[Law] Red card or not

[Balones]

It's clear to me why Parisse got the red card. I suspect it's clear to everyone .. it's because he deliberately raised his elbow into position to make contact with the head throat area.

Yes, he was taking advantage of the poor posture and great speed of the arriving player , but it was deliberate. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous

Does it deserve a red card ? That's a valid question, but we need to discuss what actually happened .. the deliberate contact with elbow/forearm

This was NOT a rugby accident caused solely by poor technique

If the elbow had been held away from the body or even put in place fractionally before the impact I would have some sympathy/empathy with your position. However his elbow was there in plenty of time before the impact and was only moved away afterwards for the reasons I said above.
We allow ball carriers to run into tacklers with their elbow/shoulder tucked in don't we? And expect the tackler to tackle correctly accordingly? If we don't then what game are you observing/playing/officiating?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

If the elbow had been held away from the body or even put in place fractionally before the impact I would have some sympathy/empathy with your position. However his elbow was there in plenty of time before the impact and was only moved away afterwards for the reasons I said above.
We allow ball carriers to run into tacklers with their elbow/shoulder tucked in don't we? And expect the tackler to tackle correctly accordingly? If we don't then what game are you observing/playing/officiating?

Diplomatically put!

 

[crossref]

If the elbow had been held away from the body or even put in place fractionally before the impact I would have some sympathy/empathy with your position.

I think that s the nub of the issue .. I think it was slightly away from the body, slightly before the impact.

I don't think it's worth a RC,. But I do think that is what the RC was given for

 

[SimonSmith]

I have a contact with the pro refs in France who said that he'll let me know their debrief on this. He did add:

[FONT=&quot]The context is bit special too. 2 weeks ago a young professional player from Aurillac died after a game (not sure the death was related to the tackle that forced him to leave the pitch). We gathered last week for our preseason camp and our boss insisted on the safety of the game...

[/FONT]

 

[belhysys]

Imho he is pushing with the forearm the player after the contact. Is it a PK? maybe as hand off should be the hand. I find it hard to justify a red card

 

[crossref]

Imho he is pushing with the forearm the player after the contact. Is it a PK? maybe as hand off should be the hand. I find it hard to justify a red card

Hmm, if we say it's a type of hand off then we have the new offence this year 9.27 . A hand off with excessive force

(No, I don't really think that's the reason)

 

[Dickie E]

The elbow was nowhere near the head, though. Head contact was shoulder, the elbow was around chest height (and rising, not pointed into the chest). I believe the ref gave it for an elbow to the head, but I think this was an error.

elbow to head ... shoulder to head. You say tomato, I say tomato.

 

[Dickie E]

How can it be irrelevant?
If that is irrelevant you just need to go head vs shoulder whenever the opponent's team best player has the ball and you'd have him red carded.

You can basically red card opposition players at will.

what is irrelevant is the concept that the offender has to be the one to supply all the force.

 

[seanaodh]

I was surprised to see the first page of unanimous responses to this.

I can see where the ref was coming from, there was contact with the head with the elbow. Common sense obviously says that it was the fault of a poor tackle, but by the letter of the requirements that we are expected to referee by, you can absolutely justify a red card.

* Contact with the head? Yes.
* With force? Not really, but he did appear to 'follow through' with the elbow when seen in slow motion.

I don't agree that it should be a red, but I can completely understand where the ref got the decision from and I expect under review he'll justify it under the above grounds.

 

[Rich_NL]

elbow to head ... shoulder to head. You say tomato, I say tomato.

I think there's a large difference between leading into a tackle with an elbow (illegal) and a shoulder (perfectly normal).

 

[Christy]

I was surprised to see the first page of unanimous responses to this.

I can see where the ref was coming from, there was contact with the head with the elbow. Common sense obviously says that it was the fault of a poor tackle, but by the letter of the requirements that we are expected to referee by, you can absolutely justify a red card.

* Contact with the head? Yes.
* With force? Not really, but he did appear to 'follow through' with the elbow when seen in slow motion.

I don't agree that it should be a red, but I can completely understand where the ref got the decision from and I expect under review he'll justify it under the above grounds.

Hi seanaodh .
It was a very poor attempt of a tackle ( i agree with this bit ).
I can only see an overturn of red card being the only out come ..

Game should of restarted scrum , pink ball .

 

[Balones]

I was surprised to see the first page of unanimous responses to this.

I can see where the ref was coming from, there was contact with the head with the elbow. Common sense obviously says that it was the fault of a poor tackle, but by the letter of the requirements that we are expected to referee by, you can absolutely justify a red card.

* Contact with the head? Yes.
* With force? Not really, but he did appear to 'follow through' with the elbow when seen in slow motion.

I don't agree that it should be a red, but I can completely understand where the ref got the decision from and I expect under review he'll justify it under the above grounds.

The ‘follow through’ was the aspect of the incident which was the ‘physics’ I was referring to. It would be impossible to absorb such force without a reaction by the muscles.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Hi seanaodh .
It was a very poor attempt of a tackle ( i agree with this bit ).
I can only see an overturn of red card being the only out come ..

Game should of restarted scrum , pink ball .

Agreed the Referee got it wrong and once he saw the reply it should have restarted with an apology and a scrum to pink.

 

[Dickie E]

It's either play on, or straight red.

I don't see it as so black & white. WR gave us this guidance in 2017 for a tackle:

[LAWS]To decide an appropriate sanction (PK, YC or RC), referees should be considering:
o Contact point – where did the tackle start/finish, was contact with hand, arm or shoulder?
o Action – was the tackling action accidental, reckless or deliberate?
o Degree of force – severity of impact, does the tackler ‘carry on’ through the tackle, e.g. around
the neck?[/LAWS]

I think it is fair to extrapolate this to the situation under discussion such that if the action was careless/reckless (as opposed to deliberate) then a YC could be a reasonable outcome.

 

[Christy]

I don't see it as so black & white. WR gave us this guidance in 2017 for a tackle:

[LAWS]To decide an appropriate sanction (PK, YC or RC), referees should be considering:
o Contact point – where did the tackle start/finish, was contact with hand, arm or shoulder?
o Action – was the tackling action accidental, reckless or deliberate?
o Degree of force – severity of impact, does the tackler ‘carry on’ through the tackle, e.g. around
the neck?[/LAWS]

I think it is fair to extrapolate this to the situation under discussion such that if the action was careless/reckless (as opposed to deliberate) then a YC could be a reasonable outcome.

Hi dickie.
So are you saying that the tackler should of got a yellow card ?

 

[Dickie E]

Hi dickie.
So are you saying that the tackler should of got a yellow card ?

I think a YC to the miscreant (the ball carrier) may have been a fair & reasonable outcome.

 

[didds]

Totally ridiculous card.

wasn't even worthy of a yellow.

didds

 

[Camquin]

I think it comes down to the question, do you think he deliberately elbowed the tackler, or did his arm move instinctively due to impact.
It the former, what is the sanction?
If the latter, play on?

The first time I saw it, in full speed i though play on.
Watch the replay, I could see a potential issue, slow motion made it look worse.

I think I would go play on. My daughter, a prop, was going yellow.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I would play on in this case (rugby incident).

The thing that makes this dangerous is the tackler going high, much more so than Parisse's movements. The tackler is putting himself at serious risk of hitting the shoulder by going in at that height. Parisse barely drops/turns the shoulder and basically braces for impact as anyone would expect and the tackler gets hurt because he gets his height wrong and basically runs head first into Parisse's shoulder. If he goes at the waist/thighs and gets and elbow in the head then I think it is a different matter.

 

[Balones]

This is a consequence of the trend to coach higher tackling (Not high tackling.) so as to prevent offload or create a maul for turnover. The result is that players are being coached to deal with this type of tackle by holding their arms higher so as to push away the ‘enveloper’ so as to avoid a possible maul. Coaches always come up with a new strategy to get the edge one way or another. It’s just part of the game. The laws quite often don’t react as fast as the coaches/players.

Dare I say it is because of rugby league style defending?