[Tackle] Head clash, with force, "accidental" = no card? women's 6N

[Flish]

If you follow the flowchart then the degree of force isn’t considered until the point of deciding on sanction, so minimum is PK. If in the ladies game they had decided just PK then fine, I could understand it - but it looks off piste to me

 

[Flish]

if a head clash occurs then yes (IMO). It is reckless. Sanction will then depend on mitigation and/or degree of force

This was my understanding, and happy to adjust my approach .... if we’re all being consistent!

 

[Dickie E]

Of the RCs Ive seen this season none of them I'd say were a deliberate targetting of the head. So they are ALL accidental.

no, it is not that binary.

A deliberate head clash would be a Liverpool kiss (are we allowed to say that anymore?).

An accidental head clash would be a tackler tackling low but ball carrier is otherwise on the way down (eg 2nd tackler) and head clash occurs.

There is huge range of 'reckless' and 'careless' that falls in between the 2.

 

[Rich_NL]

It certainly seems undesirable that the difference between mandated red card and play on is such a fine line of referee judgement. A headbutt, a punch, a spear tackle are all very C&O, now there's a line between "you were going for the tackle, play on" and "you should have tried to tackle better, RC".

 

[didds]

If you follow the flowchart then the degree of force isn’t considered until the point of deciding on sanction, so minimum is PK. If in the ladies game they had decided just PK then fine, I could understand it - but it looks off piste to me

well the ref went back to the scrum fro Italy for an England forward pass that occurred after the collision, so it wasnt even deemed worthy of a PK.

 

[didds]

no, it is not that binary.

A deliberate head clash would be a Liverpool kiss (are we allowed to say that anymore?).

An accidental head clash would be a tackler tackling low but ball carrier is otherwise on the way down (eg 2nd tackler) and head clash occurs.

There is huge range of 'reckless' and 'careless' that falls in between the 2.

yes. But as i said "Of the RCs Ive seen this season none of them I'd say were a deliberate targetting of the head.".

Ive seen no liverpool kisses. Ive seen no tackles aimed at thighs that the ball carrier has dropped their head extremely low.

Ive seen upright tackles with ball carrier staying upright ending with head collision. But none of THOSE I perceive as deliberate targetting of the head and thus ALL accidental.

 

[didds]

So after all the above Im still no clearer as to this new framework - namely whether it was in operation, and what the outcome of that framework would/should have been. Especially in the light of the Gloucester RC on the same weekend.

 

[Dickie E]

But none of THOSE I perceive as deliberate targetting of the head and thus ALL accidental.

sorry but again no. The point is that just because it is not deliberate does not make it accidental

 

[didds]

its accidental in the same vein that the Italian tackle was deemed accidental by the TMO, and agreed with by the ref.

Its not accidental that the tackler's tackle position was high.

so what DOES this new framework say shoud have happened and how does that reflect against the glos RC ?

 

[Dickie E]

So after all the above Im still no clearer as to this new framework - namely whether it was in operation, and what the outcome of that framework would/should have been. Especially in the light of the Gloucester RC on the same weekend.

the attached is dated 10th March. What was date of women's game?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ss_EN_v1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3oBG53IDGwqZaxfMOQ2bMn

 

[Dickie E]

so what DOEWS this newframework say shoud have happened and how does that refelct against the glos RC ?

play on in these situations:



In all others, foul play has occurred.

 

[Flish]

the attached is dated 10th March. What was date of women's game?

Last weekend? Women's 6 nations has only been going 2 weeks I think

 

[didds]

the attached is dated 10th March. What was date of women's game?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ss_EN_v1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3oBG53IDGwqZaxfMOQ2bMn

10th April - last weekend.

 

[didds]

play on in these situations:

View attachment 4076

In all others, foul play has occurred.

Thanks Dickie.

So - that deosnt describe what happened in Ita v Eng then?

So foul play has occurred. and a card of some colour at least and using the Glos example more than likely a RC. And certainly a PK.

Correct?

 

[Flish]

play on in these situations:

View attachment 4076

In all others, foul play has occurred.

No significant height drop, and blue has run in from a few meters so arguable time to adjust, it wasn't passive in the sense that blue was intending to tackle and / or drive into touch, and the other two don't apply - so by that there is fault? TMO's wording was it was 'Accidental' which isn't a trigger word in the framework (involuntary I think is the one they want to use - as commented above, very few are not an accident).

 

[Flish]

Thanks Dickie.

So - that deosnt describe what happened in Ita v Eng then?

So foul play has occurred. and a card of some colour at least and using the Glos example more than likely a RC. And certainly a PK.

Correct?

Ignoring the RC example, and framework alone I get to PK - low degree of danger, but I wouldn't argue if someone gets to YC.

I would like to know what the outcome of the teams's review of the ladies game was, was their decision considered ok or an error?

 

[Jz558]

It seems to me that the new framework undermines the efforts of the game to get rid of the stand up tackle. In this case, and using the framework, no foul play has occured therefore play-on. The Italian defender attempted a tackle and a clash of heads occured but the stand up tackle is not in itself foul play (If she had wrapped the ball carrier and brought her to ground without making contact with the head that would have been fine). Up until now my understanding was that World Rugby had said that if you attempt a stand-up tackle and make contact with the head first you will be penalised and after that the degree of mitigation will be considered. The new framework is not written that way.

 

[SimonSmith]

sorry but again no. The point is that just because it is not deliberate does not make it accidental

Agreed.
Somewhere in the continuum in between “deliberate” and “accidental” there is “reckless” and/or “with no consideration for the safety of the opponent”.

 

[didds]

I would like to know what the outcome of the teams's review of the ladies game was, was their decision considered ok or an error?

Im presuming this info is not publically available?

 

[didds]

Re: Head clash, with force, "accidental" = no card? women's 6N

Ignoring the RC example, and framework alone I get to PK - low degree of danger,

there may be nunaces that you are aware of that I'm not, but I'm not seeing a low degree of danger here. its a direct head clash. what higher danger can there be ? (including to the tackler themself!)

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed.
Somewhere in the continuum in between “deliberate” and “accidental” there is “reckless” and/or “with no consideration for the safety of the opponent”.

I suspect that we are all violently agreeing here in reality