[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

[Jz558]

The coach is perfectly at liberty to refuse to replace the player, it is a suggestion only done to reduce tension in a game where no specific act of foul play has occured.

This conversation has just reminded me of one of the supervisors of my referees course who said he rarely took his cards to younger youth games. Reckoned he wasn’t much of a referee if he needed to use them at that age group. Not my position but each to his own.

 

[crossref]

For the incident in the OP
If you say nothing wrong with it, play on, I say that's wrong
If you say it's unacceptable and the appropriate action is a voluntary substitution, I say that's bottling it.

 

[Zebra1922]

For the incident in the OP
If you say nothing wrong with it, play on, I say that's wrong
If you say it's unacceptable and the appropriate action is a voluntary substitution, I say that's bottling it.

What specifically in the laws of the game is wrong with the tackle?

Then if you find an offence, reconsider this at adult level, is it still an offence?

 

[Flish]

It ended up being dangerous, which is an offence. Like jumping a tackler is not against the laws, but can be dangerous so may get sanctioned, like running into the space where the ball will land is not illegal, but if there’s a jumper landing in that space it could end being dangerous, and that gets sanctioned.

These incidents are often not preventable and the difference between play on and a red card can depend on subtle differences between one incident and another. It is dangerous though, and there is an offence for that.

 

[Rich_NL]

What specifically in the laws of the game is wrong with the tackle?

Then if you find an offence, reconsider this at adult level, is it still an offence?

For the first part, see my #72

What can be dangerous to a child need not be dangerous to an adult. What may be dangerous to a skinny 45-year-old woman playing her first match need not be dangerous to a man of 25 playing tighthead in a L6 match.

 

[crossref]

What specifically in the laws of the game is wrong with the tackle?

Then if you find an offence, reconsider this at adult level, is it still an offence?

It was dangerous and reckless

 

[Phil E]

It was dangerous and reckless

In your opinion. Not everyone agrees.

 

[crossref]

In your opinion. Not everyone agrees.

Well, obviously, that's why there are hundreds of posts all over here, Twitter and Facebook

 

[SimonSmith]

It ended up being dangerous, which is an offence.

I disagree.
Your argument is that if something ends up being dangerous it is an offence.
So by logic, if I attempt a tackle on an opponent and in falling down he breaks his leg, I should be penalized.

I don't think that's right.

We can't live in a world of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[crossref]

I disagree.
Your argument is that if something ends up being dangerous it is an offence.
So by logic, if I attempt a tackle on an opponent and in falling down he breaks his leg, I should be penalized.

I don't think that's right.

We can't live in a world of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

What if you are attempting to smash him as hard as possible when he's not expecting it, it works perfectly and you break his rib ?

 

[Flish]

I disagree.
Your argument is that if something ends up being dangerous it is an offence.
So by logic, if I attempt a tackle on an opponent and in falling down he breaks his leg, I should be penalized.

Well, it is! Law 9.11;

[LAWS]

• Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.
• [/LAWS]

However, being less of a pedant, as stated earlier in the thread things that end in injury aren't always dangerous. My mum fell and broke her leg, it happens, it wasn't dangerous, it was unfortunate. Many tackles end in injury, they are unfortunate, but not necessarily dangerous (else sanction). This one, IMO, by leaving the player landing on his neck (injured or not) was dangerous, someone landing on their neck is in danger.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

One of the best management tools in youth rugby is to ask the coach to remove the overexcited player and replace him with a teammate. This can be done for a mutually agreed length of time and is, not surprisingly, almost always looked on more favourably than carding a player. Strikes me this would be the perfect situation to employ that strategy. No offence actually committed just a pumped up kid who would benefit from a rest and a relieved coach because he still has 15 players on the field. For the most part the other team are happy also because the over exuberant player is off the field. The great thing is if the coach doesn’t agree you can still yellow card the player if you think it appropriate, sort of speak softly but don’t forget which pocket you left your big stick in.

If it really needs a card then you are bottling it. Let's say you sub the guys and he comes back on and lays a player out. How are you going to square that if it goes to court? Under cross examination you are asked why was the player not sent off the first time? In Age grade stuff I can see the argument for it When a player is "close to but not quite at a card" But a sending off offence is just that. I understand in England it may be different but here (Wales) if your offence warrants a card you can have one.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

This conversation has just reminded me of one of the supervisors of my referees course who said he rarely took his cards to younger youth games. Reckoned he wasn’t much of a referee if he needed to use them at that age group. Not my position but each to his own.

He sounds like the sort of ref who rarely uses cards because he take a perverse pleasure in not giving them. Cards are there as a tool to be used when required. He should aleays be perpared to send someone from the field if required to do so.

At youth and below, cards are more often the result of sudden "flare up" incidents. Nothing to do with how the game has been controlled.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It ended up being dangerous, which is an offence. Like jumping a tackler is not against the laws, but can be dangerous so may get sanctioned, like running into the space where the ball will land is not illegal, but if there’s a jumper landing in that space it could end being dangerous, and that gets sanctioned.

These incidents are often not preventable and the difference between play on and a red card can depend on subtle differences between one incident and another. It is dangerous though, and there is an offence for that.

No jumping a tackler is a reckless act. Jumping with out due care int oa space where someone is is reckless.


You do not referee by outcome (except for certain legislated instances).

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Ok here's another I aim a box kick that goes wrong and it hits an opponant in the face. He is knocked out. Dangerous play? If you really think it is then you are not suited to be involved in the sport!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

. This one, IMO, by leaving the player landing on his neck (injured or not) was dangerous, someone landing on their neck is in danger.

If the player had not been injured. Let's say he jut got up and continued in hte game supporting the new ball carrier would you have considered the tackle dangerous?

 

[OB..]

If you want proof that an injury does not necessarily imply dangerous, reckless or foul play, then remember the case of Danny Hearn. Playing for the East Midlands against the touring All Blacks, he tried to tackle Ian Macrae and got it wrong. Hearn ended up a with a broken neck.

 

[crossref]

Not quite sure why we are talking outcome

For me there is clear intent ..

 

[Pablo]

I disagree.
Your argument is that if something ends up being dangerous it is an offence.
So by logic, if I attempt a tackle on an opponent and in falling down he breaks his leg, I should be penalized.

I don't think that's right.

We can't live in a world of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Leaving aside the fact that I am DEEPLY upside that you responded to Flish, but not to my response to your ruck analogy extension... :sarc:

We all know that rugby, as a physical game, carries some inherent risks. And as such, accidents will happen, as I (and others) have said earlier. In a game I did a little over a year ago, two players slid on a very muddy pitch to collect a loose ball - there was a clash of heads, resulting in two concussions and a broken skull (seriously!)... yet nothing illegal had happened, it was just an accident. Nobody (including the guy with the broken skull) claimed that I should dish out penalties or cards because of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

But for all that a physical game carries inherent dangers, the rules are in place to mitigate those dangers as much as possible - and we largely do this by shaping how players choose to stop an opponent. Otherwise, we could all just go back to some sort of Shrove Tuesday / calcio antico free-for-all where anything and everything is OK.

What the player did in this video was dangerous because his choice of tackling technique placed the ball carrier neck first onto the ground with force. While 9.18 specifically includes the word "lift", we can see from the way contact with jumpers in the air, etc. are treated, that causing a player to land on head/neck is viewed as dangerous in general (rightly IMHO). I therefore conclude that this tackle was dangerous, and hence liable to penalty under 9.11 or 9.13, take your pick.

As I said earlier, we should be creating an environment where players make the safer choice within the scope of the laws. He could have stopped the attack with a safer tackle, but chose not to do so.

Safety >> Equity >> Law

 

[Pablo]

If the player had not been injured. Let's say he jut got up and continued in hte game supporting the new ball carrier would you have considered the tackle dangerous?

Yes. The tackle was dangerous, regardless of injury or outcome. Had the ball carrier walked away unscathed, I would have considered him lucky... but would still have viewed the tackle as illegal.