Manu Tuilagi

[crossref]

Whatever = talk to the hand); you understood the point I was trying to make.


Incidently, there are an awful lot of people on this thread who start with "I haven't seen it, but........ :chin:"

I didn't see it .... and I was actually there :sad:

 

[dave_clark]

The referee who pedantically applies the letter of the law would immediately blow his whistle and start his thought process at red ...

isn't that what the instruction from the IRB requires us to do?

 

[crossref]

isn't that what the instruction from the IRB requires us to do?

exactly - -it's not just the letter of the Law -- it's all laid out in the (still somewhat secret!, as not on the IRB website) 2009 memorandum.

 

[OB..]

many tip tackles are not dangerous. It's frustrating and it's sad to see them go.

That is where I strongly disagree, and regret that you choose to label strong refereeing (my view) as pedantic. I want to see tip tackles eradicated. I do not believe they are necessary, and therefore the risk is too great.

 

[Pinky]

I am with OB on this. Tip (lifting) tackles are a much greater risk to the tackled player than ordinary tackles and the IRB have decided in their wisdom (and I agree with this) that they should not be part of the game and that perpetrators should be sent off (RC). What I have a problem with is that there seems to be a significant number of senior referees who do not follow the IRB guidance. This is evidenced by the number of citings and subsequent suspensions. Referees like WB do the rest of us lowly refs no help by apparently allowing tackles like this to remain in the game. Tuilagi needs to work out that this sort of tackle is not acceptable and stop it before he really hurts someone.

 

[Phil E]

Pinky

Your statement that the IRB have decided that all tip tackles should be a RC is simply incorrect.

 

[crossref]

I thnik Tuilagi has a very canny and accurate knowledge of what is acceptable for the elite referees that he encounters. He is always right there, operating exactly at the boundary of what he can get away with...

 

[bcm666]

Can I invite everyone to look back through the Sam Warburton thread and look at the reasoning that was forwarded by posters and the quoted stuff from the IRB and what is on here.

To say you cannot equate Tuilagi's tackle with Warburton's is only correct in that one let go and the other didn't. I ask again, as nobody has answered this - if the tackler does not use his grip to in some way alleviate the fall of the tackled player who has been taken beyond horizontal - what is the practical difference to how the tackled player falls? There is none. Therefore to all intents and purposes it is the same, is it not?

For what it's worth Tuilagi didn't drive Care into the ground but he let his weight fall with him which would add to the speed of descent.

Above all its is clear from the dispute on here and around the grounds and bars and social media sites that the general rugby man has no clear idea about what is and what is not allow and that includes me. Is this good or bad? From clear zero tolerance we now seem to have a twilight world of subjective interpretation of what was or wasn't dangerous. How did WB conclude it wasn't so - because Care got up - irrelevant; because Care was able to put out his hand - irrelevant - because Tuilagi kept hold of Care - as I have stated above practically irrelevant and certainly not something that can be automatically assumed, as by PhilE, as evidence that it is in a different category to letting go.

I also add this - even if you have a grip, what practical help can you always give to a falling player in a split second and who weighs possibly 16+ stone? Very little, I suspect unless you just happen to have all the weight, angles and levers in the right place.

This is only going to lead to more and more tackles that skirt the edge of legality and one may involve a bad injury - are we going to have that happen before this is properly defined once and for all

 

[OB..]

bcm666 - agree entirely.

 

[crossref]

This is only going to lead to more and more tackles that skirt the edge of legality and one may involve a bad injury - are we going to have that happen before this is properly defined once and for all

here's where I don't agree with you.

the problem isn't a definitional one - the 2009 memorandum is a good piece of work, TBH, and could hardly be clearer.

the problem is one of communication and especially intent. Do the IRB really stand behind their own memo? Is their heart really in this? Are they really committed to stamping out tip-tackles or do some of them think that perhaps it's all gone a bit over the top and rugby is a hard game, after all, and noting-wrong-with-it-in-my-day.
Is the IRB's commitment to safe tackling a bit like Sepp Blatter's commitment to women's football?

The 2009 memo was great
-- but why isn't it published anywhere on the IRB (or RFU, or WRFU, or NZRFU or....) websites?
-- but why don't top referees enforce it, is it because in their briefings they detect a slight ambivalence from the powers that be?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I haven't seen the Tuilagi tackle :biggrin: but before I do I'd just like to chip in.

I was in agreement with the SW RC from Alain Rolland. I felt it gave us a high profile benchmark to work with despite the fact there'd been others before it, eg Florian Fritz, in lesser profile matches.

BR (before Rolland) I had bottled a tip tackle in Sept 2011 and only given a YC. Post Rolland I have had one tip tackle and given one RC and apart from the coach of the send offee "but it wasn't a full blooded spear" sez he, received positive feedback.

After the RWC we had a WB RC when he did Ferris for one that looked harsh to me and the Bradley Davies one that got nothing (at the time).

As bcm666 says not spearing or dropping is hardly offset by hanging on and falling with the tackled player and despite the fact Gallileo(?) proved heavier things don't fall faster :biggrin: I know what bcm666 is "driving" at - two100kg blokes falling is twice the momentum as one (he says recalling O Level Physics) if they're a joined mass.

I agree with those who want to move to eradicating this type of tackle as soon as possible and again apologies for not having watched it (Tuilagi and Care) but WB seems to have clouded the issue (again).

I can only recall one lift and legs past horizontal that resulted in a player being put down gently and that was Fa'asavalu lifting a Leicester player a few weeks ago. That was WB again and he said it was fine - which it was.

 

[ChrisR]

Me too, and my original take on the Sam W. scenario was that he should not have been RCd because of the magnitude of the event. That's not my opinion anymore. Agree with bcm666 that how they fall and whether they are let go isn't relevant. It's hips above head and Tuilagi should have been gone. You can't get the tacklee onto that position without a lift, and that's the crux of the matter.

 

[crossref]

I refereed a match at the end of the season where a player was lifted, tipped --- and then immediately grasped by panicked team-mate of the tackler who together with the tackler steadied him, and righted him, bringing him down head upwards.

I believe it it was a a real lesson in what a difference the rolland/warburton RC made last season
- I am sure the instanct motivation here was purely to avoid a RC that both players immediately sensed was imminent.
- I don't think I would have seen that the season before.
- so the highlighting of this issue this season saved at least one player from a nasty fall (and who knows, perhaps an injury)

 

[Staybound]

It seems to me that these tackles have become more commonplace in recent years. One of the reasons is clearly the higher level of physicality in the game today. Another might be that tacklers (not in law terms) are trying to create contact that keeps players on their feet to win advantage from a subsequent failed maul. Equally the tackled players are trying their damndest to get on the deck to initiate the sequence of a lawbook tackle. So you have guys making contact around the midriff on players that are fighting to get on the floor. It's inevitable therefore that some outcomes look like tip / spear tackles (and some of course are). No wonder referees et al are in a hard position to judge. Dunno whether this changes or informs the debate.

 

[crossref]

It seems to me that these tackles have become more commonplace in recent years. One of the reasons is clearly the higher level of physicality in the game today. Another might be that tacklers (not in law terms) are trying to create contact that keeps players on their feet to win advantage from a subsequent failed maul. Equally the tackled players are trying their damndest to get on the deck to initiate the sequence of a lawbook tackle. So you have guys making contact around the midriff on players that are fighting to get on the floor. It's inevitable therefore that some outcomes look like tip / spear tackles (and some of course are). No wonder referees et al are in a hard position to judge. Dunno whether this changes or informs the debate.

i think that's a good observation

 

[scrumpox2]

My fear is that calls for a proper definition will result in lowering the bar even further. Why shouldn't the referee be permitted to decide whether the tackle is dangerous or not? He decides whether a pass has or has not gone forward, whether a throw in is straight ... whether a punch is a red card punch or handbags ...

It's a contact sport and even a textbook tackle can result in injury. We're coaching players to hit low and drive up, in order to destabilise the opponent and win the collision. But we're trying to define the precise point at which the risk of injury becomes too great and have everyone participating and watching agree? There's only one way that approach goes, the bar drops again and we'll all be watching touch rugby.

I'm with Barnsey ... not dangerous, move on.

 

[irishref]

I haven't seen the tackle yet so can't comment on it, but as a general point - which echoes what Brian and a couple of others are saying - I don't like the current state of affairs that has created too many grey areas. To my mind, any tackle where a player lifts his opponent and tilts him over the horizontal should be red all the time. Nice and easy, no obfuscation and clear for us all, refs, players and fans alike.

I simply can't for the life of me figure out what the value-add is when performing such a tackle. It doesn't help the game in any way so why do it?

 

[MattB]

The 2009 memo was great
-- but why isn't it published anywhere on the IRB (or RFU, or WRFU, or NZRFU or....) websites?

It is on the website of that esteemed Union, Deep South Rugby:

http://www.deepsouthrugbyunion.com/news/2009unionpressrelease.html

I agree, the IRB need to stand behind their decision and not allow referees to be left on their own in trying to enforce it

 

[scrumpox2]

I haven't seen the tackle yet so can't comment on it, but as a general point - which echoes what Brian and a couple of others are saying - I don't like the current state of affairs that has created too many grey areas. To my mind, any tackle where a player lifts his opponent and tilts him over the horizontal should be red all the time. Nice and easy, no obfuscation and clear for us all, refs, players and fans alike.

I simply can't for the life of me figure out what the value-add is when performing such a tackle. It doesn't help the game in any way so why do it?

Hmmm! That would have produced a red for Henson following his crowd- and team-lifting tackle on Tait? Nice and easy for you, killing the game for me.

 

[baftabill]

irishref

I simply can't for the life of me figure out what the value-add is when performing such a tackle. It doesn't help the game in any way so why do it?

But, "driving upwards" is a part of the basic tackling coaching at every level.
There are obvious reasons why that is so - you destabilise the ball-carrier and you reduce his ability to deliver power through his legs. I don't think this is to do with wrapping and achieving a maul-turnover.

Either you change the mindset of the coaching community or you must accept that that upwards drive will sometimes spin a running player past the horizontal. The player will claim they were following what they were coached but did it too well. I exclude the rare occasion where real harm was intended....