PDA

View Full Version : [Tackle] Dangerous tackle question



Cross
14-10-16, 20:10
Player (A) tackles player (B). A lifts B, B is above horizontal, is about to land with his head shoulders but does not, only because he (B) uses his arms to prevent that from happening.
Red or yellow?

Just to be clear, if (B) hadn't used his hands it'd be a clear red.
Thanks in advance.

crossref
14-10-16, 21:10
if it was a clear red without B saving himself -- then it's still a Red.

Cross
14-10-16, 21:10
Thanks, appreciated.

This is the play in question.

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/bbarry/matt-toomua-tackle-finn-russell/

The Fat
14-10-16, 21:10
Player (A) tackles player (B). A lifts B, B is above horizontal, is about to land with his head shoulders but does not, only because he (B) uses his arms to prevent that from happening.
Red or yellow?

Just to be clear, if (B) hadn't used his hands it'd be a clear red.
Thanks in advance.

Red Card.

The Fat
14-10-16, 21:10
Thanks, appreciated.

This is the play in question.

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/bbarry/matt-toomua-tackle-finn-russell/

I can see why he got a YC and not a RC for that tackle (others may and probably will disagree). Maybe borderline but happy to go with the ref's decision on that one

L'irlandais
14-10-16, 22:10
I can see why he got a YC and not a RC for that tackle (others may and probably will disagree). Maybe borderline but happy to go with the ref's decision on that oneI agree, the man in the middle has a difficult enough job, without his fellow refs decrying his decisions on the forums. Match referee, Mathieu Raynal's decision didn't best please the home crowd either.

I reckon Robbie'd be chuffed with that try bonus!
Glasgow Warriors 42-13 Leicester Tigers (http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/37645772)

SimonSmith
14-10-16, 23:10
Still red

Didn't see the game, just answering the OP

L'irlandais
15-10-16, 12:10
As one of only four professional refs in France, should we expect him not to make mistakes?
Clubs here are very critical of "amateur" referees (http://www.the42.ie/raynal-red-card-top-14-final-2845114-Jun2016/), I would like to see the onus throw back on the clubs ; such a dangerous tackle is entirely unacceptable from a professional player. His employer should be obliged to sanction his actions under health and safety at work act. Instead clubs are coaching their players how to get around the LoTG.

The notion that they somehow have a better skills set simply because they are paid more than the match officials needs to be challenged. The first Law of Rugby, is a player must respect the LoTG, where does that leave flankers? Or the dark arts of the front row? From a private industry point of view it's called gross misconduct and gets one fired. Working law can only be applied to sport up to a point. Professional is the wrong word to describe players. When an engineer/Doctor gives his professional opinion it carries weight in a court of law. What value would anyone give to a pro player's interpretation of any given Law?

SimonSmith
15-10-16, 12:10
The first 'Law' is not about respecting the LoTG, either literally or in spirit.

The playing charter places it second to the concept of fair play.
We are taught as referees that it is safety-enjoyment/equity-law, in that order.

Hyperbolic statements don't help the conversation.

L'irlandais
15-10-16, 12:10
Fair enough.
I guess if you are not familiar with the French game, you may not realize that Mathieu Raynal was critised for giving a Red Card in a similar spear tackle incident last June. (Linked in my Hyperbolic post.)
The guy can't win, critised if he awards a red and critised if he doesn't.

Cross
15-10-16, 13:10
@L'irlandais
It's as if you are defending him just because he is french.
Phrases like

"the man in the middle has a difficult enough job, without his fellow refs decrying his decisions on the forums. Match referee, Mathieu Raynal's decision didn't best please the home crowd either."

or

"As one of only four professional refs in France, should we expect him not to make mistakes?"

add literally nothing to the conversation.
I do not care whether he is french, cambodian, german or paraguayan, and neither do i care if he is a professional ref, amateur, a spectator or a toddler with a whistle. I don't care if his job is hard or as easy as breathing air.
I do care whether he got the call right or not, hence my question at the OP.

And of course he is entitled to get calls wrong, and of course his job is very difficult, but that is not the point here. I just want to know if he did get it right (or not) and why.
Let's try not to derail the subject please.
Thanks all again.
Cheers

L'irlandais
15-10-16, 14:10
In the Top 14 final, Raynal's decision is based on the following

After TMO review, Raynal explained that Giteau landed on his head and so issued the red card to Machenaud.The ball carrier landed on his neck/head. In the OP spear tackle the tackled player first breaks his fall with his elbow. Elite referees have clear strict guidelines which we cannot rely on. (See Fat's other discussion about crooked feeds, Pro referees have been ignoring these, that's no help to grassroots match officials.) Sorry if you think I am off topic ; I think the question is broader than Red or not, because as I said different criteria for Pro game.
I strongly feel MR issued a YC because his Pro guidelines, define it one way.

The Fat
15-10-16, 18:10
Has Matt Toomua been cited?
If not, it would appear the ref got the call right.

I will be surprised if Toomua gets rubbed out.

Cross
16-10-16, 11:10
No need to apologize!

In the OP spear tackle the tackled player first breaks his fall with his elbow. Elite referees have clear strict guidelines which we cannot rely on.
I'm afraid i do not understand. The situation i described in the OP reasonably recount what happened. Had he not used his arm, he would have landed with shoulder/head.
That was precisely why i asked the question.

To make it clear: do the rules rely on what the tackler did on on the outcome of the tackle? (Or both?)
Answers on this thread suggest they rely on the former, which don't seem to reconcile with your replies. At least i don't see how.
If you don't mind me asking, which strict guideline prevented the ref from awarding a red?



If not, it would appear the ref got the call right.

That's a stretch.

L'irlandais
17-10-16, 12:10
Cross, if we were privy to Elite ref's guidelines there would be no confusion about the call.
Problem is we are not.

SimonSmith
17-10-16, 13:10
In the USA it's been made clear to us:
Any action that the BC takes to protect himself does not mitigate the sanction for the tackler. So, yes, using an elbow to protect the neck would still be a red card.

OB..
17-10-16, 15:10
In the USA it's been made clear to us:
Any action that the BC takes to protect himself does not mitigate the sanction for the tackler. So, yes, using an elbow to protect the neck would still be a red card.
I have certainly seen something to that effect, but at the moment I cannot find it.

Pinky
17-10-16, 18:10
I have certainly seen something to that effect, but at the moment I cannot find it.

Me too, that's the approach we take in Scotland.

The Fat
17-10-16, 19:10
I have certainly seen something to that effect, but at the moment I cannot find it.

It was in a WR/IRB memo

The Fat
17-10-16, 20:10
Cross, if we were privy to Elite ref's guidelines there would be no confusion about the call.
Problem is we are not.

The reason I said earlier that I would be surprised if Toomua gets cited is because there is an old IRB training video (out there somewhere) which is not a "secret guideline" that shows a number of tackles and whether they should be YC or RC. The video of each tackle pauses at time of impact and a wide yellow line is shown to emphasise body angle and landing area of the player's body. Toomua's tackle looks like a few of the YC decisions in that video. That's why I say it's a borderline tackle i.e. I wouldn't be surprised to see some refs give a YC and others give a RC

L'irlandais
24-10-16, 07:10
How about this then, from the weekend's ERC games? Video link (http://www.epcrugby.com/matchdaytv/?play=media&id=24573)
Red11's tip tackle on opposition's hooker, earns him a red card. So far, so good, as the referee says, the player landed on his head, I have no option (other than to Red card you.) No problem with his decision.
However if you watch the clip, he shows either a double sided card, or has both cards in one hand, red toward the player backed by the yellow toward the camera.
:shrug: How confusing is that?

DocY
24-10-16, 09:10
However if you watch the clip, he shows either a double sided card, or has both cards in one hand, red toward the player backed by the yellow toward the camera.
:shrug: How confusing is that?

Lots of pairs of cards come in a little holder with one on one side and one on the other, so if you lift up the whole thing you can see both. I did this in one of my first games - felt like a bit of a prat.

Pegleg
24-10-16, 14:10
Right call. Not too clever in the action. Glad it was him and not me!

irishref
24-10-16, 23:10
That's why I keep my yellow and red cards in separate pockets!

davidlandy
01-11-16, 11:11
1. Re the OP's question, the law says:

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.

So, if neither the player's head nor his/her upper body actually comes into contact with the ground it cannot be foul play under this law, and if the IRB's guidelines say otherwise they are directly contradicting the wording of the law. :confused:

2. While we're on the point, why is tackling the lifters at the line out causing a lifted player to fall on his/her head not a mandatory red? Surely it's at least as dangerous (if not more so) than a standard tip-tackle as the height involved is far greater? The rationale for mandatory reds for tips was that they are dangerous and needed to be stamped out.

3. There's a shorter clip of Keith Earls's tip tackle and the aftermath here:

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12332/10628487/watch-keith-earls-was-shown-a-red-card-during-munsters-win-over-glasgow

I thought he was lucky not to get a further sanction for all the abuse he hurled after the RC. It's no good him blaming the opponent, he turned him upside down by lifting his leg and driving. And it's not the first time either, he's is a serial tip-tackler and it's a good thing he's been brought to book before he seriously injures someone. He's a great player but he needs to change his tackling technique (and his attitude!)

See eg http://www.punditarena.com/uncategorized/adrumm/should-keith-earls-have-seen-yellow-for-his-tackle-on-liam-williams/

(This was the worst of two similar tackles in the match.)

Pegleg
01-11-16, 11:11
Sorry, but that is poor reading of the law.

"such as" does not mean "what is written here is the only example"

10.4(e) refers, with regard to dangerous tackles ( a form of dangerous and foul play), to a more "open" definition. It is for the referee to decide what constitute dangerous.

crossref
01-11-16, 11:11
Sorry, but that is poor reading of the law.

"such as" does not mean "what is written here is the only example"



the Law says 'such THAT' , not 'such as'
:)

DocY
01-11-16, 12:11
So, if neither the player's head nor his/her upper body actually comes into contact with the ground it cannot be foul play under this law, and if the IRB's guidelines say otherwise they are directly contradicting the wording of the law. :confused:


On a practical note, if a player putting his arm out and choosing not to land on his head would stop his opponent getting penalised (and probably more), players would stop protecting themselves and make the situation more dangerous. Not something to encourage.

As I'm sure you know, the lawbook really isn't written very well, but if you insist that it isn't 'technically' a tip tackle, then treat it as a good-old-fashioned dangerous tackle, the law for which doesn't have such a stipulation.

SimonSmith
01-11-16, 13:11
the Law says 'such THAT' , not 'such as'
:)

Yes. That's a critical distinction.

Pegleg
01-11-16, 13:11
Fair point. but the list is not exaustive Also look at the heading under which the 10.4(e) and 10.4 (j) are placed.

Law book need to be read carefully as my error proves!

davidlandy
01-11-16, 15:11
Good points all round, though perhaps clutching at straws a bit, to fall back on other - more general - sections of the foul play laws.

All that's needed to make things clear and unambiguous is a simple change to the specific law (10.4j) to clarify that any action by the tackled player is to be disregarded. And, of course, to add that it's an automatic RC.

To my way of reading, RL have found a clear way of wording it, which everyone - player, coach, spectator and referee - can easily understand:

Dangerous throw (d) If, in any tackle of, or contact with, an opponent that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck (“the dangerous position”), then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw unless, with the excercise of resonable care, the dangerous position could not have been avoided.

Why does Rugby Union have such a hard time writing a clear and unambiguous rule book, even about something as simple as this?? :confused:

[Edit]

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Union at the expense of RL, I love Union and will probably do so till my dying day. What I am bashing is the ongoing confusion caused by sloppy law-drafting. If others can do it, clearly Union could too.

OB..
01-11-16, 18:11
1. Re the OP's question, the law says:

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.

So, if neither the player's head nor his/her upper body actually comes into contact with the ground it cannot be foul play under this law,Your logic is wrong for two reasons. Pegleg is right that the wording does not preclude other outcomes from being considered dangerous. For example, there was some sort of clarification that the opponent merely managing to get an arm down first did not excuse the action.

Secondly, the wording of the laws is not sacrosanct. They are not written in legalese because they are aimed at ordinary players and referees, not legal experts. Moreover the drafting is less than perfect in many respects, and includes gaps, ambiguities, and contradictions. On top of that there are laws that are regularly ignored with the connivance of everybody - when did you last see a scrum half penalised for picking the ball out of a ruck?

Cross
01-11-16, 19:11
@davidlandy
That is exactly why i asked.


Pegleg is right that the wording does not preclude other outcomes from being considered dangerous.
What law would you use to consider that dangerous then?

He does have a point, as much as i hate to admit it.

DocY
01-11-16, 19:11
What law would you use to consider that dangerous then?


10.4(e):A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously

No description of what constitutes 'dangerously', but I think we all know it when we see it.
Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

Pegleg
01-11-16, 19:11
Good points all round, though perhaps clutching at straws a bit, to fall back on other - more general - sections of the foul play laws.



I am quoting 10.4 (e) where as you quote 10.4 (j)

And then you make your comment above and spoil you line of reason. Can you take a loook at the heading of 10.4 (e) ? I'll help you it says

(e) Dangerous tackling.

whereas 10.4 (j) is immediately after 10.4 (i) which is headed Tackling the jumper in the air


So I have gone to the source law about "tacking" where you have chosen a specific issue that, it could be argued, precludes and tackle not involving the jumper in the air.

So no I'm not "clutching at straws" I am using the specific "tacke" law whilst being mindful to read the laws holistically.

Pegleg
01-11-16, 19:11
@davidlandy
That is exactly why i asked.


What law would you use to consider that dangerous then?

He does have a point, as much as i hate to admit it.

The law I quoted! 10.4 (e) Dangerous tackling

davidlandy
01-11-16, 21:11
Well yes, you could call it under 10.4e, just as you could any other dangerous tackle.

But then it wouldn't be a mandatory red, which only applies to 10.4j.

Wasn't this the OP's original question?

If there's a clarification to the rule, where is it?

Re the wording of the laws, I find it extremely hard to believe that each ref can just sort of interpret them however they like, even contradicting the actual wording of the laws. Where would it end?

There is a standard exception for the scrum half to be able to pick the ball form the ruck, this goes back donkey's years so it's a bad example - no ref makes this up on their own.

There are some of places where the law is simply unclear (like when is the ball actually out of the ruck, is it one hand on, or two) which could use some clarification but that's another thing altogether.

And there are things which aren't in the law book but should be, for example: ... we don't want to blow the whistle unless we have to. You have to ask yourself "is it a clear and obvious offence that prevented a fair contest for the ball?" If not, play on.

http://therugbyref.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/picking-up-ball-in-ruck.html

OB..
01-11-16, 21:11
Re the wording of the laws, I find it extremely hard to believe that each ref can just sort of interpret them however they like, even contradicting the actual wording of the laws. Where would it end?That was not what I proposed.


There is a standard exception for the scrum half to be able to pick the ball form the ruck, this goes back donkey's years so it's a bad example - no ref makes this up on their own.It is a perfect example because it demonstrates conclusively that you cannot always rely on the wording of the laws to determine how a situation should be handled.


There are some of places where the law is simply unclear (like when is the ball actually out of the ruck, is it one hand on, or two) which could use some clarification but that's another thing altogether.It is an example of a consensus under construction. In my society we seem to have settled on "it is out when pulled clear of the ruck" but the scrum half is expected to remove the ball as soon as he can after first playing it.


And there are things which aren't in the law book but should be, for example: ... we don't want to blow the whistle unless we have to. You have to ask yourself "is it a clear and obvious offence that prevented a fair contest for the ball?" If not, play on.

http://therugbyref.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/picking-up-ball-in-ruck.htmlIt is standard advice, but I am not sure it can easily be turned into law. "Materiality" is not in the laws either.

We have now agreed that not everything is in the laws and the laws aren't everything. Good.

Pegleg
01-11-16, 22:11
Well yes, you could call it under 10.4e, just as you could any other dangerous tackle.

But then it wouldn't be a mandatory red, which only applies to 10.4j.



This is where I have a problem with your methodology. It's a tackle so we start at 10.4(e). After all it is a tackle. we then look at the law in a wider (more holistic) way. But you must start at the beginning. Rather you are starting with you conclusion.

Any tackle can be a red and whether or not 10.4 (j)'s requirements are met (tackling a player who is in the air). The player doer not need to be in the air when he is tackled for it to be red. Common sense says that those condidtions are not critical to it being red. If a player is lifted from the ground and then the criteria (described) are met we get a situation that starts to scream RED CARD.

davidlandy
02-11-16, 09:11
@OB

I think you are basically saying "bless this mess"?

If so, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

The RL rule (posted earlier) is worded in clear, plain English, and it shows how easy it is to phrase laws in a way which is both comprehensive and unambiguous, and yet easy to understand on first reading.

For a multi-million pound business, WR's attempts are shockingly amateurish, and lead to confusion both on and off the field. How on earth can this be considered "good" for the sport? One day a player at the base of the ruck breaks off, picks up the ball, dives over and scores, and the next week he does the exact same thing and is pinged. What are players/coaches/spectators/commentators supposed to make of this?

But perhaps I am expecting too much to think that laws should be written in a simple and comprehensive way, so that players, coaches, referees and spectators can read and understand them in the same way. Silly old me.

I still think your example is inappropriate (scrum half removing the ball from the ruck with hands). Yes, it does show that not everything is in the rule book, but that's an established exception and has been around since the year dot.

What we're talking about here is a brand new law, established only a few years ago, with precise wording. You are trying to argue that we are entitled to read in a way which contradicts the wording, which I think is plainly ridiculous.

If anyone can produce the clarification that would be helpful, even then it's ridiculous that WR don't just amend the actual law so we can all read it in black and white.

@Pegleg

You are missing my point - and in any case 10.4j is tip tackle, not player in the air. My point is that if you rule the tackle is red under 10.4e that's fair enough - but it's not a mandatory red.

Phil E
02-11-16, 10:11
But then it wouldn't be a mandatory red, which only applies to 10.4j.


Where in the law book does it say that 10.4(j) is a mandatory Red ???

The Fat
02-11-16, 10:11
Good points all round, though perhaps clutching at straws a bit, to fall back on other - more general - sections of the foul play laws.

All that's needed to make things clear and unambiguous is a simple change to the specific law (10.4j) to clarify that any action by the tackled player is to be disregarded. And, of course, to add that it's an automatic RC.

To my way of reading, RL have found a clear way of wording it, which everyone - player, coach, spectator and referee - can easily understand:

Dangerous throw (d) If, in any tackle of, or contact with, an opponent that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck (“the dangerous position”), then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw unless, with the excercise of resonable care, the dangerous position could not have been avoided.

Why does Rugby Union have such a hard time writing a clear and unambiguous rule book, even about something as simple as this?? :confused:

[Edit]

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Union at the expense of RL, I love Union and will probably do so till my dying day. What I am bashing is the ongoing confusion caused by sloppy law-drafting. If others can do it, clearly Union could too.

I wonder what RL says about contact above the shoulders? If such contact is deemed as dangerous, then I wouldn't use RL as an example because 70%+ tackles in RL involve contact with the head/neck area. I think referees have only started enforcing the "Dangerous Throw" in RL since the Alex McKinnon case. Before that, very few tip/spear tackles received harsh punishment.

My point is that simply having better written rules/laws means squat if they are ignored and not enforced.

davidlandy
02-11-16, 11:11
Where in the law book does it say that 10.4(j) is a mandatory Red ???

As I'm sure you already know, it doesn't. But it's not contradictory to the wording of 10.4(j) that you could red card it. In fact, it's one of the specified options.

[Edit]

Great blog, btw :)

davidlandy
02-11-16, 11:11
I wonder what RL says about contact above the shoulders? If such contact is deemed as dangerous, then I wouldn't use RL as an example because 70%+ tackles in RL involve contact with the head/neck area. I think referees have only started enforcing the "Dangerous Throw" in RL since the Alex McKinnon case. Before that, very few tip/spear tackles received harsh punishment.

My point is that simply having better written rules/laws means squat if they are ignored and not enforced.

Good, point, and good question.

I can't even begin to claim a comprehensive knowledge of RL (nor RU!) but from my watching of the Eng v NZ game last weekend, there was only one clear and obvious high tackle and it was called immediately. Penalty only, no card. Everyone happy. (And there were no spears or tips, everyone was brought to ground safely when they were taken off their feet.)

OB..
02-11-16, 13:11
I think you are basically saying "bless this mess"?
No. The situation is unsatisfactory in many ways, but we have to deal with what we are given. Since the Laws are often defective, we need to interpret them in a way that makes rugby sense, and not legalistically.


The RL rule (posted earlier) is worded in clear, plain English, and it shows how easy it is to phrase laws in a way which is both comprehensive and unambiguous, and yet easy to understand on first reading.
Dangerous throw (d) If, in any tackle of, or contact with, an opponent that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck (“the dangerous position”), then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw unless, with the excercise of resonable care, the dangerous position could not have been avoided.
1. This does not deal with the case of the player putting out an arm to protect himself. (separate post to come on that issue)
2. It effectively says it is down to the referee's judgement.


For a multi-million pound business, WR's attempts are shockingly amateurish, and lead to confusion both on and off the field. How on earth can this be considered "good" for the sport?
I agree, though I also acknowledge how difficult the task is. I see no sign of an infrastructure behind the laws being used to ensure the various bits fit together and point up any gaps.


One day a player at the base of the ruck breaks off, picks up the ball, dives over and scores, and the next week he does the exact same thing and is pinged. What are players/coaches/spectators/commentators supposed to make of this? If those are actual examples, my first instinct would be to look at them to see if there was a difference overlooked in your brief description. I wouldn't rule out referee error.


But perhaps I am expecting too much to think that laws should be written in a simple and comprehensive way, so that players, coaches, referees and spectators can read and understand them in the same way.Yes, you are.


I still think your example is inappropriate (scrum half removing the ball from the ruck with hands). Yes, it does show that not everything is in the rule book, but that's an established exception and has been around since the year dot.I don't know when you started playing, but the current position is far removed from when I started in 1949. Whether it is a long-established convention or not is irrelevant, since the point is simply that it conflicts with the strict letter of the law. Year dot? The hand-off has been around from before the RFU existed, and until legalised in 2011, it was technically illegal because by definition it was "playing an opponent without the ball".

OB..
02-11-16, 13:11
If anyone can produce the clarification that would be helpful, even then it's ridiculous that WR don't just amend the actual law so we can all read it in black and white. It was in plain sight all the time - and even used davidlandy's preferred technique.

2010
(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 first is dangerous play.


2011
(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.

You can see that in 2011 the word "first" was omitted, having the required effect.

There is more information on the sequence of events in this article http://www.sanzarrugby.com/the-game/comparison-of-tackles-and-different-sanctions/

davidlandy
02-11-16, 14:11
Ah... I think we have both interpreted the OP's question differently - can I just check?

Here it is again:


Player (A) tackles player (B). A lifts B, B is above horizontal, is about to land with his head shoulders but does not, only because he (B) uses his arms to prevent that from happening.
Red or yellow?

Just to be clear, if (B) hadn't used his hands it'd be a clear red.
Thanks in advance.

So there are two possible scenarios:

In both, the tackled player starts in "the dangerous position" (ie rotated through more than 90 degrees):

1. He breaks his fall by extending his arms, hitting ground with arms first, followed shortly after by contact with head, neck, and/or upper body.

2. He breaks his fall by extending his arms, avoiding any contact at all with the ground with head, neck, and/or upper body.

I think you are seeing scenario #1, correct? If so, I completely agree with you - see below.

However my reading of the OP's phrase "is about to land with his head shoulders but does not", led me to envisage scenario #2, where he somehow "does not" "land with head shoulders".

(Sorry if that's a bit convoluted!)

So if you are talking about scenario #1, I am in complete agreement, it would be a mandatory red under 10.4j (with the WR guidelines) as there is nothing in the rule which says he has to hit the ground with head, neck, or upper body first, as you have just pointed out. He just has to hit with head, neck or upper body.

However in scenario #2, where there is no contact between head, neck, or upper body and the ground, I would say that in the absence of any other directives it wouldn't fall under 10.4j.

Does that make sense?

Phil E
02-11-16, 14:11
I am in complete agreement, it would be a mandatory red under 10.4j

You're doing it again....there's no such thing :nono:

davidlandy
02-11-16, 15:11
@Phil

You've omitted a crucial part of my statement.

What I said was:


it would be a mandatory red under 10.4j (with the WR guidelines)

After much googling to try and find the authentic source...

AUCKLAND, 16 Oct. - The International Rugby Board has issued a statement of clarification regarding the Tip or Spear tackle.

Law 10.4(j) reads: 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.

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

Regular directives to Unions, Match Officials and Judicial Officers have been issued to reinforce the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance regarding dangerous tackles and the promotion of player welfare.

The policy was again reiterated to team officials at a Team Managers seminar in Auckland two weeks before the start of Rugby World Cup and during the Tournament and there have been a number of other Tip Tackle cases at Rugby World Cup 2011.

https://web.archive.org/web/20111017225641/http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059102.html#irb+issues+statement+tip+spear +tackle

(Damn that was hard to find...)

Other 3rd party contemporaneous reports of the same clarification:
http://rugby.com.au/news/2016/02/10/irb-issues-statement-on-tip-or-spear-tackle
http://www.aru.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/1699/articleid/4773/irb-issues-statement-on-tip-or-spear-tackle
http://the-ref.co.uk/2011/10/22/

DocY
02-11-16, 15:11
I'm struggling to see what the problem is.

You can give any colour card (or no card) for a tackle you, as the referee, think is dangerous. Doesn't matter which part of the player hits the ground first.

The tip tackle law and its subsequent clarifications were introduced to emphasise a particular type of tackle, previously either handled as a run of the mill dangerous tackle, or as perfectly legal; and to highlight that it should frequently be carded. It doesn't replace the more generic dangerous tackle law.

If you think a tackle is dangerous, use common sense and issue whatever card you think is appropriate and to hell with the nuances of the wording.

OB..
02-11-16, 15:11
I think we got there in the end.

Taff
02-11-16, 16:11
... After much googling to try and find the authentic source... (Damn that was hard to find...)
I sympathise with you, but it shouldn't be difficult to find.

A straight question. Does the 2009 Memo (re-confirmed in 2011) still apply or not? If it doesn't, what has taken it's place and what does the wording say? :chin:

crossref
02-11-16, 16:11
I sympathise with you, but it shouldn't be difficult to find.

A straight question. Does the 2009 Memo (re-confirmed in 2011) still apply or not? If it doesn't, what has taken it's place and what does the wording say? :chin:

It's a very moot point

- the 2009 memo has been removed from all official sources (you won't find it on World Rugby, RFU or - I believe - any other union's website.

- the follow up 2011 memo IS still on the WR Laws website but - curiously - the original version of the 2011 memo actually referred to the 2009 memo, and that reference has been cut from the current version. (Orwellian, or what?)

From the above you'd be tempted to conclude that it no longer current

BUT

- in the RWC the disciplinary panels made numerous references to it - implying it is still current.
- EXCEPT that -- in every single case of an alleged tip tackle the panels concluded that the tackles weren't tip tackles anyway (under the definition in the 2009 memo, which is no longer available to read) and the tackles were sanctioned as ordinary dangerous tackles


So I think it's fair to say WR's position is somewhat unclear.

The 2009 memo, and the original version of the 2011 memo (which referenced the 2009 memo) can be found here
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/wiki/index.php/IRB_Communications

thepercy
02-11-16, 17:11
From USA Rugby 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

crossref
02-11-16, 18:11
From USA Rugby 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

which implies that USA Rugby think that the 2009 memo is obselete, otherwise they would have quoted it (it covers exactly the same ground)

thepercy
02-11-16, 18:11
which implies that USA Rugby think that the 2009 memo is obselete, otherwise they would have quoted it (it covers exactly the same ground)

I was interested to see that there is no mention of how the player lands, no mention of head, shoulders or neck.

Pegleg
02-11-16, 20:11
I'm struggling to see what the problem is.

You can give any colour card (or no card) for a tackle you, as the referee, think is dangerous. Doesn't matter which part of the player hits the ground first.

The tip tackle law and its subsequent clarifications were introduced to emphasise a particular type of tackle, previously either handled as a run of the mill dangerous tackle, or as perfectly legal; and to highlight that it should frequently be carded. It doesn't replace the more generic dangerous tackle law.

If you think a tackle is dangerous, use common sense and issue whatever card you think is appropriate and to hell with the nuances of the wording.

Here Here! The dangerous tackle law is there for any dangerous tackle. The "add on" just puts additional emphasis on one particular area.

Taff
02-11-16, 21:11
I was interested to see that there is no mention of how the player lands, no mention of head, shoulders or neck.
Which is what is making me wonder what has replaced the 2009 Memo. I've heard other (top) referees mention the head, shoulder and neck, but the memo doesn't mention them IIRC.


I'm struggling to see what the problem is. You can give any colour card (or no card) for a tackle you, as the referee, think is dangerous. ... If you think a tackle is dangerous, use common sense and issue whatever card you think is appropriate and to hell with the nuances of the wording.
Well, not quite ... IF the 2009 memo still applies, because the 2009 memo gives us 2 examples of when we have no choice at all. Which is exactly what happened in the RWC Semi Final when Warburton got :rc: It's not a day I will forget in a hurry; I fear that is the closest Wales will get to winning the RWC for a while. :sad:


.. The 2009 memo, and the original version of the 2011 memo (which referenced the 2009 memo) can be found here http://www.rugbyrefs.com/wiki/index.php/IRB_Communications
You should be working for GCHQ Crossref. :biggrin:

I knew we (ie RR.com) had a copy in our wiki, but what percentage of other referees know where to find it?

crossref
03-11-16, 09:11
Which is what is making me wonder what has replaced the 2009 Memo. I've heard other (top) referees mention the head, shoulder and neck, but the memo doesn't mention them IIRC.


Well, not quite ... IF the 2009 memo still applies, because the 2009 memo gives us 2 examples of when we have no choice at all. Which is exactly what happened in the RWC Semi Final when Warburton got :rc: It's not a day I will forget in a hurry; I fear that is the closest Wales will get to winning the RWC for a while. :sad:



I think it's fair to say that the general principle, or pupose of the 2009 memo survives, but the precise wording and definitions no longer represent current thinking.

DocY
03-11-16, 10:11
Well, not quite ... IF the 2009 memo still applies, because the 2009 memo gives us 2 examples of when we have no choice at all.
You're quite right; I was thinking in the opposite direction: you can always card someone, regardless of the precise wording of the law, though there are some situations where you have to give a card.


Which is exactly what happened in the RWC Semi Final when Warburton got :rc: It's not a day I will forget in a hurry; I fear that is the closest Wales will get to winning the RWC for a while. :sad:
Only time I've cried watching a rugby match!

crossref
03-11-16, 11:11
Only time I've cried watching a rugby match!

I have to say that - South Africa 36 England 0 was close.

Taff
03-11-16, 12:11
... Only time I've cried watching a rugby match!
You're not the only one.

IIRC the Semi Final was on a Sunday night, and while watching the game again late that night in front of the fire after everybody else had gone to bed, I did have a bit of a quiet weep. About a month later, while talking to a coach after a game, I was shocked when he said "Keep it to yourself, but I cried that night". I reckon that 2011 should have been our year; we had one hell of a squad and honestly think we could have beaten even the All Blacks that year. I'm sure we would have made a better fist of it than the French; what a boring Final.

crossref
03-11-16, 12:11
You're not the only one.

IIRC the Semi Final was on a Sunday night, and while watching the game again late that night in front of the fire after everybody else had gone to bed, I did have a bit of a quiet weep. About a month later, while talking to a coach after a game, I was shocked when he said "Keep it to yourself, but I cried that night". I reckon that 2011 should have been our year; we had one hell of a squad and honestly think we could have beaten even the All Blacks that year. I'm sure we would have made a better fist of it than the French; what a boring Final.

I dunno, a team that could beat NZ should be able to beat France with 14 men :wink:

DocY
03-11-16, 13:11
I dunno, a team that could beat NZ should be able to beat France with 14 men :wink:We very nearly did!

People forget that it wasn't just the RC: Adam Jones went off, Hook had a 'mare and Halfpenny missed a sitter (as well as Stephen Jones, IIRC) to win the game.

Pegleg
03-11-16, 16:11
We should have won agaist France despite the RC. That we did not tells a similar tale to the repeated "near misses" against Australia over the years. When the chips are down we just don't have it. Had we got to the final, I reckon the All Blacks would have blown us away.







AGAIN!

davidlandy
04-11-16, 14:11
The 2009 memorandum was quoted by the Judicial Officer (Christopher Quinlan QC) in the Ross Ford/Jonny Gray case just over a year ago:


"... [this case] involved a player being lifted, and driven into the ground. He landed on the side of his head. All of the component parts of Law 10.4(j) were satisfied. The Memorandum remains in force."

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/test/worldrugby/document/2015/10/15/1028f711-6321-4f49-8a4b-84dff28ebc09/151014_JO_Decision_Ford_&_Gray_(Scotland)_FINAL.pdf

QCs are top barristers and their opinion carries a lot of legal weight, so I would say if a QC says it's in force, it's in force - even if being subtly buried by WR.

Hat tip to crossref for the link to the 2009 memo in the wiki, and for pointing out the 2009 memo had been quoted in judicial hearings from last year's RWC.

Incidentally the link in the wiki to the 2011 memo no longer function, it's moved to here (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=3&language=EN) - could someone update the wiki?

crossref
04-11-16, 16:11
That's funny because the 2009 memo actually makes no reference to whether or not a player lands on his head!
(which is one of the reasons why it's probably obselete, all up to date guidelines and training place a lot of store on how the player lands being important)

davidlandy
04-11-16, 23:11
That's funny because the 2009 memo actually makes no reference to whether or not a player lands on his head!

No, but 10.4j does. Perhaps I should have quoted the whole para... the JO was saying that the player having been lifted, driven, and dumped on his head fulfills 10.4j (which does mention head). He then goes on to add that the memo is in force so it is clearly an ongoing issue and he needed to add something to the penalty as a deterrent:

6.6 This was not a ‘dangerous tip tackle’ in the classic sense. However, it was a clear out by two players, which involved a player being lifted, and driven into the ground. He landed on the side of his head. All of the component parts of Law 10.4(j) were satisfied. The Memorandum remains in force. The only sensible inference is that offending of this (10.4(j)) kind continues and such offending remains a matter of concern for World Rugby. I did not approach the question automatically but rather considered whether in this case an additional period for this offending was required. Looking at this act of Foul Play, I have concluded that there is a continuing pattern of offending of this kind and the need for a deterrent to combat it remains. I therefore added a period of one week to the entry point of 4 weeks.


(which is one of the reasons why it's probably obselete, all up to date guidelines and training place a lot of store on how the player lands being important)

How can it be obsolete if QCs are relying on it in official WR-sanctioned proceedings?

And... where are these more up to date materials you mention?