View Full Version : [Law] How a non-tackle can be a 'dangerous tackle'

16-10-15, 15:10
This is interesting.

The Romanians appealed the verdict on Macovei, who was suspended for making a Dangerous Tackle under 10.4(3).

One of the grounds for appeal was this old one -- it wasn't a tackle.

6.1 The Player’s Legal Representative explained that the JO had made an error in law in
finding that the Player’s actings were in breach of Law 10.4(e) namely “Dangerous
Tackling”. The contention was that no tackle had in fact occurred and that a “Tackle”
as defined in Law 15 provides that: “a tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by
one or more opponents and is brought to the ground”.

6.2 In this case, the Canadian player who was the subject of the alleged act of foul play
was not the ball carrier and therefore, it followed, that the circumstances could not be
construed to amount to a “Tackle” for the purposes of Law 10.4(e).

The Appeals Committee rejected it

7. The Appeal Committee Determination in respect of the First Ground of Appeal

7.1 This ground of appeal is refused. The JO correctly categorised the established act of
foul play as a “Dangerous Tackle”. Paragraph 4 of Law 10.4(e) provides under the
general heading of “Dangerous Tackling” that “Playing a player without the ball is
dangerous play”. Further the Memorandum of 22nd May 2015 (Appendix I to this
decision) which is directed to all Referees, Citing Commissioners, Judicial Officers
and Non-legal Judicial Committee Members from Joel Jutge, World Rugby High
Performance Match Officials Manager and Tim Gresson, World Rugby Judicial Panel
Chairman is instructive and provides clarity to this issue particularly in the following
7.2 “Dangerous Grasping” - A further pattern of offending was identified in the Game
(Memorandum 4 August 2011) whereby players not in possession of the ball were
being grasped and/or grabbed by an opponent in and around the neck and/or head
area, principally in an effort to clear out players from the breakdown. While such
behaviour does not come under the definition of a tackle, as no ball carrier is
involved, nevertheless it is dangerous play and Foul Play under Law 10.4(e) and/or
Law 10.4(f) (playing an opponent with the ball) and must be sanctioned”.

I think that's a sensible way to go. But really the 10.4 needs to be re-worded to remove this problem

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/test/worldrugby/document/2015/10/15/50150eed-be7d-42bd-b782-ce07411d820b/151015_Appeal_Decision_of_Mihai_Macovei_(Romania). pdf

16-10-15, 16:10
and how does that differ from all the other laws