Slaters hearing

Whilst I understand and respect the point your making about the 2 clubs involved in this instance Leb, part of me thinks if behaviour like Slaters and Du Preez is to be eradicated it’ll require the clubs to engage in these proceedings to ensure punishments handed out suitably fit the offence.
In this instance, having drawn attention to it in post match interview and on social media in slightly surprised that the club didn’t present evidence at the hearing.

Eradicating such challenges (I won’t say behaviour as I don’t think that’s appropriate) requires those charged with policing them (the officials and in particular the TMO) to actually do their jobs competently. That’s my opinion.

It shouldn’t be necessary for the clubs to get involved with the disciplinary process like that. Any idiot could see what happened (well apart from Mr Warren obviously). Sale’s actions were vindictive and completely unnecessary IMO. I’m very pleased Gloucester didn’t do the same but rather (naively) trusted the disciplinary process.

Sorry if I sound tetchy. I have a deep dislike of Sale and a portion of their supporters and so I accept I’m prejudiced. Most hate Bath - I don’t because I have no reason to. My dislike of Sale is down to many things but probably originated with the general reaction on their forum when James Forrester suffered his career ending injury.

I'm more with Ugo's reaction during and at the end of the game and questioning of the genuine attempt to reduce/eradicate these kind of hits.

There is an interesting article in the Telegraph about Slater, Du Preez and their bans. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... tact-head/ there is a paywall. The writer acknowledges it seems badly handled that Du Preez gets off more lightly than Slater for what appears to be a worse offense, but does note the mitigations for Du Preez. Additionally, they suggest that the TMO was not up to scratch, and that concussion not Covid is the biggest danger facing rugby. Interesting thoughts and not a lot to disagree with, many of which have already been expressed on shedweb.

There is a wider context. As we are seeing more players coming forward with mental health / dementia issues, attributing their condition to head knocks and concussion, surely today's players have a duty to each other for their longer term health - this probably isn't the first thing that goes through a player's head in the heat of the battle however.

Doesn’t come across as tetchy at all Leb. I appreciate what your saying and with a perfect system I’d agree no need for clubs to get involved. However, as we all know it’s far from perfect.
For me, TMO takes responsibility for the Du Preez incident not being dealt with.

If, as stated by the panel and Sale, Du Perez did not make contact with Harris’s head is there anyone out there that can explain why he had to go off for an HIA?

Similarly, if Slater made contact ( as confirmed by Sale) with a Sale player’s head how come there was no HIA?

I have real concerns for the future of our game as we know it.

Back in the day, basically through ignorance and "manning up", if we were knocked down, like Chumbawamba, we just got up again ... we were immortal ...

The Jeff Astle case in football highlighted the concussion issue ... in those days, soccer balls were made of leather, with a porosity that absorbed water, so on a wet pitch in rainy conditions their weight increased. I remember as a place kicker praying for fine weather, as the old Gilbert balls became heavier in bad weather ...

Anyway, players are bigger, stronger and certainly fitter than in my day. And there is more awareness of the problems that can be caused by concussion. Thankfully.

The Laws of the game have been changed to reduce the risks; there are cameras everywhere now )at the top level at least) to ameliorate the inactions of incompetent officials and TMOs (but after the event); and no doubt the Laws will continue to change as further evidence becomes available.

But my fear is that young people and parents will be put off rugby by the risks. There are other sports and pursuits that do not offer the risks of rugby - even if played and reffed competently - and there is a greater choice available these days. I really do fear for the future ...

Back on the specifics, both incidents warranted action, and the outcomes are understandable. Like Lebowski, I do not have much time for Sale, and the attitude of their club officials, players and that of some of their supporters is reprehensible; but I think the result - eventually - was fair to both clubs.

Westy I agree, and that's why I’m so angry about the actions of the TMO. We hear all this noise about player welfare and protecting them from head injuries in particular, but the actions of the rugby authorities don’t back it up.

As I’ve previously said I don’t blame the ref at all. He saw the incident once in real time, and we don’t even know how much he saw. He rightly relied on the TMO. Again I accept everyone makes mistakes and he probably completely missed Slater’s hit. However the hit on Harris was as clear as day. We all saw it! I simply cannot understand how anybody, let alone a vastly experienced official could watch that and say it was fine. Quite simply it’s not good enough.

If, as stated by the panel and Sale, Du Perez did not make contact with Harris’s head is there anyone out there that can explain why he had to go off for an HIA?

Similarly, if Slater made contact ( as confirmed by Sale) with a Sale player’s head how come there was no HIA?

The panel weren't the ones making the call at the time. In the moment presumably they are going to, quite rightly, err on the side of caution and, if they think there has been significant contact with the head, take the player off for a HIA.

The panel will presumably had longer to assess the footage and may have come to a conclusion that it wasn't on the head.

Not saying they are right or wrong but easy to see how it could happen.