[RWC] one week for a tip tackle?

C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
Like all these ones, need to see the videos and read the report before can really comment
 
P

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Nothing in the report to allow a resoned opinion.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
Pegleg said:
Nothing in the report to allow a resoned opinion.
Click to expand...

the actual report hasn't been published yet.

However from the news item on the RWC website
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/112211

you can see that this is another case of being found guilty under 10.4(e) not 10.4(j). So he wasn't punished for a tip tackle, but for a dangerous one.

It will be interesting to the read the report, and see what they thought was dangerous.
 
Last edited:
G

Gracie


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
144
Post Likes
27
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
As noted, it will be interesting to read the full report and similarly that surrounding Ford and Gray. I see both have been given 5 week bans reduced to 3. Ford was cited for dangerous play and Gray for a tip tackle. I'm not too sure about the JO taking their own decision on punitive action in the Gray case as reported on the BBC; World Rugby said the English QC had "deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point, namely four weeks" but had added one week in an attempt to deter this type of dangerous foul play..

I await the report with interest, but at face value there does seem to be a level of inconsistency in citing and judgements (Hooper, Tuilangi spring to mind) Certainly, Kenny Logan has made his views very clear; http://www.eurosport.co.uk/rugby/sc...ck-joke-ford-gray-bans_sto4949264/story.shtml
 
P

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
crossref said:
the actual report hasn't been published yet.

However from the news item on the RWC website
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/112211

you can see that this is another case of being found guilty under 10.4(e) not 10.4(j). So he wasn't punished for a tip tackle, but for a dangerous one.

It will be interesting to the read the report, and see what they thought was dangerous.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the report quoted (by reuters) to give any grounds for comment on the incident. The OP has no justification in the article / Press report to come to the conclusion he has arrived at.


I apologise for not making the point clearer. :frown:
 
P

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Gracie said:
As noted, it will be interesting to read the full report and similarly that surrounding Ford and Gray. I see both have been given 5 week bans reduced to 3. Ford was cited for dangerous play and Gray for a tip tackle. I'm not too sure about the JO taking their own decision on punitive action in the Gray case as reported on the BBC; World Rugby said the English QC had "deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point, namely four weeks" but had added one week in an attempt to deter this type of dangerous foul play..

I await the report with interest, but at face value there does seem to be a level of inconsistency in citing and judgements (Hooper, Tuilangi spring to mind) Certainly, Kenny Logan has made his views very clear; http://www.eurosport.co.uk/rugby/sc...ck-joke-ford-gray-bans_sto4949264/story.shtml
Click to expand...


Logan has a point the systen is a sick joke. The ban is far too short!
 
I

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
978
Post Likes
63
As crossref said - Bosch was not cited for a tip-tackle. Can we stop spreading inaccuracies if we're demanding consistency in the process?
 
P

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Having watched the video. It does not seem to be a terrible tackle.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
I have found a video of the incident (at least I assume this is it, he gets a YC for it)

https://youtu.be/Y3UDmyW3t8c?t=1693

I really don't see why they wouldn't cite that under 10.4(j), seems clear

I wonder if - like the Fiji case from first game - they followed the 2009 memo and arived at a conclusion that no RC was merited..

perhaps they decided that it was worth a RC simply because it was late, or off the ball.

Looking forward to the full report.


[LAWS](e) Dangerous tackling.
A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

[LAWS]
(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground first is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
 
Last edited:
I

Iron_Lung


Referees in America
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
256
Post Likes
21
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Doesn't all of this come back to consistency and transparency? If they used precedent and compared and contrasted rulings to generate a consistent set of guidelines, all of this would go away. If they indicated why they thought the entry point for a tip tackle was higher than a punch, then you wouldn't be arguing about relative suspensions.

Why wouldn't you have the same judiciary members paneled for all games? That way you have the same people ruling on each case using the same guidelines and decision points?

The relative sanctions an inconsistency in this world cup alone are enough that the board loses a lot of credibility... there has to be a better way.
 
I

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
978
Post Likes
63
I think - and perhaps the full judicial ruling will make the situation clearer - that the citing officer has seen the initial evidence and had Tip-Tackle in his mind. But then on studying how the tackle is finished, downgrades it to a "standard" dangerous tackle.

For me, the lift and turning over the horizontal is there, but I think Bosch realises what he is doing and then tries to get the Namibian player to ground as safely as possible. In a split second with gravity against him.

I would also hazard a guess that WR want to eradicate the lift and tip action we're still seeing even if the final element - hitting the ground - is not always punishable a-la Tip-Tackle memo.

In both cases - Bosch and the double Gray/Ford citing - the action of lifting and tipping adds nothing to what you're trying to achieve on the field of play. In fact, I'd go as far as to say lifting and tipping in any situation that you're making contact with an opponent is simply pointless and potentially very hazardous.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
well the tip-tackle memo says it is ALWAYS sanctioned - but sometimes a PK or a YC are sanction enough

on this one, there's not really a drop, or a drive.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
irishref said:
I think - and perhaps the full judicial ruling will make the situation clearer - that the citing officer has seen the initial evidence and had Tip-Tackle in his mind. But then on studying how the tackle is finished, downgrades it to a "standard" dangerous tackle.
.
Click to expand...

but in order to give a punishment, the JO must agree with the CO's opinion that a RC offence took place. It's not enough to say that a dangerous tackle took place - to give a suspension it must be a RC-worthy dangerous tackle.

Of course people may very well agree that it was a RC event.
 
D

dave_clark


Referees in England
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,647
Post Likes
104
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
ok, on another viewing i can see there is little if any obvious lift so perhaps it wasn't a tip tackle.

apologies for spreading inaccuracies (slightly overly aggressive, but whatever :shrug:).
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
I thought he did lift him .... but arguably he doesn't drop/drive him
 
D

dave_clark


Referees in England
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,647
Post Likes
104
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
no, but what he doesn't do is bring him down particularly safely. the namibian would have landed on his face had he not put his arms down.

but i was a shade hung over on sunday lunchtime so wasn't perhaps in the best frame of mind to judge. i remember it being worse than it now appears to be...
 
I

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
978
Post Likes
63
crossref said:
but in order to give a punishment, the JO must agree with the CO's opinion that a RC offence took place. It's not enough to say that a dangerous tackle took place - to give a suspension it must be a RC-worthy dangerous tackle.

Of course people may very well agree that it was a RC event.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was cited under 10.4(e) - 'bog standard' dangerous tackle. Not 10.4(j) which covers the tip-tackle.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
here's the report
http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...e701b9dc0/RWC_2015_Decision_Marcelo_Bosch.pdf

well, I find that very unsatisfactory. The reason it was dangerous is because it is a tip tackle.
but - the JO says - it's not the type of tip tackle covered by 10.4(j)
nor is it - evidently - the type of tip tackle covered by the 2009 memo, which isn't referred to (and surely would dictate a PK/YC)

it must be some other sort of tip tackle, worthy of a Red Card under 10.4(e), but about which we have no definition and about which there is no published guidance about cards.




I't
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top