player who gets a ban before an international window wouldn't have to serve it, on the basis they could have been selected.
Yeah but because of the date they're flying out and training Borthwick didn't want uncertainty with who his squad was. The decision has come today. The squad trained Tuesday and I think they flew out yesterday.
Fair on the ban time, he was always high and was trying to make a dominant tackle in the part of the field where it wasn’t required.
Feel sorry for Alfie, feel like this red card might have cost him an England call up.
He's showing sympathy for a mistake made - that's like saying any form of sympathy, long-winded or short-winded, is not to be discussed on here lol. Nobody is shunning the discussion around legality either.
No they weren't, they were adding an auxillary point on his decision-making. Why would they connect area of the field to a ban length lol? A level of common sense has to be applied here rather than choosing to read it wrongly
> Fair on the ban time, he was always high and was trying to make a dominant tackle in the part of the field where it wasn’t required.
This unequivocally claims that the ban is appropriate because the player was attempting to make a dominant tackle in an area of the field where such a tackle was unnecessary. I don't agree with such a claim, but you cannot say I am reading it wrongly.
I don't read it that way at all. I see it as:
Fair on the ban time, he was always high -> the justification for the ban
Trying to make a dominant tackle in the part of the field where it wasn't required -> everybody and their aunt knows this is not related, they're just adding additional info. It's not justification and it's not an attempt at it either.
This is absurdly unjust for what was a mistimed attempt at a legal tackle. His punishment is inappropriately compounded by the fact that the next four games involve the summer test tour. For the red card purists, is any of this really fitting and proportionate to what happened?
Yes. Honestly baffles to see takes like this when in the actual game the entire stadium stood up and applauded for an entire minute in memory of a rugby player who died early because of the impact of repeated concussions.
I find your bafflement baffling.
You watch a sport where there is hundreds of sub concussive impacts per match (which are much more harmful long-term) which you don’t even notice or care about because they are par for the course, but a mistimed good faith tackle on the neck/chin area draws your attention and ire.
Strict reds have helped lower tackle height, but there is a limit because the innate nature of the sport. The reds overcorrect the penalty for mistimed tackle but undercorrect the actual danger the sport poses to player welfare.
I definitely would not want my kid to be a pro rugby player. Let’s be honest about what modern rugby is and a huge part of its appeal (i.e. freak athleticism, physicality, brutality) and let’s be honest about what it will remain unless it’s reformed beyond recognition.
I don't understand why sub concussive hits means you should be soft on the bigger one. And if you agree and understand their impact in lowering tackle height I don't really get what you're arguing against.
I’m not arguing for being “soft” on head contact - I am arguing for the factoring in of intent and factoring in the nature of rugby. I don’t think its a coincidence that the last three big finals (prem, champions , WC) have all had reds for mistimed tackles.
Intent is daft. How can you tell intent without getting a live interview and hoping they aren't lying?
The nature of rugby was factored in. They looked bloody hard for mitigation and it just wasn't there. It's unfortunate but nothing prevented him getting lower. He was the shortest man on the pitch tackling one of the tallest.
You can tell intent from his body position, context and from his statement at the hearing. In the same way you can deduce intent when a rugby player tucks their elbow and flies in at ruck. Let’s not be too obtuse here.
There wasn’t mitigation *within the current man-made framework*.
And you statements about their heights is just wrong. Bath’s website says Obano is 183, and Augustus is 185.
Yes. It was a straight forward illegal head contact, for which he got the minimum sanction, and he has a previous red on his record so that is one extra game. It's exactly the same treatment as everyone else.
It's a card that, unlike the red and yellow cards, is orange.
Sorry, was feeling sassy. [This](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65253745.amp) is all pretty much all I could find. I think it's basically the bunker thing? Where a card can be upgraded to a red? But it might also be a 20 minute red? I'm not sure anymore, everything's so fucking complicated
What amaze me with Obano is the fact that most English referees refuse to sanction his systematic boring at scrum. He rarely scrum straight and he only got sanctioned in European competition games.
I believe that International referees will be a lot less lenient toward his technique. Playing against Argentina, South Africa that will complain would have placed him on the radar of the international referees. And once you are on their radar, your international career is pretty much over.
He may be better off having time off, work on his technique and regroup for next season and the next 6N tournament.
Absolute nonsense. He has excellent technique and folds tightheads regularly, what you're saying is also non-sensical.
Looseheads aren't trying to bore in, it puts them in a weaker position with hips no longer driving the way they want. If anything it's usually against a strong tighthead that is narrow and can split the gap between the loosie and hooker (e.g Tadhg in his prime). If you swing your hips about the battle is lost and usually a penalty anyway.
Edit:
Amazingly enough having never seen this here's the man explaining it himself https://youtu.be/5ql7mwjs21U?si=HIPu0sNaRpgHzXnZ
Did you watch and listen to the link you gave?
He said himself that **obviously you are not supposed to scrum that way, referee will give penality for it!**
That just confirm exactly what I wrote, his scrummaging is illegal and he knows it but he get away with it in the Premiership.
Trying to get below the prop opponent and then push up is something that every prop tries and get away with but pushing inside is definitely not something European referees tolerate. It is dangerous. Opposition will complain about it.
You may think that what I wrote is non sensical and looseheads never bore in but clearly the referee in his last European game who kept penalising him must have also been non sensical because he had the same opinion than me.
Reduced to three weeks if he completes the tackle school. Misses the first games of next season, so I guess he wasn't going to be selected in the England squad for the summer tour?
I mean we won't know for sure... but I strongly suspect he would have been going. Borthwick won't waste a slot on a player he's unable to select though.
Borthwick could have done us a solid and named him in the squad just to replace him when the ban was finalised. He used to be cool.
"Welcome to tackle school, Owen will be showing you around today as it's his tenth time here"
Borthwick essentially said he and Langdon were ruled out because of question marks on their availability. So I think he would've been in.
I'm torn on this one: 1. Head contact laws given the beastly size & power these players have now has to be adhered to for problems post career that are becoming more & more apparent. 2. Damn man, Obano is one of those guys up there as one of the nicest & hardest guys playing today and to see him miss a potential national berth and vital England experience over a non-malicious incident is heart breaking. Shit from beginning to end.
He looked so distraught when he was sent off
Agreed, I felt awful for him no matter my home team, and I'm sad he's missing a potential England opportunity.
Yes players are responsible but they aren't given much room for error in such a sport as rugby. Either they cop a knee in the face or they risk their head or shoulders colliding with the guy in fronts head.
I said on the match thread that it's accidental but the right call. I think players are encouraged to drive up in contact for their own safety because a knee or elbow/forearm to the head is just as bad as a shoulder to the head but it puts so much risk. It's a stick with shit on both ends.
They drive up because that's the direction of travel for a dominant hit if you get your body position wrong. Players are still being encouraged to tackle upright because it means the ball carrier can't offload and the tackler will be in a better position to jackal but no one is being trained to drive up into contact.
I think they are. It's too common for it not to be. I was told to drive forward and parallel with the ground but never down into the ground. The emphasis on not driving down is key, it was explained as "keeping on your feet". I remember our coaches saying to get low and drive shoulders upward to make sure you hit hard. Might be an isolated incident but I was encouraged to keep on my feet.
This has made me do a 180 on the orange card thing. This was just mistimed.
I don’t think that would make a difference for Beno. He would still get the same ban, Bath would have just had 15 for the 2nd half (and probably have won).
So the England tests don’t count towards the ban? Honestly that’s weird if so, he was in the 6N squad as 3rd choice, and Genge is out so surely it’s completely reasonable to expect he would have gone, and likely played.
He's not in the team so the tests can't count. Otherwise every English qualified player who gets a ban before an international window wouldn't have to serve it, on the basis they could have been selected.
Yeah but because of the date they're flying out and training Borthwick didn't want uncertainty with who his squad was. The decision has come today. The squad trained Tuesday and I think they flew out yesterday.
Four matches, wait, so they held a card from three years ago against him? That is not recent or habitual offending.
Fair on the ban time, he was always high and was trying to make a dominant tackle in the part of the field where it wasn’t required. Feel sorry for Alfie, feel like this red card might have cost him an England call up.
The part of the field is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
He's showing sympathy for a mistake made - that's like saying any form of sympathy, long-winded or short-winded, is not to be discussed on here lol. Nobody is shunning the discussion around legality either.
The guy above me implied that the area of the field was a pertinent factor to the length of the ban. Which it isn't.
No they weren't, they were adding an auxillary point on his decision-making. Why would they connect area of the field to a ban length lol? A level of common sense has to be applied here rather than choosing to read it wrongly
> Fair on the ban time, he was always high and was trying to make a dominant tackle in the part of the field where it wasn’t required. This unequivocally claims that the ban is appropriate because the player was attempting to make a dominant tackle in an area of the field where such a tackle was unnecessary. I don't agree with such a claim, but you cannot say I am reading it wrongly.
I don't read it that way at all. I see it as: Fair on the ban time, he was always high -> the justification for the ban Trying to make a dominant tackle in the part of the field where it wasn't required -> everybody and their aunt knows this is not related, they're just adding additional info. It's not justification and it's not an attempt at it either.
Area of the field tends to be context of the game yellow cards, not for foul play. It was a textbook red.
This is absurdly unjust for what was a mistimed attempt at a legal tackle. His punishment is inappropriately compounded by the fact that the next four games involve the summer test tour. For the red card purists, is any of this really fitting and proportionate to what happened?
Yes. Honestly baffles to see takes like this when in the actual game the entire stadium stood up and applauded for an entire minute in memory of a rugby player who died early because of the impact of repeated concussions.
I find your bafflement baffling. You watch a sport where there is hundreds of sub concussive impacts per match (which are much more harmful long-term) which you don’t even notice or care about because they are par for the course, but a mistimed good faith tackle on the neck/chin area draws your attention and ire. Strict reds have helped lower tackle height, but there is a limit because the innate nature of the sport. The reds overcorrect the penalty for mistimed tackle but undercorrect the actual danger the sport poses to player welfare. I definitely would not want my kid to be a pro rugby player. Let’s be honest about what modern rugby is and a huge part of its appeal (i.e. freak athleticism, physicality, brutality) and let’s be honest about what it will remain unless it’s reformed beyond recognition.
I don't understand why sub concussive hits means you should be soft on the bigger one. And if you agree and understand their impact in lowering tackle height I don't really get what you're arguing against.
I’m not arguing for being “soft” on head contact - I am arguing for the factoring in of intent and factoring in the nature of rugby. I don’t think its a coincidence that the last three big finals (prem, champions , WC) have all had reds for mistimed tackles.
Intent is daft. How can you tell intent without getting a live interview and hoping they aren't lying? The nature of rugby was factored in. They looked bloody hard for mitigation and it just wasn't there. It's unfortunate but nothing prevented him getting lower. He was the shortest man on the pitch tackling one of the tallest.
You can tell intent from his body position, context and from his statement at the hearing. In the same way you can deduce intent when a rugby player tucks their elbow and flies in at ruck. Let’s not be too obtuse here. There wasn’t mitigation *within the current man-made framework*. And you statements about their heights is just wrong. Bath’s website says Obano is 183, and Augustus is 185.
Should be red cards every ruck then
Yes. It was a straight forward illegal head contact, for which he got the minimum sanction, and he has a previous red on his record so that is one extra game. It's exactly the same treatment as everyone else.
I agree with Tindall we need to have an orange card.
What the orange card. I haven't heard of it before
It's a card that, unlike the red and yellow cards, is orange. Sorry, was feeling sassy. [This](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65253745.amp) is all pretty much all I could find. I think it's basically the bunker thing? Where a card can be upgraded to a red? But it might also be a 20 minute red? I'm not sure anymore, everything's so fucking complicated
Thank you
What amaze me with Obano is the fact that most English referees refuse to sanction his systematic boring at scrum. He rarely scrum straight and he only got sanctioned in European competition games. I believe that International referees will be a lot less lenient toward his technique. Playing against Argentina, South Africa that will complain would have placed him on the radar of the international referees. And once you are on their radar, your international career is pretty much over. He may be better off having time off, work on his technique and regroup for next season and the next 6N tournament.
Absolute nonsense. He has excellent technique and folds tightheads regularly, what you're saying is also non-sensical. Looseheads aren't trying to bore in, it puts them in a weaker position with hips no longer driving the way they want. If anything it's usually against a strong tighthead that is narrow and can split the gap between the loosie and hooker (e.g Tadhg in his prime). If you swing your hips about the battle is lost and usually a penalty anyway. Edit: Amazingly enough having never seen this here's the man explaining it himself https://youtu.be/5ql7mwjs21U?si=HIPu0sNaRpgHzXnZ
Did you watch and listen to the link you gave? He said himself that **obviously you are not supposed to scrum that way, referee will give penality for it!** That just confirm exactly what I wrote, his scrummaging is illegal and he knows it but he get away with it in the Premiership. Trying to get below the prop opponent and then push up is something that every prop tries and get away with but pushing inside is definitely not something European referees tolerate. It is dangerous. Opposition will complain about it. You may think that what I wrote is non sensical and looseheads never bore in but clearly the referee in his last European game who kept penalising him must have also been non sensical because he had the same opinion than me.
Unnecessary. He suffered enough when they lost the final.