• 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

Dangerous Play

Difficult to see in real time and looks like re ref didn't have a clear line of site.
Tackler is in a poor upright position but I would be tempted to penalise ball carrier for direct contact to head and neck area with force.
it wasn't a hand off, it was a hit for me.
 
I can't see clear contact to head or neck from this angle and film quality, but it looks like a strike. At least a penalty.
 
For me it is dangerous play.

Personally I would like the ball-carrier to be subject to the same criteria as a tackler. So at my leve: NO contact above the sternum. Why is it "safe" for the ball- carriere to make contact with the head but not the tackler?
 
Marc Wakeham said:
For me it is dangerous play.

Personally I would like the ball-carrier to be subject to the same criteria as a tackler. So at my leve: NO contact above the sternum. Why is it "safe" for the ball- carriere to make contact with the head but not the tackler?
Click to expand...

Does this apply for (otherwise legal) handoffs as well?
 
Rich_NL said:
Does this apply for (otherwise legal) handoffs as well?
Click to expand...
If it was up to me (which it is not) it would indeed. However, the law disagrees with me so I apply the law, which does allow me to judge whether or not ANY action is dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Understood, there are some refs here who even at adult level apply this thinking to handoffs too. Personally, I don't consider a properly-applied legal handoff to have much concussion risk, but it is clearly a grey area where it's not foul play because it's defined as such, and not with any mechanical logic behind it.
 
Rich_NL said:
Understood, there are some refs here who even at adult level apply this thinking to handoffs too. Personally, I don't consider a properly-applied legal handoff to have much concussion risk, but it is clearly a grey area where it's not foul play because it's defined as such, and not with any mechanical logic behind it.
Click to expand...
I have spoken to doctors who disagree with you. I've spoken to rugby folk who agree with you. Also the bit in italics is a bit disigenuous. The Law book does not define every possible act off dangerous play it expects the referee to judge what he sees in front of him.
 
Last edited:
Just to play devil’s advocate …
Was this a handoff? BC has hands low going in, is the post tackle raised hand just pushing away?
Was the tackler too high? Upright all the way in.
Is this just a smaller player not getting into a position to successfully tackle a larger player?

IMG_0213.jpegIMG_0215.jpegIMG_0210.jpeg
 
It looks to me like a coaching problem, the rabbit in the headlights doesn't know what to do.
 
Volun-selected said:
Just to play devil’s advocate …
Was this a handoff? BC has hands low going in, is the post tackle raised hand just pushing away?
Was the tackler too high? Upright all the way in.
Is this just a smaller player not getting into a position to successfully tackle a larger player?
Click to expand...
so how does the BC elbow get from his waistline to his chest level while his hand is still holding the ball AND it be a HANDOFF ?.
 
Marc Wakeham said:
For me it is dangerous play.

Personally I would like the ball-carrier to be subject to the same criteria as a tackler. So at my leve: NO contact above the sternum. Why is it "safe" for the ball- carriere to make contact with the head but not the tackler?
Click to expand...
Two bulls butting heads gets the same outcome.

Just because one carries the ball and one tries to tackle doesn't reduce the kinetic energy the is being transferred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top