[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

[crossref]

Yeah. ...don't have the energy. :deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:
I realise we are going in circles. Time to get off this carousel.

Ill let you and crossref use the subjective 9.11 to your hearts content.

That implies that 9.11 can never be used

 

[Pablo]

better video:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2287602668149431

I believe he broke a rib the player in White.

Many thanks for posting this. It runs longer than the Twitter post, and notably the referee dishes out a yellow card for the incident. Red vs. yellow is always a judgement call, but it's good to see that the official on the day did not view this as acceptable either.

 

[mcroker]

Many thanks for posting this. It runs longer than the Twitter post, and notably the referee dishes out a yellow card for the incident. Red vs. yellow is always a judgement call, but it's good to see that the official on the day did not view this as acceptable either.

I think the official got it spot on... PK+YC.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I'm not sure that's correct - I have done Ju-Jitsu for many years, where getting the opponent to do exactly that is encouraged rather than penalised. To get the opponent to flip up like that you have to lift then off their feet (simultaneous backwards, and upwards force). If you just hit them horizontally then they crumble in a heap rather than flipping - there has to be some upwards force.

The laws of Physics disagree with you. This issue has been discussed many times

 

[mcroker]

The laws of Physics disagree with you. This issue has been discussed many times

There is much that is discussed many times that is somehow still wrong... let's agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

You can't disagree with the physics. And I've not said that a sanction is not sometimes right depending on the context.

Let's try to put some context here
RWC final: Play on

EC final: Play on.

Old Craponians III Vs Old Farts II Problably a penalty.

Youth rugby: Probalbly a penalty.

Under 12s penalty.

The probabls are that because even in that area skill levels pitch conditions etc would be consideration. For example many years ago I refereed at an U12 event. The [pitch )april was rock hard due to no rain for several weeks and baking hot weather. coaches were told that any tackle that involved any element of a lift or drive into the ground was to be a PK and card. As a team , we referees refereed accordingly. Had the pitch been soft we would have allowed "normal" hard tackles. - Context.

 

[crossref]

The context here is an U15 game

 

[mcroker]

Not disagreeing with the laws of physics - just your application of them in this scenario.


I certainly agree the concept that context is relevant, and I think the video provides enough context for me to have an opinion (and with this being an U14s game - I think PK+YC is the right call)... I am not sure I agree that pitch-state is relevant but a tournament directive on how to ref. certainly is.

 

[SimonSmith]

...I'll draw an analogy. Years ago, boots on bodies in rucks was considered normal and "part of the game". Then, 20-25ish years ago, the powers that be decided (rightly IMHO) that this was an unnecessary element of risk, and that standing on players on the ground would be penalised. A zero-tolerance approach was taken, on the premise that players were responsible for where they put their feet. There was a sizeable contingent (mainly of the armchair expert / retired player / the-older-I-get-the-better-I-was type) that bemoaned the death of "proper rucking", but miraculously, season by season, players got better at stepping over bodies on the floor, referees got better at dealing with players on the floor, and gratuitous stamping became largely a thing of the past.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but let's flesh out your ruck example a bit more.

Rucks are now unrecognizable from what they were. A dynamic phase of play has become a...pile up. Bodies on the ground, people leaning on bodies, slower ball and a commitment of 2 - 3 players to that phase, allowing the defence to spread wider across the field with fewer gaps. It has, frankly, become a blight on the game.

Are you suggesting that we manage tackles so that they become unrecognizable and alter the fabric of part of the game?

 

[Zebra1922]

Just read this full thread with great interest after watching the clip multiple times.

My view is there is no offence here. As others have said, tackle below shoulder or even nipple height, clear wrap and not clear he launched torpedo style (and also not clear if this would be an offence anyway). I don't buy the fact the tackled player lands on his head as being the tacklers responsibility. There was no lifting of the body beyond the horizontal and no driving into the ground. The result is an unfortunate impact of physics, with a bigger, more massive player with great momentum impacting a smaller stationary object resulting in rotational forces. We cannot referee the tackle on an outcome basis as any awkward landing, possibly even as a result of the tackled player twisting their body in an unusual way could result in a sanction (the only exception being if there is a lift of the player beyond the horizontal and not put down safely - I don't buy the argument that is what happened here).

If we go down the route of reckless and dangerous, you are blowing for every aggressive, hard (but currently considered legal) tackle, and then making judgements on the required or permitted level of force for each individual tackle. I certainly would not want to referee that an apply that judgement on a continual basis for all tackles, particularly as the 'line' would change depending on context, relative player size, pitch area. etc. etc.

I know it is U14 and I would certainly be stopping the game to check the player. I may even have a word with the tackler to ask him to use less force, but this would be purely an advisory point and have no basis in law, and I would have no sanction if he tackled exactly like this again in future.

Final point, there is lots of reference to 9.11. By default a tackle is dangerous to the tackled player, and you can easily stretch that argument to say multiple currently legal tackles are reckless (the 'big hit', anything above waist height....). Reckless is grabbing player and swinging them round and round, picking up a player and dumping the on their head. A big hit by a more massive player is not reckless.

 

[crossref]

So you restart the game and five minutes later the smallest person on the other team receives the same treatment, and goes off injured ...

So you restart the game and...

 

[Rich_NL]

So to summarise, would you say
- you don't find that sort of tackle at age grade to be dangerous, or
- you consider "Law 9 dangerous" different to "practically dangerous" and you consider your duties to Law higher than those to Safety?

 

[Jz558]

So you restart the game and five minutes later the smallest person on the other team receives the same treatment, and goes off injured ...

So you restart the game and...

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.

 

[crossref]

That's what you do for young kids
It's not appropriate for u14 u15

 

[Jz558]

Not correct. Ive done it in U16s and everyone very happy

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Not disagreeing with the laws of physics - just your application of them in this scenario.
View attachment 3874

I certainly agree the concept that context is relevant, and I think the video provides enough context for me to have an opinion (and with this being an U14s game - I think PK+YC is the right call)... I am not sure I agree that pitch-state is relevant but a tournament directive on how to ref. certainly is.

Seems I'm not alone:

I am tempted to say the tackle was perfectly legal (as best i can see on that video).

Wrapped him up.
Below the shoulder.
Didn't lift him beyond the horizontal.

Just unfortunate that the drive flipped him over.
The key for me is that there was no lifting of the legs.

 

[crossref]

Not correct. Ive done it in U16s and everyone very happy

Card start at u13 in England.

There are all sorts of issues with ordering a player off the pitch but not being prepared to show a card

Especially after an act of foul play. Its basically bottling it

 

[Jz558]

Card start at u13 in England.

There are all sorts of issues with ordering a player off the pitch but not being prepared to show a card

Especially after an act of foul play. Its basically bottling it

The player isn't being ordered off, he is being voluntarily replaced. The point also is it isn't used for acts of foul play, but rather to minimise the risk of foul play occuring in the future. So in the instance of the tackle we are discussing which more than one person has said breaches no laws it would seem a potentially equitable solution.

 

[Pablo]

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but let's flesh out your ruck example a bit more.

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

Rucks are now unrecognizable from what they were. A dynamic phase of play has become a...pile up. Bodies on the ground, people leaning on bodies, slower ball and a commitment of 2 - 3 players to that phase, allowing the defence to spread wider across the field with fewer gaps.

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.

It has, frankly, become a blight on the game.

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.

Are you suggesting that we manage tackles so that they become unrecognizable and alter the fabric of part of the game?

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.

 

[crossref]

The player isn't being ordered off, he is being voluntarily replaced. The point also is it isn't used for acts of foul play, but rather to minimise the risk of foul play occuring in the future. So in the instance of the tackle we are discussing which more than one person has said breaches no laws it would seem a potentially equitable solution.

Is he allowed to say 'no thanks I will stay on the field '