[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

[Flish]

I've penalised pushing in youth games as excessive before now, it's all about context, but that looks wrong, contact point was high (but possibly not illegal - shoulder to shoulder maybe, could be a high tackle depending on age grade if in the UK), but a 'high on the body' tackle with force will increase the likely hood to tipping a player over which would be reckless for me.

Safety first

 

[frenchie851]

I'm willing to put my neck on the line here..... There is no way I am sending someone off for that on a Saturday.

I defy anyone could day that is a def red at first time of seeing it, at full speed and without replays.

 

[crossref]

I'm willing to put my neck on the line here..... There is no way I am sending someone off for that on a Saturday.
.

What would you do on a Sunday
As this is a age group game

 

[mcroker]

For me this is dangerous play, even if unintentional...

 

[menace]

For me this is dangerous play, even if unintentional...

Stats has shown that the most injuries occur at the tackle phase.
We can therefore induce that in a collision/contact sport like rugby that tackling alone is, by it's very nature, dangerous. Every tackle is potentially dangerous. (Sh!t will happen). Even the tackler gets a big face full of earth!

We need to distil what was done illegal before handing out sanctions.

Don't get me wrong - I empathise, no, sympathise with the poor kid flattened BUT what was the bit that was illegal for the tackler? Being too big? Being too strong? Being too fast? I don't think I read anywhere where, in a game "for all sizes", that they are illegal?

Was it high? No.
Did he grasp? Yes.
Did he dive torpedo style? The footage for me isn't that conclusive - and is it illegal to 'dive' (it is into a ruck without binding...but this is a tackle).

I'm really struggling to see where it is illegal - as cringing as it is to watch (especially as I have a small 14yo that is up against giants like those in the clip! - So yeah - I worry! Note to son: pass the f@cking ball quickly!)

 

[Dickie E]

I'm OK with the hit itself. I think the tackler had the opportunity to pull out so I'm going with late.

 

[menace]

I'm OK with the hit itself. I think the tackler had the opportunity to pull out so I'm going with late.

I don't have the exact timings - but I'm guessing he'd need to have the reaction skills of a F1 driver to change his action once committed at that speed.

But that would be a hell of a lot easier to sell as your "sympathy call" than anything else!

 

[crossref]

Stats has shown that the most injuries occur at the tackle phase.
We can therefore induce that in a collision/contact sport like rugby that tackling alone is, by it's very nature, dangerous. Every tackle is potentially dangerous. (Sh!t will happen). Even the tackler gets a big face full of earth!

We need to distil what was done illegal before handing out sanctions.

Don't get me wrong - I empathise, no, sympathise with the poor kid flattened BUT what was the bit that was illegal for the tackler? Being too big? Being too strong? Being too fast? I don't think I read anywhere where, in a game "for all sizes", that they are illegal?

Was it high? No.
Did he grasp? Yes.
Did he dive torpedo style? The footage for me isn't that conclusive - and is it illegal to 'dive' (it is into a ruck without binding...but this is a tackle).

I'm really struggling to see where it is illegal - as cringing as it is to watch (especially as I have a small 14yo that is up against giants like those in the clip! - So yeah - I worry! Note to son: pass the f@cking ball quickly!)

But lifting our heads from the Law Book, if that's legal and normal in age grade rugby then over time that would spell the end of age grade rugby..

 

[mcroker]

For me he lifts him above the horizontal - perhaps unintentionally as a result of hitting him back so hard, but irrespective of intent the tackled players hips go well above shoulder and then head hits floor.

PK
At least a yellow, possibly a red

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The force of the tackle takes his feet above the horizontal not the tackler.

 

[Flish]

We need a time machine, some call it judge on outcome, but he lands on head and neck, that's dangerous. Anything that is dangerous is against the laws, hence it's sanctionable.

Do I have some sympathy with the tackler? Yes, there's no one thing that creates this outcome, but the tackle is borderline in timing, height, and arguably appropriate force for player size and age. The sum of all those parts creates a dangerous outcome - especially in youth rugby, so it needs to be sanctioned.

For the record I don't like judging on outcome, but we have had many, many incidents (eg contact in the air) where outcome has led the sanction as opposed to the force / contact point / intention - so here we are, need to be consistent.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

... he lands on head and neck, that's dangerous. Anything that is dangerous is against the laws, hence it's sanctionable.

Winger sprints towards the goal line. Defender approaches so winger tries to side-step him. Winger falls tearing tendons as a result.

Play was, by the above definition, "dangerous". So whick player was "guilty" of "dangerous play"? The would be tackler or the player side-stepping?

Answer? Neither, it is just one of those things. There is an inherrent danger in rugby union. Players can't be held to account for things outside their control.

That is not to say that in this incident play was not dangerous. But an action does not become "sanctionably dangerous" just because a player was injured.

 

[menace]

But lifting our heads from the Law Book, if that's legal and normal in age grade rugby then over time that would spell the end of age grade rugby..

You lift your head from the law book?! Is that possible? :biggrin:

Penalising and carding actions that didnt break a law is just as bad. We cant be incorrectly and injustly penalising players because the unions havent pulled their heads out of their @sses to address the issues.

Fortunately our union has seen the issue and started addressing by allowing either hulky kids or slight kids to play up/down age groups more akin to their peers sizes (with consultation and agreement with their parents).

 

[menace]

For me he lifts him above the horizontal - perhaps unintentionally as a result of hitting him back so hard, but irrespective of intent the tackled players hips go well above shoulder and then head hits floor.

PK
At least a yellow, possibly a red

You cannot equate mass x speed equalling momentum as a "lifting" action and then applying "lifting tackle" protocols. Imo that's unjust to the tackler.

 

[Flish]

That is not to say that in this incident play was not dangerous. But an action does not become "sanctionably dangerous" just because a player was injured.

Yet that's the picture we're led down in many of the player in the air Citings / TMO reviews which in other games are play on 'rugby incident' the difference being in the latter no one got hurt or landed dangerously.

So which is it?

 

[crossref]

You lift your head from the law book?! Is that possible? :biggrin:

Penalising and carding actions that didnt break a law is just as bad. We cant be incorrectly and injustly penalising players because the unions havent pulled their heads out of their @sses to address the issues.

Fortunately our union has seen the issue and started addressing by allowing either hulky kids or slight kids to play up/down age groups more akin to their peers sizes (with consultation and agreement with their parents).

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=10

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yet that's the picture we're led down in many of the player in the air Citings / TMO reviews which in other games are play on 'rugby incident' the difference being in the latter no one got hurt or landed dangerously.

So which is it?

WR have ruled on player in the air situations. Here it is down to the referee's evaluation. But clearly just because there is an injury it does not mean the tackler is guilty of anything.

 

[menace]

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=10

Your point???

 

[Taff]

You cannot equate mass x speed equalling momentum as a "lifting" action and then applying "lifting tackle" protocols. Imo that's unjust to the tackler.

Exactly. Either way, even if we thought the tackle was legal, in that clip I would like to think that we would all blow for a safety stoppage at least.

 

[Flish]

WR have ruled on player in the air situations. Here it is down to the referee's evaluation. But clearly just because there is an injury it does not mean the tackler is guilty of anything.

No, but my original point was that the outcome was dangerous, not that the outcome was an injury, two different things (I can injure myself running in a straight line!) and something that is dangerous is sanctionable in law.

Of course things that are dangerous don't always relate in injury, unfortunately some WR rulings seem to be the other way round - IMO