eng v samoa tip tackle

[leaguerefaus]

so basically a tip-tackler gets lucky if their actions end up with the tackled player hitting the ground fiorst with a scapula rather than a shoulder/head, which is total luck or depends upon the tip-tackled player moving and thus saving the tackler form a RC?

Maybe next time the tip-tackler won;t be so lucky - and maybe next time there is a broken neck.

Winner.

didds

so basically a high-tackler gets lucky if their actions end up with the tackled player being hit around the neck rather than the jaw, which is total luck since there's only centimetres in it, and maybe depends upon the player who is high tackled moving into a slightly lower or higher stance?

Maybe next time the high-tackler won't be so lucky - and maybe next time there is a broken jaw.

Winner.

 

[didds]

That sounds like a cynical view didds.

I think it is far more likely that the degree of "tipping" of the ball carrier will be influenced more by the actions of the tackler than himself. Once the ball carrier is off his feet, he is pretty much powerless to do anything other than try to get his arm(s) down to protect himself, and as menace points out, that is not a mitigating factor.

It is cynical Ian, and FTR I entirely agree with you.

But basically the colour of the card is all about how "lucky" the tackler is wrt which bit of the tackled player hits the ground first.

didds

 

[didds]

so in those guideline - landing on the shoulder is no different from landing on the head.

correct.

but land on the scaps = the back so only a YC.

didds

 

[didds]

so basically a high-tackler gets lucky if their actions end up with the tackled player being hit around the neck rather than the jaw, which is total luck since there's only centimetres in it, and maybe depends upon the player who is high tackled moving into a slightly lower or higher stance?

Maybe next time the high-tackler won't be so lucky - and maybe next time there is a broken jaw.

Winner.

agreed.

measuring millimetres so close to the danger line seems to be hovering around the danger zone.

didds

 

[OB..]

What is "lifting"? We had a discussion about this long ago, but for me driving the player back is not lifting, which comes from a more static situation. The lift is deliberate, rather than a consequence of a good low tackle. Without a deliberate attempt to lift the player you do not have a "tip tackle", though it may or may not still be dangerous.

 

[RobLev]

It is cynical Ian, and FTR I entirely agree with you.

But basically the colour of the card is all about how "lucky" the tackler is wrt which bit of the tackled player hits the ground first.

didds

It's not entirely luck; the "tackler" does have some degree of control over the process. Insofar as he doesn't, then that doesn't mitigate his responsibility for the tackled player's safety, it aggravates his breach of that responsibility.

 

[Dixpat]

What is "lifting"? We had a discussion about this long ago, but for me driving the player back is not lifting, which comes from a more static situation. The lift is deliberate, rather than a consequence of a good low tackle. Without a deliberate attempt to lift the player you do not have a "tip tackle", though it may or may not still be dangerous.

I have only seen the tackle once in a news clip but my recollection is that it was not a tip tackle [& if that is what OB is suggesting, I agree] but more a solid [very solid!] highish tackle.

The decision at least for me is whether or not it was a high tackle not a tip tackle

[Maybe my recollection is way off the mark, however & perhaps I am confusing with Scotland v Tonga tackle]

 

[Ian_Cook]

[Maybe my recollection is way off the mark, however & perhaps I am confusing with Scotland v Tonga tackle]

Its the slight late tackle after he offloaded in the load up to Johnny May's first try.

 

[RobLev]

I have only seen the tackle once in a news clip but my recollection is that it was not a tip tackle [& if that is what OB is suggesting, I agree] but more a solid [very solid!] highish tackle.

The decision at least for me is whether or not it was a high tackle not a tip tackle

[Maybe my recollection is way off the mark, however & perhaps I am confusing with Scotland v Tonga tackle]

Just to make the thread interesting, there are two tackles being discussed; one on Mike Brown (?tip tackle?), and one on George Ford (?high tackle? which led to a YC).

 

[Phil E]

fftopic:

Same game different topic.
I was listening to this on the radio and the first England try went to the TMO.
Commentators seemed to think the ref was checking for a forward pass in the build up.
The player commentator said it was categorically a forward pass because there were dark and light stripes in the pitch and the ball had passed from one to the other :shrug: when the try was awarded they still said the TMO and the ref got it wrong because of the forward pass. Listening to the ref (on the short occasions the commentators shut up) I don't even think he went to the TMO to check the pass, I think he was checking something else.
What did people watching it think?

 

[OB..]

fftopic:

Same game different topic.
I was listening to this on the radio and the first England try went to the TMO.
Commentators seemed to think the ref was checking for a forward pass in the build up.
The player commentator said it was categorically a forward pass because there were dark and light stripes in the pitch and the ball had passed from one to the other :shrug: when the try was awarded they still said the TMO and the ref got it wrong because of the forward pass. Listening to the ref (on the short occasions the commentators shut up) I don't even think he went to the TMO to check the pass, I think he was checking something else.
What did people watching it think?

I was using RefLink, and it was clear he first checked possible obstruction, but it was agreed that the player was at all times in a legal position to take a pass. (Subsequently there was a warning from JP that in such a situation the player should not seek contact.) Then they checked the possible forward pass and agreed it wasn't.

I tried to explain to a blazer after the game why it wasn't forward, but he wasn't interested.

 

[Browner]

Here's the clip ...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MgzKJHohEE4

Im surprised that the AR watching Brown being lifted & tipped, didn't call it in. Perhaps he thought there was already enough reviewing going on ??!!?!

 

[RobLev]

Here's the clip ...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MgzKJHohEE4

Im surprised that the AR watching Brown being lifted & tipped, didn't call it in. Perhaps he thought there was already enough reviewing going on ??!!?!

Looking at which, it becomes clear that it was Brown's left shoulder or elbow that hit the ground first; if the elbow, it makes Ian's view that it might have been his arse an interesting one.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Looking at which, it becomes clear that it was Brown's left shoulder or elbow that hit the ground first; if the elbow, it makes Ian's view that it might have been his arse an interesting one.

I agree that in the view from camera 1 (the half way line) it looks shoulder first, however, in the original broadcast, I'm sure there was a view of this try from end on - spider cam(?) or behind Samoa's in goal(?) which looked like Brown's left buttock may have contacted the ground first.

 

[RobLev]

I agree that in the view from camera 1 (the half way line) it looks shoulder first, however, in the original broadcast, I'm sure there was a view of this try from end on - spider cam(?) or behind Samoa's in goal(?) which looked like Brown's left buttock may have contacted the ground first.

I haven't seen that shot; but the more important issue was that I was trying (humorously) to suggest that you don't know your arse from your elbow...

 

[didds]

Fair enough - Brown lands on his back.

I still maintain that overall YC v RC in these cases relies on luck, not judgement. I can't see much in that clip that suggests the tackler is showing any attempt to NOT dump Brown.
didds

 

[Browner]

Fair enough - Brown lands on his back.

I still maintain that overall YC v RC in these cases relies on luck, not judgement. I can't see much in that clip that suggests the tackler is showing any attempt to NOT dump Brown.
didds

Landing on your back isn't inherently dangerous, otherwise it would be outlawed generally and it isnt.

There is much 'myth' around this law , but there are TWO separate dangerous criteria to be fulfilled after a LIFT, and these are DROPPED &/or DRIVEN.

If neither of these happen, then its just a normal tackle , no?

Sometimes ' upending' as part of a legitimately executed legal tackle, just happens , .....say the player who goes over a defenders shoulder - he invariably contacts the ground somewhere on his upper torso.

Lift = DDD
( Dont Drop or Drive )

I saw a saw a clear 'lift' last weekend, but the lifter DDD , in fact he brought the players feet back down 1st ( with my "well done white" comment) then the appeals started ...."Tip tackle,/dump tackle/horizontal/spear" ....... from oppo players and touchliners ....

Zzzzzz

DDD

M.Brown was Driven, YC .

 

[crossref]

Landing on your back isn't inherently dangerous, otherwise it would be outlawed generally and it isnt.

There is much 'myth' around this law , but there are TWO separate dangerous criteria to be fulfilled after a LIFT, and these are DROPPED &/or DRIVEN.

If neither of these happen, then its just a normal tackle , no?

.

[LAWS](j)
Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.[/LAWS]

there are three criteria -
1 Lifting
2 Dropping/Driving
3 head/upper body come into contact with ground, while feet are in the air

Your back is part of your upper body, so back-first clearly meets the criteria for a dangerous tackle = PK (common sense might suggest not a card though, although I have never seen any guidance on that)

Note that the way the Law is written: if a player breaks his fall with his hands, followed by feet, it doesn't meet criteria, but other guidance from around 2011 IIRC, told us to ignore that and penalise it anyway.

When assessing whether a card is deserved: my rules are
- driving is worse than dropping
- head first is worse than shoulder first, which is worse than back first
- hands first make no difference
- attempts to bring him down safely mitigate the offence, even if not successful

None of the above is in the 2009 guidance but seems to be in line with the way other people ref.
It's really time the IRB issued some guidance on cards. the definition of the tackle is fine, its grading into PK, YC, RC that is too ambiguous

 

[crossref]

How about this :

Tackle meets the three criteria of a dangerous tackle as per Law 10: = 1 point
If Driven rather than dropped: +1 point
If Landed Head First: +1 point
If Landed on Back: -1 point
If Tackler clearly tried to bring him down safely: -1

Add those up and
0 points = PK only
1 point = YC
2 or more = RC

 

[didds]

pretty much what my understanding was CR - if the tackler gets a player OFF the ground then they must return them safely to the ground. Once the BC's head is lower than the hipsthey are "past the horizontal". Alarm bells are now ringing.

This forum informed that the ref should start with RED and work downwards based on the level of care subsequently shown by the tackler.
Subsequent IRB rulings have clarified the cards scenario further ie red ONLY for head or shoulder. YC for back and bum. Hands = no change

Howzat?

didds