A tackle gone sadly wrong

[Dixpat]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-25/nrl-defers-tackle-charge-out-of-respec-to-mckinnon/5344858

Could it be an unintended result of a rule change this year which penalised the third man in from tackling below the knees

 

[Ian_Cook]

Its about time RL got serious about addressing the issue of turning players beyond horizontal in the tackle.

For some time, RL media jocks have been making snide remarks about how "RahRah" deals with the tip tackle, calling it soft. I think reality is about to hit home for those involved in the tackle.

I hope AM is able to make a good recovery, and that he does not end up spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair

 

[JP_Rocks]

The scariest thing about that tackle is how relatively mundane it was- there have been many tackles in both codes over the last few years that have appeared far worse, guys lifting and dropping opponents on their heads. If that was in super 15, and if there had been no injury, I wouldn't have been surprised to see it attract little more than a yellow.

 

[4eyesbetter]

I have a lot of sympathy for "If he doesn't duck his head, that doesn't happen". The tackled player is being brought down at the horizontal, he's not being dropped or speared, #8 makes a slight miscalculation and gives a bit more push to the upper body than is needed, the tackle goes slightly past horizontal, he's coming down on his upper body and then for whatever reason he ducks right into the ground. Penalty and on report a reasonable call and I can't see the judiciary handing down anything too severe.

I mean, if you want to argue to get rid of all lifting tackles entirely, that's a point of view and I'll listen to it; but in a world where lifting tackles are permissible, there are occasionally going to be bad ones from poor technique and there are occasionally going to be ones where something dangerous happens and the tackled player's actions are part of the problem. I won't deny either that the NRL is (unsurprisingly when their referees are so hesitant to send players off) incubating a problem with dangerous throws, but you could go eeny-meeny-miny-mo and hit on a much better example of outright dangerous technique in the NRL than this one that's ended worse than all of them.

Could it be an unintended result of a rule change this year which penalised the third man in from tackling below the knees

Not a chance, that tackling technique could have been from any time in at least the last five years.

 

[leaguerefaus]

You see worse tackles every weekend in both rugby codes. It honestly doesn't deserve more than a one week suspension, but it makes it a lot harder when you have someone with a broken neck. Interested to see how this will play out!

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't have any sympathy for "doesn't duck his head it doesn't happen" view. Its is a natural and instinctive reaction to not want your face driven into the ground, in order to protect eyes, nose and mouth, all survival requirements.

You can equally take the view that if Purple 16 doesn't pick up AM's legs, it doesn't happen either.

16 Purple picks AM's legs up, takes him beyond horizontal and then drives him head-first into the ground; in RU that is a spear tackle, and a stone cold RC. Whether he ducks or not, he was always going to hit the ground head first.

I'd wager he would get a long time on the sideline to think about it too.

 

[menace]

I don't have any sympathy for "doesn't duck his head it doesn't happen" view. Its is a natural and instinctive reaction to not want your face driven into the ground, in order to protect eyes, nose and mouth, all survival requirements.

You can equally take the view that if Purple 16 doesn't pick up AM's legs, it doesn't happen either.

16 Purple picks AM's legs up, takes him beyond horizontal and then drives him head-first into the ground; in RU that is a spear tackle, and a stone cold RC. Whether he ducks or not, he was always going to hit the ground head first.

I'd wager he would get a long time on the sideline to think about it too.

But it was only one leg that was picked up (while his other leg/foot stays on the ground) even our rulings on the lifting tackle says

"Any time a tackled player's legs are lifted above horizontal it should result in a yellow card as a minimum."

This suggests the plural, both legs, and therefore a single leg, while not saying it is not dangerous, does not seem to be written into our guidelines as a tip tackle either requiring a YC (or RC).

That tackle could easily happen in rugby now, and only result in a PK at most as it does not meet the prescribed (and written guidelines ) criteria of a lifting/tip tackle.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but thats the way the guidance is written and how it was presented a season ago.

I feel for him and his family. I feel ill every time I see it replayed in the news. (Having a brother in a wheelchair from a broken back (car accident) and having broken/fractured my neck and multiple vertebrae from a mountain bike accident I know a little bit about what he'll be going through). As a result I'm über strict on anything that resembles a lifting/tip tackle.

 

[RobLev]

But it was only one leg that was picked up (while his other leg/foot stays on the ground) even our rulings on the lifting tackle says

"Any time a tackled player's legs are lifted above horizontal it should result in a yellow card as a minimum."

This suggests the plural, both legs, and therefore a single leg, while not saying it is not dangerous, does not seem to be written into our guidelines as a tip tackle either requiring a YC (or RC).

Law 10.4(j) doesn't refer to legs at all...and both McKinnon's feet were lifted off the ground.

 

[Dixie]

Law 10.4(j) doesn't refer to legs at all...and both McKinnon's feet were lifted off the ground.

Rugby League tackle being discussed in the Rugby League forum, RobLev.

 

[RobLev]

Rugby League tackle being discussed in the Rugby League forum, RobLev.

I understood menace to be suggesting it wouldn't be a RC in Union, either, following up on JP_Rocks' comment, and Ian's that it would be a stone-cold RC in Union. Indeed he quotes from the RU "secret memo"on the subject. If not, then of course you're right.

 

[andyscott]

It would maybe a YC didn't look that bad, just an accident.

Ref was correct, report (although its a get out system) and let the clever folk deal with it.

Thoughts with the player.

 

[leaguerefaus]

What would you all give him if you were on the judiciary? And what do you think the actual judiciary will give him?

 

[menace]

Law 10.4(j) doesn't refer to legs at all...and both McKinnon's feet were lifted off the ground.

But I wasn't quoting law, but the guidelines as to how we (as in ARU land) are supposed to interpret the laws.

For your benefit here is the ARU game management guidelines on lifting tackles.

"Lifting tackles that place players in danger of injury must have serious consequences. The onus is on the tackler to complete the tackle safely. Dropping or throwing tackled players once they are in a dangerous position is to be strongly sanctioned.
Any time a tackled player's legs are lifted above horizontal it should result in a yellow card as a minimum.
If the tackled player is lifted and lands on his shoulder or head area it should result in a red card. A tackled player placing a hand down at the last second to stop a 'head or shoulder area landing' should not influence this sanction."

 

[RobLev]

But I wasn't quoting law, but the guidelines as to how we (as in ARU land) are supposed to interpret the laws.

For your benefit here is the ARU game management guidelines on lifting tackles.

"Lifting tackles that place players in danger of injury must have serious consequences. The onus is on the tackler to complete the tackle safely. Dropping or throwing tackled players once they are in a dangerous position is to be strongly sanctioned.
Any time a tackled player's legs are lifted above horizontal it should result in a yellow card as a minimum.
If the tackled player is lifted and lands on his shoulder or head area it should result in a red card. A tackled player placing a hand down at the last second to stop a 'head or shoulder area landing' should not influence this sanction."

I'm aware of the guideline. My point was that even if the guideline was to be taken to refer only to the situation when both a player's legs are taken above the horizontal (not an inevitable, nor necessarily the most likely, construction), the Law itself doesn't, and the preamble to the guideline doesn't suggest that it represents the only situation in which a YC/RC should be considered for breach of the Law

As for construction of the guideline: if the dress code for a function says that "T-shirts shall not be worn", does that mean that I am OK if I only wear one T-shirt?

Or, closer to the specific subject: the guideline says that "Dropping or throwing tackled players once they are in a dangerous position..."; does that mean that provided I only drop or throw one player I'm outside the guideline?

FWIW, the first video illustrating Law 10.4(j) is the Warburton/LeClerc tackle; the second is a tackle similar to the tackle on McKinnon (from which I wish him the best for recovery), with only one leg lifted and the other following. If White 5 hadn't got his arm out, it looked an even more dangerous tackle than the Warburton/LeClerc one.

 

[Browner]

Why does RL need x3 players to upend a BC who's forward progress has clearly been stopped?

IMO its the lack of forward movement that compounds the risk.

On a tangent note, in both codes the ' twisting of players' when static(ish) needs to be looked at from a law perspective ....... If I'm correct ?, joint injuries are on the increase because of this aspect.

Sam Burgess reacted when his brother was bent backwards recently, another unnecessary/malicious player bend action IMO

 

[Daftmedic]

Poor kid

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Why does RL need x3 players to upend a BC who's forward progress has clearly been stopped?

Held and released stood up will result in a quicker PTB so there is a benefit to putting the man down (on his back preferably).

In this case if his progress had been halted arguably the referee calling held in good time would have resulted in the PTB being taken from the (already) stood up position.

As moving the tackle is a PK offence in RL a single BC is always "at risk" of being tackled by as many players as can physically get hold of him - with negligible help from his team mates.

It is an awful injury. I wish him and his family well. I hope he recovers a meaningful quality of life.

 

[Fatboy_Ginge]

I first saw this on the Rugby Banter Facebook page. Apparently he has undergone an operation to sort out the injury to his C4 & C5 vertebrae and they have said that he will be back playing in 2 years :wow:.

There is also a discussion about amending the 10M rule because of it although how this affects a dangerous tackle is beyond my mere Union based brain.

I (and several others) have pointed out that in RU this would be a straight RC because the legs came past the horizontal and he landed on his head and also suggested that RL perhaps look at the requirement for a 3rd player to tackle the BC (personally I thought that RL always claimed the better tackle technique but if it requires 3 tacklers to get the BC to ground... Well...) If this 3rd person is required then RL needs to look at it's dangerous tackle laws.

Regardless... let's hope that a full recovery is made VERY quickly

 

[andyscott]

What would you all give him if you were on the judiciary? And what do you think the actual judiciary will give him?

Honestly about 4 weeks. I think he will get 6-8.

 

[ckuxmann]

There is also a discussion about amending the 10M rule because of it although how this affects a dangerous tackle is beyond my mere Union based brain.

Let's assume that an offensive player runs from about 10M on his run up.

Decreasing the 10M it would decrease the ability to hit at speed, where now, it is normally two players clashing full speed from 10M running starts. This decrease would mean one offensive player hitting at full speed where the defence would be left at only 5M of speed. 10M>5M possibly leading to a safer tackle as the offense has speed to go down?? (that's where I can't figure it out)