Much has already been written and said about the Nathan Hughes/George North incident during Northampton’s win over Wasps on Friday night, with the big number eight receiving a red card for making contact with North’s head.
Do you think it was a just punishment? You can re-watch the incident in the video below (skip to 0.55) before voting in our poll and leaving your thoughts in the comments section.
Video credit: Premiership Rugby
Loading ...
49 replies on “Poll: Did Nathan Hughes deserve a red card for North incident?”
Nothing?
Good heavens, what sort of logic sees that as the right decision?
The problem is that a yellow is not an option. It was dangerous play which is a red. However he was committed it wasn’t malicious and the player had grounded the ball and the clock would have stopped at that point before recommending for the conversion. It’s unfortunate that it was deemed as a red as I don’t think it deserves it but I wasn’t there with a lot of angry fans.
It was a hard choice and although I can’t say it would be the one I did we have to respect the referee and their judgment. The case should be closed there. The red saw it and sanctioned it.
Exactly, it was red or nothing (not even a penalty). Personally I struggle to see any intent even having watched it twenty times. I’m not even sure it was clumsy, yes he could have tried to jump over but Hughes is not exactly a ballet dancer and that could have been worse i.e. a boot in the head. Very sad but these things happen now that we have absolute total commitment from all players.in modern professional rugby. .
The young ref got it wrong. He wasn’t trying to kick the ball = red card.
He shortened his stride, trying to avoid contact; unfortunately, North turned towards him.
Reckless maybe. Yellow at most. That applies to the ref also, cowed by the crowd. Hopefully he will learn from this.
Agree… I think. In fact should North not have been carded for being so clumsy by not keeping his head down? – I’m kidding of course. If it hadn’t been for North’s recent history though, I wonder if the ref might have made a different choice? It looked accidental, but the end result was just the same for North. Victims need protection & often players COULD (attempt to) take evasive action instead of leaving the foot, etc in there. This is an area of the game which, along with other forms of ‘cheating’, ought to be stressed by WR to refs who ought to advise captains pre-match that they will NOT tolerate these misdemeanors. Players, @ the behest of their coaches, do, IMO, push the laws to & over their limits if they can get away with doing so. Clear rules, strictly applied, consistently, w’wide. Makes the game simpler & safer.
To all those who opine that Hughes’ actions were just an accident, what do you believe his real intentions were when running that line?
I believe his real intentions when he started to run that line was to make a covering tackle/try and get under the ball. He never dive to get under the ball as North grounded it before he could get there. He just didn’t have enough time to get out the way or stop.
He’s covering about to make a tackle when running that line.
Unfortunately for Hughes, he is too slow to get anywhere near close enough to actually tackle, then North dives head first along the same line Hughes is taking to make the cover tackle.
There is nowhere near enough in that to suggest Hughes was trying to kick the ball. To me it looks like he shortens his slide trying to avoid North completely.
To suggest that covering back as someone is about to score inevitably means he was trying to take North’s head of is way off the mark.
Jacob;
“To suggest that covering back as someone is about to score inevitably means he was trying to take North’s head of is way off the mark.”
– I don’t think anyone is suggesting that are they?
My view, which could by mis-interpreted as the above, is that the intent was to make contact with North as he scored. I would like to think that contact to the head would be the last place that he intended. But this of course is the risk with this approach.
It is the same intent/risk as tipping a leaping catcher so that they land on their head/neck. Landing badly is not (one hopes) the intent. The intent is to disrupt the catch, or to contest the ball, it is just that sometimes they are tipped onto their head because of carelessness, even with the best of intentions.
Blub, my reply was to this questions; “To all those who opine that Hughes’ actions were just an accident, what do you believe his real intentions were when running that line?”
His intentions were running the line were to tackle North. You’re statement/question ignores the possibility that he may not have been trying to kick the ball at all. He was simply running that line, North dives.
Completely incomparable to jumping for the ball. When a ball is kicked in the air a player has a duty to challenge for it safely. Hughes is simply running in the direction of a player. The player then dives across the line he is running. You can’t claim a player has a duty to constantly be responsible to every line motion be makes; it is a completely different scenario.
Jacob, You linked “inevitability” with “taking North’s head off”. If that was a reply to my views then you either misunderstand or you’re being a little creative.
If a player carrying a ball dives at the feet of a running defender, then you are quite right. It is not the defenders fault that a head injury occurs.
However that is not what happened. The in goal area is a different prospect to the rest of the pitch. It is inevitable that the ball carrier will take his head close to the ground once over the line, even probable that he will dive.
There fore the defender does have a duty of care.
If (foolishly in this example) he chooses to carry on running, to get closer to the posts, then what is Hughes going to do then? Trip him up?
I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say, but surely if North had chosen to carry on running to posts, Hughes would have just tackled him, which is the exact reason he was running that line. Even if he couldn’t make a try saving tackle it stopped North from getting closer to the posts.
Yes Graeme, agreed.
On that point, it is worth noting how Wade’s and North’s first tries, also have defenders stopping the scorer from getting closer to the posts without the “follow-through”.
Probably plenty of other examples over the weekend also.
To commit to preventing a try being scored by his opponents.
He was never going to do anything else than collide with the player after the ball had been grounded, so it was intentional and a red card was the right decision
Same comment to both you and Blub. How many tries were missed in the 6N final Saturday because the defence didn’t give up even though the score looked inevitable? To me Hughes looked to be trying to get his foot/leg under the ball before North grounded it and by the time he realised that it was futile he was already commited.
Roy, I don’t now the answer to your question i’m afraid, but what I do know is that our game should not condone a practice of sliding feet, legs first to try to stop the ball being placed down over the try line. Thats perhaps a slightly different conversation, but surely flying in feet first where someone head is likely to be is careless and dangerous.
Good point, maybe the law needs changing because it’s certainly not clear on the point. If he had dislodged the ball and stopped the try but still injured North do you think the ref would still have given the red?
It is already illegal to kick the ball out of a players hands when scoring a try. If Hughes had done this (I don’t believe he was trying to) and still made contact it would have been a clear red card. Two players making contact does not (for me) mean that one of them was trying to kick the ball out of the players hands.
Possibly not Roy. I rather think that he should have though.
As with many aspects of the game, I don’t necessarily think its the laws that need changing, just the application of them.
A tackle (by the laws) has to be with the arms. Not the legs. So, a “tackle” would be the method (by the laws) of stopping the try – which of course, is why players dive to the ground when in the act of scoring.
The law does state that you must not kick a player. That is simple enough of course.
Its worth pointing out that they do not say “must not INTENTIONALLY kick a player”. Intent in this respect, is irrelevant, hence the requirement for care.
“trying to get his foot/leg under the ball before North grounded it” is exactly what he was red carded for. It is illegal to kick the ball in the act of scoring a try.
Personally I think red was a harsh sanction but it was a reckless act. he knew North would dive there and carried on his line. He then failed to slow which was inevitable and as much as some people think it shouldn’t sometimes the outcome justifies the sanction.
I have seen a wide angle shoot of it so I don’t know when he started to make his run, but I’m guessing it was when either Mona took the ball from the kick off or when he pass it to North. I can’t see how anybody can say that it was inevitable from that point onwards.
It’s kind of moot now anyway, the main question is does he deserve to miss the next three weeks or so, and will Northampton risk North? Some big games for both clubs, arguable Saints are better equipped to deal with the loss than Wasps, the guy who replaced North got a tidy old finish at then end of the game. It could cost Wasps a top 6 finish though (could)…..
On a side note I think you guys have missed daylights savings.
It’s reckless but not intentional. You can’t say that he followed North to the line purely to collide with him. He’s following the ball, and if North had dropped it over the line, Hughes could have been the first to react and touch the ball down, saving his team going down another score. Both players are unlucky, but it is an accident. Yellow for being slightly reckless, but as there’s no intent, it’s definitely not a red.
Personally I would say a yellow would be a worst decision than a red card. It is either reckless play and a red card or an accidental collision and there is nothing doing. For me it is just an accidental collision and one of those things that will happen. And for me the law makers need to realise this, we’re playing a contact sport there is always going to be that element of risk. The only way to remove that from the game is to make it non-contact.
I’m not sure it can be a yellow, red or nothing.
Either he was trying to kick the ball, which is reckless, and he deserved the red.
Or, it was a complete accident and he’s incredibly unlucky. Personally it looks more to me like he was simply running that line to cover and North diving across the line he was running meant the collided. He shortens his final stride which looks to me like he was trying to get out the way.
For me a red card. Because he tries to kick the ball, its dangerous play even if there was no intention to hurt North.
Perhaps one way of solving future problems like this is to only allow the ball to be dislodged (or held up) over the tryline by the upper part of the body. It would stop players kicking or sliding in knees first out, vaguely hoping to knock the ball out of the scorer’s grasp
BTW – first time I’ve seen these highlights and as Wasps’ highlights often do, it leaves me shaking my head over just how good Wade is in attack. Does anyone else think that if he was a Kiwi he’d have multiple caps by now? Surely his defensive frailites can be coached out – after all its not lack of courage or willingness to tackle the big guys, more problems with decision-making and positioning.
Regds yr last para, mostly agree; i.e. about ‘defensive frailites can be coached out’. It’s about technique, timing & positioning as much as anything. Not sure if he’d have AB caps, but they sure as heck would have given him plenty of look at time. Savea’s big’un, but not so, Ben Smith.
Pablito, the techniques are “relatively” easy to coach. It is the decision making that takes time to coach, develop, mature, perfect.
One would very much expect that between England and Wasps they are working hard on this aspect.
You state that ‘techniques are “relatively” easy to coach’, which makes sense. The application, or effecting of them, under pressure, is more difficult. I was thinking of the experienced 1/2Penny’s recent tackle on the Italian bullock when he got his head in FRONT of his opponent. Made 1/2P’s ears ring. It was probably a lesson he won’t learn from coaching… or at all, if he now doesn’t recall the incident.
Agreed Don. The right coaching though would facilitate the learning that would enable him to instinctively tackle on the left with his left shoulder, and the right with his right.
As a Kiwi you will be very familiar with this concept I would imagine, as Kiwi coaches are the best at developing instinctive players, rather than constructed players. The latter being a big problem in most NH teams and SA.
@ 1st it looked accidental. A yellow in that case (as Nth WAS injured)? However, could Thomas have hurdled, or avoided or attempted to avoid contact? In slo-mo, it seemed that NT had no intention of avoiding contact, but if GN hadn’t been hurt, there would likely have been no punishment. However, as Nth WAS KO’ed & it was actually dangerous, intentionally or not, then, albeit reluctantly, a red seemed, in retro, appropriate. If there was no intent on Thomas’s part (hard to prove either way), should this have made any difference to the red? Intent is a grey area due to proving it, but I think it ought not to have any bearing as player protection must be paramount.
Therefore these ‘contentious’ rules especially, HAVE to actually BE universal, CONSISTENT & drummed into teams before each match so as to reinforce & ‘educate’ players/coaches in the certain knowledge of the ensuing punishment in cases of their transgression. Prevention surely, being better than the ‘CURE’.
Having stated all that though, it still goes against the grain for me a bit. My gut feeling is that NT got something of a rough deal.
Having now watched the Saints V Wasps game and the various clips of the North incident I believe the Ref got it wrong, not even sure if Nathan Hughes should have been given a yellow card. On a more worrying note I think that North was already playing with conscious as it looked like he was KO earlier in the game when he and Samu Manoa tackled Wade as Wade scored his first try. If you watch the replay of this part it looks like North is KO. Really worrying if he was as this is a second time that he has been KO and the first incident not been noticed.
got it wrong it’s Wade’s second try where North gets KO. 51 seconds on the clip you have uploaded
He definitely looks very dazed for a few seconds after taking Dickson’s boot to the head. Probably should’ve been checked then!!
Just re-watched it and you may have a point there. He certainly appears to take a blow to the head from a stray knee and rolls over looking pained (not KO’ed) when Wade scores his second try. Just over a minute later he takes a second blow to the head as Saints score direct from the restart. Can’t say he was definately concussed from the first blow but it probably should have been assessed
Think it’s ‘nothing’ from me – honestly looks like an accident, the kind that happens all the time in rugby. I doubt if it wasn’t North they would have been KO’d. More worrying for me is the ease with which North is getting knocked out at the moment. He needs a serious rest to stop this becoming a regular occurrence and spoiling him for the World Cup.
On a side note – Daly’s pass out the back of hand for Wade’s try was a beauty.
“He needs a serious rest to stop this becoming a regular occurrence and spoiling him for the World Cup.”
– or indeed something far worse than missing a world cup.
3 concussions in such a short period – there is precedent for this being the end of sporting careers – http://wvmetronews.com/2014/12/26/multiple-concussions-end-tricketts-playing-career/ for starters.
He needs a very good rest at least. May be the last we see of him.
Yes very true – not trying to be flippant and suggesting his health is less important than playing in the world cup! Shontayne Hape’s concussion story is one which springs to mind. Here’s hoping we don’t look back in a few years and see this as the moment when a promising career of a truly world class winger was cut short.
I was at the garden and can honestly say there was no intention in it. He should have not even got a yellow.
The young ref got it very wrong. He was been influenced by a fierce Northampton crowd and a vocal northampton team. It completlely altered the face of the game. Funny when wade got took in the air and then around the neck it was accidental! This referee needs re-training. North should be rested for rest of season.
Have to agree that GN needs to be rested as I stated before GN looked to have been KO earlier in the match
Missing the point guys, intention does not stop the incident being dangerous and therefore meriting a red card. The lack of intent will come into account when the judgement of sanction is reached. Players have a responsibility to each other, and Hughes did not have enough regard for North. He was never going to get to a tackle and did not take any avoiding action. I do not think this was a deliberate attempt to injure, but a lack of care or effort in avoiding a defenceless player was dealt with correctly.
I was tempted to say “nothing” but in the end im going for Red.
Was it intentional – no
However, he ran in late with no way of stopping that try (especially still being upright and not diving in to hold him up) so it was 100% avoidable. This is becoming a fairly common incident, and I appreciate people’ get carried around but given the physicality of the sport control has to be a key factor.
For once I agree with Michael. Cheap shots on the grounded player do seem to have become more prevalent, and I’ve been wondering when someone was going to get pinged for “accidentally” making contact. Shame it was a concussion that made it happen. It’s normally knees in the back. Whether Hughes did mean to do it, only he can say, but I think that something needed to be done.
If Loz had held North up, Hughes could have bundled them out. If Loz had fallen off North, North may have tried running it closer to the posts. If either of those had happened, Dai would have been asking Hughes why the hell he was just jogging to get back, and the answer “Well I was worried if I ran quickly, he may get tackled over the line, and spun, and my shin would hit his head as I slowed down…” probably wouldn’t be well accepted.
We all saw a Frenchman almost lose a try due to attempting to run it towards the post, and Plisson missed his first conversion because Haskell came sprinting back stopping the try scorer from taking it closer to the posts. Should they not have been allowed to chase back, just in case the scorer dived and they may have connected?
It has to be a red, irrelevant if it was unintentional.
If a player is on the ground it is your duty not to hit him in the head. It was clumsy – he was running upright with no attempt to dive down onto the floor to prevent the try – not sure what he was trying to achieve, he just ran straight at him and also didn’t try to get out the way or jump over.
If he’d have dived at the floor and Lozowski had failed to tackle him, what’s Dai going to think? If he dives at the floor after he’s on the ground, he’s just going to land on, or crash into both of them. Jump? He hits him with the top of his shin, if he tries jumping there’s a good chance it’ll be his boot into Norths face, and furthermore Loz is even higher, chances of him clearing them both are minimal.
He’s chasing back after a break, he can’t know if Loz is going to complete the tackle. North gets tackled, goes over the line, gets turned/turns into Hughes’ running line whilst Hughes is braking, and gets clobbered. Hughes is a very big guy, and started reacting as soon as he saw North going to ground, but he’s not so agile as to be able to easily sidestep or stop on a sixpence.
The ref called it as attempting to kick the ball out of Norths hands, and if that’s what Hughes was doing then it’s a red and a ban for outcome. If Hughes was simply trying to stop, and in doing so clattered North by accident, it’s not even a penalty. You can start pinging people for not acting illegally.
The fact that none of the Saints players went for Hughes, and most consoled him, strongly suggests that they didn’t think it was a mistimed kick, or anything malicious. Neither do I.