• 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

[Tackle] Wales v All Blacks U20 - how is this not a red card?

Probably because the tackler got into a good tackling position, was not looking, and impacted high as the bull arrived effectively collapsed down from where he might reasonably expected to be. If the ball carrier is at a normal, standing height, the tackle comes in at lower chest height, no problems.

now the tackler has a responsibility to ensure his tackle is not dangerous, but given this is fairly spilt second, what the Americans would all. Bang bang play, I can understand the issuance of a yellow only as there was no intent. I know the argument is contact was made to the head, tacklers responsibility therefore red, and I wouldn’t argue with that conclusion, I’m just proposing a justification for the yellow only.
 
Agree with Zebra.

Black 21 is already head down/arms out preparing for the tackle - a split second later, Red 15 ducks as Black 21 wraps what he expects to be the upper body of Red 15, except - there is nothing to wrap and it ends up looking like a swinging arm. In fact, Red 15 has ducked so low that there is very nearly what would have been a horrible head clash. Short of having ESP, Black 21 has absolutely no way to know (nor should he be expected to predict) that Red 15 would duck.

In ruthlessly punishing players for tackling ball-catchers in the air, we have trained them to time their tackles so that the first contact with the opponent when his feet are back on the ground. If we are now going to further expect the tackler to wait until he sees the opponent isn't going to duck, we might as well ditch the tackle from the game, and play touch rugby.


ETA: All that said, I had the chance to look at it as many time as I like, in the comfort of my living room, with a cup of tea and a biscuit, and under no pressure, and with no review consequences if I get it wrong. A red card would not have surprised me.
 
Last edited:
There have been a flurry of cards at this u20 Championship. Referees are looking at mitigating circumstances, like ball-carrier dipping into the tackle. Force is an important element too. I am not convinced that escalating penalties to Red or Yellow cards is actually getting the message across.

U20 Championship 2019: Disciplinary has a growing list of cited players and Citing Commissioner Warnings. Along with numerous players receiving High Risk Contact Technique Warnings for poor technique.
 
Last edited:
There is that, however we have just had the flowcharts to help deal with these. If we say its a high tackle its a red card for two reasons - the original hit snd the follow up arm.

If the argument is red has dipped into the tackle it follows you are arguing a catcher must stand fully upright when catching and not soften their landing by bending the knees.

Was red looking for a pen and acting deliberately? Possibly but it doesnt look like it.

Should the tackler have taken more care? Almost certainly.

I predict a citing and a month.
 
tewdric said:
If the argument is red has dipped into the tackle it follows you are arguing a catcher must stand fully upright when catching and not soften their landing by bending the knees.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not, and that isn;t what happened

Red 15 did not lower himself by bending his knees as much as he lowers his torso and bends forward.

Lowering your head into the path of an oncoming tackler is never going to end well. If any of my lads did that regularly, I would be asking them to explain why they did it and coaching them not to.
 
Ian_Cook said:
No, I'm not, and that isn;t what happened

Red 15 did not lower himself by bending his knees as much as he lowers his torso and bends forward.

Lowering your head into the path of an oncoming tackler is never going to end well. If any of my lads did that regularly, I would be asking them to explain why they did it and coaching them not to.
Click to expand...

not your lads of course, but maybe some could be being coached to do so to win a PK and card.

I would never totally reject such an suspicion (whilst totally abhoring the idea!)

didds
 
Following the new flowchart.

  • It fits the description of a high tackle, not a shoulder charge.
  • There is direct arm contact with the head (4)
  • It is Direct with a high degree of danger (Tackler draws back arm prior to contact, Arm swings forward prior to contact, tackler is attempting a dominant tackle and the tackle is completed) all that says high degree of danger so the chart says Red.
  • There are aggravating factors (tackler in open space, clear line of sight, and time before contact) therefore mitigating circumstances like ducking into it cannot be taken into consideration.
  • So it stays a Red.
 
Phil E said:
Following the new flowchart.

  • It fits the description of a high tackle, not a shoulder charge.
  • There is direct arm contact with the head (4)
  • It is Direct with a high degree of danger (Tackler draws back arm prior to contact, Arm swings forward prior to contact, tackler is attempting a dominant tackle and the tackle is completed) all that says high degree of danger so the chart says Red.
  • There are aggravating factors (tackler in open space, clear line of sight, and time before contact) therefore mitigating circumstances like ducking into it cannot be taken into consideration.
  • So it stays a Red.
Click to expand...

Unless you're wearing BLACK :sarc: :wink:
 
Having watched a close encounter between England and Ireland last night, I can only say referee Ben Blain (Scotland) looked for mitigating circumstances for each of five yellow cards he issued. Communication with the TMO wasn’t the easiest, but his following protocol was very much in evidence. If we are selling this as looking after player safety/welfare then it makes sense not to alienate these youngsters by handing out Red cards as if it were going out of fashion. And ending the game as a competition before the 80 minutes are up.
 
Last edited:
L'irlandais said:
Having watched a close encounter between England and Ireland last night, I can only say referee Ben Blain (Scotland) looked for mitigating circumstances for each of five yellow cards he issued. Communication with the TMO wasn’t the easiest, but his following protocol was very much in evidence. If we are selling this as looking after player safety/welfare then it makes sense not to alienate these youngsters by handing out Red cards as if it were going out of fashion. And ending the game as a competition before the 80 minutes are up.
Click to expand...

The chart says no mitigation can be considered if Aggravating factors exist. Aggravating factors = "if the tackler and BC are in open space and the tackler has clear line of sight and time before the contact".
 
It’s possible that the U20 match officials had agreed on a different emphasis prior to the Championship.
Certainly looked that way, winning hearts and minds as opposed to laying down the law.
He drew silence from the TMO on more than one occasion, which «*sounded for all the world like disagreement.
 
Last edited:
Phil E said:
Following the new flowchart.

  • It fits the description of a high tackle, not a shoulder charge.
  • There is direct arm contact with the head (4)
  • It is Direct with a high degree of danger (Tackler draws back arm prior to contact, Arm swings forward prior to contact, tackler is attempting a dominant tackle and the tackle is completed) all that says high degree of danger so the chart says Red.
  • There are aggravating factors (tackler in open space, clear line of sight, and time before contact) therefore mitigating circumstances like ducking into it cannot be taken into consideration.
  • So it stays a Red.
Click to expand...

Whilst I would probably agree with this, I suspect the issue was the decision about whether there was mitigating circumstances. As far as black was concerned, he was aiming a t chest level until the red player landed in a crouch and was hit on the head. Phil points out that the mitigating circumstances cannot be taken into account as aggravating factors exist, but the question of time before contact is a matter of judgement. Did the ref get that so badly wrong? I don't think so.
 
Under the new rubric, it's red.
Watching the video again, I think Black is set and launched for the tackle, and Red lowers himself still further.

In a sane world, that would be sufficient mitigation.
 
SimonSmith said:
Under the new rubric, it's red.
Watching the video again, I think Black is set and launched for the tackle, and Red lowers himself still further.

In a sane world, that would be sufficient mitigation.
Click to expand...

Unless you are trying to discourage launching yourself into a tackle where you have no control of yourself if the circumstances change. If you launch yourself chest high and it goes wrong, even through the actions of your opponent then you have to take the consequences. In the OP scenario do you think the tackler could have made a tackle (more safely) without launching himself?
 
The tackle he initiated was safe.
The fact that it wasn't is down to the actions of the ball carrier.
 
So it's the victims fault in some eyes?

The ball catcher's actions look like 'bracing for impact' to me - entirely understandable in the circumstances. It is unreasonable to expect the ball catcher to adopt a tall, open stance (they will be hurt if they do) to a tackler, just in case they 'cause' a penalty/yellow/red for the poor tackler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top