Tackle - Hands on Shoulder

[Psychic]

10.4e says:

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Does that cover a tackler putting his hands on the shoulders of the guy with the ball, but away from the neck?

I keep seeing tacklers holding on, trying not to fall to the floor, by gripping the shoulders of the guy with the ball, hands/fingers wrapping over the top.



Lastly, stemming from this... If someone attempts a tackle (whilst on their feet), but doesn't take the guy with the ball down, but then goes off his feet himself... Do they have to release? Or can they hold on (and possibly be dragged) and hope the guy with the ball goes down?

 

[OB..]

10.4e says:



Does that cover a tackler putting his hands on the shoulders of the guy with the ball, but away from the neck?

I keep seeing tacklers holding on, trying not to fall to the floor, by gripping the shoulders of the guy with the ball, hands/fingers wrapping over the top.



Lastly, stemming from this... If someone attempts a tackle (whilst on their feet), but doesn't take the guy with the ball down, but then goes off his feet himself... Do they have to release? Or can they hold on (and possibly be dragged) and hope the guy with the ball goes down?

"above the line of the shoulders" is not the same as "on the line of the shoulders". You have to judge if it is dangerous or not.

If the would-be tackler goes to ground he can hang on until he completes the tackle. This is in fact quite common.

 

[chopper15]

"above the line of the shoulders" is not the same as "on the line of the shoulders". You have to judge if it is dangerous or not.

Surely, OB, to interpret 10.4 (e) using that consideration has to be disingenuous?

Psychic: This current debate below and, hopefully, further comments may be of interest to you.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=117432#post117432

 

[Dixie]

Psychic, the sort of thing you describe could surely only happen at the coarsest levels of coarse rugby. Doesn't the hanger-on get kicked in the nuts by the ball carrier's heels?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't penalise this unless the tackler was hanging onto a collar. That puts some of his weight directly onto the ball carrier's neck and/or throat, rather than on his broad shoulders.

As to the would-be tackler who starts at hip level and slides down, ending up on the floor while the upright ball carrier tries to get free, personally I'm happy for him to carry on. Even at the lowest levels, this is a short-term situation that will resolve itself without my having to get involved. Am I worried about the "tackler" getting trampled? No more so than if the tackle had been successful, leaving him underneath a rapidly-formed ruck (I know - it's low-level rugby so there's time for him to get up and have a cup of tea before the cavalry arrive!).

 

[OB..]

Surely, OB, to interpret 10.4 (e) using that consideration has to be disingenuous?

No. The point of the law is to make a dangerous tackle illegal, and that means stopping people grabbing the neck ("above the line of the shoulders") because the neck is vulnerable. The shoulders are not, so merely placing hands on the shoulders is not particularly dangerous.

Obviously there is a risk of it becoming a high tackle under law, but that is not necessarily the case.

 

[Rit Hinners]

Are those of us under 5'6" allowed to be amazed at how high you lot seem to think the "line of our shoulders" is?

Just kidding. We lot take pride in the fact that we can play the game much closer to the ground than the average bloke. Also we realise that sometimes our duck to avoid isn't quite low enough.

I just wish I could sue all those "high tacklers" for the damages incurred as they rubbed all the hair off the top of my head.

 

[Deeps]

No. The point of the law is to make a dangerous tackle illegal, and that means stopping people grabbing the neck ("above the line of the shoulders") because the neck is vulnerable. The shoulders are not, so merely placing hands on the shoulders is not particularly dangerous.

Obviously there is a risk of it becoming a high tackle under law, but that is not necessarily the case.

I regard the situation where a would be tackler places his hands on the ball carrier's shoulders and attempts to pull the ball carrier over backwards as dangerous play and will penalise it without a second thought.

Regardless, whatever the intent of 10.4(e), it states quite clearly that an attempt to tackle above the line of the shoulders is contrary to law; if the intent was to restrict the offence to the head and neck then it would say so. Hence, one arm over a shoulder is by definition a high tackle and we should try and prevent such tackles as being potentially dangerous, whether they are or not, not wait until a dangerous situation has possibly arisen and risk inconsistency with last week's referee. If it is a dangerous tackle, it is too late, you should have prevented it from happening thus anything above the shoulders is de facto contrary to law.

 

[chopper15]

I regard the situation where a would be tackler places his hands on the ball carrier's shoulders and attempts to pull the ball carrier over backwards as dangerous play and will penalise it without a second thought.

Regardless, whatever the intent of 10.4(e), it states quite clearly that an attempt to tackle above the line of the shoulders is contrary to law; if the intent was to restrict the offence to the head and neck then it would say so. Hence, one arm over a shoulder is by definition a high tackle and we should try and prevent such tackles as being potentially dangerous, whether they are or not, not wait until a dangerous situation has possibly arisen and risk inconsistency with last week's referee. If it is a dangerous tackle, it is too late, you should have prevented it from happening thus anything above the shoulders is de facto contrary to law.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Phil E]

If it is a dangerous tackle, it is too late, you should have prevented it from happening thus anything above the shoulders is de facto contrary to law.

A noble thought Deeps, but not one that translates further into, for instance, red cards.

I (and fellow referees) have had red cards thrown out because the offence (and therefore the injury) did not take place.

I gave a red card when a player swung a kick at another players head. It was thrown out because he missed. I was told the law says kicking is an offence, missing means the offence did not take place.

I argued, are we supposed to wait until someone is seriously injured before we can issue a red card? The answer was basically yes, intent to do something (in rugby) is not an offence.

 

[didds]

I argued, are we supposed to wait until someone is seriously injured before we can issue a red card? The answer was basically yes, intent to do something (in rugby) is not an offence.

Phil, FTR, I think you did the right thing in so many ways. the official line is a great shame IMO.

Its rather like fast roads adjacent to housing that are not "dangerous" because there have not been X fatalities in timeframe Y... clearly it will be of great consolation to any bereaved that their loved ones death will mean a speed limit may be reviewed.

In the light of the above I suppose we couldn't really condone your action "in the legalities of the law book and official recognition thereof" but you at least ensured that the kicking but missing player couldn't repeat his action for the rest of the match you reffed that day. (So in fact I have condoned your action!)


didds

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Its rather like fast roads adjacent to housing that are not "dangerous" because there have not been X fatalities in timeframe Y... clearly it will be of great consolation to any bereaved that their loved ones death will mean a speed limit may be reviewed.

I work in this "area" and on local TV where concerned parents are campaigning for speed reduction measures their TV spokesman will generally ask "does someone have to be killed before the Council will do anything?"

I often annouce to the front room "Yes - it'll certainly help"

 

[Simon Thomas]

I (and fellow referees) have had red cards thrown out because the offence (and therefore the injury) did not take place.

I gave a red card when a player swung a kick at another players head. It was thrown out because he missed. I was told the law says kicking is an offence, missing means the offence did not take place.

I argued, are we supposed to wait until someone is seriously injured before we can issue a red card? The answer was basically yes, intent to do something (in rugby) is not an offence.

What was exactly said by the Disciplinary Panel ? The intent vs result argument is a big issue.

I have had these before and usually the evidence is not conclusive enough for the Panel to find the alleged miscreant guilty. Third party witness statements and of course video can be powerful additional evidence either way.

Remember it can go to appeal which means an RFU panel is convened at some cost and if the appeal is upheld, the CB Disciplinary are asked to compare the RFU finding to their own, so they tend to only find guilty when pretty sure, not just on balance of probability.

Feel satisfied eprhaps that you :norc: on the day and he was off the pitch - so you did your job correctly in your own eyes.

 

[Phil E]

What was exactly said by the Disciplinary Panel ? The intent vs result argument is a big issue.

Kick swung at head, player on ground moved his head, no contact made, whistle stopped any further action.

I was told the decision was, there was no case to answer as no law had been broken, because no kick had taken place. RC enough.

I know another ref has had the same decision recently in a similar scenario. It wasn't a kick, I can't remember the details, but basically because no one was injured, it never happened, no law broken.

 

[OB..]

Kick swung at head, player on ground moved his head, no contact made, whistle stopped any further action.

I was told the decision was, there was no case to answer as no law had been broken, because no kick had taken place. RC enough.

I know another ref has had the same decision recently in a similar scenario. It wasn't a kick, I can't remember the details, but basically because no one was injured, it never happened, no law broken.

Paul Ringer was sent off for trying to behead John Horton, but missing.
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

 

[Davet]

You can still get life for attempted murder.

In my opinion the discilpinary in such circumstances are wrong. If it happened to me or I was called as witness (and as an offcially appointed assessor I can cite players) then I would have no hesitation in expressing that view.

Panel - be warned.

 

[Ian_Cook]

AFAIC, I wouldn't care whether I got backed up later by the CRFU or not. A player who swung a kick at another player's head would not be staying on any pitch where I was refereeing!!

 

[Toby Warren]

I find Phil E's experience depressing.

For those who use the 'but he missed line' I always think what if a player swings a punch at you as the ref and you duck - play on in your book?!?

 

[dave_clark]

i thought that, but then remembered that threatening actions towards the ref is also frowned upon somewhat...

 

[Deeps]

AFAIC, I wouldn't care whether I got backed up later by the CRFU or not. A player who swung a kick at another player's head would not be staying on any pitch where I was refereeing!!

Which is exactly ST's point to Phil. At least you would take appropriate action there and then; for the rest of the game that team would be minus one player.

You are managing the situation and here is an instance where a RC is a management tool. You leave nobody in any doubt as to what action you will take in certain circumstances and leave one team to ruminate on the consequences of being let down by an indisciplined player.

 

[didds]

It also begs the question if you didn't RC such a missed kick - because of the reasons provided by the panel - and then later in the game a similar kick DID connect and ended in major trauma... how would you be expected to "defend" this situation in a court of law pursued by ambulance chasers?

And even if the court accepted the events because of this where does it leave the game in public perception?

didds