[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

[thepercy]

Not quite sure why we are talking outcome

For me there is clear intent ..

So if you think this is a dangerous tackle, does it go something like this?

Peep. "You're too big, and that boy you tackled was small. You shouldn't be tackling at full speed, you should have known better than try to use your physical attributes in a game of rugby." RC "Off you go."

 

[Pablo]

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!

(my bolding of your words)

Your comparison is invalid. If it's something that goes wrong, then it's an accident, not a choice.

A better analogy would be if a player aimed a box kick deliberately at someone's face. Now, I don't know any players who are actually skillful enough to do that(!), so maybe we dial it down to a line-out style throw into the face of someone standing too close to defend themselves. I guess that's possible, a ball is heavy enough that it could certainly break someone's nose, if not knock them out.

If I ever saw a player using the ball (or anything else) as a weapon to injure an opponent, then I would penalise and card them, yes.
(All caveats about judging intent aside, I think it would be pretty clear whether something was a legitimate pass attempt or a chuck-in-the-face.)

 

[Flish]

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, he landed on his neck, that's dangerous!

 

[Pablo]

So if you think this is a dangerous tackle, does it go something like this?

Peep. "You're too big, and that boy you tackled was small. You shouldn't be tackling at full speed, you should have known better than try to use your physical attributes in a game of rugby." RC "Off you go."

Another straw man. Nobody is saying that. Try addressing the actual argument.

 

[thepercy]

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

I'd hardly expect a player with a head injury to be quoting Latin axioms.:bday:

So we use head contact with ground as a guideline in certain situations, lifting tackles, and players who's feet are off the ground, so we should extend that to other parts of the game were otherwise legal actions are taken? I disagree.

 

[thepercy]

Another straw man. Nobody is saying that. Try addressing the actual argument.

For me:

It wasn't late,
it wasn't high,
it wasn't a charge,
there wasn't a lift,
the BC's feet were on the ground,
since there wasn't a lift and the players feet were on the ground at time of tackle,
we do not consider the landing outcome.

I do not think the tackler did anything outside the letter and spirit of the laws. I think the only thing he is guilty of is being big, strong and fast.

If you think its generically dangerous, then you are essentially saying that he was too big, too strong, too fast of a man, and he should have known better to tackle such a small boy so hard. If he had tackle in the same way against a bigger BC, then the BCers hips wouldn't have rotated around and his head would not have contacted the ground.

 

[Rich_NL]

So if you think this is a dangerous tackle, does it go something like this?

Peep. "You're too big, and that boy you tackled was small. You shouldn't be tackling at full speed, you should have known better than try to use your physical attributes in a game of rugby." RC "Off you go."

If you don't consider it dangerous, does it go something like this?

"You're not physically suited to play rugby, it's your problem for wanting to play in the first place, that'll teach you - play on!"

Misrepresenting the other's argument (after over 100 posts) really contributes nothing to the thread.

 

[crossref]

So if you think this is a dangerous tackle, does it go something like this?

Peep. "You're too big, and that boy you tackled was small. You shouldn't be tackling at full speed, you should have known better than try to use your physical attributes in a game of rugby." RC "Off you go."

No, more along the lines of
..it was after the ball had gone
..it was edging high
..it was reckless
..it was dangerous
.. he landed on his head

 

[Rich_NL]

If you think its generically dangerous, then you are essentially saying that he was too big, too strong, too fast of a man, and he should have known better to tackle such a small boy so hard.

"Reckless" is an act that the player should have known would be likely to be dangerous.

 

[thepercy]

If you don't consider it dangerous, does it go something like this?

"You're not physically suited to play rugby, it's your problem for wanting to play in the first place, that'll teach you - play on!"

Misrepresenting the other's argument (after over 100 posts) really contributes nothing to the thread.

Not quite how I'd do it.

Peep. "Time off. Medic!" "Do you suspect a head injury? Yes? OK, then off he goes. Bring the sub on." "Captains, we stopped for safety due to an potential serious injury, we will restart with a scrum to White, they were last team to have possession." White Captain: "No PK or Card, wasn't that foul play, he landed on his head." "I understand what you're saying, but not for me, there was no lift, it wasn't late as he was committed, he attempted to wrap. Just an unfortunate accident." White Captain "OK, fair enough."

 

[SimonSmith]

OK, I'll bite, but only because it's you



Rose-tinted spectacles, I feel. Here are a couple of "old-school rucks":
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/31641675
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/2sq7yp/gif_brutal_oldschool_rucking/
https://twitter.com/JamieWall2/status/683869993851748352

There are as many, if not more, bodies on the ground as we have in rucks today. All the indulgence of "old-school rucking" achieves is an increased risk of injury; it in no way speeds up or tidies up the game. I am (just about) old enough to have played schoolboy rugby during the "old-school rucking" era, and remember a time when flankers weren't considered to have done their job properly unless they left the field with a fine collection of studmarks. If the aim was to deter players from lying over the ball illegally, it didn't work - not in showbiz, not for schoolboys. Anybody who claims a return to "old-school rucking" would improve the game is kidding themselves.

I disagree. I think it is perfectly possible to bring back "old school rucking" (called it Telfer rucking) where the whole point is to generate forward movement and quick ball, without worrying about people using their for nefarious ends.
The current situation is indicative of the baby having gone out with the bathwater, and that's not usually a good thing. There were countries who built a forward strategy around a rucking strategy and not a maul - Scotland and New Zealand being prime example.

That's your opinion. For my part, I don't agree - but if I did, I would consider it the lesser of two evils against the unedifying sight of players being liberally stamped on and leaving the pitch bleeding. And I now double down on this as a parent of kids at the start of their rugby career. I don't want them playing a sport that allows players to take the Law into their own hands at the expense of an opponent's safety.

I'm not sure that anyone is advocating that. We are disagreeing about the legality of a tackle.

No - I'm suggesting we take a sensible stance on acceptable vs. unacceptable risks in order to make the game as safe as practicably possible. Encouraging players to choose a safe tackling technique is part of this. I have no doubt that the player in the video could have just as effectively stopped the opposition attack with a safe tackle; he chose not to do so.

I delayed my reply to you because I was thinking about it and not knee jerking. Honest.

Rugby is about balancing risk factors. I was very undersized until I started to develop muscle when I started weight training. Nonetheless, I was never a "big" kid. My parents were happy to let me play rugby with all the risks that went along with it. I enjoyed the physicality of the sport and especially taking on big kids.

If we take your general approach to its logical extreme, we end reducing the game to it's lowest common denominator in terms of risk and size. We are telling the big kid that he can't use his bulk and power to best effect because smaller kids are at higher risk. I don't believe that the inputs into the tackle were reckless or dangerous; the outcome was unfortunate, but he didn't break any laws in getting to that point.
I think there is a second factor as well: at what stage do the smaller and/or weaker kids have to realize that in real life, 'grown up rugby', it's a full contact sport and they won't be as protected as they were when they were younger?

 

[crossref]

Lots of things (most things?) don't work if taken to logical extremes .. it's better to focus on the example we have.

Was that a perfectly normal tackle we'd be perfectly happy to see happen again and again in this game?

Or was it just one player deliberately setting out to hurt another ?

 

[Jz558]

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.

Wasn’t there a thread on here a while ago about professional referees judging their performance by how few penalties they awarded during a game? What’s the difference?

This has been a really interesting thread if only because I’ve thought about cards and discipline in youth fixtures. I reckon I’ve reffed about 15-20 youth games this season from U14-U18s and if I’ve issued 5 yellow cards all season I’d be surprised. Since I qualified I’ve only issued 2 yellow cards in a game once and only sent one a player off. Then, just as I was thinking that maybe I was some sort of card issuing dodger I remembered that the U16 team I coached last year had one yellow card all season, which I think was the first card we’d ever had in youth rugby.

The point I’m making (maybe badly) is that of course cards should be used but this isn’t telly rugby, or even senior 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] team stuff. These kids genuinely want to play and whilst they aren’t shy of a flare up, they do make the odd testosterone fuelled mistake but, largely the word from above has filtered down and a proper punch/head butt is rare, gouging is unheard of and most of them wouldn’t know what a rake was even if you showed them footage of a 1970’s Welsh ruck

 

[thepercy]

Lots of things (most things?) don't work if taken to logical extremes .. it's better to focus on the example we have.

Was that a perfectly normal tackle we'd be perfectly happy to see happen again and again in this game?

Or was it just one player deliberately setting out to hurt another ?

Maybe somewhere in between.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Wasn’t there a thread on here a while ago about professional referees judging their performance by how few penalties they awarded during a game? What’s the difference?

As ever it is about context - what is behind the figures. If a ref is keeping his couny down by ignoring the need for penalties then he is missing the point.n the other hand. if he sets his stall out early and manages the game well the players are less likely to offend.

 

[rugbyslave]

Not quite sure why we are talking outcome

For me there is clear intent ..

I brought up this argument on the referee blog and the referees say that no where does the law book say they must take intent into consideration, so that was blown out the water. World rugby actually say that a referee and citing commisioner may not take intent into consideration. I think the referee on the day did a good job he had one look and made a descision. If the referees allow tackles like this to go unpunished in U14 we will run out of youngsters taking up the game. Parents will not allow their boys or girls to play rugby.

 

[crossref]

That's a myth, it's all over the law book (down load the pdf and word search for intent)

we take intent into account all the time..

 

[L'irlandais]

The word intent appears around 39 times in the LoTG. Admittedly some of those occurrences are within words like unintentional or following the word not (intentionally). The WR guidance, says not to take intent into account on high tackles. So just because a tackler intended to go below the shoulders, isn’t enough to avoid a card if he subsequently tears the head off the ball carrier. Dangerous, is dangerous, regardless of intent.
[LAWS]Law Application Guidelines
Dangerous tackles (high tackles)
Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle.[/LAWS]Players must not intentionally offend, for example. Deliberate is a synonym for intent, as in deliberate knock-on, is intentionally knocking the ball on.

Deliberate appears 7 times plus a couple of guidance mentions:
[LAWS]Law Application Guidelines
Enforcement of current Law
Every time the head or the neck is deliberately grabbed or choked, the offending player runs the risk of receiving a yellow or red card[/LAWS]If a player intentionally chokes an opponent in a maul you must take that into account and consider carding the offending player.

 

[Cross]

After reading all these posts i feel like i am about to ask something very silly.
I could swear i've heard refs say a million times that once the tackled player is lifted from the ground by the tackler, it is the tackler's responsibility for how the tackled player lands. In this case the tackled player lands on his head, with force and it was the tackler's intention to bend him like a twig with and, in the very best of cases, just disregard how he could land.

How is that not a red card?

I don't buy the fact the tackled player lands on his head as being the tacklers responsibility.

Then who is responsible? I cant fathom the idea of someone considering the outcome of that collision and "accident".

 

[Marc Wakeham]

After reading all these posts i feel like i am about to ask something very silly.
I could swear i've heard refs say a million times that once the tackled player is lifted from the ground by the tackler, it is the tackler's responsibility for how the tackled player lands.

This is important:

He did not lift him. So, that does not apply. He drives through him.