[Tackle] 10.4.E section 1
- Thread starter thepercy
- Start date
You don't tackle with the head or shoulders, so that is simply dangerous play, not dangerous tackling.
video ?
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,138
- Post Likes
- 2,155
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I thought the same thing when I saw it. If we penalise players who are careless in how they contact players in the air, maybe same should apply for head to head contact.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,370
- Post Likes
- 1,471
Stonewall red. Especially in light of some of the other cards awarded
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,138
- Post Likes
- 2,155
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I think you're going a bit far now. If WR want to address careless head clashes then fine, but there is no way a ref was ever going to sanction that event.
I think WR should do something about head clashes - but it has to be done proper.y
Marketing campaign - along the lines of headcase.
Write it into law.
Apply it from the top - and stick to it.
We will of course get grey areas - just as we have with the player in the air - which will give us more to talk about here
Marketing campaign - along the lines of headcase.
Write it into law.
Apply it from the top - and stick to it.
We will of course get grey areas - just as we have with the player in the air - which will give us more to talk about here
Paule23
Referees in Scotland
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 394
- Post Likes
- 153
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 7
Much as I hate the Daily Mail it was the only place I could find the video.
[video]http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2016/08/08/1304917595300512167/640x360_1304917595300512167.mp4[/video]
I don't think you need a law for this, in my view it is covered by the existing dangerous play law. I say dangerous play, penalty and YC. You could argue this is accidental, but by tackling high and putting your body and head in that position, you are leaving yourself open to impacting the player dangerously and causing significant injury.
[video]http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2016/08/08/1304917595300512167/640x360_1304917595300512167.mp4[/video]
I don't think you need a law for this, in my view it is covered by the existing dangerous play law. I say dangerous play, penalty and YC. You could argue this is accidental, but by tackling high and putting your body and head in that position, you are leaving yourself open to impacting the player dangerously and causing significant injury.
Unfortunately, it seems about the only source for the more "interesting" incidents in the Olympics!
Fatboy_Ginge
Referees in England
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 126
- Post Likes
- 29
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
Trouble is that she either mis-times the smother tackle or changes her mind at the last minute, either way it's a piss poor tackle but as regards the hysteria it's generating it's not a "dangerous tackle". I've shown it to 2 English, 3 German, 3 Austrian and 1 Moldovan referee and they all said the same. Rugby incident. play on.
She DOESN'T lead with the head.
She DOESN'T go high.
She just cocks the tackle attempt up.
She DOESN'T lead with the head.
She DOESN'T go high.
She just cocks the tackle attempt up.
Paule23
Referees in Scotland
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 394
- Post Likes
- 153
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 7
Surely there have to be consequences if you get something that wrong. I can't put this down as a simple, accidental clash of heads. She puts herself i the position that a dangerous clash of heads is a very real possibility, therefore surely she has to accept responsibility for the results (in the way of penalty/YC)?
But how wrong do you have to be to be penalised? There's a very real risk of a clash of heads every smother tackle. And to me, it didn't look like she got it that wrong - she was a couple of inches out performing a legitimate action, which is usually fine, but happened not to be in this case. Could that have been caused by the BC changing her angle slightly? If it wasn't in this incident, it's certainly possible and do you then penalise the BC?
I really hope the higher ups don't decide to make an example of this. After what they did with contact in the air this is another facet that could be massively screwed.
Paule23
Referees in Scotland
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 394
- Post Likes
- 153
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 7
That's an interesting argument re. the BC, and yes there will be situations where the BC ducks/moves in such a way it causes the clash of heads. I don't see them in quite the same way though. I think the tackler has more responsibilities as they are the ones causing the collision and generally have more control over how they impact.
I know that is a little contradictory, and if the BC is deliberately putting their head in a position to cause a clash, or is reckless, then they should be penalised too. In this instance I feel the tackler was reckless and should be penalised for it.
chbg
Referees in England
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,487
- Solutions
- 1
- Post Likes
- 445
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 7
But no-one in authority on the international feels the same way, since it has not been cited afterwards.
I am reminded (but someone will have more detailed memory than me) of the incident when a first class player was hid on the head by a shin(?) in the in-goal area; the opposition was RC / cited, only to be eventually found not guilty of reckless play. I was surprised, but have since learnt these to be 'rugby incidents'.
Liam Williams and Tom Wood in the World Cup?
About 5m from the Welsh line, Williams went down on the ball as Wood tried to hack it. Nothing done at the time and the citing was dismissed.
EDIT: found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRfFajD1574
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,370
- Post Likes
- 1,471
Interestingly, my informal survey of referees, including a large number of US referees, seem to agree that some action` was necessary, and minimum YC. That survey includes one international JO.
It seems to me, and as I have been at pains to point out, that we live in a era where the onus is squarely on the non ball carrier to be responsible for the outcomes. Players are getting YCed and RCed for being on the ground when another player jumps into them. If those players are to be held responsible for the outcomes, then a situation like this where the tackler is committing a positive action should also have some outcomes.
I'm afraid that the stance that an international referee saw it and was OK with it doesn't cut much mustard. The standard of refereeing in those three days was poor, especially given that it is meant to be the premier event this year.
It seems to me, and as I have been at pains to point out, that we live in a era where the onus is squarely on the non ball carrier to be responsible for the outcomes. Players are getting YCed and RCed for being on the ground when another player jumps into them. If those players are to be held responsible for the outcomes, then a situation like this where the tackler is committing a positive action should also have some outcomes.
I'm afraid that the stance that an international referee saw it and was OK with it doesn't cut much mustard. The standard of refereeing in those three days was poor, especially given that it is meant to be the premier event this year.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I think chbg might be thinking of the Nathan Hughes - George North incident in Saints v Wasps last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EclrKrPNvI
Hughes was RC, banned for three weeks, appealed and the ban was overturned (and rightly so IMO).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...eing-George-North-in-the-head-overturned.html