Hand-off heights

[Jarrod Burton]

Hi All - a question regarding hand-offs and their relation to the new Head Contact Process.

Can a BC make contact with to the head of a tackler with an open palm and bent arm before shoving that tackler away during a tackle? As far as I can see it is legal under the current process provided a) the force applied is not excessive (ie a strike out or stiff arm) and b) no forearm/elbow is used as the point of contact.

Thanks

 

[crossref]

I think that's about right
It's an obvious inconsistency with current practice , it can't be long before they outlaw hand offs to the head.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

it can't be long before they outlaw hand offs to the head.

I agree, I hate that a ball carrier can deliberately target an area of a tacklers body which, if the reverse occurred, would likely see the tackler sitting out for 10minutes to multiple weeks.

I had multiple instances of what I and my AR's felt were legal hand-off to the head in my match yesterday and one of the players, who is also a referee, felt that all head contact by either player should be sanctioned under the current framework so as to protect the players. I disagreed as the profile specifically mentions the use of forearm/elbow in fends but has no mention of a high hand-off being sanctionable, which is a glaring inconsistency in the laws - but that never happens in the law book does it?

 

[crossref]

I agree, I hate that a ball carrier can deliberately target an area of a tacklers body which, if the reverse occurred, would likely see the tackler sitting out for 10minutes to multiple weeks.

I had multiple instances of what I and my AR's felt were legal hand-off to the head in my match yesterday and one of the players, who is also a referee, felt that all head contact by either player should be sanctioned under the current framework so as to protect the players. I disagreed as the profile specifically mentions the use of forearm/elbow in fends but has no mention of a high hand-off being sanctionable, which is a glaring inconsistency in the laws - but that never happens in the law book does it?

tbf the current protocols for dealing with head contact aren't really in the Laws either, they are protocols.
But yes, it seems to me the inconsistency can't last.

That situation where one player (or one team) are making continual use of aggressive hand offs : that can be very hard to manage, I think, but the 'excessive force' phrase is useful, the Law explicitly mentions that, so you do have the power to judge that a hand off used excessive force, and sanction it.

 

[OB..]

Back in 1970 I went to Leicester to watch the touring Fijians play East Midlands. I remember their winger, Tikoisuva, putting his hand on the top of his opponent's head with a straight arm and using it as a pivot for running round him. His opponent could not get hold of anything and fell flat on his face.

I saw nothing dangerous in that manoeuvre. If a would-be tackler is coming in low, the top of the head is about all you can contact.

Striking with the hand is, of course, different.

 

[didds]

... and then next in line is a ball carrier appraoching inevitable contact dips early and twists sideways, hands and arms against the chest holding the ball (ie no elbows.forearms etc) and ends up stroking a defneders head with a leading shoulder with the tackler/defnder also having dipped early to try and efefct a tackle - that has now been vraced by the dip and turn....

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

... and then next in line is a ball carrier appraoching inevitable contact dips early and twists sideways, hands and arms against the chest holding the ball (ie no elbows.forearms etc) and ends up stroking a defneders head with a leading shoulder with the tackler/defnder also having dipped early to try and efefct a tackle - that has now been vraced by the dip and turn....

"and then next in line" , I think you are on to something. It is a progression, isn't it? It cannot be stopped once it is started. This, however, was started long ago. We are merely dealing with years of "no calls", slowly accepted practices, referees afraid to blow whistle as to be laughed out of the park.

There was a law once, no so long ago, that slowly became unenforced, and we are dealing with the unintended repercussions. It was known amongst these circles as POWB. An exclusion was added, "and a players not in possession of the ball".

The outcome is what we now have. It is quite comical. We are victims of our own demise.

Midigations up the ying, clarifications up the yang, and everyone understanding something completely different. A savant could keep track, but not us derelicts.

Perhaps, ball carriers, at one time, were meant to evade defenders. Perhaps, the forefathers knew money would destroy our game. Perhaps, the forefathers understood CTE. Odd, isn't it, How we screwed this game up.

 

[SimonSmith]

"and then next in line" , I think you are on to something. It is a progression, isn't it? It cannot be stopped once it is started. This, however, was started long ago. We are merely dealing with years of "no calls", slowly accepted practices, referees afraid to blow whistle as to be laughed out of the park.

There was a law once, no so long ago, that slowly became unenforced, and we are dealing with the unintended repercussions. It was known amongst these circles as POWB. An exclusion was added, "and a players not in possession of the ball".

The outcome is what we now have. It is quite comical. We are victims of our own demise.

Midigations up the ying, clarifications up the yang, and everyone understanding something completely different. A savant could keep track, but not us derelicts.

Perhaps, ball carriers, at one time, were meant to evade defenders. Perhaps, the forefathers knew money would destroy our game. Perhaps, the forefathers understood CTE. Odd, isn't it, How we screwed this game up.

[my bold]
Seriously?

 

[OB..]

There is a ludicrous argument "If one step, why not fifty?" Compromise is something we all do all the time. In refereeing decisions it is called judgement. It is unavoidable, so trying to deal in black & white is pointless.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

There is a ludicrous argument "If one step, why not fifty?" Compromise is something we all do all the time. In refereeing decisions it is called judgement. It is unavoidable, so trying to deal in black & white is pointless.

How do we know when the judgement is flawed? My answer: by the decision's deviation from the black and white.

A good example is the scrum feed, the black and white is straight. The judgement is whether it is straight, not its distance away from straight. In time, this one step could lead to fifty. the eventual outcome maybe less need for props and second rows, and their replacing players may be more speedy players just occupying 1-5 jerseys.

BTW - "Black and white" is under scrutiny now in the US, but it is just "one step" not "fifty". Yet.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Back in 1970 I went to Leicester to watch the touring Fijians play East Midlands. I remember their winger, Tikoisuva, putting his hand on the top of his opponent's head with a straight arm and using it as a pivot for running round him. His opponent could not get hold of anything and fell flat on his face.

I saw nothing dangerous in that manoeuvre. If a would-be tackler is coming in low, the top of the head is about all you can contact.

Striking with the hand is, of course, different.

Except that the protocols now deem any contact with the head in a tackle situation to be foul play. FOr me it is absure that I can make contact with your head if I am carrying the ball , but not if you are carrying the ball.

A hand off the the head may not be deemed "dangerous"(etc) enough to issue a red or yellow card but it should be subject to the same consideration were it to be the tackler who made the contact.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

tbf the current protocols for dealing with head contact aren't really in the Laws either, they are protocols.
But yes, it seems to me the inconsistency can't last.

That situation where one player (or one team) are making continual use of aggressive hand offs : that can be very hard to manage, I think, but the 'excessive force' phrase is useful, the Law explicitly mentions that, so you do have the power to judge that a hand off used excessive force, and sanction it.

Agreed with the first paragraph.

For me it is cotact wit hthe head and should be judged within the protocols / guideline for such.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Over the years I've penalised plenty of players for what I've deemed to be excessive force and a hit to the face where they've claimed it is a hand off! It is a case of if you see it, you just know. Usually performed by a deliberate bully!
I am struggling to see how I could justify penalising a ball carrier who happens to put his palm on the top of a would be tackler's head in a genuine attempt to fend off a low tackle.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Over the years I've penalised plenty of players for what I've deemed to be excessive force and a hit to the face where they've claimed it is a hand off! It is a case of if you see it, you just know. Usually performed by a deliberate bully!
I am struggling to see how I could justify penalising a ball carrier who happens to put his palm on the top of a would be tackler's head in a genuine attempt to fend off a low tackle.

I understand that. But why can the ball carrier do it where as the tackler cannot? The head is a "red-zone" (for want of a better term) but not if you are a ball carrier. A fend of is never "gentle". The risks of head contact in an agressive scenario are the concern. Those risks do not change when you bring the question of which player is the ball carrier.

 

[OB..]

The ball carrier has virtually no choice when a tackler comes in low. As long as he does not deliver a fend as a sort of punch, I see no problem.

The tackler has multiple choices. if he choses to go high and makes contact with the head, that is at his own risk of foul play.

 

[crossref]

I think the "excessive force" law , introduced in 2018 , is the key to this, gives us the tool to manage hand offs

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The ball carrier has virtually no choice when a tackler comes in low. As long as he does not deliver a fend as a sort of punch, I see no problem.

The tackler has multiple choices. if he choses to go high and makes contact with the head, that is at his own risk of foul play.

If that is the case then the law needs changing. To allow one player to make contact with the head but not another is lacking consistency.

Either ban contact with the head full stop. OR allow contact and leave the referee to decide as to whether it should be considered dangerous play.

 

[OB..]

If that is the case then the law needs changing. To allow one player to make contact with the head but not another is lacking consistency.

Either ban contact with the head full stop. OR allow contact and leave the referee to decide as to whether it should be considered dangerous play.

The two situations are NOT equivalent. Therefore they do NOT require exactly the same treatment.

 

[Dickie E]

The tackler has multiple choices. if he choses to go high and makes contact with the head, that is at his own risk of foul play.

Except for the pick & drive situation a few metres out. Often the defender is only presented with the top of the ball carrier's head

 

[dave_clark]

there was an example of this in the last round of english games (i don't remember which, perhaps the not nots vs Exeter). near the line a ball carrier was clobbered in the head by a defender, the officials said that it was a fair attempt to tackle and there was nothing else he could have done so play on.