eng v samoa tip tackle

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
I saw it as a dump tackle rather than a tip tackle. The tackler drove into Brown rather than doing a static lift.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
Ok, feet still off the ground is another criteria,

but Cmon crossref , I was taught to "take a tackle" by falling onto my lats. Its not the hitting the ground in this way that is the dangerous bit ( its virtually normal ) , its being picked up (lifted) and driven into the ground or dropped from a height ( caused by the lift)

If you lift, then DDD , thereafter backs shoulders necks or heads arent at risk (beyond accepted rugby risk levels)

If you do Drop or Drive after lifting, , then its YC if he lands on his back, RC for landing on shoulder neck or head.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
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

I must've missed that ' bum' guidance, can you reference Didds?
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
I saw it as a dump tackle rather than a tip tackle. The tackler drove into Brown rather than doing a static lift.

Static lift? Where does law require that?

Sorry I disagree.

Having ducked low, the tackler straightens up ( a bonafide drive tackle doesn't include this lift) , then Brown is rotated very quickly so that his feet are now up above his head , the tackler then launches himself to drive him into the ground, which is he acheives..

Exactly what Law deems dangerous. And exactly what younger players and grassroots should see as unacceptable IMHO.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,687
Post Likes
1,773
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
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...

Oh, I thought you were implying that Mike Brown has a head like an arse!
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,687
Post Likes
1,773
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
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

That is a somewhat unique definition of "upper body" you're using there, and if you stick with it, you will pretty much be dishing out PKs and cards like sweets at a kids birthday party. It would apply so a significant proportion of all tackles.

If correct, we might as well outlaw any tackle above the hips.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,687
Post Likes
1,773
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Static lift? Where does law require that?.

The Law of physics requires it.

I would argue that it is nigh on impossible to commit a tip tackle (as defined in the Dangerous Tackles Memo) when running at any real speed. The tackler is almost always head-on, or close to head-on, to the ball carrier, and invariably they come to a stop, position themselves for the tackle, and wait for the ball carrier to arrive.

I wrote this article before you joined so perhaps you haven't seen it, but pretty much everyone here (as well as a couple of elite referees I ran it by at the time) agreed with its content. I know of several referees and referee coaches (some of whom are not on this forum) who use a slide show Robbie made from the article as a teaching tool.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?231-The-Dynamics-of-a-Tip-Tackle

A static lift may not be a requirement of Law, its just that a tip tackle is nearly impossible to execute without one.


NOTE: Crossref. In the article (near the bottom) there is a video of Kahui tacking Adam Ashley Cooper. AAC lands on his shoulder., so by your definition, that is a RC to Kahui for a perfectly legitimate tackle. The reason it isn't even a PK is because..... no lift! At the speed Kahui was running, a lift was simply impossible.
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Static lift? Where does law require that?

Sorry I disagree.

Having ducked low, the tackler straightens up ( a bonafide drive tackle doesn't include this lift) , then Brown is rotated very quickly so that his feet are now up above his head , the tackler then launches himself to drive him into the ground, which is he acheives..

Exactly what Law deems dangerous. And exactly what younger players and grassroots should see as unacceptable IMHO.
Ian has answered it very nicely for me.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,161
NOTE: Crossref. In the article (near the bottom) there is a video of Kahui tacking Adam Ashley Cooper. AAC lands on his shoulder., so by your definition, that is a RC to Kahui for a perfectly legitimate tackle. The reason it isn't even a PK is because..... no lift! At the speed Kahui was running, a lift was simply impossible.

i wasn't trying to lay down a definition, but more to codify the way that this seems to be refereed at the moment.

It seems to me back is part of upper body. But for assessing the severity I subtract a point, so no card (unless of course the player is actually driven down, in which case add a point again)

I think my rubric works quite well, but improvements to my guidelines welcome...
 
Last edited:
Top