[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

[mcroker]

and here's the 2016/17 CRISP report:
https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Doc...on_Report_2016_17_FINALforwebsite_Neutral.pdf

...and a little excerpt for those who don't get a kick out of reading such things...

...The average incidence of concussion over seasons 2014-15 to 2016-17 (average of 2.5 injuries/1,000player match hours) has been higher compared with the average over seasons 2009-10 to 2012-13(1.3 injuries/1,000 player match hours). This may be associated with changes in the characteristicsof the game which are related with concussion such as a greater number of contact events, or greaterlevels of intensity in these events. However, there is currently no evidence to demonstrate that thesefactors are increasing in the community game. This higher concussion incidence may also be due tothe raised awareness and diagnosis of this type of injury through the RFU ‘Headcase’ initiative whichhas been promoted extensively through the community game since January 2013...

 

[L'irlandais]

...

I'd find that unlikely to occur higher up the ladder. In which case it wont affect the RWC etc etc presumably. I cant see RWC "OKing" a blanket rule in a RWC that all tackles are below waist level and no double tackles without wholesale global usage of those requirements for some considerable time leading into it, and neither can I see WR changing the laws globally to embrace it in the first place. (Yet?).

didds

I have had another look at the headline news. Here, for example?
Basically, for underage rugby changes the French Union doesn’t need International approval. And for changes to the Amateur adult game they have WR approval to start the trial. Be interesting to see how these “local” changes will affect the Elite game world wide post RWC 2019.

 

[mcroker]

Sorry for reviving this thread... but I found the England RFU guidance for disciplinary panels on recklessness interesting:

https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Doc...33/07/77/RFURegulation19Appendix5_English.pdf

RFU Practice Note – Recklessness (RFU Regulation 19.11.8(b))

When deciding the relevant sanction in relation to a particular offence(s), DisciplinaryPanels are required to assess the seriousness of the Player’s conduct. One of the keyassessments is to decide whether the relevant offending was deliberate or reckless, notingthat if the offending was purely accidental then no sanction applies. The term ‘reckless’ isdescribed in the following terms:

‘The player knew (or should have known) that there was a risk of committing an act of FoulPlay.’

The RFU’s disciplinary regime reflects World Rugby Regulation 17. It exists to penalisePlayers whose Foul Play is other than purely accidental and one of its most importantprinciples is to prevent the risk of injury to other Players in a dynamic and physical sport.Players have an obligation to ensure that they do not cause injury to opponents,so there is a presumption that any conduct which is prescribed by World RugbyLaw 9 merits a sanction.

The offences listed in World Rugby Law 9 do not require mens rea (the mental element of acrime or offending behaviour) – they create offences of strict liability. That is, by way ofillustration, it is illegal to stamp on an opponent – rather than deliberately stamp, orrecklessly stamp unless of course the contact is entirely accidental in which case no act ofFoul Play has been committed. An offence is committed if the prohibited act occurs. Themental state of the offending player at the time the offence was committed is only relevant tothe level of subsequent sanction. It is therefore wrong in principle to import definitions ofrecklessness from any criminal jurisdiction or other regulatory jurisdiction in consideringwhether or not the alleged Foul Play was committed.

The definition of recklessness is derived from World Rugby Regulation 17. It has worldwideapplication and is rugby specific. It serves to penalise Players whose conduct is other thanpurely accidental and is designed to prevent the risk of injury to other Players. Nevertheless,panel members may find the following RFU expanded guidance helpful in interpreting themeaning of the World Rugby definition of reckless.

‘A Player is acting recklessly if, before doing something he either fails to give any thought tothe possibility that there is a risk that he might commit an act of Foul Play, or havingrecognised that there was such a risk, he nevertheless went on to do it.

Thus, again by way of illustration, where a Player intends to tackle an opponent by contactwith his chest, but the opponent ducks just before contact is made so the contact is with theneck, an offence contrary to Law 9.13 will have been committed. In assessing the relevantentry point for sanction it would be appropriate to decide that this offending was reckless because there was a risk that the opponent would duck into the tackle, or that the tacklermay misjudge the point of contact. It could not be said in these circumstances that thecontact with the head was purely accidental.

 

[crossref]

Interesting

But here the last bit (unless.. ) rather contradicts the first statement (no mens rea)

. The offences listed in World Rugby Law 9 do not require mens rea (the mental element of acrime or offending behaviour) – they create offences of strict liability. That is, by way ofillustration, it is illegal to stamp on an opponent – rather than deliberately stamp, orrecklessly stamp unless of course the contact is entirely accidental in which case no act ofFoul Play has been committed

 

[mcroker]

Interesting

But here the last bit (unless.. ) rather contradicts the first statement (no mens rea)

Yes I concluded it didn't advance the position of either 'side' of the debate, but found it interesting all the same.

 

[menace]

actually it does advance the discussion.

It can only be termed "reckless" if in fact foul play has been committed (ie a law 9 broken).

If I recall the madness of this thread correct, a great majority of people commenting agreed (possibly begrudgingly) that there really wasn't a law 9 broken. Therefore you can't pin "reckless" under 9.11 on this tackle.

So that now leaves the nay-sayers with 'dangerous' in 9.11 to pin it on...which I'm sure will bring out the nashers to try and prove why they can sanction under 9.11.

(damn it - I resolved not to comment further on this thread! Failed again!)

 

[Rich_NL]

It can only be termed "reckless" if in fact foul play has been committed (ie a law 9 broken).

This can't be the case: "Players cannot do anything reckless or dangerous to others". That's fairly universal, and not restricted to a subset of predefined actions, the recklessness/dangerousness is what breaks law 9.

 

[menace]

This can't be the case: "Players cannot do anything reckless or dangerous to others". That's fairly universal, and not restricted to a subset of predefined actions, the recklessness/dangerousness is what breaks law 9.

And I beg to differ


"
The term ‘reckless’ isdescribed in the following terms:

‘The player knew (or should have known) that there was a risk of committing an act of FoulPlay.’"

Was = past tense (ie it happened)
Committing foul play = foul play was committed.

But ho hum.

 

[mcroker]

...I concluded it didn't advance the position of either 'side' of the debate, but found it interesting all the same.

actually it does advance the discussion...

Well, what I really meant was that both sides would read it, decide it justified their origionnal stance, and we could go round the loop once more

(damn it - I resolved not to comment further on this thread! Failed again!)

Me too! Damn!

 

[Pablo]

Revisiting this thread, as we near the end of RWC 2019.

In light of the framework and the way the tackle has been refereed this World Cup... how many of the defenders of this tackle still consider it to be "perfectly legal"?

epper:

 

[Pablo]

Revisiting this thread, as we near the end of RWC 2019.

In light of the framework and the way the tackle has been refereed this World Cup... how many of the defenders of this tackle still consider it to be "perfectly legal"?

epper:

Crickets. Very interesting.

 

[Pablo]

Revisiting this thread again in light of: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport...e-mindless-horrific-sickening-tackle-21610983

 

[Ian_Cook]

Revisiting this thread again in light of: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport...e-mindless-horrific-sickening-tackle-21610983

Yup. Straight red and a lengthy ban coming I would think

THIS is what sending off should be used for!

 

[Dickie E]

let's apply some process to this tackle.

1. was there head contact? No
2. did the tackler tuck his arm? No
3. was the kicker tackled in the air? Yes
4. did he land on his head, neck or shoulder? No
5. was the tackle late? Not C & O for me, tackler may have been committed.

So we've got a tackle in the air and kicker lands safely.

Looks like a YC to me. Happy to be convinced otherwise

 

[Balones]

let's apply some process to this tackle.

1. was there head contact? No
2. did the tackler tuck his arm? No
3. was the kicker tackled in the air? Yes
4. did he land on his head, neck or shoulder? No
5. was the tackle late? Not C & O for me, tackler may have been committed.

So we've got a tackle in the air and kicker lands safely.

Looks like a YC to me. Happy to be convinced otherwise

Can’t argue with your process and outcome. Theoretically sound. I did the same analysis and came to a similar conclusion. The whole thing was exacerbated by a very big bloke colliding with a much smaller bloke. Every coach in the world nowadays tries to get your players running with as much force as possible into the opposition. The ‘offender’ was simply doing what was expected of him by his coaches, and even the team supporters.
Having said all that I think for the good of the game it is not something we want to see on the pitch if we want youngsters still wanting to play the game.

 

[didds]

Im sort of with Balones and Dicke here. Other than to say the kicker was only in the air because of the kicking action - he wasnt fielding a kick ... and now we are back to lions in NZ third test PK territory.

I see a very very heavy tackle that if against a centre running would just be "ouch" - maybe a YC for no wrap, possibly just a PK and a "chat".

IM not in the bracket of "immediate and obvious red" I guess, though can understand that we maybe do not want this in the game ... but this is where the PTB have taken the game ...

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

let's apply some process to this tackle.

1. was there head contact? No
2. did the tackler tuck his arm? No
3. was the kicker tackled in the air? Yes
4. did he land on his head, neck or shoulder? No
5. was the tackle late? Not C & O for me, tackler may have been committed.

So we've got a tackle in the air and kicker lands safely.

Looks like a YC to me. Happy to be convinced otherwise

Sorry Dickie, but take the tackle process out of it for a moment.

The "tackler" actually left his feet and dived shoulder-first at the opponent. This looks like a deliberate intent to cause a serious injury - how else should we deal with this sort of act.

Again, I go back to the constraints being placed on referees to conform to a series of dogmatic procedures to decide on the issue of sanctions. Its a failed experiment you might gain consistency, but you do so at the expense of good judgement and commonsense - its not worth the trade-off. Put judgement back into the hands of the referees - let them decide if an act was intentional.

For mine, this one would have got a black card.

 

[Flish]

Agree with the process, but then I would be trumping it with dangerous play is dangerous play, if saw that clearly enough then RC

 

[Ian_Cook]

Agree with the process, but then I would be trumping it with dangerous play is dangerous play, if saw that clearly enough then RC

Yeah, Romain Poite said "C'est Rouge" almost straight away - he blew his whistle immediately, no AR/TMO consultation, showed him the RC.

 

[Balones]

Sorry Dickie, but take the tackle process out of it for a moment.

The "tackler" actually left his feet and dived shoulder-first at the opponent. This looks like a deliberate intent to cause a serious injury - how else should we deal with this sort of act.

Again, I go back to the constraints being placed on referees to conform to a series of dogmatic procedures to decide on the issue of sanctions. Its a failed experiment you might gain consistency, but you do so at the expense of good judgement and commonsense - its not worth the trade-off. Put judgement back into the hands of the referees - let them decide if an act was intentional.

For mine, this one would have got a black card.

I did consider the ‘take off’ of the tackler and the intent to hurt/damage and it was this that got be going back and fore between R and Y. Players leave their feet a lot of the time when tackling but usually it is when chasing down an opponent rather than tackling directly. Then again players take off to charge down as well. The intent to hurt I would suggest is quite common in the game and probably coaches and players try to do this to gain an edge. If I was playing I would perhaps be reluctant to run at certain players if they were going to hurt me each time! If I was the ‘offender’ in a disciplinary meeting I would perhaps ask ‘what did I do wrong or outside of the laws. And point out that it wasn’t my fault that he was so much smaller than me.
So we are left with ‘dangerous play’, something that is subjective and that is why I say it is not something we (I) want to see in the game and can support a RC for no other reason than I didn’t like it. But based on process I can see why it could come out as a YC.