[INTERNATIONAL] Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

[OB..]

So if the BC still had the ball in hands it would be ok too? No, I'm considering a YC every time. Dependent on the level of danger. This may not peak to a YC but others that look similar may.

Once the player kicks, Beale can no longer tackle him, so he then bring his arm in and tries to turn away. The two players clash.

 

[Balones]

At very best it was a slight attempt to obstruct and not charge. But as I said, it was the ball carrier that was running forward and decided to go to the opposite side of his kick. KB can read a game well but mind-reading is a step beyond that. For citing purposes or YC we are looking for deliberate or reckless actions for foul play. This was neither.

 

[Arabcheif]

You guys must have lots of injuries in you matches if you allow that. His arm is in the sling position. All he turns and leads with his shoulder. This seems to be the only time that you gents are prepared to allow this kind of collision. My issues is the arm in the sling position and him turning to lead with his shoulder. For me there's no change of direction, he just ran into the B13 (leading with the shoulder). Clear shoulder charge. You're argument seems to be the as long as a tackler is standing still he doesn't need to wrap (or attempt to wrap).

I'm guessing you guys are supporting Owen Farrell's defence the the BC lead with his shoulder too, as the excuse for hime being allowed to tackle with the poor technique he does?

 

[Arabcheif]

Once the player kicks, Beale can no longer tackle him, so he then bring his arm in and tries to turn away. The two players clash.

Seriously? You'd give a pen for a late but legal tackle in this scenario but be ok with this shoulder charge?

 

[OB..]

You guys must have lots of injuries in you matches if you allow that. His arm is in the sling position. All he turns and leads with his shoulder. This seems to be the only time that you gents are prepared to allow this kind of collision. My issues is the arm in the sling position and him turning to lead with his shoulder. For me there's no change of direction, he just ran into the B13 (leading with the shoulder). Clear shoulder charge. You're argument seems to be the as long as a tackler is standing still he doesn't need to wrap (or attempt to wrap).

I'm guessing you guys are supporting Owen Farrell's defence the the BC lead with his shoulder too, as the excuse for hime being allowed to tackle with the poor technique he does?

I don't see any similarity with Farrell's tackling technique.

Beale had his right arm out wide to make the tackle with wrap. When the ball was kicked he was caught: he could no longer tackle, so he tried to turn away and follow the ball, which naturally meant bringing his arm in. This resulted in an unintended clash as the kicker simply ploughed on. You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it.

 

[OB..]

Seriously? You'd give a pen for a late but legal tackle in this scenario but be ok with this shoulder charge?

Who said I would give a PK for a late tackle if Beale had carried though his initial aim?

I think it was unfortunate timing. There was just enough time to realise his tackle would be late. His attempt to turn away and the passer's continued run meant they clashed.

I cannot see this as a deliberate shoulder charge.

 

[Balones]

If I was in court I would argue that the video shows a ball carrier kicking the ball away and then deliberately runs forward into the back of a defender who is trying to avoid tackling him. On the street this would be an assault by the All Black!

 

[Arabcheif]

Who said I would give a PK for a late tackle if Beale had carried though his initial aim?

I think it was unfortunate timing. There was just enough time to realise his tackle would be late. His attempt to turn away and the passer's continued run meant they clashed.

I cannot see this as a deliberate shoulder charge.

The implication from when you said that Beale is not allowed to tackle b13 as soon as he kicks. Suggests that you'd view this as a late tackle. and sanction it as such. I'd see it as a defender who was committed to a tackle and couldn't pull out, play on.

You're saying that as long as the defender has his arms out to wrap initially, he's allowed to then bring them in for contact?

@Balones - I'd counter argue that the Kicker/Chaser is permitted to chose his own line to run. He's not deviated enough to make a significant difference in where any contact would've been.

You guys seem to be inferring that if he'd kept the ball in hands and that contact was made in the same manner, you be happy enough with the attempted tackle.

 

[OB..]

You guys seem to be inferring that if he'd kept the ball in hands and that contact was made in the same manner, you be happy enough with the attempted tackle.

No. If the ball hadn't been kicked the tackle would probably have been legal since Beale was ready to wrap.

However the kick changed everything and Beale had a split second to react. He chose to pull out of the tackle but was unable to get out of the way. You want to card him for that and I don't.

 

[Balones]

@Balones - I'd counter argue that the Kicker/Chaser is permitted to chose his own line to run. He's not deviated enough to make a significant difference in where any contact would've been.

Any player is allowed to chose their own line to run at any time; attacker or defender. When doing so you mustn't do anything illegal. Here KB is actually facing away from the AB when contact is made. What would happen on the road if a driver went into the back of another? I don’t think you would suggest that a tackler cannot pull out of a tackle, or would you?

I stick to my position that at a worst case scenario it was a case of accidental obstruction and that KB could have been penalised for on the basis of expectation rather than anything actually deliberately illegal. Disciplinary committees would soon get fed up if citing officers submitted this type of incident for consideration. I would go further and say that any citing officer making such a call on a regular basis would soon lose credibility.

 

[Arabcheif]

Right, so again. Please answer my question. Are you guys are OK with tacklers leading with the shoulder and not wrapping? As this is what you seem to be saying.

If he was facing away for B13, B13 would've run into the back of Beale, not his shoulder. If that was the case, then you're 100% right, but the contact was made with the shoulder. the shoulder gentlemen, This is the crux. any other contact and I'd be agreeing with you, it's one of those rugby incidents play on. But he made contact with his shoulder.

 

[Balones]

He did not ‘lead’ with his shoulder, he was turning round almost on the spot. The B13 continued moving forward. There was contact with KB’s shoulder. You are saying that KB deliberately went towards B13 with his shoulder. I think that both OB... and I are suggesting that this is not the case.

 

[Arabcheif]

Contact was made with the shoulder, with the arm in the sling position. This is the definition of a shoulder charge in the decision making matrix. I'm not sure why you seem to not be getting this. But I give up, the video is there. It's clear as day to me that contact was made with the shoulder.

I note you've still not answered my question though. Given you seem not have an issue with Mr Farrell's tackling technique, it seems to suggest you have no issue with a no arms tackle. god help the player's safety in your matches.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Contact was made with the shoulder, with the arm in the sling position. This is the definition of a shoulder charge in the decision making matrix. I'm not sure why you seem to not be getting this. But I give up, the video is there. It's clear as day to me that contact was made with the shoulder.

I note you've still not answered my question though. Given you seem not have an issue with Mr Farrell's tackling technique, it seems to suggest you have no issue with a no arms tackle. god help the player's safety in your matches.

Perhaps the important points are these:

People agree there was contact shoulder to head. So PK

People disagree as to whether it was intentional.

Some feel that it warrants a Red card

Some feel that it warrants a Yellow card

Some feel think PK only

People disagree


The citing officer, evidenced by the lack of a citing felt that it was either a Yellow Card or PK only.

The on-field officials either missed it or felt it was PK only and as a try was scored there was no need to go back the the penalty.

All are valid opinions.

 

[Arabcheif]

Perhaps the important points are these:

People agree there was contact shoulder to head. So PK

People disagree as to whether it was intentional.

Some feel that it warrants a Red card

Some feel that it warrants a Yellow card

Some feel think PK only

People disagree


The citing officer, evidenced by the lack of a citing felt that it was either a Yellow Card or PK only.

The on-field officials either missed it or felt it was PK only and as a try was scored there was no need to go back the the penalty.

All are valid opinions.

I don't think there was contact to the head. just a no-arms charge with the shoulder. Intent in this is irrelevant. We wouldn't not penalise a high tackle for example because it wasn't meant. High is high. Likewise with this, he's went in with his shoulder fist, with his arm in the sling position. So we're looking at a max YC as there is no head contact. The low degree of danger here for me would mean I'd just be looking at Pen. But as you said, advantage was/wasn't played (if it was missed) and the try scored anyway.

So I'd say the right decision was made for no action. Pen only for the no arms charge/tackle, no YC and try scored. I was taking out of the full scenario and dealing with the actual point of contact only.

 

[thepercy]

Contact was made with the shoulder, with the arm in the sling position. This is the definition of a shoulder charge in the decision making matrix. I'm not sure why you seem to not be getting this. But I give up, the video is there. It's clear as day to me that contact was made with the shoulder.

I note you've still not answered my question though. Given you seem not have an issue with Mr Farrell's tackling technique, it seems to suggest you have no issue with a no arms tackle. god help the player's safety in your matches.

Why are you so upset about others (more senior and experienced others) having a different view than yours? If I'm pulling out of a tackle and running in the (almost) opposite direction, and a ball carrier runs his face into my shoulder, you'd PK and card the player looking to avoid contact?

 

[Balones]

Actually if you freeze the replay of the incident you will see that B13 actually kicks KB on the hip in the process of kicking the ball. Accidental but reckless - red card. Try should be disallowed.

 

[OB..]

a no-arms charge with the shoulder. Intent in this is irrelevant.

You chose to describe it as a charge, which implies intent. I would describe it as unplanned contact.

In F1 I think it would be described as a "racing incident" ie something that happens when two people are trying to do something reasonable but it goes wrong.

 

[Balones]

I must admit that in terms of possible foul play as a citing officer I’d be more interested in having a close look at the actions of A11 (59secs) just before B13 gets the ball, and maybe some obstruction of supporting players.

 

[Rich_NL]

I don't see it. PK for (unintended) obstruction at the very most; he can't teleport out of there.

Arab - charging (like Owen Farrell) is more than just any contact at all, it's driving into your opponent. That's common usage too. You can hardly call it charging if someone's turning and accelerating in the opposite direction after the ball. BCs who've just played the ball away run into defenders all the time.