H Cup: YC against Nakaga - Racing vs. Clermont

[talbazar]

Hi All,

Has anyone seen this event? It's at 3min37sec here (that's the best video I found sorry)

It looks like YC not being enough he's been cited too and is currently suspended awaiting his judgement.

Did I really miss something or is it close to ridiculous?

Thoughts?
Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Loïc]

Did I really miss something or is it close to ridiculous?

Can't agree more. I still don't get this...

 

[TheBFG]

That looks like Sir Nige too.

Looks like a bad tackle if you ask me, got his head in the wrong place!

Seems a little harsh to even be a PK :shrug:

 

[menace]

The lifting knee certainly doesn't look good, but when I first saw it blue looked to have shaped up to go in with a shoulder charge?? (but maybe a bad camera angle so I couldn't see what left arm was doing). Blue contributed to his own downfall by putting his head in front of the player. I'd think YC would be more than plenty.

 

[The Fat]

Does the Racing Metro player get smacked around the head with an old lady's umbrella for being stupid enough to try to position his head there when attempting that tackle?

 

[talbazar]

Franck Azéma, ASM coach said something like:
<<Honestly, I appreciate the Marc Andreu's courage who had the will, with a huge weight deficit, to throw himself in Nalaga's legs to stop him, but that's only part of the game>>
And later in his interview:
<<I think he made the right decision to aim for the legs to make Nalaga fall rather than trying to take him high where he wouldn't have risked anything but would have probably exploded>>

I don't remember any of these discussion when Lomu stepped on Mike Cat... Has rugby change that much?

 

[Chogan]

Nothing. Rugby is a contact sport & players will get hurt legitimately from time to time.

 

[Account Deleted]

The ball carrier lift his knee high to prevent the tackle. That lift is an adjustment to his basic running style. I called it in real time as did the two people watching with me. I felt it was a serious attempt to strike the player, who may well have made a misjudged tackle, not that that is relevant to the issue, contrary to law 10.

We can, I feel draw a comparison with the laws re hand offs. They are acceptable, an are even covered in law now, but if the "hand off" is considered "dangerous" then it is penalisable with warning, possible card etc.

Had the ball carrier not adjusted his running style then no issue, but he did. He knew exactly what he was doing.

A bit like the issue about Shane Williams jumping into tackles.

 

[talbazar]

All The Time Ref, you're saying the card is deserved here, I got you right?

I got your point regarding the change of "running style" but players do that all the time: coming into the tackle (as a tackler or tackled), on a side of a ruck, trying to escape a grip from behind and 101 more situations.
My issue in your analysis above lies here: I felt it was a serious attempt to strike the player
It seems to me you're judging the intent... Wish is something I personally don't like generally speaking. Furthermore, at the spead this all happens, I agree Nalaga might be a really good player but being able to target someone head with his knee while both are running full pace... Seriously?

Did Nalaga change his running style to enhance his chances of breaking the "tackle" (and the word tackle is even debatable): yes
But from that statement saying he did so to hit Andreu's head on purpose with his knee.... I just can't.

Let's push it further the over way around: Andreu throws himself in Nalaga's legs with no arm. Replace his head by his foot and that's tripping (=red card). Why would tripping ball carrier with your head be less prone to sanction than with your foot (admitting you're stupid enough to do so)?
So what's the correct decision here?

To me: play on: the tackler made a choice to stop the ball carrier and got hurt... Any other Sunday!

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[winchesterref]

Adjusted his running style to make him more difficult to tackle. Nothing in it, play on in my book.

 

[Simon Thomas]

terrible tackle technique - typical wing. He needed to go round ankles and have head behind legs not in front !

nothing wrong with the wing's running style or change to it - we used to 'step into' tackles all the time.

I had more concern with what the arm / forearm was doing down there.

Ciiting - amazed if it passes RC test. Wasn't a PK even in my book.

 

[Jacko]

Presumably as he's been cited, in the opinion of the citing officer it has already met the red card test.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Jacko

Pro rugby
French Ciiting Officer
Red Card test of Panel is one that matters

 

[Account Deleted]

All The Time Ref, you're saying the card is deserved here, I got you right?

I got your point regarding the change of "running style" but players do that all the time: coming into the tackle (as a tackler or tackled), on a side of a ruck, trying to escape a grip from behind and 101 more situations.
My issue in your analysis above lies here: I felt it was a serious attempt to strike the player
It seems to me you're judging the intent... Wish is something I personally don't like generally speaking. Furthermore, at the spead this all happens, I agree Nalaga might be a really good player but being able to target someone head with his knee while both are running full pace... Seriously?

Did Nalaga change his running style to enhance his chances of breaking the "tackle" (and the word tackle is even debatable): yes
But from that statement saying he did so to hit Andreu's head on purpose with his knee.... I just can't.

Let's push it further the over way around: Andreu throws himself in Nalaga's legs with no arm. Replace his head by his foot and that's tripping (=red card). Why would tripping ball carrier with your head be less prone to sanction than with your foot (admitting you're stupid enough to do so)?
So what's the correct decision here?

To me: play on: the tackler made a choice to stop the ball carrier and got hurt... Any other Sunday!

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

I'm really not sure what your point about the trip with a head is all about. Sorry. so I'll ignore it as irrelevant.

My opinion, as already clearly stated, is that it was DELIBERATE foul play and a good call. Was is yellow or red? No problem with either.

As you say YES he did change his running style, and the exaggerated lift of the knee.

 

[Loïc]

Jacko

Pro rugby
French Ciiting Officer
Red Card test of Panel is one that matters

Hum, maybe I did not get you right, but the Citing Officier was Irish (John West)

 

[Chogan]

Hum, maybe I did not get you right, but the Citing Officier was Irish (John West)

Is that the same CO who was involved in POCgate?

 

[OB..]

Had the ball carrier not adjusted his running style then no issue, but he did. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Running with a high knee lift is a common way of making tackling difficult. I don't regard any change of running style as automatically meaning it was done to knee the opponent in the head. I doubt if there was time to realise that the tackler was going to get his head the wrong side.

 

[thepercy]

Is this similar to if you were running with the ball and pumping your off arm and when the tackler came in got smacked in the head? You can't just violently swing your arms and if they hit someone say I didn't mean to do it, I think same goes for knees. Doesn't a player have a duty to maintain controll of his body?

 

[Dixie]

You can't just violently swing your arms and if they hit someone say I didn't mean to do it, I think same goes for knees. Doesn't a player have a duty to maintain controll of his body?

Interesting theory. So if I sprint with my knees moving rapidly forward, adn one of them catches a would-be tackler's ill-placed cheek, then it's PK against me for not remaining in full control of my knees? Will you YC for repeat offending if I later run again with my knees rapidly moving one in front of the other?

 

[Account Deleted]

Running with a high knee lift is a common way of making tackling difficult. I don't regard any change of running style as automatically meaning it was done to knee the opponent in the head. I doubt if there was time to realise that the tackler was going to get his head the wrong side.

I totally agree with your first sentence. But just like you can't change your running angle to obstruct. Raising (well above its oprevious movement) your knee into the face of a tackle is in my mind dangerous and the TMO seems to agree.

I believe he knew full well what he was doing. As is often said little happens in the professional game by accident.