• 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

Yes didds, I do get that. Instinctively my feeling is that his action in reality definitely was dangerous, whereas the alternative (ie keeping hold, not standing up) has potential to be dangerous. But also potential not to be.

For example; I saw his action as being more of a dive than a jump (others will i'm sure disagree 😄) but this being the case, we know that not every tackle on a diving player, going for a try as an example, ends up with the ball carrier landing on his upper body/neck/shoulders/head.
Diving to score is a specific action the two cannot be compared. Clearly your on a wind up and need to be ignored from here on.
 
Yes didds, I do get that. Instinctively my feeling is that his action in reality definitely was dangerous, whereas the alternative (ie keeping hold, not standing up) has potential to be dangerous. But also potential not to be.

For example; I saw his action as being more of a dive than a jump (others will i'm sure disagree 😄) but this being the case, we know that not every tackle on a diving player, going for a try as an example, ends up with the ball carrier landing on his upper body/neck/shoulders/head.
diving? in mid field? to what end/purpose? To score a try 50+m out ?
 
I suspect a tackler staying low and connecting with a jumping BC at the knees will create a pivot point, where the pivot is below the BCs centre of gravity; QED the CoG continues its merry way while the pivot point remains fixed and the BC flips via the pivot point. No need to stand up. its just physics
It's a pivot point no matter where the tackler makes contact, height-wise. But the lower you are when you make contact, the more unbalanced that weight is and the worse potential outcome there can be. And then continuing one's momentum in the direction of the less-weighted side (i.e. starting low and standing up) continues to push the unbalanced weight in a dangerous way. That is the physics, indeed. So standing up after contact is worse than maintaining the same height or going to ground (dropping height) after contact, and creating the pivot.

But agreed with you on the tackler being damned either way, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think a clean tackle would've result in that much better of an outcome. But by the law, and how I'm used to it being applied (the tackler having greater responsibility than the ball carrier), that it's still the tackler's responsibility to make a clean tackle as best as possible, regardless of the outcome or if it realistically lessens the danger in a given scenario. It is the protocol expected of the tackler per the law. This is why I see fault for both parties involved in this scenario.
 
Well by this very conversation Marc, I would suggest that it is not written down clearly. The key here is how we interpret the use of 'to others' in that sentence isn't it?


From World Rugby:
A.1 We agree – jumping to hurdle a potential tackler is dangerous play, as is the act of a ball carrier jumping into a tackle. Even if no contact is made, we believe this act is in clear contravention of law 9.11, and runs contrary to the game-wide focus on player welfare.
 
My initial thought was yellow for the tackler, mitigated down from red due to ball carriers last minute movement. Having watched it ten times. I stick with that decision, however if I was brave enough part of me thinks a yellow each is more equitable and educational given it’s u18 meaning penalty to ball carrier side as tackler was last offence (no wrap).

The key action here is that the tackler stands up thus flipping the player despite knowing that the tackle was going wrong. The “jump” was minimal and not necessarily dangerous. He could have easily been controlled by the tackler if he wanted to but he made no effort to wrap the tackler which would have meant the ball carriers didn’t flip.

The lack of wrap and the stand up, pushes this to me against the tackler and I am a large believer in not pulling rabbits from hats if I can help it. 99% of the crowd and players would expected the decision the ref gave. The tip tackle could still occur with no wrap and stand up even if the player was on the ground, so that technique was always illegal.
 
diving? in mid field? to what end/purpose? To score a try 50+m out ?
For what purpose? From what I saw at the video, the purpose of him diving was to get his hands through the tackle as far forward as he could get, so he could get the pass away.
 
Diving to score is a specific action the two cannot be compared. Clearly your on a wind up and need to be ignored from here on.
Seriously Marc, I think you are winding yourself up. I simply have a different perspective than others here. Thats OK, right?

I should be clearer, I did not, and do not suggest he was diving for the line, but I did and do suggest that he was diving deliberately but - and this is the pertinant part - not dangerous to others. The same as diving for the line to score is not dangerous to others. I might add that trying to hurdle a tackler to score a try (Johnny May springs to mind) IS dangerous to others.

All I have done is try to highlight this difference, rather poorly it would appear. It really is OK to disagree and if you feel it best to ignore because I have a different view to you, that is OK too. Please though, don't revert to personal insults again, thats not OK.
 
For what purpose? From what I saw at the video, the purpose of him diving was to get his hands through the tackle as far forward as he could get, so he could get the pass away.
err. exactly my point.
Its not a dive. its a jump. a dive would suggest head towards the ground, not hands towards the sky.
 
My twopennorth for what it's worth. These are young players experimenting with what works for them (as they should at U18)
An equitable decision would be two yellows one each, justifiable in law Jumping into a tackle and lifting beyond horzontal. Time off, cool everyone down explain to both teams why both offences are unacceptable as is all the handbags and afters.
Restart with a scrum to the team going forward.
 
For me, it is the ball carrier who infringes first and (more importantly, I think) creates the dangerous situation. Unless the tackler has been particularly reckless, which I don’t see here, I would not be penalizing him at all, much less pulling out a card. I would also not be carding the ball carrier, as that feels harsh and unnecessary. I suspect he’s learned his lesson from the outcome of the situation.
 
For me, it is the ball carrier who infringes first and (more importantly, I think) creates the dangerous situation. Unless the tackler has been particularly reckless, which I don’t see here, I would not be penalizing him at all, much less pulling out a card. I would also not be carding the ball carrier, as that feels harsh and unnecessary. I suspect he’s learned his lesson from the outcome of the situation.
I think this is a fair take too, despite differing from my own. I don't think there's only 1 right answer on this one, TBH, and fitting for the sport of rugby and how we often referee it.
 
In this case, the subsequent offence is *caused* by the first. If the player had gone into contact legally, it's very unlikely he'd have been tipped the way he was.
Feom what you are saying: We would also ping what we considered to be he worst offence if there are two offences.

EG A nasty tip tacke by R7 is followed by a push from Blue 6. I'm sanctioning the R7 infringement rath than the push by B6. EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK
 
Feom what you are saying: We would also ping what we considered to be he worst offence if there are two offences.

EG A nasty tip tacke by R7 is followed by a push from Blue 6. I'm sanctioning the R7 infringement rath than the push by B6. EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK
I don't think there's huge disagreement on that point Marc. It seems that the real division is the question about what we do if the actions of the second player only become illegal due to the actions of the first player, which is what some folks believe.
 
My twopennorth for what it's worth. These are young players experimenting with what works for them (as they should at U18)
An equitable decision would be two yellows one each, justifiable in law Jumping into a tackle and lifting beyond horzontal. Time off, cool everyone down explain to both teams why both offences are unacceptable as is all the handbags and afters.
Restart with a scrum to the team going forward.
Exactly this.
 
Back
Top