[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
I was asking ‘what if’ he had been and ended up making that sort of contact during a charge down. I didn’t mean to suggest that he was trying that on this occasion. Sorry for any confusion.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I was asking ‘what if’ he had been and ended up making that sort of contact during a charge down. I didn’t mean to suggest that he was trying that on this occasion. Sorry for any confusion.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,479
Solutions
1
Post Likes
439
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
If the SH had not been off the ground his head would have been taken off by that.

Anyway Pietersea pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. Or at least he couldn't find an expert witness' evidence to dispute the charge.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Feet on the ground cannot be a requirement, since running necessarily involves having both feet off the ground.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,336
Post Likes
1,440
If the SH had not been off the ground his head would have been taken off by that.

Anyway Pietersea pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. Or at least he couldn't find an expert witness' evidence to dispute the charge.

He obviously got good advice. "If you fight and lose, oit's 24 weeks. Cop a plea and 'only' get 12"

You can argue the legality all you like. But the 24 weeks is just ridiuclous as a starting point
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
If the SH had not been off the ground his head would have been taken off by that.

Anyway Pietersea pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. Or at least he couldn't find an expert witness' evidence to dispute the charge.


If, if, if.... To my knowledge we don't ref by ifs. IF he had made head contact then absolutely, red card offence and a ban. But he didn't, he tackled a player in the act of kicking. The ball had literally just left the foot so we generally consider the timing for that fine. The height for me, was fine... the point of contact was (just) below the shoulder line. The only issue is the severity of the hit and the size difference. And for me there's nothing written in the Laws that justifies either a ban or a RC in the first instance. If you judge it to be high, that's fine... if you judge it to be massively late, again that's fine, then yes RC for this. But I don't.

Are we going to start insisting that tackles are made gently now? Does that mean the runners need to collide gently too? Sure the act of creating a collision is a dangerous act, so let's start Red carding everyone. We've had a kick in the face overturned and this border line tackle (timing/height), given a lengthy ban. Just seems nuts to me that I can put my foot up and make contact with a player's face but not make a very hard tackle.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
[LAWS]Law 9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others[/LAWS]

As already explained, individually, you may be correct, no one component is against a specific law, but the sum of all the parts, the height, the level of control, the kickers position, the force of the hit and any other factors you want to include make it dangerous - which is very clearly covered in law.
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
[LAWS]Law 9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others[/LAWS]

As already explained, individually, you may be correct, no one component is against a specific law, but the sum of all the parts, the height, the level of control, the kickers position, the force of the hit and any other factors you want to include make it dangerous - which is very clearly covered in law.


Fair enough, so we're gonna red card ball carriers for running into tacklers too?? After all they do run at speed and can't possibly be in control. So this is also against 9.11.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Fair enough, so we're gonna red card ball carriers for running into tacklers too?? After all they do run at speed and can't possibly be in control. So this is also against 9.11.


Either I'm missing something obvious or you're being daft at this point? I may not be the most agile person in the world, and my brakes definitely are insufficient for my mass, but generally I feel in control whilst running:shrug:
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
So what you're saying is someone like LRZ can run at full speed and stop immediately? The point is if you're running at full speed, one can't stop or change direction immediately. You need either space to significantly change direction or you need to slow down to significantly change direction. The act of causing a collision when you're running a speed is dangerous to both the tackler and the ball carrier. Meaning that as a ball carrier if you go into contact at speed, this could be argued to be a contravention to Law 9.11.

I'm not suggesting for a minute it is, I'm pointing out that there is a disparity between the force that you're saying a tackler can hit compared to the force that a ball carrier can hit with. If as a ball carrier you run into contact and the tackler gets knocked 5 meters backwards, "we" applaud it. This is essentially what's happened in both the original School boy video and the Ryno video, but with the opposite. We're talking that there's something wrong with both of them. But yet if the big fellas had the ball and ran into the smaller players, with the ball then not an eye lid will have been batted. But both are equally "dangerous" but one we're vilifying and one get actively encouraged.

So if we're going to be penalising tacklers for hitting too hard, we need to do the same with ball carriers. Personally, I think its totally ridiculous to do that but it unfair to say that a BC can hit a tackler without limits (within the normal caveats of not leading with the elbow etc) but in the next breath limiting how hard a tackler can hit because it dangerous. BOTH acts are inherently dangerous, so if you clamp down on one, you need to clamp down on the other (under Law 9.11)
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
716
Post Likes
233
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I like some of the arguments you are making Arabcheif, I just don’t think they apply in this instance. It was a dangerous ‘tackle’. For me it was more akin to a shoulder charge than a tackle. I didn’t see any clear wrap, it was dangerous therefore worthy of a RC.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
You're the one that introduced the ball carrier, and I'm pretty sure they shouldn't be 'hitting' anyone, a ball carrier can hand off an opponent, but even then that must be without 'excessive force' as defined in law, but again, ignoring that specific, stand alone law, if a ball carrier does anything, or the sum of all their actions (in exactly the same way as the tackler here) does anything that's deemed dangerous then the same law applies. Find me an example of a ball carrier performing an act as dangerous as the tackler here and I'll tell you what my reaction would be.

Dangerous is dangerous, it's the catch all law that allows us to be sensible, and sanction dangerous play - whoever you are.
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I like some of the arguments you are making Arabcheif, I just don’t think they apply in this instance. It was a dangerous ‘tackle’. For me it was more akin to a shoulder charge than a tackle. I didn’t see any clear wrap, it was dangerous therefore worthy of a RC.


That's fair enough, I've seen folks saying they seen a wrap, personally I'm not so sure about that. But the issue that most on the forum seem to have is either the timing or force used. I've no issue with either of those. Like I said before IF you judge it's high and you see head contact, yes is def a RC. If you judge it too be late then again it's fine for a red card. But if not, then there shouldn't really be an issue with how much force

Flish - Basically look at any 1 on 1 situation where a player has had open space in front of him/her and then has had a full back to beat and runs into the FB to run through him/her. A kick has went way long to gain territory and the FB has 20m or so to accelerate to full speed and runs into contact. That's more force than pretty much any tackle I've ever seen. But I dare say you'd never give a Pen or a card for Law 9.11. Notwithstanding the caveats of not handing off dangerously, or leading with the elbow etc. Neither would I TBH as it seems ludicrous to do that.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Flish - Basically look at any 1 on 1 situation where a player has had open space in front of him/her and then has had a full back to beat and runs into the FB to run through him/her. A kick has went way long to gain territory and the FB has 20m or so to accelerate to full speed and runs into contact. That's more force than pretty much any tackle I've ever seen. But I dare say you'd never give a Pen or a card for Law 9.11. Notwithstanding the caveats of not handing off dangerously, or leading with the elbow etc. Neither would I TBH as it seems ludicrous to do that.

I would have to see it and judge on it's merits, but as described it sounds like a fair contest, and accidents happen, once someone starts sliding in with boots, elbows leading, starts jumping then all the dynamics change
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I would have to see it and judge on it's merits, but as described it sounds like a fair contest, and accidents happen, once someone starts sliding in with boots, elbows leading, starts jumping then all the dynamics change


But the act of running into someone at speed is inherently dangerous. You've said that we want to eradicate dangerous behaviours. All I'm saying is that if we're doing this for the tackler, we need to do the same for Ball Carriers. I'm perfectly happy with hard tackles, I'm perfectly happy with ball carriers running into contact a speed. I'm just trying to establish what the issue with the tackle is. It seems the issue is the force used in the tackle combined with the size difference, am I right? If not, what is the issue?
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I'm just trying to establish what the issue with the tackle is

The issue has been explained from many view points, over and over, you disagree, or don't want to agree, not sure which. Maybe go back and have a re-read, if you still think that's ok then :shrug:
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
So all you've really stated is that it was dangerous. Please tell me, exactly what about it is dangerous. You've not laid out the conditions for this dangerous play.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
So all you've really stated is that it was dangerous. Please tell me, exactly what about it is dangerous. You've not laid out the conditions for this dangerous play.

:deadhorse::shrug:
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
:deadhorse::shrug:

I hope you're not a ref coach. I'm a relatively new ref, I'm trying to understand why you feel it is dangerous. You seem to either not know why it's dangerous, unable to explain to me why its dangerous or are unwilling to explain to me why its dangerous. I've asked a few times and you've now replied with the above. If you say something is dangerous, you need to qualify with why it's dangerous so that people understand your position. Also, as per you suggestion that I recalibrate, I'm asking for help to do this. How can I do that without understanding where you stand specifically why this is dangerous. If you tell me something is dangerous but not tell me what about a scenario is dangerous I will do 1 of 2 things.....

1. Ignore you, as you've not given me full feedback to fully understand your point of view.

or

2. Apply the same principles you've stated to all scenarios, so when a BC runs into contact, will judge this based on force. So if they break the tackle that's "dangerous," because you've not given me the required feedback to properly apply your view of what is dangerous.

So, I'll try this 1 more time. What makes this tackle dangerous. Is it-

1. The level of force used
2. The tackle was against a smaller player
3. The timing
4. The height
5. A combination of 2 or more of the above (please specify which ones).
 
Top