[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

[Phil E]

For me once the tackler launched himself horizontally at the kicker he was no longer in a position to do anything to mitigate injury or risk. He can't pull out, he can't change his height, it's a reckless act. The red card would be more for that than any head contact process.

 

[crossref]

For me the intention was always to hurt, rather than to tackle , so that counts as reckless and dangerous

 

[Dickie E]

For me the intention was always to hurt, rather than to tackle , so that counts as reckless and dangerous

Intention based decision making? :sad:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Intention based decision making? :sad:

Intention based decision making is how it used to be, and it is still in the Laws of Rugby. You might be surprised to learn how often you are called upon to judge the intent of a player.... you make these calls dozens of times in every game without realising it.

In every one of the following you,as the referee, are charged with deciding whether a player's actions were intentional or not.


[LAWS]
LAW 9: Obstruction
2. An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play.
3. A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.
4. A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from having the opportunity to play the ball, other than by competing for possession.
5. A ball-carrier must not intentionally run into an off-side team-mate to obstruct the opposition.

LAW 9: Unfair Play
7. A player must not :
a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.
b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.

LAW 9: Dangerous play
19. Dangerous play in a scrum.
c. A front-row player must not intentionally lift an opponent off their feet or force the opponent upwards out of the scrum.
d. A front-row player must not intentionally collapse a scrum.

20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.
c. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.

25. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the
ball.

LAW 11: Knock On
3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.

LAW 11:Throw Forward
7. A player must not intentionally throw or pass the ball forward

LAW 15: During a Ruck
16. Players must not :
b. Intentionally collapse a ruck or jump on top of it.
c. Intentionally step on another player.

LAW 16: During a Maul
11. Players must not:
a. Intentionally collapse a maul or jump on top of it.

LAW 19: During a scrum
23. A front-row player must not intentionally kick the ball out of the tunnel from the
direction it was thrown.

LAW 19: Dangerous Play and Restricted Practices in a Scrum
37. Dangerous play in a scrum includes :
c. Intentionally lifting an opponent off their feet or forcing them upwards out of the
scrum.
d. Intentionally collapsing a scrum.
e. Intentionally falling or kneeling.

LAW 20: Opposing Team at a Penalty or Free Kick
15. The opposing team may not do anything to delay the kick or obstruct the kicker, including intentionally taking, throwing or kicking the ball out of reach of the team awarded the penalty.
[/LAWS]

 

[Dickie E]

Intention based decision making is how it used to be, and it is still in the Laws of Rugby. You might be surprised to learn how often you are called upon to judge the intent of a player.... you make these calls dozens of times in every game without realising it.

yes, you're quite right. But CR is taking a mid-range YC offence into the lofty heights of heinous wickedness based solely on intent

 

[Ian_Cook]

yes, you're quite right. But CR is taking a mid-range YC offence into the lofty heights of heinous wickedness based solely on intent

Well, and no-one is more surprised than me about this, I agree with Crossref.

This was 100% premeditated. The Blue player lined up an opponent, charged at him at full speed, literally jumped shoulder first at him and delivered an extremely dangerous tackle, one that could easily have led to serious health consequences for the victim - the commentator rightly called this a potential career-ending tackle.

I find the idea that this should just be a YC to be obscene. There is something very wrong with the Laws of a Game in which a tackle like this only draws the same punishment as an intentional knock-on.

 

[crossref]

Well, and no-one is more surprised than me about this, I agree with Crossref.

This was 100% premeditated. The Blue player lined up an opponent, charged at him at full speed, literally jumped shoulder first at him and delivered an extremely dangerous tackle, one that could easily have led to serious health consequences for the victim - the commentator rightly called this a potential career-ending tackle.

I find the idea that this should just be a YC to be obscene. There is something very wrong with the Laws of a Game in which a tackle like this only draws the same punishment as an intentional knock-on.

Yes , that's exactly the way I see it
I am not surprised that Ian agrees. I am surprised that you don't all see it that way.

(and to boot .. and this is speculative, of course, I hazard a guess that he only had the nerve to do that because his victim was 15 kg lighter, bet he doesn't do that to people his own size)

 

[Zebra1922]

It’s tackle is a really good example of where blindly following a protocol does not work for all scenarios. Yes, contact is below the shoulders, yes there is (probably) a wrap, yes there is no tip tackle. This does not mean the tackle is not dangerous, it does not mean it is not worthy of a RC.

 

[Balones]

I think the consensus here on this forum is that the video shows a RC. At lower levels without a video I can certainly see the ‘offender’ getting off or having minimal sanction.
Was there head contact? - no.
Was there arm wrap? - yes
Any tip tackle? - no
Was it late? - Possibly but the player could argue that he was committed.
Was there an injury? - no

Ref - Why did you issue a RC? - ‘Because it looked dangerous’.

Based on this, what would you do if you were on the disciplinary committee? I wouldn’t be surprised to see a ‘RC’ enough result. Sadly.

 

[crossref]

Do we have consensus that it's a RC ?
I got the impression that is a minority view

 

[crossref]

Do we have consensus that it's a RC ?
I got the impression that is a minority view

Ref - Why did you issue a RC?
Because I saw player making a reckless and dangerous action disguised as a tackle.

 

[Dickie E]

Ryno Pieterse got 12 weeks:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/piet...-flying-hit-not-as-bad-as-was-feared-castres/

 

[Arabcheif]

I'm sorry but this kind of hit is EXACTLY the reason that a lot of people watch rugby for. Yes there's the All Black style of rugby which is at times simply mesmorising. But at the same time the people want to see bit rib busting hits. As long as they're not high or massively late. For me the issue is the size difference. But there's nothing in the LotG that states it's illegal to tackle someone smaller than you. His foot is on the ground 1 step away, which is what coached. The cylinder tackle bags that are available encourage that kind of tackle. For me the only 2 issues I'd have is 1. Was is late and 2. was it high. I don't think either of these is a yes. He was committed to the tackle, yes it was ferociously hard but IMO borderline fair with the caveats on lateness and height, if you judge it to be either then fair enough, high you're probs looking at a RC and if you think it's late I'd prob be looking at a YC. Rugby is inherently a dangerous sport. You can do nothing wrong and still come off seriously injured. I broke my arm taking the ball into a tackle. Had the ball in 2 arms across the top of my belly, tackler came in and hit my lower arm and it snapped. Does that mean that he wasn't in control and obviously because I broke my arm it was a dangerous tackle he deserved a RC? No. It was a perfectly legal tackle, I have no problem with it as the player that it happened to or as a ref. The same as the Ryno's tackle. Bit rough, tad bit late but was committed to the tackle and the height was on the chest.

 

[Flish]

I'm sorry but this kind of hit is EXACTLY the reason that a lot of people watch rugby for. Yes there's the All Black style of rugby which is at times simply mesmorising. But at the same time the people want to see bit rib busting hits. As long as they're not high or massively late. For me the issue is the size difference. But there's nothing in the LotG that states it's illegal to tackle someone smaller than you. His foot is on the ground 1 step away, which is what coached. The cylinder tackle bags that are available encourage that kind of tackle. For me the only 2 issues I'd have is 1. Was is late and 2. was it high. I don't think either of these is a yes. He was committed to the tackle, yes it was ferociously hard but IMO borderline fair with the caveats on lateness and height, if you judge it to be either then fair enough, high you're probs looking at a RC and if you think it's late I'd prob be looking at a YC. Rugby is inherently a dangerous sport. You can do nothing wrong and still come off seriously injured. I broke my arm taking the ball into a tackle. Had the ball in 2 arms across the top of my belly, tackler came in and hit my lower arm and it snapped. Does that mean that he wasn't in control and obviously because I broke my arm it was a dangerous tackle he deserved a RC? No. It was a perfectly legal tackle, I have no problem with it as the player that it happened to or as a ref. The same as the Ryno's tackle. Bit rough, tad bit late but was committed to the tackle and the height was on the chest.

Hmm, think you might need to look again or re-calibrate. If you want to hit hard, that hard then you need to execute it perfectly, timing, height, everything perfectly. He didn't (ball gone, both kickers feet off the ground, both the tacklers feet were off the ground so unable to change or adjust) that made it dangerous, therefore Red Card.

 

[Dickie E]

both the tacklers feet were off the ground

is that a thing?

 

[Flish]

is that a thing?

I think it is if you're considering recklessness, like joining a ruck, if you're feet are on the ground you have the ability to adjust / change direction / get out of the way, if you launch yourself superman style, feet off the ground you're done, committed, that's it - do that and make a legal, perfectly timed, safe tackle and good for you, but if something changes in front of you and you can't react then you could be in trouble

 

[KoolFork]

I think it is if you're considering recklessness, like joining a ruck, if you're feet are on the ground you have the ability to adjust / change direction / get out of the way, if you launch yourself superman style, feet off the ground you're done, committed, that's it - do that and make a legal, perfectly timed, safe tackle and good for you, but if something changes in front of you and you can't react then you could be in trouble

I think that's a good starting point (maybe not for a ruck where you are supposed to be on your feet when joining) for reckless play

 

[Flish]

I think that's a good starting point (maybe not for a ruck where you are supposed to be on your feet when joining) for reckless play

Tell the professionals that!

 

[Balones]

Assuming not regarded as late or high then there was nothing wrong in law other than perhaps tackling player in the air. But where do we draw the line. In my career I have been tackled numerous times while in mid-stride and not been in contact with the floor and done the same to others. I can’t understand why he left the ground to kick the ball. You get more drive/power/control by remaining in contact with the floor.
If the kicker had remained on the floor would the ‘offender’ have received a more lenient sentence? Do we now need to back out of charging a ball down in case the kicker leaves the floor at the last moment? Are kickers now going to be coached to jump into the air to see if they can milk a penalty?
What would we have said if he had actually charged the ball down and continued to have made contact like he did?
As I have said in a previous post, it is not something we want to see in the game if we want youngsters to be encouraged to come into the game by parents. But if we don’t want this sort of incident happening again we (WR) need to look closely at the laws that apply to these situations. Apart from when running and being lifted in a lineout feet must be on the ground at all times? Players must take into account size differentials when taking a particular action?

Guilty in the court of public opinion.

 

[Phil E]

Assuming not regarded as late or high then there was nothing wrong in law other than perhaps tackling player in the air. But where do we draw the line. In my career I have been tackled numerous times while in mid-stride and not been in contact with the floor and done the same to others. I can’t understand why he left the ground to kick the ball. You get more drive/power/control by remaining in contact with the floor.
If the kicker had remained on the floor would the ‘offender’ have received a more lenient sentence? Do we now need to back out of charging a ball down in case the kicker leaves the floor at the last moment? Are kickers now going to be coached to jump into the air to see if they can milk a penalty?
What would we have said if he had actually charged the ball down and continued to have made contact like he did?
As I have said in a previous post, it is not something we want to see in the game if we want youngsters to be encouraged to come into the game by parents. But if we don’t want this sort of incident happening again we (WR) need to look closely at the laws that apply to these situations. Apart from when running and being lifted in a lineout feet must be on the ground at all times? Players must take into account size differentials when taking a particular action?

Guilty in the court of public opinion.

There is no way anyone could seriously consider that a charge down. He targeted the man.