Caslicks YC

[Jarrod Burton]

While I know 7's refereeing is organised chaos turned up to 11 at times, I'm completely gob smacked with the YC sanction given to Charlotte Caslick for this tackle against the French over the weekend. CC has come in very low and just before contact the french player has ducked forward into contact with her head approximately equal to her hips and fairly heavy contact occurred.

I cannot see how under a "reasonable mans" interpretation of the laws that this head contact would be considered CC fault. She could not have expected a ball carrier to deliberately dip their head like that and there could be an argument that the BC endangered the tackler by leading with her head deliberately.

My application of the HCP was that high contact occurred but no foul play, so play on - a sudden, signficant and deliberate change in height from the ball carrier

If a strict application of the head contact framework was made and you believed that foul play occurred, there was direct contact to the head and only a single level of mitigation can be applied, so YC, but it doesn't sit properly with me that the RFU has come out recently around tackle height needing to be low and we see a very low tackle being sanctioned due to the actions of the BC.

A bloke I know (who is also incidentally a conspiracy nutter so almost everything that comes out of his mouth needs a shaker full of salt) is convinced that the professionals "need to win at all costs" mentality combined with an effective method of being awarded a PK or the oppo given a YC/RC sanction means an increase in head contacts at the professional level leading to more cases of concussion and the new framework may lead to a decrease in player safety overall.

The first non-geolocked video I found was this one HERE, hopefully its available to the NH viewers.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I would say if Professor Ross Tucker is happy it isn't a YC then I am too. He knows a bit more about the subject than me.

Has foul play occurred? No. Or if it has it is instigated by the French player. IMO. YMMV

 

[crossref]

i'd be interested to know how that would be reffed in the French amateur game, where (AIUI) there is a law specifically to deal with ball carriers late dipping. Is that an example of when the ref might PK the ball carrier?

anyone reffed/watched any amateur french rugby??

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

i'd be interested to know how that would be reffed in the French amateur game, where (AIUI) there is a law specifically to deal with ball carriers late dipping. Is that an example of when the ref might PK the ball carrier?

anyone reffed/watched any amateur french rugby??

Mais non!

 

[Stu10]

I agree with comments above, no foul play therefore play on.

 

[DocP]

This was shared on our groups Whatsapp group

Everyone says it appears business as usual. I've not had time to have a watch of it but sounds like a good example.

 

[Balones]

This was shared on our groups Whatsapp group

Everyone says it appears business as usual. I've not had time to have a watch of it but sounds like a good example.

Thought the YC at 23 mins was a bit harsh.

 

[didds]

turned thtough the horizontal, landed on the side?

 

[belladonna]

While I know 7's refereeing is organised chaos turned up to 11 at times, I'm completely gob smacked with the YC sanction given to Charlotte Caslick for this tackle against the French over the weekend. CC has come in very low and just before contact the french player has ducked forward into contact with her head approximately equal to her hips and fairly heavy contact occurred.

I cannot see how under a "reasonable mans" interpretation of the laws that this head contact would be considered CC fault. She could not have expected a ball carrier to deliberately dip their head like that and there could be an argument that the BC endangered the tackler by leading with her head deliberately.

My application of the HCP was that high contact occurred but no foul play, so play on - a sudden, signficant and deliberate change in height from the ball carrier

If a strict application of the head contact framework was made and you believed that foul play occurred, there was direct contact to the head and only a single level of mitigation can be applied, so YC, but it doesn't sit properly with me that the RFU has come out recently around tackle height needing to be low and we see a very low tackle being sanctioned due to the actions of the BC.

A bloke I know (who is also incidentally a conspiracy nutter so almost everything that comes out of his mouth needs a shaker full of salt) is convinced that the professionals "need to win at all costs" mentality combined with an effective method of being awarded a PK or the oppo given a YC/RC sanction means an increase in head contacts at the professional level leading to more cases of concussion and the new framework may lead to a decrease in player safety overall.

The first non-geolocked video I found was this one HERE, hopefully its available to the NH viewers.

Isn't this a case in point of law 9.11, that players mustn't do anything dangerous to others, so PK against blue?

9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including [but not exclusively] leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.