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

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I thought the ref had a good game overall. But this To4 interaction was bloody woeful. Well... To3 ... I'd accept one AR was at least 60m away so probably didnt have any input that was really valid.

...and was probably thinking, i'm not getting involved in this, "sorry too far away, never saw a thing".
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
Throughout both six nations tournaments I have got the feeling that (some?) referees are not looking hard enough at keeping players on the pitch but looking for every opportunity to get them off. Not so much in the women’s 6 Nations but certainly in the men’s, refereeing decisions have probably had the biggest impact on the final outcome of the tournament.

As well as having ‘reckless’ and ‘careless’ we need an ‘unlucky’ category?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Throughout both six nations tournaments I have got the feeling that (some?) referees are not looking hard enough at keeping players on the pitch but looking for every opportunity to get them off. Not so much in the women’s 6 Nations but certainly in the men’s, refereeing decisions have probably had the biggest impact on the final outcome of the tournament.

As well as having ‘reckless’ and ‘careless’ we need an ‘unlucky’ category?

I surmise we are headed toward the 20-minute replacement rule for RC. That way WR can continue to crack down very hard on what they see as dangerous play, so high frequency of RCs - but without 'spoiling the spectacle'. .

(not necessarily a bad solution, in fact I tend to think quite a good one)
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
Still very much up to the ref at the community game and here it may well be down to gut feeling about situations.
 

thepercy


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
923
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Still very much up to the ref at the community game and here it may well be down to gut feeling about situations.

Agreed. The subtle head clashes are very difficult to see at full speed, with one change of seeing it.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Agreed. The subtle head clashes are very difficult to see at full speed, with one change of seeing it.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen one - which is probably the point, I’m sure they’ve happened. High tackles of course, and a few forearms to the head, that at least has weight in sanctioning now
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
At this stage I'm no clearer on what the outcome should be when I see a similar incident during one of my games. To be clear, prior to the incident and discussion, I would have applied the 'tackler beware' approach, penalised the defender and decided on the level of card required depending on the mitigating factors (essentially in line with what I saw happening during the six nations). I am still inclined to do that but that is not what the published guidelines seem to say.

In this case I have sympathy with the Ref and TMO, who it seems to me, have followed the guidelines, ie they saw no foul play and therefore played on but, as has been pointed out, the citing officer saw it as a red card and so clearly believes there was foul play. It has been well argued that the tackle was reckless but surely that only works if you would also have penalised the tackler if no clash of heads occurred (the action is always reckless and not dependent on outcome). In the specific incident in the OP I would have penalised it as a high tackle, but if no high tackle occurred (as in the Wasps v Gloucester example) and you don’t believe this stand-up tackle was any more reckless than the ten others that took place during the game with no clash of heads, your only option is play on, which is what the guidelines say but not the principle that I thought we were supposed to apply.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Sometimes, I think, you can only judge that something is reckless by outcome, like it or not. It is perfectly possible to perform a stand up, chest to chest / choke tackle without incident, without anyone raising an eyelid, and in fact if it becomes a turnover maul the player praised and rewarded for it. But one or two dynamic changes - possibly outside the tacklers control - suddenly that well rewarded and praised action becomes a red card. What's the difference?

Are they both 'reckless'? Arguably in the big picture, maybe reckless is the wrong word, there is certainly risk (to you and oppo) in an upright tackle, and also reward. I think the important bit to consider is that the player has chosen to make that type of tackle, if he / she had chosen to bend at the waist and tackle that way then the risks are different, and that's the end result the game wants, different choices.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Good advice here. After the initial presentation he talks about how to handle this in the community game with just one look at the incident.

https://jwp.io/s/LMstgeFX
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
That’s why I said my previous post.

Yes I know and I agree with you, but this goes into a bit more depth.
Including what the definition of foul play is (in the context of head on head collisions).
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Good advice here. After the initial presentation he talks about how to handle this in the community game with just one look at the incident.

https://jwp.io/s/LMstgeFX

Agree, at one point Wayne talks about using the facts you have available (from where you are, what you see, etc) and importantly not filling in the gaps. So if you're not sure that was direct to the head (might have have been indirect) then yellow not red etc.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Agree, at one point Wayne talks about using the facts you have available (from where you are, what you see, etc) and importantly not filling in the gaps. So if you're not sure that was direct to the head (might have have been indirect) then yellow not red etc.

I think at our level the old adage still works. You know a Red when you see it. If you're debating it with yourself then it's a Yellow.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I think at our level the old adage still works. You know a Red when you see it. If you're debating it with yourself then it's a Yellow.

Quite, you're probably going through the same mental decision making process to get to that conclusion. The only real thing that probably has to change - in the name of consistency - is your communication of the decision, if you do that according to the stages and trigger words in the new framework / refs on tele do then it's an easier sell and less argument. If yellow not red then communicate that using the new shiny buzz words (change of height / direction / indirect etc)/
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I like the new word he has introduced : avoidable
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I like the new word he has introduced : avoidable

Snap, it means far closer to what they want us to achieve than ‘accidental’ - which is part of what started this thread.
 
Top