PDA

View Full Version : apparently not as bad as it looked.



Dickie E
05-09-16, 00:09
http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2016/09/nz-schoolboy-gets-double-spear-tackled.html

:wtf:

SimonSmith
05-09-16, 01:09
That was Bryce-esque in its ineptitude

Dickie E
05-09-16, 02:09
I'm going with 2 red cards. One to each of Green 7 & 2.

I think Blue captain raises a good point.

The Fat
05-09-16, 02:09
Did the ref say he had a video replay? He then went on to say the kick to the head wasn't too bad.
IT'S STILL A F@$&?"! KICK TO THE HEAD!!!

RCs to 2 & 7 Green and a big uppercut to the ref

Ian_Cook
05-09-16, 03:09
I'm going with 2 red cards. One to each of Green 7 & 2.

I think Blue captain raises a good point.


Did the ref say he had a video replay? He then went on to say the kick to the head wasn't too bad.
IT'S STILL A F@$&?"! KICK TO THE HEAD!!!

RCs to 2 & 7 Green and a big uppercut to the ref

Saw this game live.

I couldn't believe the referee didn't go for double red.

Dickie E
05-09-16, 04:09
Green 7 (skipper) must've been shitting himself when the ref called him over then absolute relief when the ref asked to speak to #2

Camquin
05-09-16, 15:09
Is a citing possible?
I was thinking Red and Red and a long ban.

DocY
05-09-16, 15:09
Actually quite impressed by the blue captain - I thought his response was very measured!

Much less impressed with the referee. I guess he really didn't want to go to a disciplinary hearing!

ianh5979
05-09-16, 15:09
Couldn't see from the video the way blue landed, definitely red for the kick to 2, red/yellow to 7 for me

Phil E
05-09-16, 16:09
The referee needs re-calibrating!

beckett50
05-09-16, 18:09
The referee needs re-calibrating!

as a bare minimum

I mean :wtf: :norc::norc: all day long

Rushforth
05-09-16, 19:09
Nothing makes sense here.

The referee was not watching the ball - going from 'green' #9 out to #10 - but rather looking back at the 'breakdown' between seconds 4 and 6 of the video, in which the commentator says "dangerous tackle, tip tackle for one".

Then, the unanimous verdict here. I don't always agree with Ian_Cook, but this is just a real head-scratcher. School players, no matter how good they may be, are still not adults. A kick to the head, even if it is to the skull, remains a ****ing kick to the head. It is an RC for adults, never mind kids, in my book and apparently that of everybody else that has posted, too.

I agree with WTF.

Not Kurt Weaver
05-09-16, 19:09
2 red cards for sure

Most unimpressive response by blue, I would expect my teammates to get involved ASAP. Yellow 2 even gets a hug from his Captain on his way out.

Paule23
05-09-16, 19:09
I'm very impressed with the blue captain, a couple of rather incredulous 'yellow?" Git his point across and he left it at that. Whilst most of us agree RC for green 2 purely for the boot, the blue captain showed how you can/should disagree, but then accept the decision. A lesson to all in respect for the game and the official.

SimonSmith
06-09-16, 23:09
Is a citing possible?
I was thinking Red and Red and a long ban.
WR Discipline makes it clear that if the referee sees the incident, no citing is possible.

Rushforth
06-09-16, 23:09
WR Discipline makes it clear that if the referee sees the incident, no citing is possible.

Are you sure about that? Also, he saw the kick but did he see the tip (which the kicker assisted)?

Ian_Cook
07-09-16, 05:09
Couldn't see from the video the way blue landed


Lift + Tip + Drive + Landed on upper back = RC in my book... all day, every day


Are you sure about that? Also, he saw the kick but did he see the tip (which the kicker assisted)?

Rushforth, I think SimonSmith is right (but I will ask around).

At this level, I doubt that there would have been a Citing Officer appointed, and I recall someone saying that in the absence of a Citing Officer, a citing at this level can only be made for incidents that the referee did not see or address on the field. The citing referral must be made by the opposition within a specified period of time.


ETA

Yep, here it is

WR Regulation 17.11 Matches where Citing Commissioners are not Appointed

17.11.1 For Matches where, in accordance with Regulation 17.8.3 or 17.8.6, it is not reasonably practicable for a Citing Commissioner to be appointed, the following shall apply:

(a) Each team participating in a Match, or any of its authorised officials,or its Union, may cite:

(i) a Player(s) for an act(s) of alleged Foul Play committed during that Match provided that such act(s) have not been detected by the Match Officials;

(ii) a Player for more than one incident of alleged Foul Play in the same Match; and

(iii) more than one Player in any Match.

....

17.11.1 (b) (ii) such citing, to be effective, must be made no later than 48 hours of the conclusion of the Match in which the Foul Play is alleged to have occurred;

Paule23
07-09-16, 09:09
Lift + Tip + Drive + Landed on upper back = RC in my book... all day, every day

]

i agree with the santion but does it matter whether he was driven into the ground or not? There is no reference to driven in the law. I had a discussion with a referee coach about this a couple of weeks ago, I gave a yellow (landed on back) partly on the grounds he was driven in to the ground, the coach pointed out this was not part of the law, and I should maybe have considered not giving a yellow as he was only lifted, topped and dropped onto his back and it was a friendly (!)

But as a specific point, does driving matter? I know it makes the consequences more serious, but should there be a different sanction for dropping vs driving? My current view is no, although the potential impact is worse there is no extra sanction for driving into the ground. Thoughts?

DocY
07-09-16, 09:09
But as a specific point, does driving matter? I know it makes the consequences more serious, but should there be a different sanction for dropping vs driving? My current view is no, although the potential impact is worse there is no extra sanction for driving into the ground. Thoughts?

I'd say there should be - someone driving you into the ground is probably going to end less well than dropping them. There's just that much more weight forcing the tackled player down. If the likely consequences of two illegal actions are different, the penalty for the two should be different.

Having grown up and spent my whole playing career in an era where there was just a dangerous tackle (and the term 'tip tackle' had not been heard of, though 'spear tackle' had), where the definition was based on the referee's common sense, I'll take each case on its own merits, but I'll generally view a driving into the ground more harshly than a dropping.

Camquin
07-09-16, 09:09
Of course lack of citing does not stop his headmaster deciding that he has brought the school into disrepute and suspending him from the school rugby team. However, there is no mention of the incident in the match report - so I do not hold out hope for this happening.

"Once again our 1st XV has scored a meritorious victory in the National Co-ed Rugby competition."

Yesterday FAHS defeated Aorere College 25-5 to win this prestigious tournament for the third time in the last eight years. The score would suggest that our team was simply too good but the victory can be fairly attributed to a superior game plan and the commitment our boys showed in order to execute it.

Aorere had powerful forwards and some explosive backs but Feilding managed to restrict their flow of ball so that Aorere never quite managed to play to their potential."

Aorere's web site has messages about respect and behaviour.
Fielding lists its victories.

Should you feel so inclined you could e-mail the school.

admin@feildinghigh.school.nz

chbg
07-09-16, 09:09
i agree with the santion but does it matter whether he was driven into the ground or not? There is no reference to driven in the law. I had a discussion with a referee coach about this a couple of weeks ago, I gave a yellow (landed on back) partly on the grounds he was driven in to the ground, the coach pointed out this was not part of the law, and I should maybe have considered not giving a yellow as he was only lifted, topped and dropped onto his back and it was a friendly (!)

But as a specific point, does driving matter? I know it makes the consequences more serious, but should there be a different sanction for dropping vs driving? My current view is no, although the potential impact is worse there is no extra sanction for driving into the ground. Thoughts?

For the benefit of some, be reassured that the Law does still include 'driving into the ground':

10.4(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play. Sanction: Penalty kick

Agreed that there is no explicit additional penalty for driving as opposed to dropping, but it should be a factor taken into account when determining the sanction. It defines a more deliberate infringement, in my mind. Just as you might consider a different sanction for an extremely late tackle versus a marginally late one.

DocY
07-09-16, 10:09
Of course lack of citing does not stop his headmaster deciding that he has brought the school into disrepute and suspending him from the school rugby team. However, there is no mention of the incident in the match report - so I do not hold out hope for this happening.


I was suspended from playing for school for being sent off - not such a bad incident (I would say that, though), I quite accidentally tackled someone around their forehead - and nothing in the match report, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

Dickie E
07-09-16, 10:09
Aorere College

if you name your school after the bit around a nipple, you deserve no sympathy

Pegleg
07-09-16, 11:09
i agree with the santion but does it matter whether he was driven into the ground or not? There is no reference to driven in the law. I had a discussion with a referee coach about this a couple of weeks ago, I gave a yellow (landed on back) partly on the grounds he was driven in to the ground, the coach pointed out this was not part of the law..?

Law book disagrees:

10.4(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground.

DocY
07-09-16, 12:09
Law book disagrees:

10.4(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground.

I think Paule's point was the law doesn't distinguish between dropping or driving.

Pegleg
07-09-16, 12:09
Certainly not how I read it. The point he made whas the ref coach said driving is not covered so there should not have been a card.

I quore from his post: "There is no reference to driven in the law." Well sorry but there is!

SimonSmith
07-09-16, 13:09
Are you sure about that? Also, he saw the kick but did he see the tip (which the kicker assisted)?

Yes. 17.11.1.ai:
17.11.1 For Matches where, in accordance with Regulation 17.8.3 or 17.8.6, it isnot reasonably practicable for a Citing Commissioner to be appointed, thefollowing shall apply:(a) Each team participating in a Match, or any of its authorised officials,or its Union, may cite:(i) a Player(s) for an act(s) of alleged Foul Play committed duringthat Match provided that such act(s) have not been detected bythe Match Officials;

Paule23
07-09-16, 13:09
Certainly not how I read it. The point he made whas the ref coach said driving is not covered so there should not have been a card.

I quore from his post: "There is no reference to driven in the law." Well sorry but there is!

Well, you're both right! I did say the law does not reference driving, and you have correctly pointed out it does (there's a reason I'm still a level 7 ref.....). But it also does not differentiate the punishment or seriousness between dropping and driving, which I suppose is really the point I was trying to make.

Ian_Cook
07-09-16, 14:09
I think Paule's point was the law doesn't distinguish between dropping or driving.


All that means is that it doesn't matter whether the player is dropped or driven, if he lands such that his "head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground" its RC

Pegleg
07-09-16, 16:09
Well, you're both right! I did say the law does not reference driving, and you have correctly pointed out it does (there's a reason I'm still a level 7 ref.....). But it also does not differentiate the punishment or seriousness between dropping and driving, which I suppose is really the point I was trying to make.

It's not the point that his adviser / coach was making. That is the critical issue. If a referee coach is saying driving into the ground is not referenced in law we have a problem!

DocY
07-09-16, 16:09
It's not the point that his adviser / coach was making. That is the critical issue. If a referee coach is saying driving into the ground is not referenced in law we have a problem!

I didn't read that properly - thought he just said "a coach" and thought such a comment was par for the course (no offence, didds).

Yeah, a referee coach a) questioning the sanction because the BC was driven rather than dropped then b) trying to use a non-existent technicality to justify it is a bit concerning.

(I hope I've not further misunderstood and misrepresented someone's competence)

crossref
07-09-16, 18:09
at our society training session on Sunday we discussed how to assess tip tackles, and collisions in the air
when assessing sanction we did not distinguish dropped and driven

the decision tree was

- is the tackle legal or illegal? If legal play on, if not legal then

- he lands completely safely (eg on his feet, or lowered gently to ground) - PK only
- he lands on back or side - YC
- he lands on neck or head (or save himself from neck/head by use of arms) - RC

I am sure other people on the board were there - have it got it right?

DocY
07-09-16, 19:09
- is the tackle legal or illegal? If legal play on, if not legal then

- he lands completely safely (eg on his feet, or lowered gently to ground) - PK only


If he comes down on his feet or is lowered, doesn't that mean the tackle was legal? It's only illegal if the player is tipped and not brought down safely.

Thunderhorse1986
08-09-16, 08:09
I think the conversation was more specifically for aerial challenges, but a similar logic can follow for dangerous tackles. I think Crossref has it broadly right too. There may be a discussion about what a "fair challenge" is, but what was very clear was once you've decided it was "not a fair challenge":

Lands on feet/safely - card not necessary, but PK (and I would suggest have a quick word to ensure people stay aware of safety responsibilities)
Lands on back - YC
Lands on head/shoulders/hands which prevents landing on h&s - RC