[Law] Tackling man in air

[ChuckieB]

Dunno about you but when I coach people to tackle I coach them to keep their eyes on the target. Not on the ground. Which has the secondary benefit of keeping the chin off the chest - eyes on the ground may fold the chin downwards.

As I deliver this mantra on behalf of the RFU to aspiring coaches on their official CPD I don't think I'll be changing that idea.


didds

Applying a duff technique in the tackle situation often results in a duff outcome and sometimes it'll be to the detriment of both players.

In that sense I am in the camp that places an emphasis for greater awareness and much more of the responsibility sitting with the tackler.

Great technique is a joy to see.

 

[Ian_Cook]

4. No-one has addressed my earlier question of, if the tacklers action had flipped the player over and he had landed on his noggin, would there still be as much sympathy for the tackler taking his legs out from under him whilst in the air?

I did.

You are implying that it is more likely to happen when a player jumps to catch a pass. I think that is utter nonsense, and I showed you a video which proves conclusively that a player can be flipped without having jumped to catch a pass.

The game is being over sanitised in my view. Injuries occurring as a result of FULL LEGAL tackles make up the greatest proportion of all injuries in the game, more than from all other causes combined. Perhaps we should just make tackling illegal and play tag rugby instead


ETA

Here are the details.

www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/3/1/21/pdf

If those here can't be bothered reading it, that's fine by me (you can lead a student to knowledge but you can't make then learn).

Just make sure you read the last paragraph, I think y'all will be surprised at what it says

4. Cause of Injuries
Most injuries (70%) occur following contact with another player. Tackling causes most injuries (between 36% and 58%), 23%–29% in players who are tackled and 13%–27% in players tackling; the frequency increases for faster players. Other studies confirm a higher rate of injury in players being tackled. The injury rate as the result of tackles can be divided as follows: 39.1% for tackles from the side, 30.4% for tackles from the front, 26.2% for tackles from behind. Of injuries suffered during tackles,

22% were to the neck, head or face,
17% to the knee,
14% to the shoulder,
10% to the arms and hands,
8% to the ankles
8% to the thighs.

Players who were tackled mostly suffered injuries to their lower limbs (51%), in comparison with their upper limbs (15%) and head (17%), while players who were tackling mostly suffered injuries to their arms (35%), followed by the head (28%) and the lower limbs (27%) [6]. Other reported causes of injury, such as rucks and mauls (15% to 36%), running and changing direction (10%) and entry into the scrum (1% to 7%), cause fewer injuries, but these can potentially be more serious, particularly in relation to entry into the scrums. Approximately 40% of all rugby-related spinal cord injuries can be attributed to the scrum. During the engagement phase, the forces generated at the interface between the two front rows during scrummaging are considerable and include forces in multiple directions, mainly forward but also downward. This is the reason of the changing rules of the game relating to entry into the scrum to avoid this type of catastrophic injury.

The cause for around half of ankle injuries (53%) is contact, 35% are non-contact incidents with another player and 12% are due to unknown causes. The majority of shoulder injuries occurring during matches follow contact with another player (97%), mostly during tackles (65%; 40% for players tackling, 25% for players being tackled). A large proportion of dislocated shoulders and acromioclavicular disjunctions occur during tackles. Seventy-two percent of knee injuries during matches occur during contact, 22% are non-contact related and 6% have no known cause. Tackles cause the largest proportion of knee injuries.

Injuries also occur as the result of foul play, which is rarely penalized by the referee, with proportions ranging around 13%. Of all injuries, 5% are as the result of foul play. Head injuries (including injuries to the face and eyes) and muscular contusions were found to occur more frequently in foul play than non-foul play. During the last World Cup, tackles caused the most injuries in matches (45%), while contact caused the most injuries during training

 

[ChuckieB]

Your marriage doesn't interest me and, in any case, is not subject to the Laws of Rugby

You really are hard work Chuckie, Again, you have entirely missed the point (and not for the first time in this thread). FFS, how hard can this be?

NO ONE is asking for the referee to judge whether a player who jumps for the ball is in the air. What we are asking is for the referee to be allowed to judge whether the tackler was committed to the tackle and whether he could not have reasonably been expected to avoid contact after the player jumped, just exactly the way thousands of referees do in thousands of matches every weekend all over the world.

....

I have never commented that he wasn't committed to the tackle.

I might think:

"CF, frankly your awareness of the situation was poor. This ended up in you committing to a tackle situation, one where you demonstrated both poor technique and poor execution. It left you as a passenger in the situation, something that also placed KS at risk because he was off the ground".

But as a ref I am not allowed to say that.

Please just point me in the direction of information showing where being committed to a tackle is a defence. It will broaden my base of knowledge to support my future judgement.

 

[The Fat]

You are implying that it is more likely to happen when a player jumps to catch a pass. I think that is utter nonsense, and I showed you a video which proves conclusively that a player can be flipped without having jumped to catch a pass.

That is not what I said at all and your initial response was that a player could be flipped whilst still having both feet on the ground.

 

[ChuckieB]

Your marriage doesn't interest me and, in any case, is not subject to the Laws of Rugby

You really are hard work Chuckie, Again, you have entirely missed the point (and not for the first time in this thread). FFS, how hard can this be?

NO ONE is asking for the referee to judge whether a player who jumps for the ball is in the air. What we are asking is for the referee to be allowed to judge whether the tackler was committed to the tackle and whether he could not have reasonably been expected to avoid contact after the player jumped, just exactly the way thousands of referees do in thousands of matches every weekend all over the world.

....

I have never commented that he wasn't committed to the tackle.

I might think:

"CF, frankly your awareness of the situation was poor. This ended up in you committing to a tackle situation, one where you demonstrated both poor technique and poor execution. It left you as a passenger in the situation, something that also placed KS at risk because he was off the ground".

But as a ref I am not allowed to say that.

Please just point me in the direction of information showing where being committed to a tackle is a defence. It will broaden my base of knowledge to support my future judgement.

Let me clarify my last para. I am seeking instances where the commitment in itself is the focus of the decision. Am I to ignore components of technique as part of any thought process if the tackler ends up being committed? Timing is one area of technique (originated by the tackler) which does at least seem to be defined clearly.

 

[Phil E]

I don't need to use reasoning or judgement to determine whether KS was in the air. That fact is not in dispute. The law cannot be disputed as a result.
on a basis of fact and the law, the law was applied correctly. Simples!

If you want me to apply every law in the book correctly as written I guarantee you will not get a game of rugby, you will probably never move from one spot, just go from PK to PK for 80 minutes. There are approximately 40 potential offences at a breakdown and a similar amount at a scrum and a lineout. The laws are not black and white, they are essentially a framework within which the referee has wide latitude to use his judgement and materiality to allow the game to flow. You will have had this explained to you on your Level 2 Referees course, so it shouldn't come as a surprise.

1.
I'll be more specific.
Originally, when the BIL player jumped to catch the ball, I thought CF was much closer and already crouched and focussing on the ball carrier's legs/target area. The Image I posted would suggest that CF was fully aware that the ball carrier had jumped to gain possession and was still in the air. No doubt Ian will again tell me that it was 3 frames and 0.12secs etc which may be true but the fact is CF knew the player was in the air which is contrary to what he said to JG.

I would have thought that the tackler wasn't really focusing on whether the player was on the ground or in the air, since he wouldn't have been expecting a PK for the receiver of a pass being in the air. I doubt it even entered his mind until the referee mentioned it.


JG could have made everything simpler by just saying dangerous tackle. Was he correct in law? Yes he was but see above about interpreting the law. The reason he did give was a rabbit out of a hat for the whole rugby community. Clear, Obvious and Expected...NO. No one in the stadium or watching on tv expected a penalty for that.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Please just point me in the direction of information showing where being committed to a tackle is a defence. It will broaden my base of knowledge to support my future judgement.

Oh FFS Chuckie. Are you on the wind up, or are you really incapable of understanding this stuff?

Again, for the umpteenth time, LATE TACKLES! When a player tackles an opponent after the opponent kicks or passes the ball, this is known as a late tackle. The referee does not penalise a late tackle if the tackler makes his first contact with the opponent so quickly after the opponent has passed or kicked the ball, that in the referee's judgement, it would not have been reasonable to expect the player to have pulled out of the tackle, that is to say, if the player was committed to the tackle.

...ergo, being committed to a tackle is a defence against being PK for a late tackle. This is Basic Rugby Refereeing 101.

My argument is that the scenario where a player jumps to receive a pass should be treated in EXACTLY the same way. IMO, the scenario under discussion ought to be managed like this....

"The referee does not penalise a player who has tackled an opponent who has jumped to catch a pass if the tackler makes his first contact with the opponent so quickly after the opponent has jumped, that in the referee's judgement, it would not have been reasonable to expect the player to have pulled out of the tackle, that is to say, if the player was committed to the tackle."

 

[didds]

1.
the following 3 points are not aimed to you didds. They are general comments/observations/questions.

2. The question of whether a running ball carrier should also be classed as being in the air is nonsensical.

That's fine. (And would be too difficult to implement I am sure)

So what constitutes "in the air" ?

4. No-one has addressed my earlier question of, if the tacklers action had flipped the player over and he had landed on his noggin, would there still be as much sympathy for the tackler taking his legs out from under him whilst in the air?

If the tackle took the BC through the horizontal that is already covered. It has nothing to do with whether the player was "in the air". IE its a tip-tackle.

didds

 

[didds]

Please just point me in the direction of information showing where being committed to a tackle is a defence. It will broaden my base of knowledge to support my future judgement.

what happens with "late" tackles typically on a kicker? isn't this what happens?

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

Can, for the sake of levity, but also I think it says something, look at what the fact that KS felt he had to jump says about the quality of his hands?

If he jumps up and clasps the ball to his chest, he can't pass; he's committed himself to taking the contact.
It, surely to God, at that level, is not unreasonable for me to expect that he has the quality of hands to graps the ball and pass in one motion?

 

[Rich_NL]

Can, for the sake of levity, but also I think it says something, look at what the fact that KS felt he had to jump says about the quality of his hands?

If he jumps up and clasps the ball to his chest, he can't pass; he's committed himself to taking the contact.
It, surely to God, at that level, is not unreasonable for me to expect that he has the quality of hands to graps the ball and pass in one motion?

That seems a little unfair - if the tackler wants to claim he's already committed, KS catching the ball and then realising he's about to get tackled has even less time to adjust his actions, and I'd expect the default reaction to be to take the contact.

 

[Cross]

Eddie O’Sullivan's comments

The funny thing was I thought there might be more blowback on the final penalty which won the test – the tackle on Kyle Sinckler. That’s an anomaly in the law when you think about it because it wasn’t a high ball that was kicked to him.

It was a bad pass over his head and he jumped to catch it. Kieran Read said to the referee ‘why is it a penalty?’ and he said ‘because he played the player in the air’ so Read said ‘next time I’m catching a pass, if I jump, no one can tackle me?’ and that’s an anomaly now that’s come in.


If you think about it, if you’re going to get hit as you get the ball – you just jump when you’re catching it and the guy can’t touch you. That was never the intention of the law – it was all about fielding the high ball.


I thought there may have been more discussion around that.


It was one of those ones when you saw it you go ‘yeah, he’s going to give a penalty here’ but what was the defender to do, get out of the way and let him run through?

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/jm...ocked-lack-controversy-winning-lions-penalty/

 

[Ian_Cook]

Eddie O’Sullivan's comments

The funny thing was I thought there might be more blowback on the final penalty which won the test – the tackle on Kyle Sinckler. That’s an anomaly in the law when you think about it because it wasn’t a high ball that was kicked to him.

It was a bad pass over his head and he jumped to catch it. Kieran Read said to the referee ‘why is it a penalty?’ and he said ‘because he played the player in the air’ so Read said ‘next time I’m catching a pass, if I jump, no one can tackle me?’ and that’s an anomaly now that’s come in.


If you think about it, if you’re going to get hit as you get the ball – you just jump when you’re catching it and the guy can’t touch you. That was never the intention of the law – it was all about fielding the high ball.


I thought there may have been more discussion around that.


It was one of those ones when you saw it you go ‘yeah, he’s going to give a penalty here’ but what was the defender to do, get out of the way and let him run through?


http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/jm...ocked-lack-controversy-winning-lions-penalty/

Yep. O'Sullivan is right on the money with those two statements. The game is becoming farcical thanks to the numpties at WR HQ fiddling with the Laws without understanding the unintended consequences.