Reckless Play - Duty of Care?

[BikingBud]

La Rochelle v Gloucester yesterday in ERC, game clock 16:29, not found elsewhere but on BT Sport

Yellow 2 receives short ball from Yellow SH, just inside own half. Y2 moves towards halfway line, approaching Pink defenders, Pink 4 and Pink 3. Pink3 is set for tackle at a good height. Y2 lowers height to go into tackle area, leading with head. Collision between P3 and Y2, head to head. P3 goes to ground, is subject to HIA and does not return to FOP.

If Y2 had stayed high P3 would have been able to complete safe tackle, however deliberate act by Y2, to bend and lead with head, significantly reduced the safety margin.

Given the focus on outcomes from members of this site I would anticipate that this was deemed reckless and Y2 should be cited and sanctioned.

Do others feel that the actions of Y2 were reckless?

 

[Decorily]

Haven't seen it.
I wouldn't expect to see it sanctioned based on your description.
It is somewhat strange that similar type contacts are viewed differently depending on wheter the instigator is carrying the ball or not!

 

[didds]

i do unbderstand the point in the OP.
thing is - droipping height to brace/be stroong in contact is "good accepted practice". That isnt defending it per se, but the alternatives leave a BC in a weak position in what is inherently a contact sport .

Its another example of the - exemplary being fair - direction WR have taken wrt head injuries doesn't work well with sensible practise.

And I cannot square that circle either. Though maybe one answer is "only one tackler permitted per tackle - no double tackles". But thats till wouldn't prevent a pow tackler meeting a lowered bracing BC.



didds

 

[Volun-selected]

Isn’t this why the French penalize the ball carrier dropping in the domestic game? When we discussed the RFU tackle changes I looked into the FFR rules and seem to recall they have a specific provision that ball carrier is not be permitted to drop their height into contact, or to bend down and lead with the head. Net result is less head contact and more offloads.

Until then, we will always have these situations where no matter how legitimate the defense have set themselves up, the BC can come clattering in head first and force a penalty out of the defense.

 

[Volun-selected]

Not sure how long this link will stay live, but the incident occurs in the phase just after Yellow take possession off the box kick. Slow mo replay about a minute later. It ain’t pretty.

*Edited to replace broken link.

 

[crossref]

La Rochelle v Gloucester yesterday in ERC, game clock 16:29, not found elsewhere but on BT Sport

Yellow 2 receives short ball from Yellow SH, just inside own half. Y2 moves towards halfway line, approaching Pink defenders, Pink 4 and Pink 3. Pink3 is set for tackle at a good height. Y2 lowers height to go into tackle area, leading with head. Collision between P3 and Y2, head to head. P3 goes to ground, is subject to HIA and does not return to FOP.

If Y2 had stayed high P3 would have been able to complete safe tackle, however deliberate act by Y2, to bend and lead with head, significantly reduced the safety margin.

Given the focus on outcomes from members of this site I would anticipate that this was deemed reckless and Y2 should be cited and sanctioned.

Do others feel that the actions of Y2 were reckless?

isn't this a good example of why the French grass roots rugby trail makes it illegal for ball carriers to drop height into a tackle?

 

[Mipper]

isn't this a good example of why the French grass roots rugby trail makes it illegal for ball carriers to drop height into a tackle?

Exactly this, and this is what we have coming next season. The drop before the tackle in our community game will be subject to sanctions, and this is the perfect example of why.

 

[Dickie E]

This is why the protocol's 2nd question is "was there foul play?". Imo the answer is NO, so play on

 

[BikingBud]

This is why the protocol's 2nd question is "was there foul play?". Imo the answer is NO, so play on

Foul? In the current construct? or in terms of lacking due regard for other players safety?

 

[Dickie E]

Foul? In the current construct? or in terms of lacking due regard for other players safety?

there's just 3 questions: was it intentional, reckless or accidental? If the answers are NO, NO, YES then its play on.

If I recall correctly, the head contact protocol was modified a couple of years ago, specifically for the event of accidental headclash. Prior to the modification, the non-ball carrier would be looking at a straight RC

 

[didds]

isn't this a good example of why the French grass roots rugby trail makes it illegal for ball carriers to drop height into a tackle?

have we the actual law provision that to better understand how it is written and implemented? At the moment we have a vague "cannot drop height" but there must be better specifics over that otherwise nobody could ever dive to score for starters (which may be what is required as well of course - but we don't know)

 

[shebeen]

Not sure how long this link will stay live, but the incident occurs in the phase just after Yellow take possession off the box kick. Slow mo replay about a minute later. It ain’t pretty.

Nothing P3 could have done better there, the head contact is at knee height or below.

It gets complicated quickly, but this is bordering on equivalent to a swinging arm from ball carrier.

 

[didds]

So is that really P3's "fault" for not trying to wrap a tackle? and thus instead exposing his head to the oncoming lowered BC? CF Steward's "oh fark Im in the wrong place lets turn away" ?

Or just rubbish tackle technique with the head on the wrong side to start with ?

 

[crossref]

Don't forget they decided that Steward had committed foul play

 

[number11]

I think it's interesting to compare the tackle immediately after this incident. Yellow BC (Astoway?) drops his height but his shoulders are clearly above the hips. The tackle is good and they all walk away.

In this incident I think he bends his knees and appears to drop his shoulder below the hips. A head collision is almost inevitable.

 

[Stu10]

I saw this when it happened and wondered how it would play out. There is head on head, and I suppose you could call it a high tackle, and therefore foul play, but I don't think the pink player could have done anything differently.

My son was asking me about this, and what head contact is not considered to be foul play if it's intentional contact (arguably FS's RC was not intentional, so was it therefore accidental?). You could argue this example falls under 9.11 or 9.13, but I can't justify putting blame on the tackler IMHO. However, I was surprised the TO4 did not appear to have a second look at it.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I'm amazed the linesman didn't call it earlier to stop the game. The prop was clearly injured and he should have seen that.

 

[Stu10]

I think it's interesting to compare the tackle immediately after this incident. Yellow BC (Astoway?) drops his height but his shoulders are clearly above the hips. The tackle is good and they all walk away.

In this incident I think he bends his knees and appears to drop his shoulder below the hips. A head collision is almost inevitable.

The risk of this body shape is understood wrt a ruck, but no restrictions for a tackle. I think a tackle is more dynamic and would be challenging to restrict in this way.

 

[Locke]

One clarification, the criteria for foul play in the HCP is intentional, reckless, or avoidable (rather than “accidental”).

I’m not squeamish about red cards and supported the Freddie Steward RC but I don’t see how this situation can be blamed on the tackler. It’s play on for me. And I’d be happy to see a (properly worked) law/guideline that makes the ball carrier’s actions here illegal.

Edit: I’d have loved it if Mike Adamson explained it to the captains for all to hear that there was no foul play. To set that precedent. Being that there was no uproar from teams or even mention from the commentators about a possible sanction for the tackler, it seems that everyone is on the same page but making it clear and public could help future referees make their case.

 

[Camquin]

Aside from the question of foul play.

The ball carrier (Y2) needed to go off for treatment to an open head wound. His teammates were wiping the blood away. He should not have been permitted to scrummage. It needed at least a bandage and I think he should have had a HIA.