PDA

View Full Version : [Tackle] Player lifted, legs beyond the horizontal



MrQeu
08-08-16, 16:08
So,

https://youtu.be/66v2yZMWxWY?t=2m18s

What will be your call?

talbazar
08-08-16, 16:08
Nothing, play on.
He lifted him, put him down safely...
As a matter of fact, it's not even a tackle :bday:

Rather impressive though!

thepercy
08-08-16, 17:08
...and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are off the ground...

didds
08-08-16, 17:08
but that didn't happen though? in this case?


didds

thepercy
08-08-16, 17:08
right, he set him down so nicely that the would be tackler even got a friendly pat on the butt for his efforts.

Paule23
08-08-16, 18:08
Truly bizarre.

I'd be inclined to let this go. It looks horrible initially when he's got the player upside down and off the floor, but he puts him down gently, play continues, no-one is complaining, play on.

didds
08-08-16, 18:08
... and the lifter is obviously fully understanding what has happened, and what his responsibilities are, and fulfills them to the max.

didds

ctrainor
08-08-16, 21:08
I would have a word with the tackler and maybe consider a yellow.
Whilst he got the player down safely, what he did was dangerous play and lucky he managed to keep hold even though I accept he realised what was happening.

didds
09-08-16, 09:08
Serious question.

If its a YC for stopping the action, and righting the player and putting him gently on his feet... and a YC for just letting go near the ground (possibly) - then what benefit is there - apart from decency - for a player to take himself out of the game by taking longer to do the totally correct thing.

In the above situation PK at most, with a chat yes. The thing is the action the player took to ends up with the bloke upside down wasn't a normal lifted tackle and flip. It was sort of grab and OMG!

didds

DocY
09-08-16, 10:08
I'm disappointed this even needs asking! Yes, it looks like it's *about to be* a penalty, but it never materialises.

The only way I'd interfere there would be to shout "Careful 14! Thank you" (though probably missing something on the floor while watching them.

Paule23
09-08-16, 11:08
Serious question.

If its a YC for stopping the action, and righting the player and putting him gently on his feet... and a YC for just letting go near the ground (possibly) - then what benefit is there - apart from decency - for a player to take himself out of the game by taking longer to do the totally correct thing.

In the above situation PK at most, with a chat yes. The thing is the action the player took to ends up with the bloke upside down wasn't a normal lifted tackle and flip. It was sort of grab and OMG!

didds

I'd agree with this. There are lots of situations that occur in a contact sport like rugby where the player ends up in a situation they did not intend, for example riding up to a high tackle. How we penalise depends on what they do, intent etc. So if an arm rides up, but as it hits the neck the tackler realises, and withdraws, its still a high tackle and penalty but no further sanction. If they continue to scrag, tackle and it's dangerous, it's a penalty and YC, escalating to RC depending on seriousness.

Here we have something where the tackler ends up holding the player in a dangerous position, they did not intend to do this, and they extricate themselves and the player safely. At most a penalty for potential dangerous play, but as I said above, in my book no issues, (maybe a little chat at the next break of play to say well done for getting him down safely, but be careful you don't get someone in that situation again).

DocY
09-08-16, 11:08
At most a penalty for potential dangerous play

I'm pretty sure that's not penalisable. Almost everything you do on a rugby pitch is potentially dangerous!

oldman
09-08-16, 12:08
Big thing in my opinion is the reaction of the players. Game continues, no appeals for a penalty, tackled player returns to game. Play on, maybe a quiet word at next stoppage. To me the "tackler" knows what he's done and has safely returned the "tackled" player to the ground. Play on.

Dickie E
09-08-16, 13:08
The most egregious thing in all of that was the soundtrack :norc:

talbazar
09-08-16, 14:08
Serious question.

If its a YC for stopping the action, and righting the player and putting him gently on his feet... and a YC for just letting go near the ground (possibly) - then what benefit is there - apart from decency - for a player to take himself out of the game by taking longer to do the totally correct thing.

In the above situation PK at most, with a chat yes. The thing is the action the player took to ends up with the bloke upside down wasn't a normal lifted tackle and flip. It was sort of grab and OMG!

didds

Totally agree with the first part.
As for me, there is no PK here. A chat, definitely. But it will be along the line of "Well done there mate. Be careful though for next one...!"

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

MrQeu
09-08-16, 16:08
As this was a preseason friendly and nobody was injured, just asking for the sake of understanding the action, the call and the law.

Many of you are saying he didn't do it on purpose. Well, the attacking player had his head low and defending player grasped over his stomach and applied force. Because of this grasp, having the player lifted, tipped and head down was inevitable IMHO. So, while his intent might not be that, he was, at least reckless. And intent should not be taken into account, AFAIK.

If you are alright with this action being part of the game, should it be encouraged? I mean, isn't that dangerous? Holding a player upside down on the air seems to me quite dangerous. The held player might panic and try to release himself which will be quite dangerous as he might worsen the situation (and we know actions by the tackled player should not be taken into account when asserting cards on tip tackles -I know, it's not a tackle if he releases the ball while being held-). Or a defending player might try to engage on a multiple player tackle. Many things could go wrong.

I still believe this to be a dangerous situation that should be penalised and by no means encouraged (if it's not wrong, it's ok and a valid tactic). If no bit of law allows for it to be penalised, well, I firmly believe it should be one.


PS: As for no player asking for a penalty, actually, red team did not felt that the action was ok even if they said nothing at the moment: defending player involved in the action was afterwards the target of some a bit too hard tackles and maybe even foul play (deferred retaliation), so they might have not reacted on the spot, but they seemed to do afterwards.

SimonSmith
09-08-16, 16:08
Penalties aren't the only tool we have for dissuading players from pursuing courses of action

RobLev
14-08-16, 16:08
As this was a preseason friendly and nobody was injured, just asking for the sake of understanding the action, the call and the law.

Many of you are saying he didn't do it on purpose. Well, the attacking player had his head low and defending player grasped over his stomach and applied force. Because of this grasp, having the player lifted, tipped and head down was inevitable IMHO. So, while his intent might not be that, he was, at least reckless. And intent should not be taken into account, AFAIK.

If you are alright with this action being part of the game, should it be encouraged? I mean, isn't that dangerous? Holding a player upside down on the air seems to me quite dangerous. The held player might panic and try to release himself which will be quite dangerous as he might worsen the situation (and we know actions by the tackled player should not be taken into account when asserting cards on tip tackles -I know, it's not a tackle if he releases the ball while being held-). Or a defending player might try to engage on a multiple player tackle. Many things could go wrong.

I still believe this to be a dangerous situation that should be penalised and by no means encouraged (if it's not wrong, it's ok and a valid tactic). If no bit of law allows for it to be penalised, well, I firmly believe it should be one.


PS: As for no player asking for a penalty, actually, red team did not felt that the action was ok even if they said nothing at the moment: defending player involved in the action was afterwards the target of some a bit too hard tackles and maybe even foul play (deferred retaliation), so they might have not reacted on the spot, but they seemed to do afterwards.

Clarification 5/2005 (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=10&clarification=39) was subsequently incorporated into Law as 10.4(j). The Clarification makes very clear that the act is only dangerous play when the player is dropped or speared:

The act of lifting an opponent off his feet in a tackle AND dropping or 'spearing' that player so that his head and/or upper body comes into contact with the ground first, is a dangerous tackle.

The capitals are in the original. So no, the Law as introduced was not intended to outlaw holding an opponent upside down, provided that they were put back down right-side up.

Ian_Cook
14-08-16, 23:08
Agree with RobLev.

The PK is for lifting AND turning beyond horizontal AND dropping or driving the player

Lifting a player is not an infringement

Tipping a player over is not an infringement

So long as a player who does both does not proceed with dropping or driving, then no infringement has taken place.

crossref
15-08-16, 18:08
So no, the Law as introduced was not intended to outlaw holding an opponent upside down, provided that they were put back down right-side up.

I agree with you Rob - but having said that, I wouldn't be happy with a team turning players upside down as a deliberate tactic - it's not something that would end well!

Ian_Cook
15-08-16, 22:08
I agree with you Rob - but having said that, I wouldn't be happy with a team turning players upside down as a deliberate tactic - it's not something that would end well!

Is this happening a lot somewhere?

If so, what is the tactical reasons for doing this?

Rushforth
15-08-16, 23:08
Is this happening a lot somewhere?

If so, what is the tactical reasons for doing this?

A lot? I don't know.

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXJyDHFKn0 for more information on strategic reasons to take another player out.

Ian_Cook
16-08-16, 01:08
A lot? I don't know.

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXJyDHFKn0 for more information on strategic reasons to take another player out.

Nice troll try, but irrelevant.

Crossref was talking about players being lifted and inverted by their opponents without being dropped, or driven, as some kind of tactic. I am asking if he has seen a lot of that going on.

The OP's video is the only one I know of.


PS: I guess some people just can't move on, can they?

DocY
16-08-16, 09:08
I agree with you Rob - but having said that, I wouldn't be happy with a team turning players upside down as a deliberate tactic - it's not something that would end well!

I find it unlikely that teams would adopt this as a deliberate tactic - not only can I see no benefit (which doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one), it's damn tiring!

didds
16-08-16, 12:08
Nice troll try, but irrelevant.

Crossref was talking about players being lifted and inverted by their opponents without being dropped, or driven, as some kind of tactic. I am asking if he has seen a lot of that going on.

The OP's video is the only one I know of.




The only other one I can think of is this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZk4atcx3gg

didds

Wedgie
16-08-16, 15:08
The only other one I can think of is this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZk4atcx3gg

didds

I quite like this one ...for multiple reasons ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03gpzFZadcQ

The Fat
17-08-16, 21:08
Interesting thread with many personal opinions but are these opinions consistent with any directives from societies/unions?

1. I agree with Roblev that the wording of the relevant law requires more than one action (by the inclusion of AND) to end with some sort of sanction.
2. I give credit to the tackler for returning the lifted player safely to the ground.
3. I do not give credit to the tackler for the initial lift (he could have simply rolled to the side to complete the tackle without executing a lift).
4. Union specific: We have been told that it is the lifting action that should trigger the red flag for referees that we now have a potentially dangerous situation.
5. Union specific: Our GMGs for Community Level Rugby in Australia clearly directs that any time a player is lifted and taken beyond the horizontal, a minimum YC should be issued. Their reasoning is that it is the "lifting and taking the player past the horizontal" action that needs to be discouraged i.e. no static lift = no chance of a tip tackle

I'm pretty confident that in 99% of cases at elite level, the ref would play on (possibly with a "Good job putting him down safely but be careful not to get a player into a dangerous position", but at our level, how many societies/unions have issued directives/advice that such an action must be PKed or YCed???

Dixie
18-08-16, 10:08
4. Union specific: We have been told that it is the lifting action that should trigger the red flag for referees that we now have a potentially dangerous situation.
5. Union specific: Our GMGs for Community Level Rugby in Australia clearly directs that any time a player is lifted and taken beyond the horizontal, a minimum YC should be issued. Their reasoning is that it is the "lifting and taking the player past the horizontal" action that needs to be discouraged i.e. no static lift = no chance of a tip tackle

The bit in red seems to flow more naturally from 4 than from 5.

Given that most lift tackles occur because the ball carrier is too static for his own momentum to cause the fall to ground when tackled, #4 coupled with the comment in red seems to imply that the act of lifting a static player is itself dangerous and should be the trigger for a card. That's make life interesting at the kickoff/restart and al lineouts!

OB..
18-08-16, 18:08
Given that most lift tackles occur because the ball carrier is too static for his own momentum to cause the fall to ground when tackled, #4 coupled with the comment in red seems to imply that the act of lifting a static player is itself dangerous and should be the trigger for a card. That's make life interesting at the kickoff/restart and al lineouts!You have just illustrated why lifting per se is not considered dangerous.

If you are lifting a team mate, the action is co-operative. When lifting an opponent that may not be the case!

thepercy
18-08-16, 20:08
From USA GMG

Spear tackle or tip tackle. Lifting a player from the ground, turning the body horizontal or beyond, and either driving the player into the ground or dropping the player without regard for the player’s safety. PK and Red Card. • When a player is lifted, there is an obligation on the tackler to get the player to the ground safely. • If the tackler lowers the player such that the lower body contacts the ground first there is no offense. • If the tackler attempts to lower the player safely, but is unsuccessful. PK and admonishment and/or suspension

Ian_Cook
19-08-16, 09:08
From USA GMG

Spear tackle or tip tackle. Lifting a player from the ground, turning the body horizontal or beyond, and either driving the player into the ground or dropping the player without regard for the player’s safety. PK and Red Card. • When a player is lifted, there is an obligation on the tackler to get the player to the ground safely. • If the tackler lowers the player such that the lower body contacts the ground first there is no offense. • If the tackler attempts to lower the player safely, but is unsuccessful. PK and admonishment and/or suspension

I wish this bit was how the LotG was worded.

SimonSmith
19-08-16, 16:08
I'm not a fan of how this is worded. I understand the bolded is good, but the rest of it is actually difficult to master.

The situation here is that taking someone to horizontal and landing them flat on their back is a card. Problematic, because you end up with cards being issued for good hard tackles that were not intended to be covered by the spear tackle memo(s).

I (acting as a DO) got citings where the tackler starting at belly height and drove through. Ball carrier lands flat on his back. BC's club goes nutso. I think it should be clearer in the GMG that for a mandatory red card, it must go beyond the horizontal