red card decision Canada v Scotland [MERGED]

andyscott


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
3,117
Post Likes
55
I can't believe this discussion has gone on.

He didn't lead or strike with the elbow, play on.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
TYGFTFY :wink:

if you want to show juniors how to and how NOT to tackle watch the difference between Burns (1st test) and Farrell (2 nd test) Burns put Nonu down every time he ran at him because he tackled him low, whereas Farrell went high and got bumped off time after time.

Cmon BFG, surely youre not suggesting that all players who tackle above the waist are deciding to do so against the instructions of their coaches ? ...i know why players are tackling higher than in yesteryear...... I havent studied them specifically, but Burns low tackles likely wouldn't have slowed the AB continuity or yielded possession.

I'm happy to watch the next test and compare tackles below the waist v above the waist statistics ..... I watched a training session of a top aviva side and players were chastised for tackling legs, "use as last ditch / desperation option only" was being coached

I suspect the ratio will be more like 20% v 80% which if true means tackling below the waist isn't considered the "proper" tackle more often than not.
 
Last edited:

thepercy


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
923
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Never knew my forearm was in fact my elbow!!

I'm not sure if the elbow was leading, but surely you can not strike an oppo in the head with your forearm or elbow.
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I can't believe this discussion has gone on.

He didn't lead or strike with the elbow, play on.

If he hadn't led or struck with the elbow, it is indeed play on. But he did swing the elbow at the tackler, and that swung elbow laid the tackler out (see my #50): RC.

If you were convinced that that was what had happened, would you not agree with the RC?
 
Last edited:

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
975
Post Likes
63
Poor tackling technique indeed, exacerbated by small man v big man at speed - but I still consider Red #6's actions with his right arm to be reckless and dangerous. Ref didn't help by stating "leading with the elbow" (which it clearly isn't), but for me it certainly ticks the box for 10.4(a) - specifically striking an opponent with the arm.
 

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
975
Post Likes
63
Urban slang

"A person, usually a man, who lacks strength of character, or who is an easy touch for a sob story, or who cannot be relied on to take decisive action. Usually a sycophant."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soft cock

Don't know about down in the land of the long white cloud, but I can certainly state "soft-cock" is a common phrase blurted out by my South African coach when something not to his liking happens on or off the pitch ;-)
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,652
Post Likes
1,718
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If he hadn't led or struck with the elbow, it is indeed play on. But he did swing the elbow at the tackler, and that swung elbow laid the tackler out (see my #50): RC.

If you were convinced that that was what had happened, would you not agree with the RC?

The ball carrier did not lead or strike with is elbow, the tackler did lead with his head.

The tackler with such poor technique, who puts himself in such a position, only has himself to blame for what happens next. Even if the Ball Carrier had his arm tucked tightly against his side, the tackler still gets knocked out

This is another example of you and I looking at the same video and seeing things completely opposite, except this time, you can't accuse me of bias.
 

Shelflife


Referees in Ireland
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
618
Post Likes
145
Ive looked at it again, and im still convinced that there isn't even a pen there. I showed the clip to my son who is a rugby nut and well versed in the laws and asked him what he thought of the red card. He assumed that there was an incident at the ensuing ruck/tackle area that he couldn't spot, never entertained the idea that there was a problem in the actual red card incident.

Poor call based on a player getting injured.
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
The ball carrier did not lead or strike with is elbow, the tackler did lead with his head.

There follows a sequence of stills from the video in the OP:

Red #6 has just received the ball:

JS0.jpg

Red #6's right shoulder and elbow swinging forward:

JS1.jpg

Contact made (daylight between elbow and side):

JS2.jpg

Elbow forced back against Red #6's body by impact:

JS3.jpg

Fend-off starts:

JS4.jpg

and continues:

JS5.jpg

and concludes:

JS6.jpg

That's what I see; two movements with the elbow, one swinging into contact, the next following contact. The second is legitimate; the first is IMHO a deliberate swing of the arm. It's not part of his normal running action, because he's stepping with his right foot into the tackle.

The tackler with such poor technique, who puts himself in such a position, only has himself to blame for what happens next. Even if the Ball Carrier had his arm tucked tightly against his side, the tackler still gets knocked out

This is another example of you and I looking at the same video and seeing things completely opposite, except this time, you can't accuse me of bias.

True; but look at the sequence above. Two movements by the elbow.
 
Last edited:

winchesterref


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,014
Post Likes
197
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Rob have you ever played rugby?

What happens to your ball carrying arm when running at pace can not adequately be described in context by a series of still shots which grossly exaggerate actions compared to time frames.
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Rob have you ever played rugby?

Yes, but a very long time ago (I'm not, contrary to the system's protestations a rugby club member).

What happens to your ball carrying arm when running at pace can not adequately be described in context by a series of still shots which grossly exaggerate actions compared to time frames.

It's not his ball-carrying arm, but I take your point. I seek only to make the points that there were two movements by the free arm, that that arm was not held by the player's side, and that (since no-one normally runs with right shoulder and right foot movign forward together) the arm movement wasn't his normal running movement. With those stills in mind, the video can be more sensibly interpreted.
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,213
Post Likes
333
If there had not been a slow-mo available this would not have been an issue at any level below professional.

If this was a red card then I'm sure that we could identify numerous such unfortunate timings in a match that would using the same or similar criteria warrant a red card. Where do we draw the line. Leading with the knee? (It's called running!) Yet kneeing someone is an offence.:chin: We would soon be down to a 7 a side match.

It seems to me in both the slow-mo and the stills that most of the impact is on the top of the arm and not the elbow. The follow through is simply a brushing off action after impact.
 

winchesterref


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,014
Post Likes
197
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
By the have you ever played comment, I meant that the automatic movements can't always be dissected so closely - I did many things which we re just a response to positions I found myself in, I wondered if you had that experience too.

If you look at the third still it looks like his ball carrying arm at time of contact to me? Or at least transferred to two hands?

So basically what's happened is the attacking player has got the ball in a bad position defender side, he has planted his right foot and turned a bit more side on to protect the ball, hence leading with right arm and leg, and the defender has somehow got himself in an even worse position and copped a braced arm to the head (braced as he has the ball in it). Nothing in it, play on.
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,613
Post Likes
282
In all those I can see his number and his elbow -and to me that indices he is not leading with said elbow.
The Scottish tackler's technique is awful -body low and cheek to cheek.

Richie Gray's tackle is a stone cold penalty for being high and I see not reason to overturn that.
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
By the have you ever played comment, I meant that the automatic movements can't always be dissected so closely - I did many things which we re just a response to positions I found myself in, I wondered if you had that experience too.

I spent the years I'd have been playing rugby fencing and presiding and coaching (in a small way) - so dissection of automatic movements was pretty much to the fore.

If you look at the third still it looks like his ball carrying arm at time of contact to me? Or at least transferred to two hands?

The view is foreshortened; this still, from immediately after the sequence above, shows that the left arm is holding the ball, and it was throughout. In particular, the ball was not between the right arm and his body, and the fourth and fifth stills do show that:

JS7c.jpg

So basically what's happened is the attacking player has got the ball in a bad position defender side, he has planted his right foot and turned a bit more side on to protect the ball, hence leading with right arm and leg, and the defender has somehow got himself in an even worse position and copped a braced arm to the head (braced as he has the ball in it). Nothing in it, play on.

See above.
 
Last edited:

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
In all those I can see his number and his elbow -and to me that indices he is not leading with said elbow.
The Scottish tackler's technique is awful -body low and cheek to cheek.

Richie Gray's tackle is a stone cold penalty for being high and I see not reason to overturn that.

What do you underatand by the phrase "leading with the elbow"?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,652
Post Likes
1,718
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
There follows a sequence of stills from the video in the OP:

<polite snip>

That's what I see; two movements with the elbow, one swinging into contact, the next following contact. The second is legitimate; the first is IMHO a deliberate swing of the arm. It's not part of his normal running action, because he's stepping with his right foot into the tackle.



True; but look at the sequence above. Two movements by the elbow.

A nice photo array that proves nothing and doesn't change my mind one iota. The arm coming forward is a natural action of running, used by erect walking primates as part of their balance system.

If you don't believe this, try running with your arms pinned firmly into your sides. Let me know how it went after you smashed your nose when you face planted into the ground because you lost your balance.
 
Top