Warburton Red Card - IRB Directive

[Dixie]

Greenwood seems hopelessly ill-informed.

 

[Account Deleted]

Did they sight after the RWC or after the RWC?

Sorry, I don't understand this.

 

[chopper15]

'Cite' maybe, ATTR?:hap:

 

[chopper15]

Greenwood seems hopelessly ill-informed.

Wouldn't have expected such a generalised critique from such a punctilious and just forum member as you, Dixie, without specific reference and qualification . . . and he was giving a point of view as an experienced sports jornalist and distinguished player.:sad:

I personally thought the following was particularly interesting and a worthy consideration for the Union game.

I sat with Shaun Edwards during the second round of the Heineken Cup and we talked about spear tackles, how they were happening and what could be done to improve the game’s handling of the issue. I appreciate that he is also in the Wales camp and don’t want this to become a lament for the cruelty of that night in New Zealand. But if I could talk to one man about the intricacies of tackling then the Wales defence coach would have to be it.

We agreed that the system of ‘being put on report’ that is used in rugby league would go a long way to sorting out the issue. It is a very clever use of the rules and with it the ability to maintain control of the game.

A referee who sees what he believes to be an act of foul play but is not sure of its severity can highlight the incident immediately to independent reviewers. After the final whistle these adjudicators can then study each case closely to understand intent and any illegality.

Let us not fool ourselves that this is a soft measure, because the tackles in rugby league can be much more brutal than in union. At the same time, the players are under no illusion that if in post-match reviews they are found guilty of attempting to harm a player, they will serve a long ban. So the threat is there, the knowledge of punishment is there. Players know there can be no evading justice and modify their behaviour on the field.

And while it will not eradicate the bad tackle, it will at least give players and referees a chance to evaluate a situation coolly and calmly.

And that is surely in the interest of everyone in the game.

 

[OB..]

Tip tackle. Will Greenwood comments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...e-the-heat-out-of-spear-tackles-in-union.html

Throughout the whole process of the tip or spear tackle we look at everything through the prism of the tackler’s intent.

No we don't. We look at what actually happens.

But it takes two to tackle, and the actions of the player being tackled is overlooked far too often.

What I see is players trying to keep their head off the ground. I don't buy the excuse that they are trying to get to ground.

A referee who sees what he believes to be an act of foul play but is not sure of its severity can highlight the incident immediately to independent reviewers. After the final whistle these adjudicators can then study each case closely to understand intent and any illegality.

That happens already - it's called citing. There had already been citings in the RWC where the Disciplinary Panel agreed with the Citing Officer that the offence should have been red-carded. Why suggest the referee might not have been certain?

AIUI Rugby League referees will send off players for the spear tackle. On report seems to be a category below yellow card.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Wouldn't have expected such a generalised critique from such a punctilious and just forum member as you, Dixie, without specific reference and qualification . . . and he was giving a point of view as an experienced sports jornalist and distinguished player.:sad:

I personally thought the following was particularly interesting and a worthy consideration for the Union game.

I sat with Shaun Edwards during the second round of the Heineken Cup and we talked about spear tackles, how they were happening and what could be done to improve the game’s handling of the issue. I appreciate that he is also in the Wales camp and don’t want this to become a lament for the cruelty of that night in New Zealand. But if I could talk to one man about the intricacies of tackling then the Wales defence coach would have to be it.

We agreed that the system of ‘being put on report’ that is used in rugby league would go a long way to sorting out the issue. It is a very clever use of the rules and with it the ability to maintain control of the game.

A referee who sees what he believes to be an act of foul play but is not sure of its severity can highlight the incident immediately to independent reviewers. After the final whistle these adjudicators can then study each case closely to understand intent and any illegality.

Let us not fool ourselves that this is a soft measure, because the tackles in rugby league can be much more brutal than in union. At the same time, the players are under no illusion that if in post-match reviews they are found guilty of attempting to harm a player, they will serve a long ban. So the threat is there, the knowledge of punishment is there. Players know there can be no evading justice and modify their behaviour on the field.

And while it will not eradicate the bad tackle, it will at least give players and referees a chance to evaluate a situation coolly and calmly.

And that is surely in the interest of everyone in the game.

Regardless of any of your lengthy diatribe, Dixie is correct. Greenwood is ill-informed. He is another of these pundits who want to keep talking about intent when intent is not an issue.

Make no mistake here, the medical evidence regarding spear tackles makes it abundantly clear that the outcome is likely to be potentially catastrophic for the victim. That outcome is wholly unaffected by the tackler's intent.... what he intended is irrelevent, what happened is at hand, and is the only part of the whole issue that is of any significance. i.o.w. a dangerous tip-tackle is still dangerous, whether intended or not.

Chopper, have you read my article on the Dynamics of a Tip Tackle? If so, do you understand that the lifting of a player off the ground cannot be unintentional? It is a physical action that MUST be intentional by the very nature of what the tackler must do. What comes afterwards might not be done on purpose, but the FIRST action of the tackler of grasping the player below the hips and lifting him up cannot be an accident or a reactionary reflex.


PS: Does anyone know how to comment of Telegraph articles. I have registered and logged in, but there is no "Comment" link.

 

[Account Deleted]

Greenwood seems hopelessly ill-informed.

Spot on.

 

[chopper15]

Ian, I have read your treatise on Tip Tackles.

I accept that the 'lift' is intentional and that a spear tackle is a vicious variant of the tip tackle with the obvious intention to harm.

I'm not too sure, however, about the terminology used. i assumed a 'tip tackle' was the lift and horizontal drop, the latter not necessarily intentional. And the 'spear tackle' when both lift and beyond horizontal to vertical drive is deliberate with the obvious intent to harm.

The former I think WG was referring to for RC consideration while off for the YC 10 mins. For the latter no problem . . . a straight RC.

I still think your charges are a bit Ref v Journalist-Player biased and OTT.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, I have read your treatise on Tip Tackles.

I accept that the 'lift' is intentional and that a spear tackle is a vicious variant of the tip tackle with the obvious intention to harm.

I'm not too sure, however, about the terminology used. i assumed a 'tip tackle' was the lift and horizontal drop, the latter not necessarily intentional. And the 'spear tackle' when both lift and beyond horizontal to vertical drive is deliberate with the obvious intent to harm.

The former I think WG was referring to for RC consideration while off for the YC 10 mins. For the latter no problem . . . a straight RC.

I still think your charges are a bit Ref v Journalist-Player biased and OTT.

Chopper

I don't see a tip tackle as any different from a spear tackle in outcome

"lift-tip-drive" and "lift-tip-drop" have so much in common that for me, there is essentially no difference

► Both are dangerous
► Both carry significant risk of catastrophic injury to the victim
► Both have the "lift" element, which is both deliberate and avoidable.

There may be a difference in intent (although not always) but as I have explained, they are dangerous, and mandatory red cards, because of their inherent dangers, NOT because of the intent of the player.

 

[Robert Burns]

Great comment on the page from one of the Telegraph readers:

Sorry Will, it ain't all about professional rugby.

What good is being put "on report" if you're playing for Old Jizztonians 3rds and a pumped up plonker from Wankstainians 4ths gets overexcited and tips you past 90 from a few feet up?

You might say 'damage done' anyway - what good is sending the tackler off?

I say that if you know that a tip tackle gets a red + ban + having to drive to a disciplinary somewhere miles away, every time, even the biggest plonker is going to avoid doing this sort of stuff because they might escape punishment. Even if your team wins, you're in the poo.

It isn't a marginal issue, this one - it's possibly a broken neck, maybe paralysis and if the spinal cord gets severed around the 4th or 5th cervical vertebrae, instant death.

Don't play fast and loose with the tip tackle issue, the pro game is the tip of the iceberg.

Also, lots of Telegraph reader seem to understand perfectly why we do what we do. I'm impressed!

 

[Dixie]

PS: Does anyone know how to comment of Telegraph articles. I have registered and logged in, but there is no "Comment" link.

Great comment on the page from one of the Telegraph readers:

Either they are limiting comments to those posting in the sceptred isle, or else they've carefully hidden the comment button where no antipodean might find it.

Chopper, sorry not to have explained my comment - I had thought it was self-evident. OB and Ian have rightly commented on the importance (nay, pre-eminence) WG places on the tackler's intent, demonstrating that WG has not bothered to read the instruction that requires the referee not even to consider intent, let alone look at the entire process "through the prism of the tackler's intent". He goes on to explain in depth the problem facing a tackler who drives the oppo backwards at speed in such a way that the tackler's efforts to place the ball make him come down head or shoulders first. But of course, a dynamic tackle in which the BC ends up in an awkward position is not a tip tackle due to the lack of the lift. The lift is the option needed by the static tackler in instances wherein there in insufficient momentum from either player to unbalance the BC. WG's lengthy discussion covers a form of tackle not at risk of being considered a tip tackle.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Either they are limiting comments to those posting in the sceptred isle, or else they've carefully hidden the comment button where no antipodean might find it.

I got it figured, posted my comments and referred back to the article on this forum

You not only have to register with The Telegraph, you also have to register with DISQUS in order to see the comments box.

 

[Thomond78]

Greenwood seems hopelessly ill-informed.

Bluntly, he's a bloody idiot.

He should a) look at the brilliant decision in the Schalk Brits citing, which lays it out in black and white b) look at appendix 5 to the RFU regulation 19 which sets out the position succinctly and c) remember he near as damn it died himself on the pitch from a head injury where a tackle went wrong because people weren't paying any attention to their responsibility to other players.

 

[Account Deleted]

Bluntly, he's a bloody idiot...

T78 get the gold for "Stating the blindingly obvious"

 

[chopper15]

Such a long time ago now I've probably lost the gist of the debate but aren't you being a bit rough on Greenwood . . . a bloody idiot indeed?

His sentiment, surely, was to distinguish for punishment between a deliberateyl constructed pile-driver with intent obvious to all, and a tip-and-drop which can also have serious consequences but is often an instinctive lift with little time to think about the drop.

 

[didds]

*sigh*

which the IRB has made very clear is not to have any distinction. If you pick somebody up, it is your responsibility to get them down safely. Henson managed it.

didds

 

[Davet]

the lesson is clear - not only don't do it delberately, but also take suffcient care in your approach and xecution that you don't do it without meaning to.

You get prosecuted for careless driving, you get red carded for careless tackling.

 

[chopper15]

Didds, you state, . . . the IRB has made very clear is not to have any distinction. If you pick somebody up, it is your responsibility to get them down safely.

Not clear what is meant by, '. . . the IRB has made very clear is not to have any distinction'.

Not to have any distinction for what? Same punishment for both unassisted and pile-driver drops?

If so am I correct to assume that the threat of injury is used to justify ignoring any attempt to control the landing should they be unsuccessful?

 

[OB..]

Didds, you state, . . . the IRB has made very clear is not to have any distinction. If you pick somebody up, it is your responsibility to get them down safely.

Not clear what is meant by, '. . . the IRB has made very clear is not to have any distinction'.

Not to have any distinction for what? Same punishment for both unassisted and pile-driver drops?

If so am I correct to assume that the threat of injury is used to justify ignoring any attempt to control the landing should they be unsuccessful?

Both are red cards. The disciplinary Panel will decide what entry point to use.

 

[bignij]

Didds, you state, . . . the IRB has made very clear is not to have any distinction. If you pick somebody up, it is your responsibility to get them down safely.

Not clear what is meant by, '. . . the IRB has made very clear is not to have any distinction'.

Not to have any distinction for what? Same punishment for both unassisted and pile-driver drops?

If so am I correct to assume that the threat of injury is used to justify ignoring any attempt to control the landing should they be unsuccessful?

Referees don't have to justify anything with regard to this. I'm presuming you've read the IRB Directive. It is quite straightforward. If you lift their legs above their hips, you have to bring them down safely, if you don't, it's early bath time. Whether you try and bring them down safely and fail is immaterial.