[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

It could be worse - they could have both been wearing leggings!

 

[Zebra1922]

For me (based on the short clip) the "tackler" was not attempting a tackle. I don't see a genuine tackle gone wrong.

I see on player, recklessly and dangerously, trying his best to hurt another player. Disguising it as a tackle

What do you see ? What's you best guess as to his intention? (and of course it is a guess, as is mine )

In that case 9.11 is appropriate application, as long as this is based on the ‘tackle’ or in your view lack thereof, rather than the outcome. FWIW I agree there was greater force than required and an attempt for this to be a big impact to make a point, I just don’t see that as unlawful.

what do you do in adult rugby when things get heated and tackles become very hard but fair, but where there is a clear intent not just to tackle but to smack the oppo as hard as possible. Still 9.11? In which case you must have a lot of penalties under this law.

 

[didds]

Helpful....

Going back to the tackle, if the tackled player had not landed on his head, would the tackle have been illegal? if so, why?

why is it illegal merely because he lands on his head? You can tackle somebody round their knees and they end up hiting the ground with their head first - or even hard as a secondary impact after shoulder/hip has hit etc

 

[Zebra1922]

why is it illegal merely because he lands on his head? You can tackle somebody round their knees and they end up hiting the ground with their head first - or even hard as a secondary impact after shoulder/hip has hit etc

I was asking the question to those that are refereeing this based on the outcome rather than the action. If you penalise as you believe it is high or late I disagree but understand your interpretation. If you penalise based on the tackle being dangerous due to the outcome, I disagree with the interpretation. My point being it is either dangerous regardless of the outcome (so landing on his head is irrelevant) or you deem it dangerous because he landed on his head, which in my view is a misinterpretation of the law.

 

[crossref]

I was asking the question to those that are refereeing this based on the outcome rather than the action. If you penalise as you believe it is high or late I disagree but understand your interpretation. If you penalise based on the tackle being dangerous due to the outcome, I disagree with the interpretation. My point being it is either dangerous regardless of the outcome (so landing on his head is irrelevant) or you deem it dangerous because he landed on his head, which in my view is a misinterpretation of the law.

Who is it that is refereeing this way, who you are addressing this question to ?

I think you are attacking a straw man ?

 

[Zebra1922]

Who is it that is refereeing this way, who you are addressing this question to ?

I think you are attacking a straw man ?

Possibly, its a looooong thread. But I recall multiple postings penalising on outcome, which I thought was incorrect for a legal tackle. I am trying to understand those who penalise on outcomes reasoning in law.

 

[menace]

IMO - anyone who wants to use 9.11 to sanction this is doing so on the outcome - even though they will, and have, repeatedly denied it.
But I can understand that cause if they keep saying it out loud enough times they'll eventually believe it! (and maybe convince someone else to believe it!)

I would bet my left nut that if the small kid didn't look like a frog in a blender, nor make heavy contact with the ground and didn't get injured then a vast majority of the 9.11er's would have simply played on and did nothing about it.

 

[Rich_NL]

I can speculate about the rational shortcomings of either side, but it doesn't advance discussion much, does it?

How do you assess whether a tackler exercised their responsibility to bring the BC to the ground safely (for example) without looking at outcome?

 

[Jz558]

How do you assess whether a tackler exercised their responsibility to bring the BC to the ground safely (for example) without looking at outcome?[/QUOTE]

The sanction is the same though for a tackler who drops a player rather than returning him to the ground regardless of the degree of injury to the tackled player ie I would issue the same card to the tackler whether he injured the player or not. Action not outcome.

I may well decide at some point that an action was reckless but again would not base that on outcome. I’ve penalised no arms entries into rucks numerous times but that isn’t dependent on any injury to the player who takes the impact rather the action of the player charging the ruck.

I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that a tackler is only responsible for bringing the BC to ground safely if he lifts the player off his feet and no such laid down responsibility exists in what we term a 'normal' tackle.

 

[Flish]

I think people who say they don't judge on outcome are kidding themselves, they may not want to (nor do I) but we do, we are humans, the players are humans, the spectators who react are humans. If a 'legal' tackle results in a dangerous position or injury we are in a position of 'this is not a good outcome' and are more likely, c/o human nature, to steer towards a negative reaction, potentially a samnction in our case - whether it's a conscious thought or not. Couple that with the one look we get from whatever angle we happen to be at it will influence our decision - up to you whether you'll admit to human nature or pretend that you're awesome robots that can filter all this out and make the 'right' decision every time!

The discussion has been interesting I'll admit, and I've mentally flip flopped back and forth on this, can't be honest as to what I'd do until it happened in front of me, but ultimately it's a kids game so would expect everyone to take a better safe than sorry approach, so those not doing that would need to be sanctioned in some way and players protected.

 

[Flish]

I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that a tackler is only responsible for bringing the BC to ground safely if he lifts the player off his feet and no such laid down responsibility exists in what we term a 'normal' tackle.

The tackler is responsible for not doing anything dangerous, talk of lifts and back to ground is only a very specific tackle attempt / scenario, there's many ways a tackle attempt can be dangerous (lifting, throwing, swinging, pushing, high for starters) none of them are allowed.

 

[Rich_NL]

Exactly, the lift tackle outcome is only used to determine card sanction. All players are responsible for the safety towards others of their play.

Incidentally, I have no idea whether the tackled player in the video was injured or not.

 

[crossref]

He went in with an intention (to tackle or to smash)
There are several outcomes

Outcome 1 .. he smashes him after ball has gone with/ without arms high / not high
Outcome 2 .. player lands on his head / shoulder / whatevrr
Outcome 3 .. player is injured seriously/minor/not at all

I am certainly taking account of outcome 1
But not 2 or 3

I do note that our RC report forms ask us to state outcomes..

 

[SimonSmith]

Your use of "smash" betrays your view. You may use "smash"; others would say "tackle legally" with force. And as a side note, there is nothing wrong with someone "smashing" someone else

 

[crossref]

I agree , that's why i said tackle / smash etc.

Clearly judgement is called for and clearly opinions differ .. which is why it's such a viral clip

Hint . why is it viral ?
Because it's not just any old everyday legal tackle .. is it ?

 

[Jz558]

It definitely isn’t any old everyday tackle. He’s absolutely nailed it, brilliant technique with an unfortunate outcome. In adult telly rugby we would be absolutely lauding it and admiring his skill set. Remember the “is it illegal to tackle Dan Carter” tackle. But I agree, I don’t want to see U15s going at each other for 70 minutes in the same vain with the potential for serious injury. But here’s the news, they do! So we manage it.

Why is it viral? Like most posts, it is spread by people who don’t understand what they are seeing or who get a kick out of the outcome. Lets not confuse popularity with intelligent comment. I would never criticise a referee who decided this was dangerous and awarded a sanction against the tackler even though I might diasgree.

 

[mcroker]

I agree - I fall on the penalise it side of the debate (for me PK+YC) because I think that is the best outcome for all concerned to improve tackle technique in the youth game and reduce hits like that. It’s dangerous (and I don’t think anybody is arguing to the contrary) and has enough justification in law to penalise be it due to the dangerous nature, lateness etc. I also think failing to penalise will be flash-point.

I fully understand why some view it as marginally legal, great hit - play on. I just don’t agree.

 

[Phil E]

I agree - I fall on the penalise it side of the debate (for me PK+YC) because I think that is the best outcome for all concerned to improve tackle technique in the youth game and reduce hits like that.
I fully understand why some view it as marginally legal, great hit - play on. I just don’t agree.

Is marginally legal like being marginally pregnant?
It’s either legal or it isn’t.
I see a perfectly legal tackle with an unfortunate outcome.
I don’t see how you could improve on that tackle technique and I definitely don’t want to reduce hits, if you want to reduce hits play tag.

 

[Zebra1922]

I agree - I fall on the penalise it side of the debate (for me PK+YC) because I think that is the best outcome for all concerned to improve tackle technique in the youth game and reduce hits like that. It’s dangerous (and I don’t think anybody is arguing to the contrary) and has enough justification in law to penalise be it due to the dangerous nature, lateness etc. I also think failing to penalise will be flash-point.

I fully understand why some view it as marginally legal, great hit - play on. I just don’t agree.

i agree with most of this except the dangerous part, unless you’re saying rugby per se and all tackles are dangerous, in which case I agree.

good points recently made about the fine lines between legal/illegal and the opposing, but broadly justifiable views on this thread. Just shows how difficult this game is to referee and a lot of your success is down to management and communication. For exam0le if I chose not to penalise this I’d certainly be giving a short explanation to the oppo captain and the next opportunity, and possibly speaking to the big lad and asking (though not requiring) if he could tone it down. Note I wouldn’t do the latter in an adult game but believe it’s appropriate at junior levels.

 

[crossref]

In general, if you think something is *dangerous* .. then I think it probably deserves more than a talking to ?