Grabbing Players Shirt Around Neck

[ex-lucy]

dangerous statement (by North Harbour - not Greg).

i have had two incidents recently that have made me think ... and rethink about high tackles and dangerous play.
U19s/Colts match: tap penalty, big red 3 takes it on the charge, and runs straight at black 6. They collide chest & torso against chest & torso ... a sumo style bash.
Was it dangerous?
no injuries were sustained, despite the mighty collision.
Black 6 didnt attempt to put his arms around red 3 but then again he didnt get a chance as 3 ran at his torso.
For me .. 'play on'.

Colts/ U19s: Yellow 12 runs straight at black 13. Again collision between chests and torsos but black 13 is about 4/5 inches taller and his shoulder hits yellow 12 on the nose. "high tackle" says yellow 12 as he goes off with a bloody nose.
Dangerous ?
illegal?
for me again .. "play on"

 

[tim White]

I think they are trying to say any tackle that ends up above the line of the shoulders is dangerous, even if it started lower down ans was perhaps not intentionally high. It was high, therefore you are nabbed sonny.

 

[Simon Thomas]

You need to read the full North Harbour posting to get the correct sense of what they are saying.

A high tackle is classed as a high tackle when the arms are above the shoulder when the player hits the ground at the completion of the tackle. It is NOT when he tackler first makes the tackle.“A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play”.

This makes sesne when I recall an IRB clarification / informative note (not a Law Ruling) that makes it clear any tackle that connects with neck/head (i.e above shoulders) at any stage, including those that start lower and 'ride up' are classed as a dangerous tackle.

 

[OB..]

Here is the content of the letter sent out by David Carrigy:-

November 1 2007
Council at its Interim Meeting held on October 19, 2007 considered a recommendation from the Rugby Committee on dangerous tackling.
Please find below the decision of Council in relation to dangerous tackling.

The Council had before it a report from the IRB Judicial Chairman to the Rugby Committee with regard to a decision of a Judicial Appeal Committee based upon an interpretation of Law 10.4(e) which relates to high tackles. That interpretation suggested that the tackle would have to start st a level above the line of the shoulders for it to be dangerous and in contravention of Law 10.4 (e). Following discussion it was AGREED to accept the recommendation of the Rugby Committee that the following interpretation be applied

A dangerous tackle is effected whenever there is contact above the line of the shoulders whether the contact is the first or a subsequent point of contact. To be clear, a tackle which involves arm contact below the line of the shoulders and thereafter contact is made with either the neck or the head of the tackled player is a dangerous tackle within Law 10.4 (e)

Maybe North Harbour are attempting a bit of sophistry in arguing that a tackle does not occur until the tackled player is grounded, and therefore this decision does not apply until then.

I certainly do not think that was what the IRB intended.

 

[Simonsky]

Hmm... terminological problems again:

Can we say 'Tackle' includes the process of tackling i.e before player is actually 'tackled' and 'tackled' is when the player fullfils requirements of being grounded?

 

[David J.]

The "or try to tackle" aside seems to cover it sufficiently.

 

[Davet]

Its the usual case of people saying one thing when they mean something different. Its the same with the 12 year olds at the iRB who draft the laws: THEY know what they mean, but they can't be arsed to write things in a sufficiently precise manner that the rest of us - including those who will poke and tear the words to find a loophole - know clearly what they mean.

Pure bloody laziness.

If they mean that a tackle is high if it either starts high or becomes high during the course of execution (no pun intended) then they should say so. But the words as used imply that it is ONLY where the tackle ends up that matters, and that is clearly not what they mean.

Or, if that IS what they mean then I am out of this game as of now.

Youth of today...

mutter

<SNORE>