[INTERNATIONAL] France v Italy

[Phil E]

Anyone see this? I was working and haven't had chance to catch up, but people are telling me Italy were robbed and that the final penalty should have gone to them for a high tackle, not to France. No one seems to know why France got the penalty that won the game?

Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[DocY]

The penalty went against Parisse for getting up while held - the tackler still had a handful of his shirt.

I can see why the ref didn't give the high tackle. He was going down at the time and a hand caught him in the face. I suspect it would have been given as high if it had gone to the TMO though.

 

[didds]

Being held is about being brought to ground, not about being held on the ground. What's wrong with a call of not releasing here for instance? (not material I would reply!).

Didds

 

[OB..]

I can see why the ref didn't give the high tackle. He was going down at the time and a hand caught him in the face. I suspect it would have been given as high if it had gone to the TMO though.

In the Times today, Kaplan says he would not have given the high tackle because Parisse was falling and the contact was with the shoulder and back of the shirt.

 

[Dixie]

In the Times today, Kaplan says he would not have given the high tackle because Parisse was falling and the contact was with the shoulder and back of the shirt.

True - but the picture of the incident on P.54 shows the tackler (#20 - 6'4" and 225 lbs) standing pretty tall to make his tackle, with arm very close to horizontal and fingers in Parisse's eye area. I'd guess his arm is at Parisse's normal shoulder level, and Kaplan seems to have forgotten the existence of Ruling 6 of 2006 (incorporated into law in 2009!):

[LAWS]Ruling

6-2006


Union / HP Ref Manager

IRFU


Law Reference

10


Date

14 November 2006


This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009

Request

Situation:
A tackle is made, or attempted, where the initial contact is made below the line of the shoulder, but the arm(s) of the tackler subsequently make contact with the head or neck of the tackled player.
Question:
Even if the subsequent contact with the head or neck is not intentional, but the contact is dangerous, should the referee rule on the intent (initial tackle) ie. No sanction; or should the referee rule on the consequence ie. Sanction?

If the ruling is sanction, would the referee be correct in considering the dangerous aspect as accidental, and consider cards only if he deemed the tackling action to be careless?


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The referee should not rule on intent, but on the outcome. In this situation the outcome was a dangerous tackle in that the tackler made contact with the head or neck of the ball carrier. For this type of tackle the referee has three options available: penalty only, penalty and yellow card, penalty and red card.[/LAWS]

The option of Penalise the Tackled Player was NOT one of those offered!

 

[TheBFG]

this, "going down", is a crock of sh!t, it's the tacklers responsibility to make a legal safe tackle, end of!

I'd agree, if the TMO had a look, it would have been given, but also agree that he was brought to ground and held

 

[OB..]

this, "going down", is a crock of sh!t, it's the tacklers responsibility to make a legal safe tackle, end of!

That is the extreme view and I do not accept it. There are circumstances when the would-be tackler does nothing wrong but gets caught by the unexpected. Strict standards, yes, but I detest offences with no fault other than being there.

 

[TheBFG]

If a player is driving low and gets tackled around the neck it's s PK, I don't buy this "he ducked into it".

 

[OB..]

If a player is driving low and gets tackled around the neck it's s PK, I don't buy this "he ducked into it".

Are you really claiming that there is no possibility of a player's movement (such as may be caused by another player tackling him) could suddenly adjust his positioning so that an intended legal tackle becomes technically high? That every time there is high contact it is guaranteed to be a fact that the perpetrator could have avoided it?

I have no problem with a strict standard, but we surely must recognise that genuine accidents do happen.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think that tackle would have been high had Parisse stayed vertical. But I can see why it wasn't given. But the actual penalty against him...

 

[Pegleg]

I have no problem with a strict standard, but we surely must recognise that genuine accidents do happen.

IIs this not why we don't Card every offence. A PK is a PK but not every piece of foul paly is a red or yellow. Some get a strong taling to and some a quiet word.

As a tackler you have a duty not to end up around the neck. Go high, you take your chance. You can't moan if you get "caught out" by events.

 

[L'irlandais]

The incident can be viewed at 4 minutes 50 seconds into these extended highlights of the game. Each can make up their own mind. Personally didn't think it was high. Ymmv.
However he was not held in the first tackle (by white 20) so cannot see what he was being penalized for. The ref blew the whistle immediately as the second tackle (by white 5) went to ground, so it seems he felt Parisse was held and brought to ground in the previous tackle.
So for me, not a high tackle, but no way it the ball carrier was not releasing in the tackle either. WTF? He tripped into that one, breaking the (white20) attempted tackler's hold.

 

[didds]

just seen it. Not even remotely tackled - he went for the hand off at a poorly positioned would-be tackler, and both fell over their own feet or at best tripped over the other's.

Critical error!

didds

 

[Dixie]

A photo here of the original tackle - above the headline saying Jonathan Kaplan didn't consider the tackle to be dangerous



For my money, that's a high tackle regardless of Parisse's action.

 

[crossref]

a still photo can be misleading -- but it immediately reminded me of

!!

 

[OB..]

A photo here of the original tackle - above the headline saying Jonathan Kaplan didn't consider the tackle to be dangerous

For my money, that's a high tackle regardless of Parisse's action.

I think it shows how dangerous it is to decide such things on a still photo.

I have not looked back at the video, so I am not forming an opinion, but I do not like the extreme approach that if it ends high it MUST have been the tackler's fault.

 

[Lex Hipkins]

just seen it. Not even remotely tackled - he went for the hand off at a poorly positioned would-be tackler, and both fell over their own feet or at best tripped over the other's.

Critical error!

didds

But in the process of blue 8 and white 20 going down, blue 8 hits the dirt and white 20 ends up on top of him with his hands on him. To my mind that counts as a tackle.

 

[L'irlandais]

Our friend Mr Kaplan is splitting hairs.
If it was a tackle, then he must accept it was a dangerous one, white20 is standing upright and his arms are shoulder high when he catches Parisse's face.
After which the speed of things bring them both to ground in an unceremonious heap with no holding going on :
[laws]Law 15 definitions
A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place[/laws]penalising the victim of a dangerous attempted tackle was nonsense.
It is easy to see why Parisse felt it was high from his perspective, as it was neck/head high for him as he went down.

 

[Ian_Cook]

A photo here of the original tackle - above the headline saying Jonathan Kaplan didn't consider the tackle to be dangerous

For my money, that's a high tackle regardless of Parisse's action.

All day long, every day, and twice on Sundays.

Not just judging this from the still, I saw the match and that tackle was high and should have been PK as such.

We all know the story here; the onus is on the tackler to not make contact above the line of the shoulders. The ball carrier ducking or stumbling is never an excuse.

I can't understand Kaplan's thought process on this.

 

[Phil E]

.....but I do not like the extreme approach that if it ends high it MUST have been the tackler's fault.

You may not like it, but that's what the law says. We can't just referee the laws we like and ignore the others can we?

[LAWS]A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even
if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or
head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

There is no law that says it doesn't apply if the tackler is 7 foot tall and the ball carrier is 5 foot short....or if the ball carrier makes himself shorter by bending over. If you tackle low and legally it will never be a problem.