[Law] No Mitigation? (High Tackle)

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
In reference to the Manu Red Card (which I think is correct fwiw) there's talk on podcasts and senior refs have confirmed that because it was a shoulder charge (arm tucked therefore not a tackle attempt) there can be no mitigation, therefore once he made contact with the head he's off, other mitigating factors are ignored) - which was my understanding. However, the Flowchart at World Rugby (Download this guideline as a PDF) does have an asterisk to mitigating factors at that point in the flow chart - am I missing a nuance?

As it stands I think that the only mitigating factor that would apply is drop in height, and not convinced that applies, however there's a big difference between mitigating factors don't apply and i'm not allowed to consider mitigation, so which is it?

TIA
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
THere does seem to be confusion. Dare I say your headline:


No Mitigation? (High Tackle)


does not help. The point being this is not a "high tackle" situation. Less confusing would be

No Mitigation? (Shoulder Charge).
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Fair point, all though they do call it the high tackle framework which is what I was referring to
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Caveat : Its a RC all day long under current guidelines, no argument.

however ... a suggestion that there is no no mitigation cos its a no arms warp collision?

I'd suggest MT was setting up to tackle him at position X - but due to the excellent work of Slade on North, North didnt end up where MT thought he'd be and so ended up at position Y, not quite as far advanced as X. For the record Ive no issue with th RC under the guidelines... but I cant agree on a wider discussion that there may ne no extenuating/mitigating circumstances simply because the arms dont end up where they need to be etc.

Meanwhile then - are we saying that if MT had got arms round North and still smashed him in the head with his shoulder it would be a yellow? Because if that is true under the guidelnes that is ridiculous - it's stiull forceful contact with the head!!

what a pile of foetid dingoes' kidneys WR have created.

didds
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
So this is the 6N guidelines
They state clearly that no mitigation is applied where the tackle illegal from the outset (eg a shoulder charge)

This is different from the published framework which (I now agree Dickie) suggests that mitigation could be applied

https://we.tl/t-4eEOaWxM31?src=dnl
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Meanwhile then - are we saying that if MT had got arms round North and still smashed him in the head with his shoulder it would be a yellow? Because if that is true under the guidelnes that is ridiculous - it's stiull forceful contact with the head!!

Not for me no, it still gets to Red if I consider the mitigating factors - however some are claiming the drop in height was a factor (not for me), others claim he didn't mean it so let him off!! - I was more questioning whether I should be considering mitigation if it happens to me at Lower Weedsville 2s next weekend!
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Not for me no, it still gets to Red if I consider the mitigating factors - however some are claiming the drop in height was a factor (not for me), others claim he didn't mean it so let him off!! - I was more questioning whether I should be considering mitigation if it happens to me at Lower Weedsville 2s next weekend!

But there are no mitigating factors in the 6N - see above?

As it is - and in the wider context as Flish says - for me the mitigating factor (so to speak) is notthe drop in height but the fact North didnt end up as far advanced downfield as MT suspected due to Slades execellent chop tackle. That led to a no arms collision and a total loss of timing in the tackle at the evry very last nano second..

didds
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
So this is the 6N guidelines
They state clearly that no mitigation is applied where the tackle illegal from the outset (eg a shoulder charge)

This is different from the published framework which (I now agree Dickie) suggests that mitigation could be applied

https://we.tl/t-4eEOaWxM31?src=dnl

They state clearly that no mitigation is applied where the tackle illegal from the outset (eg a shoulder charge)

I looked for this clear statement. Couldn't find it :shrug:
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
But there are no mitigating factors in the 6N - see above?

As it is - and in the wider context as Flish says - for me the mitigating factor (so to speak) is notthe drop in height but the fact North didnt end up as far advanced downfield as MT suspected due to Slades execellent chop tackle. That led to a no arms collision and a total loss of timing in the tackle at the evry very last nano second..

didds
Surely the "no arms" collision resulted from the fact that MT had his right arm folded across his chest? The drop in height did not cause that.
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
But a no Arms collision isn't automatically a RC. Only if t here's Head Contact does it start there. Then with mitigation (if applicable), it can be reduced to a YC.

MT's once wouldn't have resulted in head contact if it hadn't been for Slade's tackle. So I'd have said that mitigation was applicable in normal circumstances. Are we saying that the 6 nations aren't using the World Rugby framework?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Surely the "no arms" collision resulted from the fact that MT had his right arm folded across his chest? The drop in height did not cause that.

I dont think its anythi to do with drop in height. Its nmorte to do that Norgh was X-1m from where MT thoyught he woud be - bgecause Slade bloody tackled North etc.

Its still a RC. My point was about others clim that MT had no potential mitigating factors... Im suggesting the collision didnt occur where MT thought it would be because of Slade's tackle . Which could be seen as a mitigating factor.

its still a RC under these guidelines.

didds

- - - Updated - - -

But a no Arms collision isn't automatically a RC. Only if t here's Head Contact does it start there. Then with mitigation (if applicable), it can be reduced to a YC.

MT's once wouldn't have resulted in head contact if it hadn't been for Slade's tackle. So I'd have said that mitigation was applicable in normal circumstances. Are we saying that the 6 nations aren't using the World Rugby framework?


Buit others have said above there is not mitigation to be conidered by refrees in the 6N in such circumstances.

didds
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Surely the "no arms" collision resulted from the fact that MT had his right arm folded across his chest? The drop in height did not cause that.

i'd disagree that MT's arm is across his chest. Its dropping to his side as Slade's tackle comes in. Possibly in preperation for a wrap at the perceived tackle point.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the arm position and intention.

didds
 
Top