Werner Kok

[Harry]

Any Opinions on Werner Kok's clear out technique?

VIDEO: Werner Kok sin-binned for wild WWE style 'suplex'

Sharks wing Werner Kok was perhaps fortunate to only be yellow-carded for this bizarre cleanout at a ruck on Friday night.

www.thesouthafrican.com

 

[didds]

i think it depends how far you want to stretch "the laws".

On the one hand its no more than an otherwise normally "permitted" croc roll (ie its not around the neck)
on the other hand he takes the legs past the horizontal and dumps the player with force into the ground.

Anything then between no action and a RC, depending where you want to sit on that spectrum.

 

[Locke]

For me, this is noticeably more reckless and potentially dangerous than a normal croc roll. At a minimum, penalty with a stern warning for me. I’d like to think I would YC, but I can get a bit shy with cards on the field sometimes. No more than that for me, since it went well. If it went poorly and man being cleared landed head/neck/shoulders, then obvious red card.

 

[smeagol]

i think it depends how far you want to stretch "the laws".

On the one hand its no more than an otherwise normally "permitted" croc roll (ie its not around the neck)

Kok's action is *not* a croc/gator roll, IMO. For a correct/legal roll, the movement is to the side, not whatver this was.

 

[didds]

well i wont lose sleep over it.
So what EXACTLY is more dangerous about this than a normal croc roll? The head/neck is held into the body at all times, doesn't hit the ground etc
Im not defending the guy at all, and for reasons i cant substantiate a YC seems appropriate. But I suspect its more because its in the "ooo - not seen that before, that looks "wrong" drawer"

 

[smeagol]

well i wont lose sleep over it.
So what EXACTLY is more dangerous about this than a normal croc roll? The head/neck is held into the body at all times, doesn't hit the ground etc
Im not defending the guy at all, and for reasons i cant substantiate a YC seems appropriate. But I suspect its more because its in the "ooo - not seen that before, that looks "wrong" drawer"

When done correctly with the roll to the side, the performer lands back-first on the ground, and the recipient's body on top - here, the recipient's back hit the ground.

I think the issue here is turning the guy upside down, which I think warrants the YC. I'm also glad that this is making the rounds, as players should be dissuaded from trying this.

 

[Harry]

To my mind its dangerous to an incoming player face studs coming together.
Look what happens to the 8 (could be the 9)

 

[SimonSmith]

In Australia, according to our GMG, he's deep in the brown stuff. As soon as he's past the horizontal, all we're looking at the the landing.

 

[Dickie E]

In Australia, according to our GMG, he's deep in the brown stuff. As soon as he's past the horizontal, all we're looking at the the landing.

Lifting tackles

World Rugby has provided guidelines for situations where a tackler lifts the player off the ground and their feet pass the horizontal and where the individual lands.
PK – the player is lifted passed the horizontal and land back on their feet. Even if the player is brought to ground on their feet the action is deemed dangerous in community rugby.
YC – the player is lifted passed the horizontal and land on side/ back
RC – the player is lifted passed the horizontal and land on head/neck

Here is the relevant clause from Australian GMGs and, as Simon says, it's all about the landing.

What part of the body did the victim land on?

 

[didds]

In Australia, according to our GMG, he's deep in the brown stuff. As soon as he's past the horizontal, all we're looking at the the landing.

and THAT is the more likely area Id be thinking off for sure.
Of course when that alw was drafted nobody had considered THIS style of feet past horizontal I am 100% sure - it was all about tyhe more typical lift and flip spear tackle. But until WR say otherwise it seems a decent fit.



YC then.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

No more than that for me, since it went well. If it went poorly and man being cleared landed head/neck/shoulders, then obvious red card.

This concerns me. It is TOO LATE waiting for it to go "poorly".

 

[Volun-selected]

Since this will pretty much always tip a player past vertical, based on the laws then it seems a YC is going to be the minimum sanction.

Also, to @Harry’s point - what if the boot had struck another player?

To my mind it’s dangerous to an incoming player face studs coming together.
Look what happens to the 8 (could be the 9)

Quick opinion check: If a player from the jackler’s team trying to support gets a boot to the face as their teammate gets flipped, I would see that as a high degree of danger off of a reckless play (so RC with no mitigation). Or am I being too severe?

What if the tackler clocked his own teammate?

 

[Harry]

Since this will pretty much always tip a player past vertical, based on the laws then it seems a YC is going to be the minimum sanction.

Also, to @Harry’s point - what if the boot had struck another player?

Quick opinion check: If a player from the jackler’s team trying to support gets a boot to the face as their teammate gets flipped, I would see that as a high degree of danger off of a reckless play (so RC with no mitigation). Or am I being too severe?

What if the tackler clocked his own teammate?

I can't see that it matters who gets the boot, its still dangerous. Could even be the Ref !

 

[Dickie E]

Also, to @Harry’s point - what if the boot had struck another player?

Quick opinion check: If a player from the jackler’s team trying to support gets a boot to the face as their teammate gets flipped, I would see that as a high degree of danger off of a reckless play (so RC with no mitigation). Or am I being too severe?

What if the tackler clocked his own teammate?

this "collateral damage" concept is interesting. What would you do if a player made a legal tackle, and as the ball carrier was going to ground, his boot made contact with the face of another player? Is the original tackler culpable? Maybe not, as the tackler hadn't committed an original offence.

What if tackle was illegal but worthy of a penalty only (maybe a soft no-arms tackle)? Would the "boot to face" up the ante? It's the "felony murder" concept. Is everything that happens after the original illegal event fall on the miscreant's shoulders?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

If an act is legal then any subsequent injury is a "rugby incident". If a boot goes into a face as a result of a player illegally being upended then yes I am going to consider that as part of the foul play and judge accordingly.

 

[Stu10]

I think this is well outside the realms of accepted clear out techniques and potential risk to player's neck and back... Am I the only person here thinking red card?

 

[Dickie E]

I think this is well outside the realms of accepted clear out techniques and potential risk to player's neck and back... Am I the only person here thinking red card?

as per my post #9, I am bound to follow Australian GMGs. So for me it is foul play then the sanction is all about what part of the body contacts ground first

 

[tim White]

We had a similar scenario in a training video recently -I gave that a red card, I give this a red card. Contest your innocence at Disciplinary if you wish.

 

[Volun-selected]

Whether YC or RC, I think it’s pretty clear the vast majority of refs are going to send a player off for this so I don’t expect we’ll see it become common (thankfully).