Wales v AllBlacks

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
978
Post Likes
63
An interesting situation just before half time with a double tackle on Moriarty that led to his injury.

It seems that the TMO and both ARs were trying to indicate to the ref that yellow wasn't the correct sanction.

I agree, especially the action of black #3 was worthy of red with not enough mitigation.

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
717
Post Likes
233
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I thought play on. The welsh player dropped his head late, tackle from the first AB pushed him slightly towards the second. There was direct contact with the head, but I saw no way for the AB to alter his tackle height in the time available. I don’t know what he could have done differently when you have a player dropping height, then dropping his head even further just before contact.
 

xxGoosexx

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
10
Post Likes
0
I thought play on. The welsh player dropped his head late, tackle from the first AB pushed him slightly towards the second. There was direct contact with the head, but I saw no way for the AB to alter his tackle height in the time available. I don’t know what he could have done differently when you have a player dropping height, then dropping his head even further just before contact.

100% agree.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,354
Post Likes
1,455
I thought play on. The welsh player dropped his head late, tackle from the first AB pushed him slightly towards the second. There was direct contact with the head, but I saw no way for the AB to alter his tackle height in the time available. I don’t know what he could have done differently when you have a player dropping height, then dropping his head even further just before contact.

Agreed
 

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
978
Post Likes
63
My thoughts - which I think are the same as both ARs judging by the long deliberation and their body signals to the ref - is thst neither NZ player made a legitimate tackle with wrapped/attempted wrapping of the arms.

Especially the NZ #3 - regardless of the Welsh player being forced lower by the first NZ player's actions, was it an attempt at a tackle?
 

Treadmore

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
413
Post Likes
38
I was surprised back 6 wasn't sanctioned: led with right shoulder into contact, no attempt to wrap an arm at that point.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,061
Post Likes
1,788
My thoughts - which I think are the same as both ARs judging by the long deliberation and their body signals to the ref - is thst neither NZ player made a legitimate tackle with wrapped/attempted wrapping of the arms.

Especially the NZ #3 - regardless of the Welsh player being forced lower by the first NZ player's actions, was it an attempt at a tackle?


im sure there is a claim that he was to target the ball directly rather than the tackle, and the actions of his team mates tackle stuffed that up.

Im not saying that is "right" or what shoud happen but his arm position is consistent with an attampt to play at the ball initially.

didds
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Do either of the tacklers make a genuine attempt to wrap?

https://youtu.be/DPSfMV0elGc?t=2940 replay from 49 mins

Even with the Welsh player dropping into contact and leading with the head its a tucked shoulder from 3 before making direct contact to the head and no attempt to grasp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Im not saying that is "right" or what shoud happen but his arm position is consistent with an attampt to play at the ball initially.

didds

Its an interesting point didds. I think if you are going to be involved, especially in the contact part of a tackle that you are required to ensure that your actions meet the requirements of a tackle, even if you are just trying to rip the ball. I had a second man in this year who came in with a swinging arm to try to pop the ball free, missed the ball as the BC got shunted by the first player and clocked the player under the chin with a good deal of force. Even though I could see what he was trying to do I still gave him a RC, direct and forceful contact to the head of an opposition player - play silly games and all that. I suspect he would have been hunted down by the BC teams enforcer (and brother in law) anyway so that removes that potential on-field blowup too.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,124
Post Likes
2,144
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I thought play on. The welsh player dropped his head late, tackle from the first AB pushed him slightly towards the second. There was direct contact with the head, but I saw no way for the AB to alter his tackle height in the time available. I don’t know what he could have done differently when you have a player dropping height, then dropping his head even further just before contact.

I disagree. You start at red but then can only mitigate down one level (even if there are several mitigating factors). I agree with YC
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I thought play on. The welsh player dropped his head late, tackle from the first AB pushed him slightly towards the second. There was direct contact with the head, but I saw no way for the AB to alter his tackle height in the time available. I don’t know what he could have done differently when you have a player dropping height, then dropping his head even further just before contact.

Then maybe he (Black 3) ought to have pulled out of the tackle, or at least, not attempted to make it a "dominant" tackle.

Do either of the tacklers make a genuine attempt to wrap?

https://youtu.be/DPSfMV0elGc?t=2940 replay from 49 mins

Even with the Welsh player dropping into contact and leading with the head its a tucked shoulder from 3 before making direct contact to the head and no attempt to grasp.

Agree. I saw no attempt to wrap, so for me its a no-arms tackle to begin with.

I think by now, players at this level ought to at least have realised that if they go into a tackle low with a leading shoulder/upper arm, they could easily be caught out by the ball carrier lowering his head. I thought RC was likely when I was watching live, even though I don't think it would have been justified. IMO he was probably on the lucky side to have only got YC.

For mine, this sort of incident is just another reason that RC should be player sent off but replaced after 20 minutes, because there is no way such an incident would justify putting a team down to 14 for an entire half.
 
Last edited:

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
For mine, this sort of incident is just another reason that RC should be player sent off but replaced after 20 minutes, because there is no way such an incident would justify putting a team down to 14 for an entire half.

I agree with the sentiment here WRT a piece of foul play like this where the infringement isn't flagrant, deliberately violent or malicious. I still think a deliberate attempt to injure (punch, stomp, lift and throw, etc) should still see a match long sanction for your team, especially if the victim is off the field due to an injury caused by that event.

Not trying to derail the conversation, but Black Cards in gaelic football work well - I've never had one but got close after bloke fly kicked me in the hand during a match and I reacted with an elbow to the face. Relieved to only see red!
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I agree with the sentiment here WRT a piece of foul play like this where the infringement isn't flagrant, deliberately violent or malicious. I still think a deliberate attempt to injure (punch, stomp, lift and throw, etc) should still see a match long sanction for your team, especially if the victim is off the field due to an injury caused by that event.

Not trying to derail the conversation, but Black Cards in gaelic football work well - I've never had one but got close after bloke fly kicked me in the hand during a match and I reacted with an elbow to the face. Relieved to only see red!


Black cards for sending off would be used about as often as sendings off were before the era of "protecting the player" protocols. Incidents such as ear-biting (Johann Le Roux), eye-gouging (Richard Nones, David Attoub, Dylan Hartley, Mariano Galarza, Bakkies Botha, Richard Loe, Schalk Burger, Julien Dupuy, Marius Tincu, Troy Flavell et al) as well as perpetrators of violence such as punching, stomping, bag-snatching etc, where the intent to attempt to injure an opponent is both obvious and premeditated, should be sent from the field and not replaced.

This incident didn't meet those standards.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,061
Post Likes
1,788
Its an interesting point didds. I think if you are going to be involved, especially in the contact part of a tackle that you are required to ensure that your actions meet the requirements of a tackle, even if you are just trying to rip the ball. .

yup. No issues with that - it was just an attempt to explain why the wrap wasnt being attempted.
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,486
Solutions
1
Post Likes
445
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
This reminds me that there is a limited (1200 matches or so) trial in English colleges' (under 19) of a navel maximum tackle height - and ball carriers are not allowed to dip or change their running height into the tackler. A similar trial in NZ I believe?

Leading with your head into contact has never been good for your health (which may explain some of my neck issues)!
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
This reminds me that there is a limited (1200 matches or so) trial in English colleges' (under 19) of a navel maximum tackle height - and ball carriers are not allowed to dip or change their running height into the tackler. A similar trial in NZ I believe?

Leading with your head into contact has never been good for your health (which may explain some of my neck issues)!

I wonder if this law change would see more tacklers injured, especially taller players who are bending to reach smaller players and ending up with heads on hip or neck flexions from the impact.

Also - in the law variation can a BC who dips and causes a high tackle to occur be YC for dangerous play? :chin:
 
Last edited:

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,354
Post Likes
1,455
This reminds me that there is a limited (1200 matches or so) trial in English colleges' (under 19) of a navel maximum tackle height - and ball carriers are not allowed to dip or change their running height into the tackler. A similar trial in NZ I believe?

Leading with your head into contact has never been good for your health (which may explain some of my neck issues)!
Am I misremembering, but wasn't there evidence that this actually increased the injury rate among tacklers?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,061
Post Likes
1,788
so to get this right, under this law a six foot winger running at full pace for 50m, when approached by a defender intending to tackle cannot do anything to brace for impact and has to take a full force tackle to an exposed mid riff becasue they must remain fullty upright - unless of course I suppose they ran 50m double up almost? ( Yeah right...)

What could possibly go wrong?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Am I misremembering, but wasn't there evidence that this actually increased the injury rate among tacklers?

Nope, you are not misremembering

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/4/220

Conclusion
"Reducing the maximum height of the legal tackle from the line of the shoulder to the line of the armpit in elite men’s rugby resulted in desired changes in player behaviour. Ball carriers entered contact partially bent and tacklers entered contact fully bent at the waist more frequently. However, overall concussion incidence did not decrease and in tacklers both concussion incidence and propensity increased significantly. A better understanding of the interaction between ball carrier and tackler behaviour is needed to inform future trials of more context-specific and game-specific strategies to reduce concussion."

 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,486
Solutions
1
Post Likes
445
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Which is why ball carriers are supposed to remain upright?

Is the intent to enable more 'evasive' rugby?

I haven't yet had to referee it (after all there are only 1200 games across England), but there are 3 colleges in area, who would have to play these variations (I hesitate to call them Regulations) when playing each other. But not when they play other schools! The coach's main concern was players having to adapt to two different tackle instructions, from week to week, or even from weekday to weekend.

If I do find myself refereeing to these variations I will report back. (It has been a bit of a thread hijack, apologies.)
 
Top