Aus v SA Koroibete Cover Tackle

[Jarrod Burton]

Was it a tackle or a Shoulder Charge?
Or did Mapimpi jump into contact?

FWIW my view at full speed was possible PK against Aus. But after seeing it slowed down with the shuffle and apparent jump that Mapimpi attempted I changed to play on. I suspect it would have been a PT had Mapimpi run it straight and Koroibete trucked through like normal, but that late change in direction changed my opinion.

 

[Dickie E]

looks like more shoulder than arms to me. And I can't see the ball carrier jump at all.

And if it wasn't a shoulder charge, was there any lift in the tackle such that the ball carrier went through horizontal and landed on his head?

 

[kudu314]

I’m not sure where this weird “jumping” idea comes from. Gold 11 has his left arm hanging by his side in a sling position. His right arm stays static with no wrapping motion. It’s the left shoulder that makes contact first. Green 11sees the incoming defender and plants both feet at the point of contact and has both arms up toward his chest bracing for impact. His feet never leave the ground until the moment of impact when Gold 11’s shoulder makes first contact and the momentum pushes Green 11 into the air and causes him to land on his head and shoulder. If you follow the HPC from World Rugby as all FOUR officials should have, it’s at best a yellow card and at worst a red if no mitigation is found. The facts are clear and obvious, head contact has occurred, it was dangerous, no arms, initial contact with sharp end of shoulder so high degree of danger. Starting point is red.

 

[Zebra1922]

I thought it was a no arms tackle when I saw it first time at full speed, nothing I have seen since has changed my mind.

 

[SimonSmith]

I was OK with it live, and then again on replay.

If you apply the standard that a penalty in this position should be clear and obvious, Koroibete did enough to create plausible deniability with an attempt to wrap.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I’m not sure where this weird “jumping” idea comes from. Gold 11 has his left arm hanging by his side in a sling position. His right arm stays static with no wrapping motion. It’s the left shoulder that makes contact first. Green 11sees the incoming defender and plants both feet at the point of contact and has both arms up toward his chest bracing for impact. His feet never leave the ground until the moment of impact when Gold 11’s shoulder makes first contact and the momentum pushes Green 11 into the air and causes him to land on his head and shoulder. If you follow the HPC from World Rugby as all FOUR officials should have, it’s at best a yellow card and at worst a red if no mitigation is found. The facts are clear and obvious, head contact has occurred, it was dangerous, no arms, initial contact with sharp end of shoulder so high degree of danger. Starting point is red.

The Head contact process has no application here, its not intended to be applied to a player landing on their head, but to provide a framework for high tackle with high initial contact or with force that rides up. The initial point of contact here is around the stomach.


G11 landing on his head wasn't the result of a clear lifting tackle - he gathers himself in the last few steps, brings his hands up and then plants his right foot and pushes up/right which causes him to rotate around the point of contact. There is no classical grasp and lift that we are to look for - and if, as people are claiming, its a shoulder charge, it is near impossible to lift a player that you aren't holding onto.

 

[shebeen]

I thought it was a no arms tackle when I saw it first time at full speed, nothing I have seen since has changed my mind.

very simple to see that the intention of Gold11 was to force player out with maximum impact, as a standard tackle would see him potentially still able to place the ball. It's a high speed collision of two fast and powerful players at 90 degrees, if they were cars it's a T-bone.

point of impact is with the shoulder, and there is no intent to wrap, otherwise the arm would be where the arrow is.



laws are pretty clear on this, and we have seen yellow and red for a lot less.
Koroibete got very unlucky in July 2021 against France so swings and roundabouts

 

[crossref]

I thought it was a no arms tackle when I saw it first time at full speed, nothing I have seen since has changed my mind.

I agree

 

[Flish]

My first thought was no arms, and if that was my game at the weekend with one view that would be my call, and probably a PT and YC to boot based on proximity.

However, on rewatching and different angles I can see here the argument for arms wrapping comes from (jumping / diving not in my thought processes here) so I can understand a call of play on, I would expect a review though unless on comms everyone was very confident with their respective first views, or a background TMO rewatch

 

[SimonSmith]

Still photos prove nothing.

Here's another that creates a plausible case that an attempt grasp was made:

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Still photos prove nothing.

Here's another that creates a plausible case that an attempt grasp was made:

View attachment 4439

Still photos are beyond worthless when we talk about a highly dynamic sport.

If stills are an acceptable form of evidence clearly Faf needed a RC for a deliberate, direct strike at White's face based on the below. We know that it wasn't high impact but the photo doesn't provide any context to the actions immediately prior:

 

[shebeen]

Still photos prove nothing.

Here's another that creates a plausible case that an attempt grasp was made:

View attachment 4439

Sure, you need multiple angles and video for context and the full picture. What you're saying here I think is that since the left arm is vertically down, the right arm is trying to wrap? I'm not sure how that helps you as that is the same side his head is.

probably going to be seen as biased as coming from a RSA journalist, but Nel is one of the better ones. Here's a view with the WR shoulder charge framework compared directly to what happened here.

I'm sure that clears it up for most people.

 

[didds]

from a technical perspective that's a terrible tackle. Head in the wrong place. At a time when concussion issues are being addressed (and stretching the remit here) at what juncture should players be penalised for endangering themselves?

 

[SimonSmith]

from a technical perspective that's a terrible tackle. Head in the wrong place. At a time when concussion issues are being addressed (and stretching the remit here) at what juncture should players be penalised for endangering themselves?

Maybe.

What the full length video shows is that Koroibete was at full speed, but Mapimpi checked at the last seond. If everyone had continued at the same speed, his head would have been in the 'right' place and so would his right arm.

 

[Rich_NL]

I'm wholly with Simon. The arm was coming up, no tuck or sling, no twisting into the shoulder strike. It was a high-speed collision between two world-class wingers, just slightly misjudged, but not reckless.

 

[Decorily]

I'm wholly with Simon. The arm was coming up, no tuck or sling, no twisting into the shoulder strike. It was a high-speed collision between two world-class wingers, just slightly misjudged, but not reckless.

How many times has 'slightly misjudged ' ended with a red card?!

 

[Rich_NL]

How many times has 'slightly misjudged ' ended with a red card?!

Many, when it's reckless. Hence my last sentence.

 

[Jz558]

I'm wholly with Simon. The arm was coming up, no tuck or sling, no twisting into the shoulder strike. It was a high-speed collision between two world-class wingers, just slightly misjudged, but not reckless.

I can agree that it was misjudged but to describe it as a collission suggests that it was unavoidable or accidental. Even a misjudged illegal tackle doesnt mitigate against the offence, just the sanction. Looks to me like a no arms tackle that denied a try scoring opportunity.

 

[Rich_NL]

Most tackles are collisions. My argument is that there was enough attempt to wrap (the law requires an attempt, not success - 9.16) that it wasn't C&O illegal, hence not an offence.

 

[shebeen]

Didn't have to wait long for a v2.0 of this incident.

Arms used, but above shoulder height.
Grounding was good, otherwise a penalty try could have been considered as a try saving tackle.