high tackle

[Dickie E]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFeg1wpeVes

this is the Wallabies v Fiji game from last Saturday.

Have a look at the high tackle by Israel Folau (Gold #15) at youtube time 20:45. I'm not so interested in whether it was a YC or not but more interested in the thought process of the referee & TMO. They clearly apportion more culpability on the tackler because his feet were off the ground and was therefore not fully in control.

When the ref explains to the skipper it seemed he was saying "if his feet had been on the ground that tackle was only worth a PK, but because his feet were off the ground he gets a YC".

Thoughts?

 

[Rich_NL]

I think it certainly adds considerable weight to adjudging a tackle as reckless.

Given the arm around the neck and the strict directives of this season, I'm surprised that it would have been only a PK otherwise, but it seems that things are settling back to the old ways.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Over zealous use of cards is making rugby intolerable to watch. Seems that there's at least a couple of YCs every game.

 

[Dickie E]

I think it certainly adds considerable weight to adjudging a tackle as reckless.

can you explain why? I would have thought the tackle itself is the consideration, degree of force, etc

In fact, I would have thought a player off his feet was less able to adjust his tackle and therefore less responsible for the outcome.

 

[Ian_Cook]

can you explain why? I would have thought the tackle itself is the consideration, degree of force, etc

In fact, I would have thought a player off his feet was less able to adjust his tackle and therefore less responsible for the outcome.

Perhaps jumping off the ground to make a high tackle shows definite intent?

 

[Rich_NL]

can you explain why? I would have thought the tackle itself is the consideration, degree of force, etc

In fact, I would have thought a player off his feet was less able to adjust his tackle and therefore less responsible for the outcome.

What a strange argument... "I was far too drunk to know what I was doing, you can't blame me for crashing the car!"


"[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway.[/FONT]"

Jumping into a tackle where there's a risk of high contact (as in the example you posted - he's not aiming for the hips there) is the reckless act, of course, not his inability to break the laws of physics. The jump makes it riskier precisely because it's harder to adjust if your judgement's off - so it's more likely and less controlled.

 

[Dickie E]

What a strange argument... "I was far too drunk to know what I was doing, you can't blame me for crashing the car!"

I like metaphors ... they are sometimes useful and always fun.

I'll raise yours with the chap who physically abuses his partner but is able to mitigate because he was drunk.

I'm still not convinced, though, that foul play is more severe if you're in the air when you commit it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Dickie

Tell me honestly whether you think this deserved a RC, and had the player not jumped but simply tackled high, whether it would have even been a YC.

 

[Dickie E]

Honestly? Of course.

"Skipper, that is a RC because it was dangerous, deliberate and with force" Yes

"Skipper, that is a RC because the tackler's feet were off the ground" :wtf:

Anyway, just struck me as odd. YMMV.

 

[ChuckieB]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFeg1wpeVes

this is the Wallabies v Fiji game from last Saturday.

Have a look at the high tackle by Israel Folau (Gold #15) at youtube time 20:45. I'm not so interested in whether it was a YC or not but more interested in the thought process of the referee & TMO. They clearly apportion more culpability on the tackler because his feet were off the ground and was therefore not fully in control.

When the ref explains to the skipper it seemed he was saying "if his feet had been on the ground that tackle was only worth a PK, but because his feet were off the ground he gets a YC".

Thoughts?

The last law application guidelines should have taken any thought process out of it to start with.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9

WR have told us what they are seeking to achieve and so are being far more prescriptive.

Only question is could you have considered is, was it accidental? Once you have decided, you would be directed down the path of a reckless challenge with its minimum YC.

Even if you could have ever have considered it as accidental, the accompanying PK sanction is a minimum only. On review you would have been hard pressed to have constructed your own internal thought process to indicate other than a yellow card.

The more examples we are seeing, the easier it will be to achieve consensus on the decision required by the laws. However I recognise this is not what we might like to apply personally.

 

[ChuckieB]

Dickie

Tell me honestly whether you think this deserved a RC, and had the player not jumped but simply tackled high, whether it would have even been a YC.

Under the laws, an honest opinion doesn't really come in to it.

I say that on the basis of someone not having had to officiate when laws were different. It makes it an easier call

 

[Rich_NL]

To be clear - I'm not saying "feet off the ground => card"; the clarification says "reckless => card", and jumping into a tackle will pretty much always exacerbate a judgement of recklessness.

 

[ChuckieB]

To be clear - I'm not saying "feet off the ground => card"; the clarification says "reckless => card", and jumping into a tackle will pretty much always exacerbate a judgement of recklessness.

I hardly suspect there could be any situation where jumping into a tackle wouldn't automatically be considered reckless in itself? In no way likely it could be ever be interpreted as accidental.

 

[VM75]

Over zealous use of cards is making rugby intolerable to watch. Seems that there's at least a couple of YCs every game.

IMO it's still better than where you have to decapitate or someone to be merely considered on a 'post' match report.

WR wanted to see a "change of technique" from the way tackling is coached/executed, one day that message might get through to players!

Thought you'd prefer 13 a-side???

 

[Rich_NL]

I hardly suspect there could be any situation where jumping into a tackle wouldn't automatically be considered reckless in itself? In no way likely it could be ever be interpreted as accidental.

Running in broken play, tripping and stumbling (or distracted by a player on the ground you just realised you have to jump over) as the ball carrier ducks and changes direction straight into your flailing arm... I'm not sure. Never say never.

But it's a very long way from what was seen in the video, that's for sure!

 

[Paule23]

Over zealous use of cards is making rugby intolerable to watch. Seems that there's at least a couple of YCs every game.

It is not over zealous use of cards, it continued cheating or illegal play which makes rugby intolerable to watch.