Another stand-up tackle

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,034
Post Likes
1,775
why wa sthe ref fixated on the shoulder to the head query? Does he think that head to head woudnt matter ? the TMo was clearly not mentioning any body parts making potential contact. And even after that the ref continued with the shoulder to head line.

(rhetorical question).

FWIW I think that the decsion was correct wrt head contact ie there was none.
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,479
Solutions
1
Post Likes
439
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
"Head contact includes neck and throat area". (World Rugby Head Contact Process)

I will assume that this has not been overlooked in the officials' process and terminology.
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
This appeared to be one of those situations where the tackler actually made contact with his head on the ball carrier’s shoulder. Penalise the ball carrier for not getting his shoulder out of the way? :) I couldn’t see anything in the replays that would have given Mike A cause to penalise. The nature of the dialogue between ref and TMO would suggest that they knew it didn’t look good but there was nothing they could do.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,034
Post Likes
1,775
I dont see what the issue is. the laws/regs/guidelines etc require head contact (including neck and throat "area" - Whatever TF "area" means in this context being the ONLY caveat) for cards.

It seems there is no contact at all with the head, neck or throat. QED, no card.

Its very simple.

The rider is whatever "area" means ... which is so wooly as to needing to be ignored.

Meanwhile if "the game" doesnt like the look of it given it "fails" the head/neck/thrat criteria it needs to rethink what "the game" actually wants to acheive.

Until such time as that rethink... Next!
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
The answers so far only serve to emphasise what is becoming clearly ridiculous. In this case no head contact occured so play on, nothing to see here. If either head is 2 or 3 cms further over than they are and there is contact, that's a red card and a ban, even though the action is exactly the same. It's all very well issuing guidelines regarding procedures around head contact but it took a team of four several minutes to determine whether or not head contact had occured. How does that help me at the weekend? I get a one off, quick glance at the action and have to make a decision. In this case, I'm pretty sure I would have seen that as a dangerous tackle, penalty white and yellow card blue. The point I think I'm making is that issuing guidelines and procedures that can only be fully followed if you have a TMO is a cop out and does the wider game a diservice. It raises unrealistic expectations of players and coaches that the referee will be able to follow them. In this instance Henderson's phrase "that can't be a nothing" resonates.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I think in our situation with one view only, no AR's or TMO, we would all have given something (wouldn't we) for that tackle based on the uprightness/height of the tackle and the whiplash effect on the ball carriers head.

The Head contact guideline say

[LAWS]The Head Contact Process is a Law Application Guideline. Under 9.11, the referee is
always entitled to issue a red or yellow card for anything deemed to be reckless or
dangerous
. However, this process is intended to aid consistency in the application of
sanctions by providing guidance on how contact with the head should be approached by
match officials and disciplinary personnel.[/LAWS]
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I think in our situation with one view only, no AR's or TMO, we would all have given something (wouldn't we) for that tackle based on the uprightness/height of the tackle and the whiplash effect on the ball carriers head.

I would have played on
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I agree withPhil but here's where the procedure is a mess and I think Didds was alluding toit earlier.

In this instance the team of 4 rightly concludedthat no head contact had taken place. The referee decided on that basis to goback for the previous offence and so it is reasonable to assume that he didn’tsee the tackle as reckless or high otherwise he would have penalised it. On thebasis that he saw no foul play, if head contact had occurred and he followedthe head contact process accurately, the only action available to him wouldhave been play on. Question 2 in the process asks was there foul play? if no,play on. His actions therefore appear correct and in accordance with theprocess. I can't help feeling though that had head contact taken place he wouldnot have done this and would have penalised the tackle and issued a red card. Ican't of course prove this but it would certainly have been the path of leastresistance and I suspect to do otherwise would have caused a certain amount ofconsternation.

I realise this dilemma has always existed in rugbybut is even more relevant now because outcome rather than actions are leadingto more red cards being issued which has a disproportionate effect on thegame.



 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I agree withPhil but here's where the procedure is a mess and I think Didds was alluding toit earlier.

In this instance the team of 4 rightly concludedthat no head contact had taken place. The referee decided on that basis to goback for the previous offence and so it is reasonable to assume that he didn’tsee the tackle as reckless or high otherwise he would have penalised it. On thebasis that he saw no foul play, if head contact had occurred and he followedthe head contact process accurately, the only action available to him wouldhave been play on. Question 2 in the process asks was there foul play? if no,play on. His actions therefore appear correct and in accordance with theprocess. I can't help feeling though that had head contact taken place he wouldnot have done this and would have penalised the tackle and issued a red card. Ican't of course prove this but it would certainly have been the path of leastresistance and I suspect to do otherwise would have caused a certain amount ofconsternation.

I realise this dilemma has always existed in rugbybut is even more relevant now because outcome rather than actions are leadingto more red cards being issued which has a disproportionate effect on thegame.




what is Question 1 in the process? If it is "was there head contact?" then the 'no' answer means you never go to Question 2.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Twitter user Steve Pierce said it for me

"Great tackle no head contact arms wrapped ... nothing to see here move along"
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Twitter user Steve Pierce said it for me

"Great tackle no head contact arms wrapped ... nothing to see here move along"

Whether thetackle was high or reckless is a matter for the referee to decide and not whatI’m interested in. I’m interested in how he applied the process because ifprofessional referees are confused then what about the rest of us?

He and the TMOagreed, reasonably early on in the process, that there was a clear wrap, and nofoul place took place. That being the case why would he continue to check forhead contact? No foul play means play on under the process even if there ishead contact so what would he have done with that information?
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Whether thetackle was high or reckless is a matter for the referee to decide and not whatI’m interested in. I’m interested in how he applied the process because ifprofessional referees are confused then what about the rest of us?

He and the TMOagreed, reasonably early on in the process, that there was a clear wrap, and nofoul place took place. That being the case why would he continue to check forhead contact? No foul play means play on under the process even if there ishead contact so what would he have done with that information?

The process is the other way around (or is this where they went wrong?) First question is ‘Has there been head contact’ and then it’s on to foul play? It doesn’t matter in the sense that with the same answers you get to the same place, nut I think it’s important in terms of though process
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
The process is the other way around (or is this where they went wrong?) First question is ‘Has there been head contact’ and then it’s on to foul play? It doesn’t matter in the sense that with the same answers you get to the same place, nut I think it’s important in terms of though process

I did wonder that but ultimately I dont think it matters which way round you ask the questions. Either way if there is no foul play its play on so why spend time holding up the game? As I said previously my feeling is that if there had been a clash of heads he would have penalised the tackle and issued a card otherwise you're left with a ball carrier with a head injury from a tackle that some, but by no means all, would say was marginal and a rebrief from Nigel on his You Tube channel whilst feeding the cows.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
what is Question 1 in the process? If it is "was there head contact?" then the 'no' answer means you never go to Question 2.

If you could see there was no head contact at full speed in a live situation with no other input from AR's or TMO then you are a better man than me? Would depend a lot on the angle you see it at as well.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If you could see there was no head contact at full speed in a live situation with no other input from AR's or TMO then you are a better man than me? Would depend a lot on the angle you see it at as well.

sure and that is why we apply the "clear & obvious" principle.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Whether thetackle was high or reckless is a matter for the referee to decide and not whatI’m interested in. I’m interested in how he applied the process because ifprofessional referees are confused then what about the rest of us?

He and the TMOagreed, reasonably early on in the process, that there was a clear wrap, and nofoul place took place. That being the case why would he continue to check forhead contact? No foul play means play on under the process even if there ishead contact so what would he have done with that information?

HIA ?

I'm not sure what is in the elite referee protocols these days, but is it in the referee's purview to send a player for an HIA?
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
HIA ?

I'm not sure what is in the elite referee protocols these days, but is it in the referee's purview to send a player for an HIA?
In stage 1, players who sustain head impact events with the potential for a concussion are identified by match officials, team doctors (TD), or independent match-day doctors (MDD). The identification is either by direct observation or on video review.


Extract from World Rugby Protocol
https://www.world.rugby/news/612891

It would seem they do.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2

He and the TMOagreed, reasonably early on in the process, that there was a clear wrap, and nofoul place took place.


what they were doing was verbalising what they saw as each camera angle was made available ie "I can see no foul play from that angle, may I see the next angle please?"

And a "clear wrap" is only relevant to 1. confirm there was no shoulder charge or 2. present mitigation to the head contact (if any)
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Extract from World Rugby Protocol [/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.world.rugby/news/612891

It would seem they do.

Thanks Phil
 
Top