[Tackle] High tackle on a falling player

[ChrisR]

Starting at 20 secs in this highlight reel of Muster vs. Saracens: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTCCl4QITzY

This is an old subject but with the new emphasis on tackles have we reched the point of mandatory sentencing?

 

[L'irlandais]

I think he was yellow carded for a forearm to the face of the ball carrier. I may be wrong though.

 

[Taff]

Personally, I would have given a PK only.

As far as I can see, we need to decide which category it fell into

• Accidental high tackle - PK
• Reckless high tackle - PK & YC
• Reckless & Dangerous high tackle - PK & RC.

My logic being that the BC slipped and was on the way down when he got tackled and there wasn't much the tackler could have done about it.

 

[Pegleg]

Except that he swung an arm dangerously. I'm with L'irlandais on this one.

 

[ChuckieB]

Leinster got away with just a penalty against on something slightly lesser as Morgan Parra was going very low to avoid contact and NO didn't see it as anything worse.

This one a YC for sure as there would due to the direct forearm contact being reckless but not necessarily dangerous (IMO). Him going to ground seemed to provide some mitigation.

 

[beckett50]

I think it was a tough call, but can understand why RP gave the YC, although for me it was PK as the ball carrier had slipped and there was an attempt to wrap (proper tackle).

 

[VM75]

[h=2]Accidental Tackle[/h][FONT=fs_blakeregular]When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent’s head, either directly or where the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders, the player MAY be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball carrier slips into the tackle.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Minimum sanction: Penalty[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Accidental for me on that occasion, [see above]

Tacklers can't be responsible for a slipping player arriving at such a low height, that would be unreasonable application IMO[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]https://youtu.be/sTCCl4QITzY?t=24
[/FONT]

 

[ChuckieB]

Accidental Tackle

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent’s head, either directly or where the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders, the player MAY be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball carrier slips into the tackle.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Minimum sanction: Penalty[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Accidental for me on that occasion, [see above]

Tacklers can't be responsible for a slipping player arriving at such a low height, that would be unreasonable application IMO[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]https://youtu.be/sTCCl4QITzY?t=24
[/FONT]

The decision needs to be based on an objective an assessment of the overall circumstances of the tackle and not the intentions, honest though they may have been, of the player. That the player could have perhaps adjusted his technique and gone lower might suggest he could reasonably have known his technique would place him at risk of making contact with the head even if he thought he might initiate contact below the line of the shoulders. The fact that the player was falling is not a mitigating factor in this instance, imo.

As regards it being accidental, it is a minimum sanction and not a prescriptive sanction so into context I see RP was reasonably justified to call it as he did.

So not mandatory sentencing as such but erring more on the side of caution in line with a new emphasis on reducing head and neck injuries and a drive to encourage coaching of safer tackling techniques, i.e. Going lower.

i think they are trying to change behaviours on this one rather than make the laws more prescriptive.

 

[ChrisR]

"The fact that the player was falling is not a mitigating factor in this instance, imo. "

ChuckieB, then what would be a "mitigating factor"? Your expectation that a tackler can adjust in the fraction of a second as the BC slips is unreasonable.

As for the "swinging arm": If the player had not slipped and the arm landed shoulder high would you consider a PK/YC? No? Didn't think so. So why consider it now because the player is falling?

 

[DocY]

"The fact that the player was falling is not a mitigating factor in this instance, imo. "

ChuckieB, then what would be a "mitigating factor"? Your expectation that a tackler can adjust in the fraction of a second as the BC slips is unreasonable.

As for the "swinging arm": If the player had not slipped and the arm landed shoulder high would you consider a PK/YC? No? Didn't think so. So why consider it now because the player is falling?

I actually think ChuckieB is right here.

We've been told very clearly that there can be no mitigation for a high tackle - even if the BC is falling, diving or ducking, the onus is on the tackler not to make high contact. Is is reasonable to expect the tackler to adjust in a fraction of a second? No, of course not, but this is the directive we're being given and we're seeing applied at the elite level, too.

 

[ChrisR]

"Zero tolerance" approaches to behavioral issues are usually a substitute for good judgement and typically fail in their objectives.

No, I don't have a study to pass along, just a few anecdotal references.

In the instance illustrated in the OP issuing a YC will have the deterrence value of zero in preventing high tackles. About the same effect as a PK to the BC for 'going off his feet' will prevent players from slipping.

 

[DocY]

"Zero tolerance" approaches to behavioral issues are usually a substitute for good judgement and typically fail in their objectives.

Absolutely.

In fact I think it's worse than your slipping analogy. A player can't do much to cause opponents to slip, but he can deliberately duck into tackles.

 

[ChuckieB]

From A BBC Article:

[h=3]"We're back to the Wild West"[/h]For a few weeks after the new sanctions were introduced in January referees flashed cards of both colours, then the Six Nations arrived and everything went quiet. An international rugby coach, who does not wish to be named, has said that rugby's "Wild West" has returned. What he meant was that the zero tolerance approach has been watered-down and that high tackles are going unpunished, or not sufficiently punished, in the way that World Rugby's sanctions demand.

The full article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39630540

 

[DocY]

From A BBC Article:

"We're back to the Wild West"

For a few weeks after the new sanctions were introduced in January referees flashed cards of both colours, then the Six Nations arrived and everything went quiet. An international rugby coach, who does not wish to be named, has said that rugby's "Wild West" has returned. What he meant was that the zero tolerance approach has been watered-down and that high tackles are going unpunished, or not sufficiently punished, in the way that World Rugby's sanctions demand.

The full article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39630540

And yet we're discussing an incident that's exactly the opposite...

It has calmed down a bit, granted. I haven't seen anyone YC'd for tackling a player driving head first for the goal line for a while (then again, I haven't seen Mitrea referee for a while), but there are regular instances of players ducking or slipping into tackles being penalised whereas they wouldn't previously.

 

[ChuckieB]

And yet we're discussing an incident that's exactly the opposite...

It has calmed down a bit, granted. I haven't seen anyone YC'd for tackling a player driving head first for the goal line for a while (then again, I haven't seen Mitrea referee for a while), but there are regular instances of players ducking or slipping into tackles being penalised whereas they wouldn't previously.

Well, it's not an article with a slant that I could directly relate to. As you say this was the opposite, which seems to serves to reinforce the view that it is being enforced.

 

[crossref]

In the Clermont v Leinster game NO twice penalised a high tackle with a PK only, explaining that the ball carrier had dipped very low, hence only a PK