[Tackle] 10.4.E section 1

[Fatboy_Ginge]

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.

Yet from my informal survey (where I've asked a further number of refs in the UK as well as the previous ones) they say Play on. Is this down to an American interpretation of what is deemed dangerous perhaps?

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.

Well yes and no. If the BC is in the air i.e. has jumped, catching the kick ahead or has been lifted either in a dangerous tackle or for say a restart, then yes 100% the NBC is responsible for the outcome. otherwise when attempting a tackle within the laws of the game then how can the tackler be responsible for things like ducking into the tackle or the BC slipping. As for mistiming a tackle well it happens and if the tackler goes dangerous then they get penalised. If the tackle attempt is not dangerous but mistimed... well that's rugby. It happens occasionally.

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.

This should be addressed by reviewing the guidance issued to us. If a player jumps for a ball and jumps into a stationary player then tough. As it stands though the guidance is clear, if you both jump for the ball and clatter each other then you're both off the ground and the outcome is "in the air". ALL players know though that you DO NOT touch the player in the air. If you are chasing a kick and are not going to be able to jump and contest for the ball in the air then you have to moderate your approach to allow the jumper to land. i.e. STOP running. Should you not do this and take the player in the air then you deserve everything that comes your way.

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.

Then the referees will be pulled up on it afterwards. I agree that the standard of refereeing has been low. I watched GB vs CAN and how a Canadian didn't end up in the bin for repeated infringements at the breakdown is beyond me, but that is the referees call. in the US v AUS match Johnson's attempt at a tackle went completely wrong, I will never dispute that but calling it dangerous for a clash of heads when she got her head position wrong is a poor call.

 

[thepercy]

So, I guess I deliberately did not reference this particular tackle, because I don't really care about it that much. I am concerned on how I should judge these things next Saturday. I was firmly in the high tackle camp, but will adjust for consistency's sake.

Are the arms the only thing to be considered when adjudicating tackles above the line of the shoulder? Leaving tacklers free to smash the ball carrier in the head/neck with their head and/or shoulder, so longs are they wrap low?

 

[DocY]

Are the arms the only thing to be considered when adjudicating tackles above the line of the shoulder? Leaving tacklers free to smash the ball carrier in the head/neck with their head and/or shoulder, so longs are they wrap low?

I'd say 'no'. It's not in the spirit of the law.

And I don't think it matters, anyway. A tackle you describe is probably going to be dangerous in its own right and nobody would question you penalising it.

And even if you disagree, I think you'd struggle to sell "technically it's OK because, although his shoulder hit high, his arms wrapped low".

 

[SimonSmith]

So, I guess I deliberately did not reference this particular tackle, because I don't really care about it that much. I am concerned on how I should judge these things next Saturday. I was firmly in the high tackle camp, but will adjust for consistency's sake.

Are the arms the only thing to be considered when adjudicating tackles above the line of the shoulder? Leaving tacklers free to smash the ball carrier in the head/neck with their head and/or shoulder, so longs are they wrap low?

My bet is that knowing clubs as I do that they would expect a red. If you didn't RC they would then cite, and have it overturned.

 

[winchesterref]

I would be carding that. Erring towards YC. Shoulder looks to me like it connects with the Aus head afterwards?

 

[rugbyslave]

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.

I am quite disturbed that you found the refereeing in those 3 days to be poor, there may have been slight errors but, seriously , I watched most and found the referees to be very competent. I guess we would have to agree to disagree.

 

[SimonSmith]

I don't know what circles you're in, but the feedback I get is pretty much the same - there have been some big errors and inconsistencies. Even my non rugby friends have raised some questions.

I tried grading, or writing a coaching report in my head for some of the games. Not a pleasant exercise.

 

[talbazar]

I don't know what circles you're in, but the feedback I get is pretty much the same - there have been some big errors and inconsistencies. Even my non rugby friends have raised some questions.

I tried grading, or writing a coaching report in my head for some of the games. Not a pleasant exercise.

I'll be honest I only had the chance to watch a few Womens gane so far, but I like the idea of doing coaching reports when watching TV.
If you're keen, push it further, do you reports and decide who's the least-worse you would give the final to. And let's see if Paddy O'Brian and his team get it right or not epper:

(That's to the read on a joking tone)

Cheers,
Pierre.