"High" tackle just before try

[Rushforth]

I was coaching, not refereeing.

Blue are 7 points down in the final minute of an irrelevant/fun match. #8 is aware of the score and is in an easy try-scoring position if he simply goes for the corner, but initially tries to beat the defence closer to the posts - unrealistic in my view, so I yelled "corner".

He managed to score, but red defender's arm went into his Adam's apple just before scoring. Nothing nasty, blue was diving for the line with the ball and as soon as the try was scored red stopped defending.

The referee missed the "high" tackle (neck was between hip and knee height and contact with arm was over in a flash, plus the referee was infield and therefore unsighted) and as previously mentioned, the game was friendly and the final score unimportant.

My question: What is the correct call if the referee DOES see the neck tackle attempt?

A penalty restart for blue does not seem an option, because there was no offence after the grounding.

A penalty try allowing the conversion to be taken in front of the posts was suggested, but the try WAS scored and the offence was therefore not worth a yellow card for red.

My own answer - giving myself the benefit of having seen it! - is that the first "high" tackle below hip height which does no harm gets a warning to be careful with necks wherever they are, as well as penalty advantage for the first offence, wherever on the field it is.

 

[Taff]

Would the try scorer have probably scored in a better position?

 

[Rushforth]

Yes, but only by a foot or so (not material in my view).

 

[didds]

so the neck was at between hip and knee height?

WTF is the defnder SUPPOSED to try and tackle in such circumstances in such close proximityto the ine? An ankle biter tackle may be well and good - but is never gonna stiop the try. The tackle has to be a "knock the body into touch/deflect the ball" type. Thjere isn;pt much to target in such circumstances.

didds

 

[Browner]

so the neck was at between hip and knee height?

WTF is the defnder SUPPOSED to try and tackle in such circumstances in such close proximityto the ine? An ankle biter tackle may be well and good - but is never gonna stiop the try. The tackle has to be a "knock the body into touch/deflect the ball" type. Thjere isn;pt much to target in such circumstances.

didds

Didds, I can hear your point......... The defender can do anything he is able to do legally [ and in some cases this will be NOTHING] , but the mere fact that he can't do anything 'safe' doesn't permit him to do anything 'dangerous.

What if the only way to prevent a player from scoring was to trip him, should that escape punishment merely because he had no other legitimate defensive options available to him either, no of course not.

I accept that it [slightly?] mitigates the defender when the attacker goes low, but the offence still stands caused by the good play on the attackers part [his body position] . The same is said for the side stepping defender [good play] who receives an inside straight-arm from the 'beaten by the step' defender.

Last weekend, a U17 defender was chasing down an attacker & caught him 2m from tryline - the neck collar yank backwards didn't prevent the try [which was given] but it did earn the defender a YC for dangerous play. As he walked off he said "what else could I do-he was going to score" the answer was "you could have not endangered his safety.

Try, but no PK & YC?
PK & YC, but no try?

- don't really care to be honest, ticks my logic boxes. Interestingly all coaches agreed that it was a fair consequence.

 

[Davet]

An attacker ducking low can turn a good tackle into a dangerous one, through no fault of the defender's.

If you insist that the defender adjusts his tackle to allow for the duck then should the attacker also have a duty not to endanger himself?

 

[OB..]

Was the attacker's action reasonable? Diving for the line is standard practice.

Did the defender have a realistic chance of adjusting to the dive? Referee's judgement call.

 

[andyscott]

Remember as a referee, do you need to bring undue attention on yourself?

This seems like a try with a quiet word after the kick, nothing more needed.

a PT is a massive call, and because of the description it wasnt 'clear and obvious'. So no need to put yourself in the spotlight.

 

[Account Deleted]

Sounds good Andy.

 

[RussRef]

Like Andy's overall guidance, but really none of us can tell you whether PK is deserved without seeing the play. Seems to me the thought process is:

1. Was the tackle dangerous? If so, PK and maybe YC are coming at restart. If not, quiet word suffices.
2. Did the tackle prevent the try from being scored in a better position? Probably not here, based on the description, so no PT.

I think fact that offense occurred before grounding is irrelevant to whether PK is awarded. So are facts that try is irrelevant/ match is "fun."

 

[Jacko]

If the high tackle occurred before the try was scored, a PK restart is NOT an option. Options available are:-
1) Try (with, I would suggest, a minimum of a quiet word if not YC/RC depending on how bad the high shot was)
2) Penalty try (ditto the above).

The penalty try should be awarded if it prevented the try being scored in a better position. If he was in the process of diving, stick with option 1. If he was aware of the need for the conversion and was going to attempt to get it under the sticks, give the PT.

 

[Fatboy_Ginge]

Had a similar situation in the last match of the season, attacker scored the try with home player wrapping his arm round his neck as the player dived. I was being assessed by the club refs organiser (I'd asked him to observe) and also a L4 ref who was also a referee trainer who has been helping coach the team.

I awarded the try (scored about halfway between the posts and corner flag), checked the scorer was ok and then had a quiet word with the high tackler and basically told him to keep the tackles down (he has a bit of a habit of going high) or watch from the sidelines with one of his team mates substituting him. In the end the head coach subbed him anyway as he could see a bit of red mist starting to come down.

The assessor asked why I didn't award a PT as a sanction as in his view it was borderline territory. I said my decision was based on the following.
1) The scorer was diving for the line and the high tackle came from a wrap around not a clothes line.
2) Whilst the try was going to be scored would the high tackle have prevented a better position for the conversion... IMO No as the ball was going to be grounded anyway in that position.

He said good call and was just testing my interpretations... B******

 

[Davet]

Fatboy_Ging

Good call, and nice to see the assessor making sure you were good not just lucky...

 

[DrSTU]

I'm with you on this. As the players are moving away just have a quick word with the offender.

Remember as a referee, do you need to bring undue attention on yourself?

This seems like a try with a quiet word after the kick, nothing more needed.

a PT is a massive call, and because of the description it wasnt 'clear and obvious'. So no need to put yourself in the spotlight.

 

[RussRef]

So what if PT is not justified, but a YC (or RC?) based on the dangerous tackle is? Jacko seems to be saying that a PK at the restart is not available. Does that mean you award the try as scored, sin bin the tackler, but don't penalize infringing team? Seems a strange outcome to YC/RC a player but not penalize his team.

 

[OB..]

Seems a strange outcome to YC/RC a player but not penalize his team.

It happens every time you issue cards to both teams. You can only give the PK to one of them.

 

[didds]

and surely you have actually played advantage to the high tackle-in-the-act-of-scoring ie before try was scored?

didds

 

[Davet]

Does that mean you award the try as scored, sin bin the tackler, but don't penalize infringing team?

Correct.

If you play advanatge and the advantage is taken then you wouldn't award the penalty - but at the next break in play you can very easily award a card; and should od so if the offence was a cardable one.

I see it as perfectly standard and expected refereeing practice

High tackle attempt, worth a YC - but almost immediately the try is is scored.

If you penalise the High tackle you have to disallow the try.

You could fix that by making it a PT - except that it doesn't qualify - the High tackle didn't prevent a score in a better position.

But even then there would be no PK.

In either event you can card the offender.

But the simple answer is award the try and then card the offender, then we have a conversion attempt, then we have a normal restart kick.

.