• 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

thoughts on this tackle

Not only does he tackle him high, but then then sort of neck rolls him backwards!!
 
YC & PT

C&O, can't understand how that was missed as the official had an uninterrupted view of the 'tackle' attempt.
 
I'm going to against the grain and say its fine. The arm draped over the shoulder is actually quite loose and there isn't much strength in it. If you look closely the tackler does most of the pulling back using his other arm with his hand on the ball. Ie. to prevent the ball from being touched down.

play on
 
Guyseep said:
I'm going to against the grain and say its fine. The arm draped over the shoulder is actually quite loose and there isn't much strength in it. If you look closely the tackler does most of the pulling back using his other arm with his hand on the ball. Ie. to prevent the ball from being touched down.

play on
Click to expand...

In the UK over the shoulder is a high tackle and a PK minimum.
It's called a seatbelt tackle and we have been told to crack down on them.
 
Guyseep, it's not necessarily the lifting of the player that is the issue. I see the issue being before that point when the player has made contact with head and neck from a swinging arm.
 
I think any conversation about high tackles should be made with reference to the World Rugby "Decision-making framework for high tackles" https://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=9&language=EN

In this case the decision tree proceeds as follows:

1. Shoulder Charge or High Tackle? High Tackle - clear direct contact to ball carriers head

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]2. Was the high contact by tacklers with their shoulder, head or arm/elbow? Clearly made contact with the arm

[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]3. Was head/neck contact direct or indirect? Again clearly this was direct contact as the tackler did not begin with the arm below shoulder height and then slip up

[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]4. What is the degree of danger - high or low? My take here is that the degree of danger is low

[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]5. Are there clear and obvious mitigating factors? There are in fact aggravating factors (which mean that mitigating factors can't be considered) in that the tackler and ball carrier are in open space and the tackler has clear line of sight and time before making contact.

It's a yellow card according to the guidelines.[/FONT]
 
As Phil says it is a seatbelt tackle, and that should be a PK minimum. Contact with head/neck looks incidental and not swinging arm as suggested by some, so I am thinking of PK only for the tackle. However that it prevented a probable try, then it is PT for me and PK only for preventing the try, not for the actual tackle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top