Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Hand-off heights

      
  1. #1

    Referees in Australia
    Jarrod Burton's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    TRU
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jun 13
    Posts
    410

    Default Hand-off heights

    Hi All - a question regarding hand-offs and their relation to the new Head Contact Process.

    Can a BC make contact with to the head of a tackler with an open palm and bent arm before shoving that tackler away during a tackle? As far as I can see it is legal under the current process provided a) the force applied is not excessive (ie a strike out or stiff arm) and b) no forearm/elbow is used as the point of contact.

    Thanks
    Last edited by Jarrod Burton; 09-05-21 at 04:05. Reason: Speeling and typos!

  2. #2

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    19,063

    Default Re: Hand-off heights

    I think that's about right
    It's an obvious inconsistency with current practice , it can't be long before they outlaw hand offs to the head.

  3. #3

    Referees in Australia
    Jarrod Burton's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    TRU
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jun 13
    Posts
    410

    Default Re: Hand-off heights

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    it can't be long before they outlaw hand offs to the head.
    I agree, I hate that a ball carrier can deliberately target an area of a tacklers body which, if the reverse occurred, would likely see the tackler sitting out for 10minutes to multiple weeks.

    I had multiple instances of what I and my AR's felt were legal hand-off to the head in my match yesterday and one of the players, who is also a referee, felt that all head contact by either player should be sanctioned under the current framework so as to protect the players. I disagreed as the profile specifically mentions the use of forearm/elbow in fends but has no mention of a high hand-off being sanctionable, which is a glaring inconsistency in the laws - but that never happens in the law book does it?
    Last edited by Jarrod Burton; 09-05-21 at 10:05.

  4. #4

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    19,063

    Default Re: Hand-off heights

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarrod Burton View Post
    I agree, I hate that a ball carrier can deliberately target an area of a tacklers body which, if the reverse occurred, would likely see the tackler sitting out for 10minutes to multiple weeks.

    I had multiple instances of what I and my AR's felt were legal hand-off to the head in my match yesterday and one of the players, who is also a referee, felt that all head contact by either player should be sanctioned under the current framework so as to protect the players. I disagreed as the profile specifically mentions the use of forearm/elbow in fends but has no mention of a high hand-off being sanctionable, which is a glaring inconsistency in the laws - but that never happens in the law book does it?
    tbf the current protocols for dealing with head contact aren't really in the Laws either, they are protocols.
    But yes, it seems to me the inconsistency can't last.

    That situation where one player (or one team) are making continual use of aggressive hand offs : that can be very hard to manage, I think, but the 'excessive force' phrase is useful, the Law explicitly mentions that, so you do have the power to judge that a hand off used excessive force, and sanction it.

  5. #5

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,814

    Default Re: Hand-off heights

    Back in 1970 I went to Leicester to watch the touring Fijians play East Midlands. I remember their winger, Tikoisuva, putting his hand on the top of his opponent's head with a straight arm and using it as a pivot for running round him. His opponent could not get hold of anything and fell flat on his face.

    I saw nothing dangerous in that manoeuvre. If a would-be tackler is coming in low, the top of the head is about all you can contact.

    Striking with the hand is, of course, different.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  6. #6

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    10,407

    Default Re: Hand-off heights

    ... and then next in line is a ball carrier appraoching inevitable contact dips early and twists sideways, hands and arms against the chest holding the ball (ie no elbows.forearms etc) and ends up stroking a defneders head with a leading shoulder with the tackler/defnder also having dipped early to try and efefct a tackle - that has now been vraced by the dip and turn....

  7. #7

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,261
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Hand-off heights

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    ... and then next in line is a ball carrier appraoching inevitable contact dips early and twists sideways, hands and arms against the chest holding the ball (ie no elbows.forearms etc) and ends up stroking a defneders head with a leading shoulder with the tackler/defnder also having dipped early to try and efefct a tackle - that has now been vraced by the dip and turn....
    "and then next in line" , I think you are on to something. It is a progression, isn't it? It cannot be stopped once it is started. This, however, was started long ago. We are merely dealing with years of "no calls", slowly accepted practices, referees afraid to blow whistle as to be laughed out of the park.

    There was a law once, no so long ago, that slowly became unenforced, and we are dealing with the unintended repercussions. It was known amongst these circles as POWB. An exclusion was added, "and a players not in possession of the ball".

    The outcome is what we now have. It is quite comical. We are victims of our own demise.

    Midigations up the ying, clarifications up the yang, and everyone understanding something completely different. A savant could keep track, but not us derelicts.

    Perhaps, ball carriers, at one time, were meant to evade defenders. Perhaps, the forefathers knew money would destroy our game. Perhaps, the forefathers understood CTE. Odd, isn't it, How we screwed this game up.
    Last edited by Not Kurt Weaver; 09-05-21 at 23:05.

  8. #8

    Referees in Australia
    SimonSmith's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Central Australian Rugby Referees
    Grade
    B3
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,725

    Default Re: Hand-off heights

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Kurt Weaver View Post
    "and then next in line" , I think you are on to something. It is a progression, isn't it? It cannot be stopped once it is started. This, however, was started long ago. We are merely dealing with years of "no calls", slowly accepted practices, referees afraid to blow whistle as to be laughed out of the park.

    There was a law once, no so long ago, that slowly became unenforced, and we are dealing with the unintended repercussions. It was known amongst these circles as POWB. An exclusion was added, "and a players not in possession of the ball".

    The outcome is what we now have. It is quite comical. We are victims of our own demise.

    Midigations up the ying, clarifications up the yang, and everyone understanding something completely different. A savant could keep track, but not us derelicts.

    Perhaps, ball carriers, at one time, were meant to evade defenders. Perhaps, the forefathers knew money would destroy our game. Perhaps, the forefathers understood CTE. Odd, isn't it, How we screwed this game up.
    [my bold]
    Seriously?
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
    Marcus Aurelius

    Man may do as he will; he may not will what he wills
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    Tullamore Dew, the Afghan Wigs, and many, many strippers - how to get over your ex. How true.

  9. #9

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,814

    Default Re: Hand-off heights

    There is a ludicrous argument "If one step, why not fifty?" Compromise is something we all do all the time. In refereeing decisions it is called judgement. It is unavoidable, so trying to deal in black & white is pointless.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  10. #10

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,261
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Hand-off heights

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    There is a ludicrous argument "If one step, why not fifty?" Compromise is something we all do all the time. In refereeing decisions it is called judgement. It is unavoidable, so trying to deal in black & white is pointless.
    How do we know when the judgement is flawed? My answer: by the decision's deviation from the black and white.

    A good example is the scrum feed, the black and white is straight. The judgement is whether it is straight, not its distance away from straight. In time, this one step could lead to fifty. the eventual outcome maybe less need for props and second rows, and their replacing players may be more speedy players just occupying 1-5 jerseys.

    BTW - "Black and white" is under scrutiny now in the US, but it is just "one step" not "fifty". Yet.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •