[Tackle] What's wrong with this?

[pombok]

*Scratches head*

https://youtu.be/lgJX2wscKVU

 

[Phil E]

I'm waiting for a French speaker to explain what the ref and TMO discussed.

 

[pombok]

I'm waiting for a French speaker to explain what the ref and TMO discussed.

I'm in the same boat!

From watching it without sound it looks like just a good old-fashioned hard tackle. Was it dangerous because of the force?

It had arms wrapped around, wasn't late, wasn't high, wasn't a lift - in fact the only thing "wrong" with it was the tackler's head on the wrong side.

 

[pombok]

Oh wait - he also didn't come back to pick up the ball from behind the gate. Surely not a yellow though?

 

[OB..]

I think the ref has adjudged that the first contact was with the shoulder. The commentators were noting that the initial contact was just at shoulder level, and therefore not too high.

 

[Taff]

*Scratches head*

You're not the only one. At first glance, I thought it was a "No arms" tackle, but the slow mo clearly shows it was just a hard but fair tackle.

Oh wait - he also didn't come back to pick up the ball from behind the gate. Surely not a yellow though?

Well spotted Poirot. :biggrin:

On it's own it may not be a :noyc: but for all we know it may have been the 3rd or 4th such infringement.

 

[buff]

According to the ref, the hit was with force and leading with the shoulder. We don't get the tmo's end of the conversation.

 

[crossref]

I am actually sympathetic with the refs opinion.

If a player tried really hard to use a shoulder while making it appear that he was wrapping with his arms .... it would look like that.

 

[Paule23]

*Scratches head*

https://youtu.be/lgJX2wscKVU

Agreed, I can't see anything wrong here. Strong tackle but to me hard but fair.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ridiculous decision.

Both arms wrapped, simultaneous contact with the TOP of the shoulder (NOT the point). That is a perfectly executed crash-tackle, exactly the way players are coached to tackle.

I wonder what the game is coming to when a textbook, totally legal tackle is not only PK, its YC as well.

 

[Taff]

Ridiculous decision. ... I wonder what the game is coming to when a textbook, totally legal tackle is not only PK, its YC as well.

Which is why I can't help thinking there is a lot more to this :noyc: than just what we see in that video.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the hand, arm or fist, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).

I can only, maybe guess, perhaps, could it be leading with head in tackle (head on chest and contacting chin).

I think it is a good ferocious tackle.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think there was dialog about leading with the head.

 

[Camquin]

You have not met the Glasgow Kiss

 

[Rich_NL]

First off, he says he wants to check the tackle of the last phase, whether black (he doesn't have the number) did so in a legal manner or not. Commentators saying it's on the shoulder, not high - impressive but legal.

Then the ref says he tackled at speed, his shoulder made contact first, penalty/yellow card black 8. Repeats that explanation to the players. Commentators say that's very severe.

So it's a yellow card for leading with the shoulder at speed.

The only thing I saw was tackler not coming through the gate.

 

[ChuckieB]

Without doubt the tackle was robust. From an instinct and technique perspective, a player is not going to both arms wrap and leave his head to take the full force of the initial contact without mitigating the risk by some adjustment.

Not a decision I can particularly fathom.

 

[Rushforth]

Both arms wrapped, simultaneous contact with the TOP of the shoulder (NOT the point). That is a perfectly executed crash-tackle, exactly the way players are coached to tackle.

It looks worse than it is because the ball carrier is seriously unbalanced just before being headbutted in the chest.

I'm bemused both by the YC and the somewhat bizarre idea that this is a textbook tackle. It is certainly not a 'tackle' I would like to see grassroots or youth players attempt to execute themselves with.

But as far as I can see, there is no law against shit technique endangering the tackler's own head, and against a side-stepping ball carrier the head has to go somewhere.

One of our players was somewhat harshly carded for a much better tackle at around the same height last weekend, although the referee didn't have the benefit of a TMO. There were no complaints; the lads got on with it, and within the ten minutes an opponent was also carded - I'm not even sure what for, but again I heard no complaints.

 

[ChrisR]

I'm bemused both by the YC and the somewhat bizarre idea that this is a textbook tackle. It is certainly not a 'tackle' I would like to see grassroots or youth players attempt to execute themselves with.

I agree with Rushforth. This not a 'textbook' tackle. If the PK was given for dangerous play (leading with the head) then OK. A YC? Not in my book.

Leading with the helmet (head) is banned in US football for both the tackler and the BC.

 

[didds]

View attachment 3615

But as far as I can see, there is no law against shit technique endangering the tackler's own head

Leigh Halfpenny has been doing this for years (head on the wrong side). To the extent it has to be deliberate.

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

The number of people I've seen on American rugby fora/Facebook pages saying that the tackle had "great form"...

And we wonder why concussion can be such an issue