Lee Lifeson-Peart
Referees in England
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 7,815
- Post Likes
- 1,008
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
It could be worse - they could have both been wearing leggings!
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 )
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
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 ?
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.
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.
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.