Is this a ridiculous and unjustifed YC?

[Ian_Cook]

What is the game coming to?

If this is the way Rugby Union is going, then I am about ready to change codes to the 13 man game!

 

[crossref]

to me there was no lift, and therefore it's not even a PK.

What an exciting passage of play, at 17-17 with two minutes to go!

 

[Phil E]

At full speed it looked like a no arms shoulder charge and I can see a Yellow being possible.

But having seen the replay, and assuming (not always true) that the referee was seeing what we saw, then there 'was' an attempt to wrap the arms and it's not even a penalty.

Very strange decision, but as I say, we can't be sure the referee saw the reverse angle that we did.

 

[Ian_Cook]

At full speed it looked like a no arms shoulder charge and I can see a Yellow being possible.

But having seen the replay, and assuming (not always true) that the referee was seeing what we saw, then there 'was' an attempt to wrap the arms and it's not even a penalty.

Very strange decision, but as I say, we can't be sure the referee saw the reverse angle that we did.

Phil. The referee sees what we see (on SkyTV broadcasts in NZ, what is played back on TV is what the referee sees on the stadium screen). Also, at 1:10 on the video, you hear the referee say "he's got to make sure he comes down alright". This tells me that Black 11 was YC for a tip tackle, and clearly, this was not a tip tackle.

I expect the YC to be overturned post match, but the decision has IMO cost Black the game. Instead of a line-out to Black near halfway, it ended up as a PK and line-out throw-in to Green further up field, and from the resulting PK from that play, Marty Banks kicked the winning penalty goal for Green.

If that is not a critical error, then its very close to one.

 

[The Fat]

Dud call

 

[OB..]

I see nothing wrong with it. A classic case of driving through a tackle when the opponent is scarcely in touch with the ground.

Technically, I think it is too remote to be called a Critical Incident, but IMHO it was a clear error.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Shocking decision

 

[FlipFlop]

:sarc::sarc: It is obviously a correct decision. As the player jumps into the tackler, then clearly the tackler has "taken the space" of the man in the air, so it is YC for tackling a player in the air....:sarc::sarc:

:wow:

More sensibly - how can that be anything. The guy goes low, even manages a wrap (which must have been hard to do, given the way the tackle unfolded) and the upward momentum of the (ex)ball carrier causes the (ex)ball carrier to flip. The tackler does nothing wrong.

The only way I can even justify a PK is for a late tackle, and that is grasping at straws a bit (I don't think it is that late).

 

[Browner]

Likewise, with the benefit of review YC isnt appropriate.

However, as a tangent thought, there are too many "no grasp attempted" tackles being executed and so if this in any small way encourages players to grasp their opponent fully in a tackle then its a silver lining to this decision cloud.

As a general opinion - defenders who flip BCs over their shoulder ( without executing the specifically banned 'lift') such that the opponent hits the ground face/head/neck , without the flipper grasping the BC , should IMO also get treated as Lifters do with YC or RC sanctions , as the ground impact is similarly disorientating and equally dangerous.

"Grasp" is the retro way forward in the anti impact/ concussion war !

 

[OB..]

As a general opinion - defenders who flip BCs over their shoulder ( without executing the specifically banned 'lift') such that the opponent hits the ground face/head/neck , without the flipper grasping the BC , should IMO also get treated as Lifters do with YC or RC sanctions , as the ground impact is similarly disorientating and equally dangerous.

Disagree.

In this case the would-be tackler attempted to grasp but the player broke the attempt - largely because he had insufficient contact with the ground to resist falling over the top of the "tackler". A bad outcome does not in itself prove dangerous play (ask Danny Hearn).

 

[Browner]

Disagree.

In this case the would-be tackler attempted to grasp but the player broke the attempt - largely because he had insufficient contact with the ground to resist falling over the top of the "tackler". A bad outcome does not in itself prove dangerous play (ask Danny Hearn).

In which case, this case doesn't meet the benchmark for a ' flip' IYO.
My comment in general, is for the offence of ' flipping' without a bonafide C&O attempt grasp.

 

[liversedge]

Definitely a PK. No arms, cuts into legs, in the NFL its a chop block and carries a 15 yd penalty.
Is a YC harsh? If he had tripped with his feet it would have been a YC, a trip with his shoulders ? Maybe.

 

[crossref]

to me there seems to be lot of arms. I am pretty sure the ill-judged YC was for tipping, not for no arms.

 

[ChrisR]

No arms? 10.4(g) covers that and ends with "..... without trying to grasp that player."

The attempt was there, no foul.

Tip tackle? 10.4(j) covers that and begins "Lifting that player from the ground and droping or driving that player ..."

There was no lift and no drop or drive, no foul.

With the big screen replay & TMO he should have got it right.

 

[SimonSmith]

Definitely a PK. No arms, cuts into legs, in the NFL its a chop block and carries a 15 yd penalty.
Is a YC harsh? If he had tripped with his feet it would have been a YC, a trip with his shoulders ? Maybe.

Cuts into the legs is bad?

 

[chrismtl]

The bigger issue is ball carriers offloading at the last moment and "jumping" into the contact which almost always will send them head over heels. We had a discussion last weekend about a similar incident with one of the Womens Sevens World series refs who gave a card for a similar incident a couple weeks ago at a uni sevens tournament.

The way WR currently sets it's standards, it's a YC as it's entirely the tacklers responsibility to ensure the BC gets to ground safely. What needs to change is that jumping into a contact situation is at your own risk and once your feet leave the ground before contact, as a BC, a tackler can no longer be penalized if you end up on your head because of your own stupidity.

 

[rab60bit]

What is the game coming to?

If this is the way Rugby Union is going, then I am about ready to change codes to the 13 man game!

Only looked at the clip twice but that was shoulder first with the right and then trailing left arms as afterthought. Arm(s) first then shoulder is OK, not other way about. Benefit of the replay etc. IMO PK (failure to clasp with arms) would be fairest decision.
Had the tackle been aforesaid 'textbook' then green almost certainly would not have gone legs skyward. Anyway, letter of law says tackler is responsible - dangerous/reckless, deliberate or not.

 

[ChrisR]

Arm(s) first then shoulder is OK, not other way about.

This is absolutely incorrect. The shoulder is the first contact, then the wrap.

Where did you get this idea?

 

[liversedge]

Cuts into the legs is bad?

Not sure if you're referring to NFL or rugby since you're in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chop_block_(gridiron_football)

Cutting someone down by blocking their legs is not the same as making a tackle, its a forceful hit across the thighs that can damage knees etc.

Whilst the example we're discussing wasn't the worst, it shouldn't be left unpenalised in my opinion.
Although I probably wouldn't have gone to a YC myself, I would have explained what was wrong with it.

 

[Womble]

If any referee is considering this a penalty please re train or retire !