[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
See post #248

I think Arabcheif is asking you to define ‘reckless and dangerous’ in such a way that we can all apply it. It’s subjective so therefore impossible.
He was guilty of ‘reckless and dangerous’ by the weight of public opinion about what felt correct even if it wasn’t in law.
It’s a matter of opinion whether a ball carrier is acting in such a manner. But generally speaking if a ball carrier is running with force then you expect a tackler to use at least an equal amount of force to tackle him. You as a ref decide at the moment as to what is legal and then if necessary leave it up to the disciplinary committee to decide if you were right. Unfortunately not everyone has a video to refer to.
 
Last edited:

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I fleshed that out (IMO) in #236, the main cue for me was him
diving superman style into the tackle, literally out of control at that point
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
it's a bit like pornography ... I can't define it, but I know it when I see it :)
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,335
Post Likes
1,440
As ArabCheif says, in theory, almost every tackle is dangerous, and those at speed - ball carrier or tackler - even more so.

So it seems that this tackle wasn't simply dangerous, it was excessively dangerous/reckless. Where is the line from "acceptably" to "reckless"? Good question, and difficult to draw.

As I said in an earlier post, my real issue is how it has been treated. 24 weeks starting point is just laughable. It seems to me that the Disciplinary system is broken.

Are we meant to use intent? Jordie Barrett would suggest not, nor the other South African citing for charging into the ruck.
Are we to use dangerousness? Well, there's a mixed bag of thoughts there. This case suggests yes; the two other cases suggest not. The Quins winger case suggests so.
Is it outcome based or input based? No settled views here.

There's a trend starting to emerge of inconsistencies in how these things are treated, and I'm not sure for the better. SANZAAR in particular are leading the way in, I think, increasing risk to players.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Is it outcome based or input based? No settled views here.

There's a trend starting to emerge of inconsistencies in how these things are treated, and I'm not sure for the better. SANZAAR in particular are leading the way in, I think, increasing risk to players.

In the charging into the ruck incident there was even a mitigation comment made by the judiciary that the incident wasn't all that serious because the Australians didn't remonstrate at the time. WTF?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
Everything is subjective, but in my opinion the player was not even trying to perform a tackle, he saw an opportunity to hurt an opponent, in a reckless act disguised as a tackle.

That's my starting point, which obviously is not shared by everyone

Totally accept it's subjective
 
Last edited:

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
I think it was a deliberate act to hurt an opponent via a tackle. No disguise. I also think it is something that tacklers do quite often. It just so happens that in the realm of subjectivity this one was a step too far.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
I think it was a deliberate act to hurt an opponent via a tackle. No disguise. I also think it is something that tacklers do quite often. It just so happens that in the realm of subjectivity this one was a step too far.

I think at some point WR will introduce an generalised 'excessive force' law. It's odd that we have the concept of a hand-off that is illegal because of 'excessive force' but no other action has that qualification
 
Top