Warburton Red Card - IRB Directive

[chopper15]

To land face and chest down, Adam, the tackle would have to be one third up from the feet . . . To fall most probably on the tackler's back.

 

[chopper15]

Re. Ian : I'll bet you Sam Warburton will have second thoughts about the wisdom of lifting and tipping a ball carrier in the future.... there is your deterrent.

But that's my point, Ian. The RC is already a deterrent for the majority of players with a conscience, and will probably remain so. Their incidents are plainly an unfortunate aberration, unlike the bent of the instinctive thug.

The serial thug will continue to risk the cowardly assault hoping the ref will miss it. In the case of DA the law obviously isn't a deterrent, he apparently doesn't care if his malicious acts lets down his team mates or even his club.

So, two questions to be addressed. How do you deter a player with that instinctively sick mentality and shouldn't the club be required to issue a public warning regarding his employment?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The rotation you describe would mean that the tackler lands face and chest first in the mud. If you are imparting force forward then contrary to the way he is running (or standing still) then the backward force you impart (as the ball carrier views it) will mean that he will not go up like a tip tackle but in the other way.

Really? Well here is a nice example of a tackle where the ball carrier is rotated through 90° purely by the force of impact at a point above his centre of mass.

Now if the Blue player had grasped, lifted, tipped and dropped the Green player so that he struck the ground in that position we would be talking red card!

The only way for a player to go the way round like a tip tackle is if the tackler picks the ball carrier's legs 'up' towards the tackler's body.

I agree that this should not be considered a tip tackle because the tackler, does not physically lift the player.

The crux of the matter is the lifting. If a player gasps the ball carrier and lifts him off the ground, HE DOES SO INTENTIONALLY. This is the type of tackle to which the Dangerous Tackles memorandum refers. Lifting is a physical act that cannot be done unintentionally, any more than a person can lift a barbell of weights unintentionally. The tackler may not INTEND to tip the ball-carrier over, but he does INTENTIONALLY lift the player off the ground.

 

[Bryan]

How do you deter a player with that instinctively sick mentality.

Name me, in 48 World Cup matches, a player that has consistently shown that "sick mentality" to which they go out in every game with the intent to injure? Even Rougerie, with that incident in the final, has had a clean record for the 56 other test matches he has played for France. I'm not judging that guy until he's in front of a JO, which will never happen.

You are making some big deal of this in modern rugby which simply doesnt exist. You are talking in hyperboles, which is a nice way of saying you're spewing garbage about something that I see as a non-issue.

Here are 2 questions to be addressed first:
Can you name 10 players in the whole world of professional rugby that fit this "sick mentality" category?
Can you name one professional rugby club who has intentionally gone and signed a player to a contract b/c that player possessed this "sick mentality" of which you speak?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Re. Ian : I'll bet you Sam Warburton will have second thoughts about the wisdom of lifting and tipping a ball carrier in the future.... there is your deterrent.

But that's my point, Ian. The RC is already a deterrent for the majority of players with a conscience, and will probably remain so. Their incidents are plainly an unfortunate aberration, unlike the bent of the instinctive thug.

The serial thug will continue to risk the cowardly assault hoping the ref will miss it. In the case of DA the law obviously isn't a deterrent, he apparently doesn't care if his malicious acts lets down his team mates or even his club.

So, two questions to be addressed. How do you deter a player with that instinctively sick mentality and shouldn't the club be required to issue a public warning regarding his employment?

While the majority of people will be deterred by the threat of a red card, some people have to actually experience the consequences of their stupidity before they learn from it, and some people, no matter how stupid they are, never learn. Players like Bakkies Botha, Danny Grewcock and Richard Loe fall squarely into this category.

Now while I do not for a minute believe that these players fit your "sick mentality" profile, they nonetheless are prone to getting the "red mist" at times.

Its human nature; takes all kinds to make a world chopper, we can't have a "one-size-fits-all" policy.

Red Carded players are never going to be replaced. Get over it!!

 

[didds]

I dunno Ian... Grewcock was IMO an "idiot" in that he never seemed to understand that certain actions would land him in trouble. And to a degree because of his idiocy he then became - understandably maybe - a bit of a target for a watchful eye so to speak.

Loe I am even less convinced about the "sick mentality" avoidance. It was a different game with different mores at his time, but whilst "sick mentality" may be too strong a description I accept, he seemed more than just a "red mist" merchant. He seemed to relish his hard man status and try very hard to maintain and even promulgate it. Paul Carozza maybe being the quintessential example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CechcKPrSi0

10 seconds in.

As a kiwi YMMV I accept

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

I dunno Ian... Grewcock was IMO an "idiot" in that he never seemed to understand that certain actions would land him in trouble. And to a degree because of his idiocy he then became - understandably maybe - a bit of a target for a watchful eye so to speak.

Loe I am even less convinced about the "sick mentality" avoidance. It was a different game with different mores at his time, but whilst "sick mentality" may be too strong a description I accept, he seemed more than just a "red mist" merchant. He seemed to relish his hard man status and try very hard to maintain and even promulgate it. Paul Carozza maybe being the quintessential example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CechcKPrSi0

10 seconds in.

As a kiwi YMMV I accept

didds

My mileage would probably be about the same as your mileage didds. Even at the time, I was disgusted by some of the stuff that Loe did, but even so, I hesitate to say that he had a sick mentality.... Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer are the sorts of names that spring to mind for me when you talk about a sick mentality

 

[Adam]

Really? Well here is a nice example of a tackle where the ball carrier is rotated through 90° purely by the force of impact at a point above his centre of mass.

Now if the Blue player had grasped, lifted, tipped and dropped the Green player so that he struck the ground in that position we would be talking red card!



I agree that this should not be considered a tip tackle because the tackler, does not physically lift the player.

The crux of the matter is the lifting. If a player gasps the ball carrier and lifts him off the ground, HE DOES SO INTENTIONALLY. This is the type of tackle to which the Dangerous Tackles memorandum refers. Lifting is a physical act that cannot be done unintentionally, any more than a person can lift a barbell of weights unintentionally. The tackler may not INTEND to tip the ball-carrier over, but he does INTENTIONALLY lift the player off the ground.

I was explaining the way a tip tackle works. A tip tackle can only occur if a player lifts the ball carrier up from his legs. If the point of contact was below the hips and in a backwards direction then it's not a tip tackle. A tip tackle is therefore a very specific action.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I was explaining the way a tip tackle works. A tip tackle can only occur if a player lifts the ball carrier up from his legs. If the point of contact was below the hips and in a backwards direction then it's not a tip tackle. A tip tackle is therefore a very specific action.

Adam, I agree. I was merely pointing out that the statement by KingsPE that "momentum acts through the centre of gravity was" was correct. It is a key principle of Dynamics, itself one of the fundamental concepts of Classical Mechanics (F=mA) formulated by Sir Isaac Newton over 320 years ago. You dismissed him as being "wrong" in a rather rude fashion.

Have you read my article the front page ? http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?231-The-Dynamics-of-a-Tip-Tackle

 

[chopper15]

While the majority of people will be deterred by the threat of a red card, some people have to actually experience the consequences of their stupidity before they learn from it, and some people, no matter how stupid they are, never learn. Players like Bakkies Botha, Danny Grewcock and Richard Loe fall squarely into this category.

Now while I do not for a minute believe that these players fit your "sick mentality" profile, they nonetheless are prone to getting the "red mist" at times.

Its human nature; takes all kinds to make a world chopper, we can't have a "one-size-fits-all" policy.

Red Carded players are never going to be replaced. Get over it!!

I think you're much too nice using the term 'red mist' as a synonym for my 'sick mentality', Ian.

To me 'red mist' suggests to me the act was retaliatory. My 'sick mentality,' i suggest, is an inherent bent which is basically a premeditated vicious act . ( And, Bryan, they do exist. Eg. subsequent posts)

The 'Red mist' syndrome is, unfortunately, par for the course and inevitable in a macho game. But unlike my 'sick' thugs ( and I don't consider the tag as hyperbole, Bryan) these players have a conscience and on reflection regret their action.

So, I stick with my charge that 'sick mentality' thugs should be hounded out of the game and suggest that clubs should be required to consider their removal from the game when it becomes obvious they metamophose into a 'serial' threat. Once this is emphasised by the authorities, hopefully it really will be a deterrent.

These thugs do exist and they're the ones that should be hounded out.

And Ian, your 'Get over it' comment' wasn't necessary in context of my post. ( And, Bryan, why the sour tone, I was simply expressing a point of view?)

 

[Adam]

Adam, I agree. I was merely pointing out that the statement by KingsPE that "momentum acts through the centre of gravity was" was correct. It is a key principle of Dynamics, itself one of the fundamental concepts of Classical Mechanics (F=mA) formulated by Sir Isaac Newton over 320 years ago. You dismissed him as being "wrong" in a rather rude fashion.

Have you read my article the front page ? http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?231-The-Dynamics-of-a-Tip-Tackle

Of course I know about Mechanics. I just didn't believe it applies to a tip tackle so wasn't at all relevant.

 

[davidlandy]

Any comment about the two tip-tackles this past weekend in the Scarlets match? (One got a yellow and no citation, and the other got nothing at all.)

And/or about Jonathan Davies's comments about the tip tackle rules making the game soft (at the professional level), and that - in RL - SW's tackle would have been considered a good tackle?

 

[OB..]

Any comment about the two tip-tackles this past weekend in the Scarlets match? (One got a yellow and no citation, and the other got nothing at all.)

And/or about Jonathan Davies's comments about the tip tackle rules making the game soft (at the professional level), and that - in RL - SW's tackle would have been considered a good tackle?

Haven't seen the tackles, but my understanding is that in RL Warburton's tackle would nowadays be one of the few cases where a player would get a red card. Times have changed since Jiffy played - a player died from a tip tackle.

 

[davidlandy]

I don't think it can be explained away by insinuating that JD is out of touch with the modern game... he's a current commentator and was reporting what others in RL were saying a few weeks ago:

Davies, though, argues that rugby union should take note of how rugby league polices tackles, where a clear distinction is made between upending an opponent in a tackle and deliberately 'spearing' or driving an opponent head-first into the turf.

"I did [commentated] rugby league a couple of weeks ago and the first thing they said was Sam Warburton's tackle was the best tackle of the World Cup," added Davies, speaking on BBC Wales' Scrum V programme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15613375.stm

 

[Davet]

Chopper, players with a sick mentality are few and far between, and most would get long bans from disciplinary panels and probably get life bans from their club.

I have known a few players who have been told to leave by clubs for perisitent foul play, but most times the clubs are aware before he player gets picked regularly - this sort of mentality is generally obvious in training - and mosclubs wantnothig to do with such behaviour.

I appeciate your sentiment, but I think you are not describing the game as it actually is.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Davies, though, argues that rugby union should take note of how rugby league polices tackles, where a clear distinction is made between upending an opponent in a tackle and deliberately 'spearing' or driving an opponent head-first into the turf.

"I did [commentated] rugby league a couple of weeks ago and the first thing they said was Sam Warburton's tackle was the best tackle of the World Cup," added Davies, speaking on BBC Wales' Scrum V programme.

Well that statement is completely untrue, and Davies is talking through a hole in his arse. He clearly does not know the RL Laws on this.

[LAWS]ARL INTERNATIONAL LAWS OF THE GAME
SECTION 15: PLAYER'S MISCONDUCT

1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:

(d) uses any dangerous throw when effecting a tackle.

NOTES:
Dangerous throw (d) If, in any tackle of, or contact with, an opponent that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck (“the dangerous position”), then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw unless, with the exercise of reasonable care, the dangerous position could not have been avoided[/LAWS]

There is a distinction made between deliberate lifting and unavoidable lifting. The Dangerous tackles memo makes the same distinction; that is why SW's tackle was a red card, but Richard Kahui's tackle on AAC was not even a penalty.

In Rugby League, even placing a player in a position where the player MIGHT hit the ground head first is classed as dangerous, even if the tackled player does not in fact hit the ground head first at all.

Two NRL referees were asked about the SW tackle on RadioSport shortly after it happened. One of them said it was a sending off (no coloured card in NRL), the other said he would put it on report.

It should be kept in mind that Davies IS a former Wales player, and his view is biased. Listening to his commentary when Wales is playing makes that bias obvious. This means I place little if any store in what he has to say on the matter.

 

[davidlandy]

Not really sure if anyone's talking out of their arse here, but I don't see anywhere in the RL rule book where it says a player has to be sent off for any "misconduct" - including the so-called "dangerous throw" (i.e. tip- or spear-tackle).

In fact, the RL rule book gives the ref total discretion:

Power to dismiss 6. In the event of misconduct by a player, the Referee shall, at his discretion, caution, temporarily suspend for ten minutes, or dismiss the offender.

http://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/16_match_officials

Perhaps it is customary (maybe only in the UK?) for RL refs to make a distinction between a tip and a spear, as JD is suggesting?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Not really sure if anyone's talking out of their arse here, but I don't see anywhere in the RL rule book where it says a player has to be sent off for any "misconduct" - including the so-called "dangerous throw" (i.e. tip- or spear-tackle).

In fact, the RL rule book gives the ref total discretion:

Power to dismiss 6. In the event of misconduct by a player, the Referee shall, at his discretion, caution, temporarily suspend for ten minutes, or dismiss the offender.

http://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/16_match_officials

Perhaps it is customary (maybe only in the UK?) for RL refs to make a distinction between a tip and a spear, as JD is suggesting?

Our referees also have discretion, except in the area of Dangerous tackles as pertained to by the Dangerous Tackles memo, where, in certain circumstances, dismissal is mandatory

Personally, I don't think we need to be looking to RL fors guidance as to what constitutes dangerous play. After all, they allow shoulder charges, we don't because we consider them to be dangerous, and with good cause.


I also dispute Davies remark that "the tip tackle rules making the game soft". That is a common catch cry of players who have been out of the game too long the "oh we were tougher in our day" call is largely BS. In fact, if you go back and look at the fitness and physiques of players from times gone by, it is highly unlikely that any of them would be able to stand that hammering the players get in the modern game.

As Colin Meads once said of Jonah Lomu "I've seen a lot players like him, but they weren't playing on the wing."

 

[davidlandy]

Personally, I don't think we need to be looking to RL fors guidance as to what constitutes dangerous play. After all, they allow shoulder charges, we don't because we consider them to be dangerous, and with good cause.

That's a disingenuous argument: we're not discussing what constitutes dangerous play, but whether refs should have discretion as to the sanction when it occurs.

It's been argued before on this board that the IRB had some sort of legal duty to issue the tip-tackle memorandum otherwise they could be sued by players who might get injured as a result. But if RL doesn't have such a memorandum, and RL refs don't routinely red-card such tackles, how come they don't have a queue of injured players lining up to sue them?

And if tip-tackling is so dangerous that the IRB says it must be red-carded to deter offenders, how come RL doesn't have a queue of catastrophically injured players who (we must believe) would have been saved from injury if only each and every ref would have red-carded the offenders?

 

[OB..]

And if tip-tackling is so dangerous that the IRB says it must be red-carded to deter offenders, how come RL doesn't have a queue of catastrophically injured players who (we must believe) would have been saved from injury if only each and every ref would have red-carded the offenders?

Do we need a queue? There has been a death.