Manu Tuilagi

[dave_clark]

one minute in to today's premiership final Tuilagi lifted an opposition player (Care, i think), turned him past the horizontal, and fell with him so that the "tackled" player had to break his fall with his arm to avoid landing on his neck.

WB penalised, but gave no more as he didn't think dangerous. i'd say :rc:. no spear, no drop, but he certainly didn't make an attempt to bring him down safely (IMHO).

interested in others thoughts.

 

[bcm666]

one minute in to today's premiership final Tuilagi lifted an opposition player (Care, i think), turned him past the horizontal, and fell with him so that the "tackled" player had to break his fall with his arm to avoid landing on his neck.

WB penalised, but gave no more as he didn't think dangerous. i'd say :rc:. no spear, no drop, but he certainly didn't make an attempt to bring him down safely (IMHO).

interested in others thoughts.

When Rolland issued his Warburton red - referees queued up to tell me that intent had nothing to do with the severity of the tip tackle offence as it was the risk that was the deciding factor. Furthermore, intent could play no part and that danger was assumed from the act not the consequence because otherwise it which would mean that referees were judging on outcome not risk and example to others.

Today WB went completely against that and I should be able to expect every referee on here, without exception, to agree it was a red card - zero toleranace and that it was a very bad error. I don't think that will happen.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I don't think that will happen.

I'll post when I've seen it. Too busy watching the RL:biggrin:

Why do you think you won't get unanimity? Cos it's Wayne Barnes?

 

[Phil E]

• The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
• 
  The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
• 
  For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

I don't believe it was a Red Card, or even close.

Did he lift the player = yes
Did he take him past the horizontal = yes

Did he drive him into the ground = no
Did he drop him = no

So we are in the last bullet point. Penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

This was nothing like the Warburton tackle, where the playere was dropped onto the back of his head and neck.

 

[dave_clark]

Did he drop him = no

it wasn't a drop, but he did fall with him thereby giving the same impact as with a drop (presumably, i don't know enough about the mechanics).

 

[Ian_Cook]

When Rolland issued his Warburton red - referees queued up to tell me that intent had nothing to do with the severity of the tip tackle offence as it was the risk that was the deciding factor. Furthermore, intent could play no part and that danger was assumed from the act not the consequence because otherwise it which would mean that referees were judging on outcome not risk and example to others.

Today WB went completely against that and I should be able to expect every referee on here, without exception, to agree it was a red card - zero toleranace and that it was a very bad error. I don't think that will happen.

Watching the replay now.

:norc:

If we want to stop this type of tackle from taking place, then we have to send the player off every time, no matter the occasion.

 

[Account Deleted]

I've not seen it so no comment until I do.

 

[bcm666]

I'll post when I've seen it. Too busy watching the RL:biggrin:

Why do you think you won't get unanimity? Cos it's Wayne Barnes?

Partly because it is WB but also because I rarely see a time when referees don't find some way to excuse a referee's decisions, unless they are under attack by all and sundry, when they feel the need to close ranks.

The post by Phil E is counter to everything I read during and around the world cup and from the IRB. Morevoer, the distinction between dropping a man and keeping hold of him whilst he is on his way down is spurious because unless the tackler tries to arrest the fall, which at no point did Tuilagi do or try to do, it is the same as if he let him go anyway. Merely remaining in contact with a player you have tipped above horizontal and who descends groundwards does not mean you have had some regard for his safety.

 

[dickell]

I agree with Brian and Ian. If the IRB has not changed its instructions this should have been RC and WB bottled it.

I should be most interested to know what instructions Ed Morrison has given his elite referees in this regard, but I suspect we shall never know.

 

[Phil E]

The post by Phil E is counter to everything I read during and around the world cup and from the IRB.

How so?

The bullet points I posted are from the IRB directive. They say start at Red and work down.
Today's tackle and the Warbuton one were nothing like each other, you cannot judge them the same, it would be wrong to do so.

 

[Ian_Cook]

How so?

The bullet points I posted are from the IRB directive. They say start at Red and work down.
Today's tackle and the Warbuton one were nothing like each other, you cannot judge them the same, it would be wrong to do so.

Phil

While I don't disagree with your assessment of THIS tackle (now there's something!), I do believe that if the iRB is really serious about completely eradicating this type of tackle from the game, then they should be dealing with every instance of a player being lifted, rotated beyond horizontal and subsequently making contact with the ground head/shoulders first, by sending off the tackler.

Currently, it seems to be a lottery, and players appear willing to buy a ticket, but if they knew that lifting a player in a tackle and rotating him beyond horizontal will result in a RC EVERY TIME they did it, they would stop doing it. Rucking with the feet is a great example of how the iRB has penalised a technique out of the game.

The shame of it is, that there are quicker and more effective ways of putting the ball carrier on his back, but players appear to be more keen to go the lifting route.

 

[Pinky]

I've not seen this tackle yet, but WB misses a clear RC (for me at least and all my referee colleagues who saw it) in the Amlin Cup final. There are certainly some on here who think it was a RC. Wonder what discussion after the game WB had?

 

[Account Deleted]

Just watched it. My thoughts:

1; Can't see WB's angle of view. So I can't say what he saw.

2; Clear PK offence.

3; Clearly MT holds and neither drops nor drives the "victim".

4; The actions of the Quins player reduces the danger. (Not relevant to MT's liability)

5; MT appears to lose his balance so whilst, technically, he is holding the player, in reality he is not in anyway helping minimise the risk to the Quins player.

In real time I think I would have gone yellow. With the benefit of TV, I would say red. This is one that, for me calls for a WC. If I was in that situation with the option of the WC my call would have been YC (10 mins) and WC for the Citing people to have a good look.

It was not a "diktat" RC but there was enough to look closely. In fairness to WB I can't say he could have seen it all. However, I would guess that he did see it (from his comment) and made a reasoned call that I'll respect but disagree with. At least YC and WC had it been available.

 

[Mat 04]

Do we have a link to any footage?

 

[Simon Thomas]

I saw a tip tackle slightly above horizontal, no drop or drive down seen, and Care hitting the ground in a horizontal position (not on shoulder or neck).

I quickly came down from PK+RC to PK+YC, and WB was playing advantage. That advantage went on to a second advantage 15-20 m upfield, eventually resulting in a PK at posts. After the kick , should WB have come all the way back to the MT tip tackle for a YC - yes imho and in an assessment I would be asking why not ? I was most concerned by WB statement beyond horizontal but not dangerous - as Brian says the risk not outcome is the issue. Referees make a judgement re "dangerous tackles" but for this specific type of tackle IRB have made it clear that outcome is NOT the decision criteria.

As with so many things the IRB, RFU, Elite Referees and showbiz rugby do NOT make a very good set of role models for the wider community Game.

 

[Account Deleted]

I saw a tip tackle slightly above horizontal, no drop or drive down seen, and Care hitting the ground in a horizontal position (not on shoulder or neck).

I quickly came down from PK+RC to PK+YC, and WB was playing advantage. That advantage went on to a second advantage 15-20 m upfield, eventually resulting in a PK at posts. After the kick , should WB have come all the way back to the MT tip tackle for a YC - yes imho and in an assessment I would be asking why not ? I was most concerned by WB statement beyond horizontal but not dangerous - as Brian says the risk not outcome is the issue. Referees make a judgement re "dangerous tackles" but for this specific type of tackle IRB have made it clear that outcome is NOT the decision criteria.

As with so many things the IRB, RFU, Elite Referees and showbiz rugby do NOT make a very good set of role models for the wider community Game.

What do you think of the WC option (I know it was not available to WB)? I It all happens quickly and as we agree it was not a "statutory" RC, would you think that having the option to refer it "up" would be a good one in similar instances? Especially because, as you point out WB played a (good) advantage, By the time you deal with the player You remember thinking that was bad but since it was "grey area" offence you may think Definate YC possible RC.

 

[JohnP]

I listened to WB on ref link at the game his words I think were "just above horizontal not dangerous play on". A dangerous call in my view re determining degrees of angle and relationship to danger to tackled player!

For it to be no offence at all was wrong IMHO whether it was red or yellow I don't know. If you want to stop this type of occurrence then it's a black and white call so RC. Haven't watched the tape yet but live I thought RC. Was no intent but that isn't part of the decision making process is it?

 

[Account Deleted]

...For it to be no offence at all was wrong IMHO...

But that was not the call. WB played advantge. So he did call the offence. The punishment is the point for debate.

 

[Toby Warren]

What would a white card add?

(hint - nothing unless the TMO could rule DURING the game). Look at the recent Amlin final WB went yellow later Hayman has a 4 week ban - all sorted without the aid of the WC.

For me it wasn't red - yellow would be more like it.

 

[Dixie]

I haven't yet seen the tackle, but there are a few inconsistencies already in the commentary on here. BCM666 was correct in his initial assessment that he wouldn't find unanimity, so kudos to him for that.

I listened to WB on ref link at the game his words I think were "just above horizontal not dangerous play on". A dangerous call in my view re determining degrees of angle and relationship to danger to tackled player!

For it to be no offence at all was wrong IMHO whether it was red or yellow I don't know. If you want to stop this type of occurrence then it's a black and white call so RC. Haven't watched the tape yet but live I thought RC. Was no intent but that isn't part of the decision making process is it?

JohnP, your recollection of the Reflink comment suggests WB saw the incident but did not believe the tackled player went beyond the horizontal. That may be a factual error, which the replays will convincingly determine.

To those who argue that a tackler can save himself a red card by simply keeping hold of the player they have put in danger, I'd simply ask: why should that be? dropping from a height is itself dangerous; having your own weight added to by the tackler's weight must surely be even more dangerous - it is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. IMO, the problem derives from the starting point - the unwarranted limitation of the offence to the determined "spear". Once that mistake was recognised, the failure then was not to penalise the fundamental issue - turning a player beyond 90 and not bringing him down gently.