PDA

View Full Version : [Tackle] Wales v All Blacks U20 - how is this not a red card?



tewdric
17-06-19, 20:06
https://mobile.twitter.com/garethsdavies/status/1140651142306816001?s=09

Zebra1922
17-06-19, 21:06
Probably because the tackler got into a good tackling position, was not looking, and impacted high as the bull arrived effectively collapsed down from where he might reasonably expected to be. If the ball carrier is at a normal, standing height, the tackle comes in at lower chest height, no problems.

now the tackler has a responsibility to ensure his tackle is not dangerous, but given this is fairly spilt second, what the Americans would all. Bang bang play, I can understand the issuance of a yellow only as there was no intent. I know the argument is contact was made to the head, tacklers responsibility therefore red, and I wouldn’t argue with that conclusion, I’m just proposing a justification for the yellow only.

Ian_Cook
17-06-19, 21:06
Agree with Zebra.

Black 21 is already head down/arms out preparing for the tackle - a split second later, Red 15 ducks as Black 21 wraps what he expects to be the upper body of Red 15, except - there is nothing to wrap and it ends up looking like a swinging arm. In fact, Red 15 has ducked so low that there is very nearly what would have been a horrible head clash. Short of having ESP, Black 21 has absolutely no way to know (nor should he be expected to predict) that Red 15 would duck.

In ruthlessly punishing players for tackling ball-catchers in the air, we have trained them to time their tackles so that the first contact with the opponent when his feet are back on the ground. If we are now going to further expect the tackler to wait until he sees the opponent isn't going to duck, we might as well ditch the tackle from the game, and play touch rugby.


ETA: All that said, I had the chance to look at it as many time as I like, in the comfort of my living room, with a cup of tea and a biscuit, and under no pressure, and with no review consequences if I get it wrong. A red card would not have surprised me.

L'irlandais
17-06-19, 21:06
There have been a flurry of cards at this u20 Championship. Referees are looking at mitigating circumstances, like ball-carrier dipping into the tackle. Force is an important element too. I am not convinced that escalating penalties to Red or Yellow cards is actually getting the message across.

U20 Championship 2019: Disciplinary (https://www.world.rugby/u20/news/429067?lang=en) has a growing list of cited players and Citing Commissioner Warnings. Along with numerous players receiving High Risk Contact Technique Warnings for poor technique.

tewdric
17-06-19, 22:06
There is that, however we have just had the flowcharts to help deal with these. If we say its a high tackle its a red card for two reasons - the original hit snd the follow up arm.

If the argument is red has dipped into the tackle it follows you are arguing a catcher must stand fully upright when catching and not soften their landing by bending the knees.

Was red looking for a pen and acting deliberately? Possibly but it doesnt look like it.

Should the tackler have taken more care? Almost certainly.

I predict a citing and a month.

Dickie E
17-06-19, 22:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNeScjZBrvM

if the tackle at 00:50 in this is a RC, hard to fathom how the OP's tackle isn't red too.

Dickie E
17-06-19, 22:06
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/9315865/rugby-u20-world-championship-new-zealand-tackle/

https://rugby365.com/tournaments/under-20-world-cup/news-under-20-world-cup/officials-accused-of-bias-after-brutal-hit-on-junior-bok



love it

Ian_Cook
18-06-19, 00:06
If the argument is red has dipped into the tackle it follows you are arguing a catcher must stand fully upright when catching and not soften their landing by bending the knees.


No, I'm not, and that isn;t what happened

Red 15 did not lower himself by bending his knees as much as he lowers his torso and bends forward.

Lowering your head into the path of an oncoming tackler is never going to end well. If any of my lads did that regularly, I would be asking them to explain why they did it and coaching them not to.

didds
18-06-19, 08:06
No, I'm not, and that isn;t what happened

Red 15 did not lower himself by bending his knees as much as he lowers his torso and bends forward.

Lowering your head into the path of an oncoming tackler is never going to end well. If any of my lads did that regularly, I would be asking them to explain why they did it and coaching them not to.

not your lads of course, but maybe some could be being coached to do so to win a PK and card.

I would never totally reject such an suspicion (whilst totally abhoring the idea!)

didds

Phil E
18-06-19, 08:06
Following the new flowchart.


It fits the description of a high tackle, not a shoulder charge.
There is direct arm contact with the head (4)
It is Direct with a high degree of danger (Tackler draws back arm prior to contact, Arm swings forward prior to contact, tackler is attempting a dominant tackle and the tackle is completed) all that says high degree of danger so the chart says Red.
There are aggravating factors (tackler in open space, clear line of sight, and time before contact) therefore mitigating circumstances like ducking into it cannot be taken into consideration.
So it stays a Red.

TheBFG
18-06-19, 12:06
Following the new flowchart.


It fits the description of a high tackle, not a shoulder charge.
There is direct arm contact with the head (4)
It is Direct with a high degree of danger (Tackler draws back arm prior to contact, Arm swings forward prior to contact, tackler is attempting a dominant tackle and the tackle is completed) all that says high degree of danger so the chart says Red.
There are aggravating factors (tackler in open space, clear line of sight, and time before contact) therefore mitigating circumstances like ducking into it cannot be taken into consideration.
So it stays a Red.


Unless you're wearing BLACK :sarc: :wink:

L'irlandais
18-06-19, 12:06
Having watched a close encounter between England and Ireland (https://www.the42.ie/ireland-england-u20-world-cup-3-4686597-Jun2019/) last night, I can only say referee Ben Blain (Scotland) looked for mitigating circumstances for each of five yellow cards he issued. Communication with the TMO wasn’t the easiest, but his following protocol was very much in evidence. If we are selling this as looking after player safety/welfare then it makes sense not to alienate these youngsters by handing out Red cards as if it were going out of fashion. And ending the game as a competition before the 80 minutes are up.

Phil E
18-06-19, 15:06
Having watched a close encounter between England and Ireland (https://www.the42.ie/ireland-england-u20-world-cup-3-4686597-Jun2019/) last night, I can only say referee Ben Blain (Scotland) looked for mitigating circumstances for each of five yellow cards he issued. Communication with the TMO wasn’t the easiest, but his following protocol was very much in evidence. If we are selling this as looking after player safety/welfare then it makes sense not to alienate these youngsters by handing out Red cards as if it were going out of fashion. And ending the game as a competition before the 80 minutes are up.

The chart says no mitigation can be considered if Aggravating factors exist. Aggravating factors = "if the tackler and BC are in open space and the tackler has clear line of sight and time before the contact".

L'irlandais
18-06-19, 15:06
It’s possible that the U20 match officials had agreed on a different emphasis prior to the Championship.
Certainly looked that way, winning hearts and minds as opposed to laying down the law.
He drew silence from the TMO on more than one occasion, which «*sounded for all the world like disagreement.

Pinky
18-06-19, 18:06
Following the new flowchart.


It fits the description of a high tackle, not a shoulder charge.
There is direct arm contact with the head (4)
It is Direct with a high degree of danger (Tackler draws back arm prior to contact, Arm swings forward prior to contact, tackler is attempting a dominant tackle and the tackle is completed) all that says high degree of danger so the chart says Red.
There are aggravating factors (tackler in open space, clear line of sight, and time before contact) therefore mitigating circumstances like ducking into it cannot be taken into consideration.
So it stays a Red.


Whilst I would probably agree with this, I suspect the issue was the decision about whether there was mitigating circumstances. As far as black was concerned, he was aiming a t chest level until the red player landed in a crouch and was hit on the head. Phil points out that the mitigating circumstances cannot be taken into account as aggravating factors exist, but the question of time before contact is a matter of judgement. Did the ref get that so badly wrong? I don't think so.

SimonSmith
18-06-19, 20:06
Under the new rubric, it's red.
Watching the video again, I think Black is set and launched for the tackle, and Red lowers himself still further.

In a sane world, that would be sufficient mitigation.

thepercy
18-06-19, 20:06
Under the new rubric, it's red.
Watching the video again, I think Black is set and launched for the tackle, and Red lowers himself still further.

In a sane world, that would be sufficient mitigation.

Unless you are trying to discourage launching yourself into a tackle where you have no control of yourself if the circumstances change. If you launch yourself chest high and it goes wrong, even through the actions of your opponent then you have to take the consequences. In the OP scenario do you think the tackler could have made a tackle (more safely) without launching himself?

SimonSmith
18-06-19, 21:06
The tackle he initiated was safe.
The fact that it wasn't is down to the actions of the ball carrier.

Treadmore
18-06-19, 21:06
So it's the victims fault in some eyes?

The ball catcher's actions look like 'bracing for impact' to me - entirely understandable in the circumstances. It is unreasonable to expect the ball catcher to adopt a tall, open stance (they will be hurt if they do) to a tackler, just in case they 'cause' a penalty/yellow/red for the poor tackler.

Dickie E
18-06-19, 22:06
https://mobile.twitter.com/garethsdavies/status/1140651142306816001?s=09

https://rugby365.com/tournaments/under-20-world-cup/news-under-20-world-cup/officials-accused-of-bias-after-brutal-hit-on-junior-bok

same tackler? Distinctive green boots. Looks like a serial offender.

Treadmore
19-06-19, 00:06
https://mobile.twitter.com/garethsdavies/status/1140651142306816001?s=09

https://rugby365.com/tournaments/under-20-world-cup/news-under-20-world-cup/officials-accused-of-bias-after-brutal-hit-on-junior-bok

same tackler? Distinctive green boots. Looks like a serial offender.
good spot

Ian_Cook
19-06-19, 08:06
The tackle he initiated was safe.
The fact that it wasn't is down to the actions of the ball carrier.

Agree


So it's the victims fault in some eyes?

The ball catcher's actions look like 'bracing for impact' to me - entirely understandable in the circumstances. It is unreasonable to expect the ball catcher to adopt a tall, open stance (they will be hurt if they do) to a tackler, just in case they 'cause' a penalty/yellow/red for the poor tackler.

Bracing for impact? Really?

If you were coaching a team with one of my lads in it, and you coached them to "brace for impact" by lowering their head into the path of an oncoming tackler, I'd be pulling my lad from your team and signing him up with a team that had a coach who knew what he was doing, and was not coaching them techniques that could get them seriously injured.


Unless you're wearing BLACK :sarc: :wink:

Not at all. I would never defend a player based on who he is playing for.


All that said, this lad does have a problem with his tackling technique that needs addressing. Nothing wrong with his positioning in the tackle; leading with the shoulder with arms out ready to wrap and hammering the opponent hard. Its his action of launching himself at the opponent that is the problem. It means he's out of control and there is no margin for error, and no way to pull out if the opponent does something unexpected.

Marc Wakeham
19-06-19, 11:06
He's been cited. So we wait and see.


From watching it, after hearing some of the debate (so an "influenced" observation), I could see it being a red or a yellow to the guys on the field. The CC has longer to look and none of the pressures the team have at the game. He should be able to watch it more calmly.

I guess this tackle is on that the idea of the "White" (on report) card was trialled. On field team are not completely convinced so yellow and let the DC look at it at leisure.

didds
19-06-19, 11:06
Its his action of launching himself at the opponent that is the problem. It means he's out of control and there is no margin for error, and no way to pull out if the opponent does something unexpected.

This 100%. Feet on the ground gives ability to move, drive with the legs provides coninuous power right through the tackle. Once he is launched as ian says, there is no more control - BC steps - tackler cant go anywhere. initial hit unsettles but doesnt bring to gro0und - no further drive/push available. This is simple, basic stuff too.

didds

Ian_Cook
19-06-19, 11:06
This 100%. Feet on the ground gives ability to move, drive with the legs provides coninuous power right through the tackle. Once he is launched as ian says, there is no more control - BC steps - tackler cant go anywhere. initial hit unsettles but doesnt bring to gro0und - no further drive/push available. This is simple, basic stuff too.

didds

Its also gives the ability to adjust if the BC adjusts, and to at least attempt to pull out and mitigate the hit if you misjudge.

didds
19-06-19, 13:06
yup. basically its all about control.

Arabcheif
19-06-19, 14:06
I can't see the video on twitter (I'm on a work PC). I can see the Sun's one though. If it's the same tackle, the the still pic from the Sun's link clearly shows one of the tackler's feet is on the ground at point of contact. I can't see if there's head contact but it does look like it. I don't think it's direct as the again the still shows shoulder to shoulder, to me it looks like it slid up.
While he has time to line him up initially, the "brace" lowers the height of the head at the last moment. Again in the still shot you can see the knees are bent and the catcher is leaning slightly forward. So the tackler had lined up correctly at chest height I'd argue then at the last split second the catcher drops in height by bending his kness and leaning forward.

For me that's enough to mitigate the red to a yellow.

Phil E
19-06-19, 15:06
I can't see the video on twitter (I'm on a work PC). I can see the Sun's one though. If it's the same tackle, the the still pic from the Sun's link clearly shows one of the tackler's feet is on the ground at point of contact. I can't see if there's head contact but it does look like it. I don't think it's direct as the again the still shows shoulder to shoulder, to me it looks like it slid up.
While he has time to line him up initially, the "brace" lowers the height of the head at the last moment. Again in the still shot you can see the knees are bent and the catcher is leaning slightly forward. So the tackler had lined up correctly at chest height I'd argue then at the last split second the catcher drops in height by bending his kness and leaning forward.

For me that's enough to mitigate the red to a yellow.

You can't use any mitigation because there were aggravating factors.

Marc Wakeham
19-06-19, 15:06
I can't see the video on twitter (I'm on a work PC). I can see the Sun's one though. If it's the same tackle, the the still pic from the Sun's link clearly shows one of the tackler's feet is on the ground at point of contact. I can't see if there's head contact but it does look like it. I don't think it's direct as the again the still shows shoulder to shoulder, to me it looks like it slid up.
While he has time to line him up initially, the "brace" lowers the height of the head at the last moment. Again in the still shot you can see the knees are bent and the catcher is leaning slightly forward. So the tackler had lined up correctly at chest height I'd argue then at the last split second the catcher drops in height by bending his kness and leaning forward.

For me that's enough to mitigate the red to a yellow.

If you are looking at a still you are unable to make any judgement bout sliding up or the tackled player dropping in height etc. So whilst you ASSUMPTIONS may be correct, they are no more than assumptions.

thepercy
19-06-19, 17:06
Agree



Bracing for impact? Really?

If you were coaching a team with one of my lads in it, and you coached them to "brace for impact" by lowering their head into the path of an oncoming tackler, I'd be pulling my lad from your team and signing him up with a team that had a coach who knew what he was doing, and was not coaching them techniques that could get them seriously injured.



Not at all. I would never defend a player based on who he is playing for.


All that said, this lad does have a problem with his tackling technique that needs addressing. Nothing wrong with his positioning in the tackle; leading with the shoulder with arms out ready to wrap and hammering the opponent hard. Its his action of launching himself at the opponent that is the problem. It means he's out of control and there is no margin for error, and no way to pull out if the opponent does something unexpected.

How can you agree with SimonSmith that he initiated a safe tackle, then go on to say he was out of control and launched himself into an opponent. That sounds like he was being reckless to me. The whole point I was making and SimonSmith disagreed with was that once you are out of control, and the circumstances change, then it is your fault and you need to accept the consequence of your recklessness.

Arabcheif
19-06-19, 17:06
If you are looking at a still you are unable to make any judgement bout sliding up or the tackled player dropping in height etc. So whilst you ASSUMPTIONS may be correct, they are no more than assumptions.


So, IF the one in the Sun's link is the same tackle as the twitter link. There is a video of the tackle too. I was using the imagery of the still to state that he hadn't launched himself, feet off the ground into the tackle. That he had 1 foot on the ground at the point of impact.

I've seen many tackles both playing and watching rugby. Most the tackler goes off their feet at some point in the tackle. Not every time but in most cases. Other wise he'd be on his feet for the duration of it and there would be no need to roll away.

Ian_Cook
19-06-19, 19:06
How can you agree with SimonSmith that he initiated a safe tackle, then go on to say he was out of control and launched himself into an opponent......

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=initiated

Treadmore
19-06-19, 21:06
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=initiated

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=site:laws.worldrugby.org%20%22dangerous%20play% 22

SimonSmith
20-06-19, 00:06
How can you agree with SimonSmith that he initiated a safe tackle, then go on to say he was out of control and launched himself into an opponent. That sounds like he was being reckless to me. The whole point I was making and SimonSmith disagreed with was that once you are out of control, and the circumstances change, then it is your fault and you need to accept the consequence of your recklessness.

Your stance leads to the inevitable conclusion that a perfectly legal chest high tackle can be turned into a red card not by any action of the tackler but by the action of the ball carrier and have no mitigation applied.

That is contrary to established principles in civil law, in criminal law, and natural justice.

Ian_Cook
20-06-19, 00:06
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=site:laws.worldrugby.org%20%22dangerous%20play% 22

Non sequitur. Your reply to my post is unrelated.

Can you not understand that a tackle may end up being dangerous even though it was not INITIATED in a dangerous manner?

Can you not understand that a tackle technique that is flawed may not necessarily result in a dangerous tackle?

If you and thePercy had actually read and thought about what I posted instead of firing off the first thing that came into your head, you might have stood a chance of understanding these things.

Some examples are

A tackle that starts low and rides up = technique OK, but high so ruled dangerous!
Hurdling a tackler = a flawed technique that isn't inherently dangerous play, until you end up kicking someone in the head!

I'll repeat what I said earlier; hopefully, you will actually read it this time, and understand what I'm getting at - "this lad does have a problem with his tackling technique that needs addressing. Nothing wrong with his positioning in the tackle; leading with the shoulder with arms out ready to wrap and hammering the opponent hard. Its his action of launching himself at the opponent that is the problem. It means he's out of control and there is no margin for error, and no way to pull out if the opponent does something unexpected."

A flawed tackling technique is not an infringement, but it increases the risk of something going wrong. didds gets it, a few others get it... I can't understand why you two don't.

tewdric
20-06-19, 08:06
And red it should have been!:

"Samipeni Finau (New Zealand)

New Zealand reserve Samipeni Finau appeared at a hearing before an independent World Rugby Disciplinary Committee chaired by Wang Shao Ing (Singapore) along with John Langford (former Australia player) and Sarah Smith (former Scotland player) in Rosario on 19 June 2019 having been cited by Citing Commissioner Eugene Ryan (Ireland) for striking Wales fullback Ioan Davies with the shoulder/high tackle in breach of Law 9.13 in their match at the World Rugby U20 Championship at Rosario, Argentina on 17 June 2019. The Disciplinary Committee received evidence from Finau, Davies, the Wales team doctor and the referee as well as submissions on behalf of the player. The Disciplinary Committee considered that this was a high tackle which contacted Davies’ head and upheld the citing. They considered this a mid-range breach of Law 9.13 which carries a 6-week entry point. The Disciplinary Committee considered the player’s previously clean record, youth and inexperience to reduce the sanction by 2 weeks to 4 weeks. Finau is suspended from Saturday’s final round at the World Rugby U20 Championship until after his club’s semi-final game in Waikato on 13 July or, if his club do not qualify for the finals, Waikato’s first Mitre 10 Cup pre-season game on 26 July 2019."

Dickie E
20-06-19, 09:06
the Wales team doctor

I wonder what a doctor's evidence brings to the process? An outcome based decision?

Arabcheif
20-06-19, 10:06
3891

Ok here's a still of a millisecond away from contact. Look at the position. He's clearly targeting that ball. Note, again BOTH feet are on the ground, so I'm unsure where this "launching himself" comes from. I'm not sure how to tackle a player who's standing still while as a tackler you also are standing still. Are we suggesting we should walk up to someone and slowly ask permission to tackle? Here's another still.....
3892
Here's the point of contact, shoulder to shoulder. The only direct head contact here is from the Welsh lad's right shoulder to the tackler's head. But that's the tacklers responsibility. I point out again that the right foot is on the ground directly under his own body. If you watch the video, he slows down before the tackle. But at the last split second the catcher drops in height.

While I would probably issue a RC at my level, I don't have the benefit of TMOs, ARs slo mo replays at various angles etc. I really do feel the DC have got this wrong. So if any of you Scottish refs are reffing me in the upcoming season, I expect you to follow this up and if drop to my knee(s) and lower my head into a tackle, I expect you to issue a RC to the tackler. Thanks :)

Pinky
20-06-19, 11:06
All that said, this lad does have a problem with his tackling technique that needs addressing. Nothing wrong with his positioning in the tackle; leading with the shoulder with arms out ready to wrap and hammering the opponent hard. Its his action of launching himself at the opponent that is the problem. It means he's out of control and there is no margin for error, and no way to pull out if the opponent does something unexpected.

I agree with Ian, the launching technique is IMO not a good idea as it must ramp up the danger of the tackle, and that doing so put a player at an increased risk of a higher sanction.

Ian_Cook
20-06-19, 11:06
3891

Ok here's a still of a millisecond away from contact. Look at the position. He's clearly targeting that ball. Note, again BOTH feet are on the ground, so I'm unsure where this "launching himself" comes from. I'm not sure how to tackle a player who's standing still while as a tackler you also are standing still. Are we suggesting we should walk up to someone and slowly ask permission to tackle? Here's another still.....
3892
Here's the point of contact, shoulder to shoulder. The only direct head contact here is from the Welsh lad's right shoulder to the tackler's head. But that's the tacklers responsibility. I point out again that the right foot is on the ground directly under his own body. If you watch the video, he slows down before the tackle. But at the last split second the catcher drops in height.

While I would probably issue a RC at my level, I don't have the benefit of TMOs, ARs slo mo replays at various angles etc. I really do feel the DC have got this wrong. So if any of you Scottish refs are reffing me in the upcoming season, I expect you to follow this up and if drop to my knee(s) and lower my head into a tackle, I expect you to issue a RC to the tackler. Thanks :)

"Launching" in this context does not necessarily equate to "feet off ground"... I'm not talking about the tackler "Going Superman" here!

It is clear to me, both in the video of the tackle, and your still, that Black 21 cannot be in control of what he is doing. To contrast that, take a look at this tackle by Richard Kahui on Adam Ashley Cooper.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29gR7-_ApHk

Note that at the beginning, at full speed, Kahui looks as if all he has done is just run up and smashed AAC. However, pay attention to the slo-mos, especially the head-on at 0:25, and the reverse angle at 0:34 on the YouTube timer. You will see that he works really hard to get himself close to the catcher, he keeps his head up and eyes on the target, then he slows down to get the timing right, head and eyes still on the target, and then accelerates to make maximum impact.

This is what I mean about being in control. Using this technique, there is hardly any chance of Kahui getting this wrong. He has almost come to a stop, so he can pull out at the last moment if he has got the timing wrong, or change the way he executes the tackle if his opponent does something unexpected. As you can see, he has been just as effective in putting his opponent on the deck as Finau, but he has done it much more safely, and has been in full control of the tackle right from the get-go.

I use this video to show my lads how to tackle an opponent who is catching the ball, or has caught the ball in the air and has just come to ground - the timing is just a bit different for the latter, but the technique is essentially the same.

Arabcheif
20-06-19, 13:06
Ok, but the all-black lad slows his run down too. The body position of the tacklers are practically identical. The difference is the body position of the catchers. In your video, he's standing with his shoulder turned as his defence, the Welsh lad is both bent at the knees and leaning forward too. The tackler has timed his run and tackle impeccably.

Let's use your video to argue a hypothetical case. Let say the tackler lines up the catcher, at the last moment the catcher lowers his head to be in line with the incoming tackle. With the above arguments, your text book tackle has just become a RC offence. Bearing in mind the tackler is committed and can't withdraw from the tackle.

Phil E
20-06-19, 14:06
If you tackle around the chest and the ball carrier dips or stumbles you are going to make contact with the head, and that's an offence. It doesn't really matter whether you agree with it or not, that's the law.

If you tackle high, you take the risk.

If you tackle at waist height you wont have a problem.

Arabcheif
20-06-19, 17:06
Ok so let's lower the legal tackle height to the waist. For the record your not always going to make contact with the head if you aim for the chest. I regularly tackle (relying on my size than good technique) and make contact with the chest area. Not once have I made contact with the head.

I line up a waist high tackle and the BC dips forward and low or stumbles, there's still the potential for head contact. So this waist high tackle is a RC if the BC dips into the tackle head first too.

thepercy
20-06-19, 20:06
Non sequitur. Your reply to my post is unrelated.

Can you not understand that a tackle may end up being dangerous even though it was not INITIATED in a dangerous manner?

Can you not understand that a tackle technique that is flawed may not necessarily result in a dangerous tackle?

If you and thePercy had actually read and thought about what I posted instead of firing off the first thing that came into your head, you might have stood a chance of understanding these things.

Some examples are

A tackle that starts low and rides up = technique OK, but high so ruled dangerous!
Hurdling a tackler = a flawed technique that isn't inherently dangerous play, until you end up kicking someone in the head!

I'll repeat what I said earlier; hopefully, you will actually read it this time, and understand what I'm getting at - "this lad does have a problem with his tackling technique that needs addressing. Nothing wrong with his positioning in the tackle; leading with the shoulder with arms out ready to wrap and hammering the opponent hard. Its his action of launching himself at the opponent that is the problem. It means he's out of control and there is no margin for error, and no way to pull out if the opponent does something unexpected."

A flawed tackling technique is not an infringement, but it increases the risk of something going wrong. didds gets it, a few others get it... I can't understand why you two don't.

I'm glad that you didn't feel like you needed to be condescending:biggrin:

For me he was reckless, because he went chest high and launched himself, now this doesn't mean he will necessarily be guilty of FP, but he is putting himself at risk of being liable to PK because he is out of control. I don't think it is safe, for the tackler, because he can't adjust if needed, risking leaving his team down a man, and as you stated might miss the tackle altogether, and it's not safe for his a opponent, because he can't adjust to the ball carriers actions. I still don't understand (and likely won't through any LMGTFY), how you think he can initiate a safe tackle that is at least marginally reckless, and out of control. Safe does not always mean legal, and vice versa.

Ian_Cook
20-06-19, 21:06
Ok, but the all-black lad slows his run down too. The body position of the tacklers are practically identical. The difference is the body position of the catchers. In your video, he's standing with his shoulder turned as his defence, the Welsh lad is both bent at the knees and leaning forward too. The tackler has timed his run and tackle impeccably.

Let's use your video to argue a hypothetical case. Let say the tackler lines up the catcher, at the last moment the catcher lowers his head to be in line with the incoming tackle. With the above arguments, your text book tackle has just become a RC offence. Bearing in mind the tackler is committed and can't withdraw from the tackle.

This where head up eyes on target comes into it. Compare the videos. Finau lowers his head early, he's already head down charging, arms out a metre away, while Kahui keeps his eye on AAC. He's almost on top of AAC, almost stationary and still looking at him, only putting his head down at the last possible moment before he has to in order to make the tackle.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1yxxy00ydok6c9x/FinauYC.png?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6g8wgoff3ry93c2/KahuiTackle.png?raw=1

The window of opportunity for the BC to do something unexpected is far narrower for Kahui.

damo
21-06-19, 06:06
The chart says no mitigation can be considered if Aggravating factors exist. Aggravating factors = "if the tackler and BC are in open space and the tackler has clear line of sight and time before the contact".
That is clearly not the case here.