• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Turn opponent over the horizont

L

Luke

New member
Hello gentlemen, I'd like to ask for your opinions. I witnessed the tackle where the oponent was turned upside down. I have watched the record repeatedly to try to find the intention of the tackler. He's got a card for dangerous tackle. I still think he did not intend to turn him upside down.
Please see the record here at time 26m06s here dangerous tackle see 26m06s

Have nice day
 
the laws are quite clear. whatever the intention once you have turned your opponent through 180 it is your responsibility to return them to the ground safely. That wont prevent sanction, merely the ultimate sanction.

Bottom line - if you dont want to accidentally turn them through 180, dont lift in the tackle.
 
Difficult to be certain from the video but it also looks like the ball carrier tries to jump into the tackle which in most circumstances would exonerate the tackler for me.
 
Ridiculous... this ball carrier tried to dive over the tackler, and the tackler was penalized for not instantly vanishing into thin air.
 
I'm with didds, the responsibility (at least how the laws are written) is on the tackler unfortunately. That being said, what could've been a red card normally would probably only be a yellow card for me here given that the ball carrier clearly tries to my jump in the air over the tackler, putting himself in that unfavorable position. Similar to a ball carrier who dips right before being tackled and head contact is made. So I'd have some sympathy for the tackler here at least.
 
didds said:
the laws are quite clear. whatever the intention once you have turned your opponent through 180 it is your responsibility to return them to the ground safely. That wont prevent sanction, merely the ultimate sanction.

Bottom line - if you dont want to accidentally turn them through 180, dont lift in the tackle.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your responds.
Result for me. For the tackler if attacker jumpes or dives into contact the safe way how to provide tackle is to stop him in the air and land him safely. If this fails because it could be really risky it would be fine to penalize both performers for dangerous play.
 
Last edited:
Jumping into or over a tackler is not legal and can/should be penalized under 9.11.

[LAWS=]Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.
[/LAWS]
 
not that this diminishes the danger factor but it looks to me that he wasnt trying to jump over the tackler, but jumping to provide himself vertical space to offload past the tackler.

that said now Ive realised there was a link to a video and thus seen it all, was it the tackle that tipped him, or did he effectively pivot over the tackler having jumped into the tackler?

then again... accepting he did jump into the tackler how is this different to a kick chaser jumping into a defender when trying to catch the ball? Both players have jumped into a lower positioned opponent. And in the case of a kick chase the "fault" is always the lower player being jumped into. And the jumping player is never penalised by 9.11. I'm not saying that situation is correct ...
 
Last edited:
From what I can see on the video, I would find that hard to penalise the ball carrier. His actions, whilst daft, don't in my view pose any danger to anyone but himself.

My view, is that jumping into a tackle is very much putiing knees/boots into the area of shoulders/head of the tackler.

In this example, from a distance it must be said, it looks like the tackler was very reckless, and I would lean toward Red for him.
 
Mipper said:
From what I can see on the video, I would find that hard to penalise the ball carrier. His actions, whilst daft, don't in my view pose any danger to anyone but himself.

My view, is that jumping into a tackle is very much putiing knees/boots into the area of shoulders/head of the tackler.

In this example, from a distance it must be said, it looks like the tackler was very reckless, and I would lean toward Red for him.
Click to expand...

I am also conscious of the distance from the camera to the incident but the recklessness for me appears to be the ball carrier attempting to get airborne just before the tackle which has a material effect on the tacklers positioning and safety.
 
The first offence was jumping which is deemed illegal and dangerous. A tackler in those circumstances is within his rights to evade injury within reasonableness. The action is illegal and dangerous. We don’t necessarily penalise the outcome but there could be circumstances where we could. If he jumps to avoid and manages it or partially - penalty. If he jumps and is reckless in doing so and makes contact - possible YC. If he deliberately jumps to injure then a red card can be considered.
How reasonable was the tackler‘s actions? He stood up as the ‘jumper’ was trying to clear him. Perhaps trying to adjust to the height of the ball carrier?
 
I'm applying the high tackle framework:

If the tackler would always have been legal but for the actions of the ball carrier, play on.

The person causing all the problems here is the BC. There are other laws that are written to protect players from putting themselves in dangerous positions, so I'd apply that principle here and penalize the BC
 
SimonSmith said:
I'm applying the high tackle framework:

If the tackler would always have been legal but for the actions of the ball carrier, play on.

The person causing all the problems here is the BC. There are other laws that are written to protect players from putting themselves in dangerous positions, so I'd apply that principle here and penalize the BC
Click to expand...

Agreed with following high tackle framework for reference.

Agreed ball carrier is at fault here too.

But tackler still has some responsibility and does stand up towards the end of the tackle instead of completing the tackle to ground. I believe this makes the outcome worse than it would've been (though I don't think it would've been that much better otherwise). So minimally penalty against tackler for me, but possible YC depending on what I saw IRL in real-time.
 
so the tackler
stays at initial midriff height and now takes the BC around the knees when airborne - BC likely flips.
stands up adjusting to the new height of the BC's midriff now BC is airborne - BC now flips with that motion.

So tackler is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't? Is that what we are now saying?

Meanwhile as above Im also seeing this as effectively the same scenario of a kick chaser jumping into a defender while catching the kick. Which never penalises the catcher (incorrectly in my own opinion but others' MMV), so Id have some sympathy with a view that says equally a BC can jump before a tackle with impunity on that basis (again, not for me but caveats as above).
 
Last edited:
Decorily said:
I could have sworn you said he didn't "pose any danger to anyone but himself "!!
Click to expand...
Oh Dec, you don't need the sarcasm :rolleyes:, we're not in competition here.
So to explain; the danger the ball carrier puts himself in is not dangerous in and of itself, it is potentially dangerous as he opens himself to a dangerous action from the tackler - which is what happens. So for me the ball carriers action is daft, but it is not illegal - which is also what I said.
The tackler is at fault here, as (in my view) he lifts the player and drops him.
I see that some have said something along the lines of "what could he do?", to which my view is that he could have, not stood up, and not let him go (and drop).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top