[CLUB RUGBY] Mat Luamanu dangerous tackle

[DocY]

I don't buy the "but the player ducked" defence. If you are aiming to impact high on the shoulders, that's the risk you take. If you don't want to take the risk, aim lower.

At what point, if at all, would you consider the player ducking to be a defence? Sure, if you're aiming for the shoulders it's a risk, but if you're aiming, as you suggest below the armpits at the BC ducks? Around the waist and the BC slips?

 

[Ian_Cook]

At what point, if at all, would you consider the player ducking to be a defence? Sure, if you're aiming for the shoulders it's a risk, but if you're aiming, as you suggest below the armpits at the BC ducks? Around the waist and the BC slips?

Ducking/Slipping might go to mitigation, but it is not a defence. The tackler has the responsibility not to tackle above the line of the shoulders.

You might find this interesting though. Last year, the AFL introduced a new Law mid-season to penalise ball carriers who deliberately duck into tackles to try to draw a Free Kick

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-introduces-new-rule-against-ducking-20150601-gheh3g.html

 

[crossref]

You might find this interesting though. Last year, the AFL introduced a new Law mid-season to penalise ball carriers who deliberately duck into tackles to try to draw a Free Kick

that is interesting.
it strikes me as tricky to referee in real time, where the referee's focus will normally be the tackler.
any idea of how it worked in the AFL, was it judged a success?

 

[DocY]

Ducking/Slipping might go to mitigation, but it is not a defence. The tackler has the responsibility not to tackle above the line of the shoulders.

You might find this interesting though. Last year, the AFL introduced a new Law mid-season to penalise ball carriers who deliberately duck into tackles to try to draw a Free Kick

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-introduces-new-rule-against-ducking-20150601-gheh3g.html

Thanks - yes, that's an interesting idea and I think it has some merit. As crossref says, difficult to referee in real time.

It sounds to me like the horse has already bolted, though. I don't think it's such a problem in rugby yet that it needs remedying, rather we should make sure we don't encourage the practice in the first place.

That said, IME the more common cause of concussion is a clash of heads between an upright, legal tackler and an upright BC.

 

[Phil E]

Referees have been told to crack down on incidents which could lead to concussion in rugby union's autumn international series.

World Rugby has asked officials to be strict when it comes to tackles, charges, strikes or kicks that make contact above the shoulder line.

Sanctions up to and including red cards can be used.

"Our priority is player welfare," said World Rugby's match officials selection committee chairman Anthony Buchanan.

World Rugby said referees had been told "to be especially vigilant in this area".

Buchanan added: "The laws of the game clearly state that the necks and heads of players are sacrosanct. When it comes to foul play, the game is cleaner now than ever before but referees must constantly be alert to head-high hits.

Full Story

 

[DocY]

Referees have been told to crack down on incidents which could lead to concussion in rugby union's autumn international series.

Yeah, I saw that.

Out of interest, what's other people's experiences of the causes of head injuries?

As mentioned above, most of those in my games have not involved anything illegal, but been clashes of heads and (less often) heads on the wrong side in the tackle. Though admittedly a large minority I haven't actually seen what caused them, just the after effects.

I can only think of one incident off the top of my head due to a dangerous tackle and that was a spear tackle.

 

[Nigib]

Yeah, I saw that.

Out of interest, what's other people's experiences of the causes of head injuries?

As mentioned above, most of those in my games have not involved anything illegal, but been clashes of heads and (less often) heads on the wrong side in the tackle. Though admittedly a large minority I haven't actually seen what caused them, just the after effects.

I can only think of one incident off the top of my head due to a dangerous tackle and that was a spear tackle.

When they have happened in my games, usually accidental, and very infrequent (I would estimate 3, possibly 4 a season with very few serious). But I've just seen two in three weeks - first was accidental, attempted upright tackle. Both players concussed, one lost consciousness. In the second incident, I only saw the after effect as well, with the aggrieved team claiming intentional head butt at the end of a ruck/breakdown thingy where the ball was long gone (and me following the ball 20m away).

 

[The Fat]

I play now and the coaching messages we receive at 1st team level is to dominate and direct the contact, we stay strong and drive into the midriff and chest to prevent those offloads and because going low generally gives the BC more options.

And I would also expect your coaches to be telling you, when you have the ball and you are going into contact, to lower your centre of gravity. It is basic stuff. Therefore, a defender should be expecting a lower target. When defending we all love a ball carrier who goes into contact with a high body position. Mmmmmm riiiiibs.

 

[winchesterref]

Judgement is out
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/Disclipine/01/32/14/12/LuamanuHarlequinsJudgmentNov16_English.pdf

 

[winchesterref]

3 things then:

1. The tackle technique and reasons for this are pretty much exactly as I described

2. This sentence is debatable - "We do not accept that Mr Hooley’s actions were so out of the range of expected responses that this contact can properly be described as accidental" - but I accept there will be differing views on what level of duck/dip is normal

3. Recklessness is referred to in RFU Regulation 19.8.11(b). It is defined in the RFU Regulation 19 appendix 5 as “the player knew (or should have known) that there was a risk of committing an act of illegal and/or foul play”. The note goes on to state;
“The offences in World Rugby law 10.4 do not require mens rea ... they create offences of strict liability ... An offence is committed if the prohibited act occurs. The definition of recklessness is derived from World Rugby Regulation 17 ... it serves to penalise players whose conduct is other than purely accidental and is designed to prevent the risk of injury to other players ... Thus, again by way of illustration, where a player intends to tackle an opponent by contact with his chest, but the opponent ducks just before contact is made so the contact is with the neck, an offence contrary to law 10.4(e) will have been committed. In assessing the relevant entry point for sanction it would be appropriate to decide that this offending was reckless because there was a risk that the opponent would duck into the tackle, or that the tackler might misjudge the point of contact. It could not be said in these circumstances that the contact with the head was purely accidental.”

Number 3 puts the onus 100% on the tackler, and gives the attacking player a green light to duck and put themselves in danger, but it does explain the offence here.

Which leads me to ask again, how have they reached YC on field? They have discussed mitigation, then punished anyway, and seem to have pulled it out of thin air?

 

[The Fat]

3 things then:

1. The tackle technique and reasons for this are pretty much exactly as I described

2. This sentence is debatable - "We do not accept that Mr Hooley’s actions were so out of the range of expected responses that this contact can properly be described as accidental" - but I accept there will be differing views on what level of duck/dip is normal

3. Recklessness is referred to in RFU Regulation 19.8.11(b). It is defined in the RFU Regulation 19 appendix 5 as “the player knew (or should have known) that there was a risk of committing an act of illegal and/or foul play”. The note goes on to state;
“The offences in World Rugby law 10.4 do not require mens rea ... they create offences of strict liability ... An offence is committed if the prohibited act occurs. The definition of recklessness is derived from World Rugby Regulation 17 ... it serves to penalise players whose conduct is other than purely accidental and is designed to prevent the risk of injury to other players ... Thus, again by way of illustration, where a player intends to tackle an opponent by contact with his chest, but the opponent ducks just before contact is made so the contact is with the neck, an offence contrary to law 10.4(e) will have been committed. In assessing the relevant entry point for sanction it would be appropriate to decide that this offending was reckless because there was a risk that the opponent would duck into the tackle, or that the tackler might misjudge the point of contact. It could not be said in these circumstances that the contact with the head was purely accidental.”

Number 3 puts the onus 100% on the tackler, and gives the attacking player a green light to duck and put themselves in danger, but it does explain the offence here.

Which leads me to ask again, how have they reached YC on field? They have discussed mitigation, then punished anyway, and seem to have pulled it out of thin air?

No.3 is saying that a tackler should be aware that an attacker could/is likely to alter his body height (i.e. lower his centre of gravity) when contact is about to occur. This basically says that the potential tackler should "keep eyes on the prize" to ensure he makes every effort to effect a legal tackle. Sure there are going to instances where a ball carrier slips just prior to contact and is hit high. I'm sure that would be a mitigating factor in on-field decisions.
As you pointed out earlier, you are coached to hit the sternum area for obvious reasons, and as I pointed out earlier, you should also be coached to lower your centre of gravity as a ball carrier when coming into contact. The upshot of a combination of the two is that as a defender you should be aware that there is the likelihood that your target area will drop just before contact. The onus is therefore on the tackler to make every effort to execute a legal tackle.

 

[Ian_Cook]

"We do not accept that Mr Hooley’s actions were so out of the range of expected responses that this contact can properly be described as accidental, and as the Guidance makes clear, persons lining up for a chest tackle take on the risk of the opposing player dipping into the tackle."

This is more or less what I said in post #20

 

[winchesterref]

Yes TF, Ian - it is, agreed
And I can understand the RC especially given this

[LAWS]Thus, again by way of illustration, where a player intends to tackle an opponent by contact with his chest, but the opponent ducks just before contact is made so the contact is with the neck, an offence contrary to law 10.4(e) will have been committed[/LAWS]

but I can't understand the YC. I also can't really see how defenders can be expected to be mind readers if players duck at the last moment, but accept it's a risk they take. I think that the judgement text says attackers can act without due regard to their own safety, which is pretty much what we've got in the air.

 

[Phil E]

"We do not accept that Mr Hooley’s actions were so out of the range of expected responses that this contact can properly be described as accidental, and as the Guidance makes clear, persons lining up for a chest tackle take on the risk of the opposing player dipping into the tackle."

This is more or less what I said in post #20

I think it what nearly all of us have been saying.

 

[Paule23]

Yes TF, Ian - it is, agreed
And I can understand the RC especially given this

[LAWS]Thus, again by way of illustration, where a player intends to tackle an opponent by contact with his chest, but the opponent ducks just before contact is made so the contact is with the neck, an offence contrary to law 10.4(e) will have been committed[/LAWS]

but I can't understand the YC. I also can't really see how defenders can be expected to be mind readers if players duck at the last moment, but accept it's a risk they take. I think that the judgement text says attackers can act without due regard to their own safety, which is pretty much what we've got in the air.

Defenders don't have to be mind readers, but they should be aware of the potential consequences of going high. The tackler was going for a big hit, and aiming fairly high (in the literal not illegal sense). This increases the risk of impacting the head or neck if they get anything wrong (or the BC ducks slightly). I am entirely happy with the tackler being ultimately responsible for a high tackle in this case and wish the game took more action against similar instances.

 

[winchesterref]

Penalty only

 

[The Fat]

Correct decision.
Looked bad at full speed but the slow-mo shows it was a head clash that floored the Irish player. Initial contact in the tackle was OK but rode up.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Two eyes in that commentary box - one for each commentator.

 

[Phil E]

It should have been a minimum Yellow Card. Red according to the World Rugby examples.

http://worldrugby.matchdaymail.com/index.php?action=social&c=dc6a6489640ca02b0d42dabeb8e46bb7.483

[LAWS]"World Rugby's number-one priority is player welfare and the laws of the game clearly state that the necks and heads of players are sacrosanct. When it comes to foul play, the game is cleaner now than ever before but referees must constantly be alert to head-high hits. By taking this strong approach, we are saying to players that tackling an opponent above the shoulder line will not go unpunished.[/LAWS]

 

[KML1]

It should have been a minimum Yellow Card. Red according to the World Rugby examples.

http://worldrugby.matchdaymail.com/index.php?action=social&c=dc6a6489640ca02b0d42dabeb8e46bb7.483

[LAWS]"World Rugby's number-one priority is player welfare and the laws of the game clearly state that the necks and heads of players are sacrosanct. When it comes to foul play, the game is cleaner now than ever before but referees must constantly be alert to head-high hits. By taking this strong approach, we are saying to players that tackling an opponent above the shoulder line will not go unpunished.[/LAWS]

Really? Would anyone had issued a red card here? There are so many mitigating factors at play here - how was the All Black player supposed to know what the Irish players was going to spin into this place. The contact wasnt that bad - head collision was a "rugby incident" which is what actually caused the injury.