Crusaders v Rebels tip tackle YC

[winchesterref]

Nice clear thread title for starters.

Series of videos:

First one is full speed during the game
Second one is the TMO angles shown
Third is the number identification and YC

Thoughts on this?

Full speed

 

[winchesterref]

TMO views

 

[winchesterref]

Outcome

 

[tim White]

Not too clear at game speed, but in MO views that is a clear lift and drive into the turf; C and Obvious RED for me (in slo-mo)

 

[Daftmedic]

Meh. Def lift. Without TMO. PENALTY only with yellow is justified. Crack on and play rugby.

 

[SimonSmith]

Fulfils the necessary criteria for a red

 

[Pegleg]

Meh. Def lift. Without TMO. PENALTY only with yellow is justified. Crack on and play rugby.

Are you judging on the events and Laws as we a directed or personal opinion. For me, in law, that's a red card. Should it be one? Yes I think so, but my personal opinion is not relevant. The law dictates the outcome.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

If that is a clear red then we may as well start giving yellows when a dominant tackler drives a player backwards onto his back. Yellow at best. Do not judge all tackles by their look during slow motion replays, as the slower speed gives the impression that every action is deliberate and considered when in reality, the actions at real speed are usually reactionary to changing forces. Does anyone have the footage covering the cited Higgenbottom & Stirzaker stamps - start a new thread though!

 

[buff]

I had a quick look at the Stirzaker stamp from a distance on a giant screen. It looked like he took a shot at the back of the red leg and another on the other side of the body. I can`t see him not getting a ban.

 

[talbazar]

In my views (of the law and directives):
- Red at full speed
- Red in SloMo

No question about that...

On a side note, NB is in such a weird position at the moment of the incident...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If that is a clear red then we may as well start giving yellows when a dominant tackler drives a player backwards onto his back. Yellow at best. Do not judge all tackles by their look during slow motion replays, as the slower speed gives the impression that every action is deliberate and considered when in reality, the actions at real speed are usually reactionary to changing forces. Does anyone have the footage covering the cited Higgenbottom & Stirzaker stamps - start a new thread though!

Was the ball carrier lifted? Yes
Was he rotated beyond horizontal (head below hips)? Yes
Was he dropped or driven? Yes
Did he land on his head or upper body? Yes
Did the tackler make any effort to mitigate the player's fall? No

:norc:

If we (and World Rugby) are serious about eliminating tip tackles from the game then, until players learn NOT to combine a grasp below the hips of the player with a lift off the ground that brings that player into a dangerous position where neither the player nor the tackler have any control, then this tackle, and every tackle like it, needs to be RC

Otherwise, we are paying the issue mere lip service!

 

[Pegleg]

If that is a clear red then we may as well start giving yellows when a dominant tackler drives a player backwards onto his back. Yellow at best. Do not judge all tackles by their look during slow motion replays, as the slower speed gives the impression that every action is deliberate and considered when in reality, the actions at real speed are usually reactionary to changing forces. Does anyone have the footage covering the cited Higgenbottom & Stirzaker stamps - start a new thread though!

It up to us as referees to applie the law. If you feel the law needs changing go thought the correct chanells.

No you'd not YC every tackle in which a player ends on his back. How absurd. The issue is the lift above the hotizontal and the drive / drop.

Ian gives very clear guidence on the tip in his reply to you. Apply it and you will be acting correctly. by all means campaign to change the law if you want.

 

[Browner]

If that is a clear red then we may as well start giving yellows when a dominant tackler drives a player backwards onto his back.

Yellow at best. Do not judge all tackles by their look during slow motion replays, as the slower speed gives the impression that every action is deliberate and considered when in reality, the actions at real speed are usually reactionary to changing forces.

As a 'former' player, I kind of get what you're saying, but the key ingredients are the 'lift' then compounded by the twist/drive this is a modern influence that has (IMO) arrived from RL where it was seemingly invented!

Dominance shouldnt ( i hope never will ) be penalised , but this safety subject will probably never revert on the way Law is guided to be applied on these tackle styles. As others have said, players need to learn and they will be helped by unifirmed referee interpretations .

If RL also punish Lift & drive, then code swappers/oscilators will have less trouble acclimatising.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

http://youtu.be/BL5wyc9IS74

The video on the link above shows the sort of tackle that I am thinking of at around 4:08, an All Black on a Wallaby (don't blink, you'll miss it) and two at 3:36 and 3:38 (neither hit the deck with an upper body but show the tackle "form". This hard, low hit, with the tackler generally running to a stationary/slow Ball Carrier who is trying to side step or jink and are standing tall, where the ball carrier is driven backwards and the tacklers arms, while around a players legs (because they have gone low) cause the BC legs to go past the horizontal as they squeeze the tackle, the BC is driven up and backwards and usually land on their back. Many that you see could equally be yellow or red carded based on Ian's checklist (which I agree with and use), but how many times will you see it actually carded?

I was under the impression that the guidance for a red card is a deliberate lift turn & drop by a slow or stationary tackler on a BC - but being in Tas and having limited access to coaching makes it difficult to cover more than one or two things every season. This was certainly higher on the range of YC but not a straight red for me. There are plenty of examples of deliberate lift turn dumps out there on youtube which are obvious RC.

PS do not watch the rest of that "inspiration" video as its full of blatantly illegal actions and only serves to show you the mentality of some supporters where maximum damage and carnage is the only way.

Based on what you guys are saying should the All Black at 4:08-4:15 also have been red carded since

 

[Browner]

http://youtu.be/BL5wyc9IS74

The video on the link above shows the sort of tackle that I am thinking of at around 4:08, an All Black on a Wallaby (don't blink, you'll miss it) and two at 3:36 and 3:38 (neither hit the deck with an upper body but show the tackle "form". This hard, low hit, with the tackler generally running to a stationary/slow Ball Carrier who is trying to side step or jink and are standing tall, where the ball carrier is driven backwards and the tacklers arms, while around a players legs (because they have gone low) cause the BC legs to go past the horizontal as they squeeze the tackle, the BC is driven up and backwards and usually land on their back. Many that you see could equally be yellow or red carded based on Ian's checklist (which I agree with and use), but how many times will you see it actually carded?

I was under the impression that the guidance for a red card is a deliberate lift turn & drop by a slow or stationary tackler on a BC - but being in Tas and having limited access to coaching makes it difficult to cover more than one or two things every season. This was certainly higher on the range of YC but not a straight red for me. There are plenty of examples of deliberate lift turn dumps out there on youtube which are obvious RC.

PS do not watch the rest of that "inspiration" video as its full of blatantly illegal actions and only serves to show you the mentality of some supporters where maximum damage and carnage is the only way.

Based on what you guys are saying should the All Black at 4:08-4:15 also have been red carded since

If I'm watching the correct incidents then none of the x3 examples that you suggest meet my definition of a drive/drop after a lift , mainly because of the absence of a C&O upward 'lifting' action to take the player off his feet. A player who is taken off his feet by virtue of the velocity or thrust of a driving tackle is IMO a different case altogether ..... I would say that the tackle by the Englishman at 1.30 does fail to be lawful though !

PS...fftopic: I really Dislike rugbydumps preoccupation with hits smashing and toughie talk, and the soundtrack to this set of clips is badly chosen IMO,... hey...it includes the 'recently popularised by songwriters' N word !!!

 

[Jarrod Burton]

If I'm watching the correct incidents then none of the x3 examples that you suggest meet my definition of a drive/drop after a lift , mainly because of the absence of a C&O upward 'lifting' action to take the player off his feet. A player who is taken off his feet by virtue of the velocity or thrust of a driving tackle is IMO a different case altogether ..... I would say that the tackle by the Englishman at 1.30 does fail to be lawful though !

My bold in your comment. Browner has identified the sort of tackle that I meant in my first post. I think that I failed to explain what I meant in the initial post sufficiently.

The english tackle at 1:30 is clearly dangerous and although there is no lead up, I reckon that he is not moving quickly if at all prior to the contact. It's exceedingly hard to hit, lift twist and dump when you are running into another player, but much simpler when you are standing still and the inbound momentum of the BC turns into upwards when the tacklers leg drive causes the BC to leave the ground.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Jarrod, the tackles you highlight at 3:36, 3:38 and 4:08 have no lift component; a key part of the tip tackle. In all three cases the ball carriers are grasped around the waist or hips and and driven backwards by a tackler in constant motion "through" the tackle. Tackles like this are fine and legal, the Ball carrier hits the ground on his back because he is rotated by the force of the tackle. This often happens because at the moment of impact, the ball carrier's feet may not be in contact with the ground (during aerial phase of the running stride).

However, in the case you raise in your OP, the tackler stops, reaches down, grasps the ball carrier below the hips, lifts him up off his feet, turns him over and drives him down with hips above head. For me, that is RC all day long. The tackler did not need to lift him in the first place, everything else followed from that.


NOTE: Ever since the tip-tackle issue was first raised, I have found it puzzling that we don't allow any tackling of a player who already has his feet off the ground, yet it is not illegal for tacklers to lift players so that their feet are off the ground.

 

[crossref]

Meh. Def lift. Without TMO. PENALTY only with yellow is justified. Crack on and play rugby.

Are you judging on the events and Laws as we a directed or personal opinion. For me, in law, that's a red card. Should it be one? Yes I think so, but my personal opinion is not relevant. The law dictates the outcome.

This is not covered by the Law, which does define a dangerous tip tackle, but which doesn't have an criteria that will tell you what card to give.
You are thinking of the 2009 memo, which does have guidance (along with an outdated definition)

 

[Esses]

FWIW from the more junior end of the Refereeing scale, for mine that was a RC every time. I showed my 14yo Son who also Referees & his instant response was RC. He had it happen to him a couple of times while playing last year. I then showed my 16yo Son who is a more experienced Referee & his response was: "Yeah, penalty. What else? Dunno, I can't remember all that stuff - too tired (he was in bed), season's a long way off yet." So go figure.