Tackle height stuff

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I like that.

Don't take the tackler's space.

Do take responsibility for your own safety.
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
280
Post Likes
50
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
That's the terminology - generally the ball carrier drops their height just before contact with the opposition. But a picture being worth many thousands of my words, here you go:View attachment 4709
Nice picture, I gotcha now. Thanks!
 

buff


Referees in Canada
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
422
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Would it be fair to say that if the tackler is already low, the ball carrier cannot then put his head in the tackler's head space?
What happens if the ball carrier has his head in that low space before the tackler? What do we as officials need to see to be able to play on?
If they both drop their heads at the same time, is the ball carrier automatically late and low?
Is any of this in the RFU tackle height document? I have to admit I only skimmed through it.
 

DocP


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 20, 2018
Messages
149
Post Likes
96
Location
SE London/Kent
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
Would it be fair to say that if the tackler is already low, the ball carrier cannot then put his head in the tackler's head space?
What happens if the ball carrier has his head in that low space before the tackler? What do we as officials need to see to be able to play on?
If they both drop their heads at the same time, is the ball carrier automatically late and low?
Is any of this in the RFU tackle height document? I have to admit I only skimmed through it.
This is covered. This comes under the term "late and low". Basically, and this is what I gleaned from my societies' training, there is a responsibility on the ball carrier not to dip just before contact, head in line with hips removing the safe tackle zones. If the ball carrier is low further out and continues to run this way, the reasoning this is not sanctioned is the thought that there is enough time for the tackler to adjust their position to make a side on tackle into the permitted contact zones. Hence "LATE and low"

There are some videos on the RFU tackle height hub that cover this. In practice, it is quite easy to spot, the hardest part is recalling it from your subconcious as foul play to actually sanction.
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
555
Post Likes
305
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
This is covered. This comes under the term "late and low". Basically, and this is what I gleaned from my societies' training, there is a responsibility on the ball carrier not to dip just before contact, head in line with hips removing the safe tackle zones. If the ball carrier is low further out and continues to run this way, the reasoning this is not sanctioned is the thought that there is enough time for the tackler to adjust their position to make a side on tackle into the permitted contact zones. Hence "LATE and low"

There are some videos on the RFU tackle height hub that cover this. In practice, it is quite easy to spot, the hardest part is recalling it from your subconcious as foul play to actually sanction.
Any official feedback on handling the pick and go? I’m assuming there is an onus on the BC to get upright (and stay upright) as soon as is practical, but I’m picturing the tackler coming in as the BC is transitioning from low to upright and both players have their heads in the same space. Worse still, tackler’s head moving down rapidly as they try to get low meeting the BC’s head coming up as they try to get upright.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
The best way to think about it is that in a pick and go situation close to the ruck, the new law doesn't apply. So everything is same as last season
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,057
Post Likes
1,788
i thought id read somewhere that PNGs were expressly outsie of the requirement. Thus thgere being no requirement to get upright at all. Abnd a PBG 1m from the line is never going to get that nayway, and even 5m out is not going to happen. Then the next development will be the ability to run forwards from a pick with never raising the head above the hips!
 

Lee Lifeson-Peart


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
7,800
Post Likes
999
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
This is covered. This comes under the term "late and low". Basically, and this is what I gleaned from my societies' training, there is a responsibility on the ball carrier not to dip just before contact, head in line with hips removing the safe tackle zones. If the ball carrier is low further out and continues to run this way, the reasoning this is not sanctioned is the thought that there is enough time for the tackler to adjust their position to make a side on tackle into the permitted contact zones. Hence "LATE and low"

There are some videos on the RFU tackle height hub that cover this. In practice, it is quite easy to spot, the hardest part is recalling it from your subconcious as foul play to actually sanction.


It's covered in RFU land.

The SRU forgot to address it when drafting their guidance (allegedly) so it depends on how the guidance is framed by the respective national bodies.

I have no idea if WRU or IRFU have same as RFU or similar or different.

Hopefully those a bit later to the party will "pinch with pride" some of the already written stuff - assuming it does what it needs to.
 
Last edited:

Lee Lifeson-Peart


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
7,800
Post Likes
999
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Any official feedback on handling the pick and go? I’m assuming there is an onus on the BC to get upright (and stay upright) as soon as is practical, but I’m picturing the tackler coming in as the BC is transitioning from low to upright and both players have their heads in the same space. Worse still, tackler’s head moving down rapidly as they try to get low meeting the BC’s head coming up as they try to get upright.

From the stuff done with the RFU NLMOTs in the Summer PNG did not fall under the new DLV but it kicked in if you picked and ran "wider" than the proverbial 1 metre(ish) from the "ruck" or if you passed it (obviously I hear you cry). It was another thing to "manage". :)
 

smeagol


Referees in America
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
718
Post Likes
97
Location
Springfield, IL
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
At the national level, the tackle height changes will be in effect starting 9/1/24 (the competition year runs Sep-Aug).

At the regional/local level, they are in effect immediately (excepting Super Regionals/Nationals events for the 2023/4 competition year and U19).
 

Locke


Referees in America
Joined
Jan 23, 2022
Messages
241
Post Likes
148
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
At the national level, the tackle height changes will be in effect starting 9/1/24 (the competition year runs Sep-Aug).

At the regional/local level, they are in effect immediately (excepting Super Regionals/Nationals events for the 2023/4 competition year and U19).
This is for the US? I haven’t seen that. Where did you learn this?
 

smeagol


Referees in America
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
718
Post Likes
97
Location
Springfield, IL
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
This is for the US? I haven’t seen that. Where did you learn this?
At the time I posted, there was an effort within my GU (Midwest) to implement the tackle height and late/low trials, but once USAR got wind that both trials would be implemented, the national office threatened to yank insurance coverage.

Paired with said threat was an indication that an announcement from USAR would be made either this month or next that USAR will be trialling the tackle height variation in the fall, but *not* the late/low BC variation.
 

Locke


Referees in America
Joined
Jan 23, 2022
Messages
241
Post Likes
148
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
At the time I posted, there was an effort within my GU (Midwest) to implement the tackle height and late/low trials, but once USAR got wind that both trials would be implemented, the national office threatened to yank insurance coverage.

Paired with said threat was an indication that an announcement from USAR would be made either this month or next that USAR will be trialling the tackle height variation in the fall, but *not* the late/low BC variation.
It’s difficult for me to understand lowering the tackle height while still allowing ball carriers to run into contact with their head down. How can anyone feasibly make a legal tackle?
 

RemainingInTheGame


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 16, 2022
Messages
118
Post Likes
81
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
It’s difficult for me to understand lowering the tackle height while still allowing ball carriers to run into contact with their head down. How can anyone feasibly make a legal tackle?
I was confused with our Australian implementation, and maybe the same thing is happening in the US.

Where I got confused was that in my understanding of the RFU version there is the possibility of a sanction again the ball carrier for 'late and low' but in Australia there is not.

HOWEVER, in Australia can use 'late and low' as a way to mitigate an above sternum tackle.

So in the RFU version you might award a penalty for a 'late and low' against the ball carrier where in our Australian version you instead mitigate the high tackle and play on.

Hopefully the US version clarifies somewhere that mitigation is possible where the ball carrier is 'late and low'.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,057
Post Likes
1,788
Where I got confused was that in my understanding of the RFU version there is the possibility of a sanction again the ball carrier for 'late and low' but in Australia there is not.

HOWEVER, in Australia can use 'late and low' as a way to mitigate an above sternum tackle.

So in the RFU version you might award a penalty for a 'late and low' against the ball carrier where in our Australian version you instead mitigate the high tackle and play on.
so - to clarify - the ball carrier can instigate head contact with force with impunity, and any tackler being struck in this manner might get away without a card but still "concede" a PK?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,122
Post Likes
2,142
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
so - to clarify - the ball carrier can instigate head contact with force with impunity, and any tackler being struck in this manner might get away without a card but still "concede" a PK?
No, no PK. It's play on.

The logic is that the high tackle is mitigated down due to the action of the ball carrier and the ball carrier is also not guilty of an offence.
 
Top