New High Tackle Directive for the New Year

[smartcooky]

There is a point to be made though about tall vs short players. A player who is taller will struggle to get lower than a shorter player. If someone is driving forwards with their head barely above hip height, it becomes practically impossible to stop as most attempts involve grabbing their shoulders. I feel there is too much emphasis being placed on players to ensure others safety with little to none on players ensuring their own safety. If a player does something that puts them in a position where it is highly likely they will get injured and as a result they do, that should be taken into account. As it is, players are now being penalised because their opposing player put themselves in a dangerous position and the player being sanctioned had little they could do except to not be there at all.

First thing I would say to this is that rugby union has always been a "game for all shapes and sizes". The game has always had 6 ft 8 in players tackling 5 ft 6 in players in the past and it has never raised any of these concerns, and these directives don't change that, so why is it such an issue now?

Second thing is its that there is a LOT of misunderstanding about these head protection directives. They DO NOT lower the point at which a tackle becomes high, they are increasing the sanctions for RECKLESS contact with the head.

[TEXTAREA]Reckless tackle
A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders.

Minimum sanction: Yellow card
Maximum sanction: Red card

Accidental tackle
When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent's head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle.

Minimum sanction: Penalty[/TEXTAREA]

I suggest everyone here read the actual directive from the source (WR)....

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/213339

...and don't rely on Newspaper sports jocks for your information.

The aim of these directives is to change the culture of rugby with regard to head contact and concussion. It won't happen overnight, and I can see from some of the responses here that there is a lot of work to do to change attitudes.

 

[ncurd]

With all law changes I prefer to give it some time before knee jerk reactions. However I didn't find it a terribly bad thing in the Falcons/Bath match shall wait and see.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

First thing I would say to this is that rugby union has always been a "game for all shapes and sizes". The game has always had 6 ft 8 in players tackling 5 ft 6 in players in the past and it has never raised any of these concerns, and these directives don't change that, so why is it such an issue now?

Second thing is its that there is a LOT of misunderstanding about these head protection directives. They DO NOT lower the point at which a tackle becomes high, they are increasing the sanctions for RECKLESS contact with the head.

[TEXTAREA]Reckless tackle
A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders.

Minimum sanction: Yellow card
Maximum sanction: Red card

Accidental tackle
When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent's head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle.

Minimum sanction: Penalty[/TEXTAREA]

I suggest everyone here read the actual directive from the source (WR)....

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/213339

...and don't rely on Newspaper sports jocks for your information.

The aim of these directives is to change the culture of rugby with regard to head contact and concussion. It won't happen overnight, and I can see from some of the responses here that there is a lot of work to do to change attitudes.

Well that clarifies things. I'd still maintain my second point more as a general observation than relating specifically to this. There is a lot of emphasis on players duty of care to other players yet the responsibility of a player to not put themselves in dangerous situations seems to be ignored (EG jumping for the ball when running forwards knowing you would collide in a likely dangerous way, ducking into tackles etc).

 

[smartcooky]

Well that clarifies things. I'd still maintain my second point more as a general observation than relating specifically to this. There is a lot of emphasis on players duty of care to other players yet the responsibility of a player to not put themselves in dangerous situations seems to be ignored (EG jumping for the ball when running forwards knowing you would collide in a likely dangerous way, ducking into tackles etc).

100% agree with this. The "contact with player in the air" scenario has become ridiculous to the point of sheer stupidity. It all began last year with Dan Biggar v Finn Russell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whN_jd2gh44

IMO, Dan Biggar acted with reckless disregard for his own safety in jumping (at a full sprint) from some distance away from where Finn Russell was waiting to catch the ball. Why does the "duty of care" not apply equally to Biggar as it does to Russell?


We had another example of this in a more resent match; Bristol v Worcester.

https://gfycat.com/DefiantClearcutGuineafowl

I get that Wayne Barnes had no choice because of the directive, so the decision was correct in Law, but its the directive (and Law) that is wrong IMO.

Its the jumping player who creates the danger to himself, he should bear the consequences in the case of a collision. Different if a player actually tackles and/or grabs the jumping player, but in the case of a competition for the ball in open play we should stick to the mantra that the player on his feet is king. Whether both parties jump or not, an accident is an accident; the referee should be allowed to decide for himself and not have his hand forced by stupid, ill-considered directives.

I can give you an even worse example of the stupidity of this Law (unfortunately no video).

Toward the end of last season, we had a player red carded....our SH kicked a "28" (short up and under), our 13 got to ground zero first - he was feet planted facing back towards his own goal-line. A sprinting opponent jumped from about two metres away directly behind our 13 and clattered him with knees in the back of the head. Our 13 went down in a heap, and while he was being attended to by the Zambuck, the referee red carded him for "playing the man in the air".

I question how this directive protects the man in the air? Its quite noticeable that there has been NO downward trend in these incidents since they started to red card players (unlike the tip/tackle scenario where we did see a decline in numbers).

Its not hard to understand why this is, and why it will never, work. The red cards are being issued to players who are acting instinctively and are not doing anything intrinsically wrong or risky. In the tip tackle scenario, the player is taking an action (lift and tip the opponent), its a premeditated, dynamic action. With the "player in the air" scenario, the player is often static, or doing nothing other than waiting for the ball to come down - then they get clattered from behind and red carded. I see no reason why jumping should make a player immune from being penalized for charging into an opponent who doesn't have the ball.

 

[BRSTLDRGN]

100% agree with this. The "contact with player in the air" scenario has become ridiculous to the point of sheer stupidity. It all began last year with Dan Biggar v Finn Russell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whN_jd2gh44

IMO, Dan Biggar acted with reckless disregard for his own safety in jumping (at a full sprint) from some distance away from where Finn Russell was waiting to catch the ball. Why does the "duty of care" not apply equally to Biggar as it does to Russell?


We had another example of this in a more resent match; Bristol v Worcester.

https://gfycat.com/DefiantClearcutGuineafowl

I get that Wayne Barnes had no choice because of the directive, so the decision was correct in Law, but its the directive (and Law) that is wrong IMO.

Its the jumping player who creates the danger to himself, he should bear the consequences in the case of a collision. Different if a player actually tackles and/or grabs the jumping player, but in the case of a competition for the ball in open play we should stick to the mantra that the player on his feet is king. Whether both parties jump or not, an accident is an accident; the referee should be allowed to decide for himself and not have his hand forced by stupid, ill-considered directives.

I can give you an even worse example of the stupidity of this Law (unfortunately no video).

Toward the end of last season, we had a player red carded....our SH kicked a "28" (short up and under), our 13 got to ground zero first - he was feet planted facing back towards his own goal-line. A sprinting opponent jumped from about two metres away directly behind our 13 and clattered him with knees in the back of the head. Our 13 went down in a heap, and while he was being attended to by the Zambuck, the referee red carded him for "playing the man in the air".

I question how this directive protects the man in the air? Its quite noticeable that there has been NO downward trend in these incidents since they started to red card players (unlike the tip/tackle scenario where we did see a decline in numbers).

Its not hard to understand why this is, and why it will never, work. The red cards are being issued to players who are acting instinctively and are not doing anything intrinsically wrong or risky. In the tip tackle scenario, the player is taking an action (lift and tip the opponent), its a premeditated, dynamic action. With the "player in the air" scenario, the player is often static, or doing nothing other than waiting for the ball to come down - then they get clattered from behind and red carded. I see no reason why jumping should make a player immune from being penalized for charging into an opponent who doesn't have the ball.

I disagree there. In a situation both are used to its more than fair to think they knew the opponent would jump for the ball, in both cases they made a last second call to not jump and caused the catcher to collide and land dangerously. So its remains their duty of care to commit to either jumping to compete for the ball or not to chase it all the way and therefore not create the danger. Same with Daly v Argentina last AI's

In the Pisi replay you read his lips as he reacts, he knew he was in trouble.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I disagree there. In a situation both are used to its more than fair to think they knew the opponent would jump for the ball, in both cases they made a last second call to not jump and caused the catcher to collide and land dangerously. So its remains their duty of care to commit to either jumping to compete for the ball or not to chase it all the way and therefore not create the danger. Same with Daly v Argentina last AI's

In the Pisi replay you read his lips as he reacts, he knew he was in trouble.

I disagree, if one player is already in position waiting for the ball and another jumps into them, they should not be penalised. I mean how the hell can someone be at fault standing still?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Completely agree with rage on the high ball issue.

They should bring in a "played at" type thing for collisions like they do with knockons in rugby league.
If the "offending" player tackles in the air or changes his line or whatever, fine, penalise - if they're stood still with their eyes on the ball they shouldn't be red carded because someone jumped into them.

 

[BRSTLDRGN]

I disagree, if one player is already in position waiting for the ball and another jumps into them, they should not be penalised. I mean how the hell can someone be at fault standing still?

To me, it boils down to this;

Player A puts up a high kick and chases it with a mind on jumping to catch it from a moving start
Player B comes forward, eyes on the ball with a mind on jumping to catch it from a moving start
Player A, after looking at the ball and oncoming Player B decides not to go for the ball and stays still/ducks away
Player B takes the ball but because Player A never left the ground he falls awkwardly over Player A and flips/rotates landing on head/neck/shoulder etc.

In my mind the moment Player A does not jump he is resposible/at fault for what happens next. If he jumps looking at the ball like Player B does then it can only be describes as a fair contest. So the moment that, using those examples SC mentioned, Pisi, Russell and Daly decided once they had arrived at the meeting point that they weren't jumping for it they became the reason, by becoming a solid obstacle, for the catchers fall.

 

[welshglory]

There needs to be a distinction between jumping for the ball and jumping to the ball if you know what I mean. We need to consider that this isnt like Aussie rules we are a full contact sport. The NFL whilst having its aerial passing game has strict rules concerning the punt returns. Rugby high kicks go much higher.

Some really great discussion on here but for me this sub exemplifies why rugby union is almost unreffable as a professional sport under its current laws. There are so many different interpretations and most would technically be legal under the laws of the game. We need to make things as black and white as possible for everyone. First of all we need to have a distinction between the professional game and amateur. I know that we should be trying to keep the two as interlinked as much as possible, but it is clear that the problems the professional games faces are largely not apparent in the amateur game.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I disagree, if one player is already in position waiting for the ball and another jumps into them, they should not be penalised. I mean how the hell can someone be at fault standing still?

Cause if you are standing still somewhere that puts another person in danger that's reckless.

 

[Peat]

To me, it boils down to this;

Player A puts up a high kick and chases it with a mind on jumping to catch it from a moving start
Player B comes forward, eyes on the ball with a mind on jumping to catch it from a moving start
Player A, after looking at the ball and oncoming Player B decides not to go for the ball and stays still/ducks away
Player B takes the ball but because Player A never left the ground he falls awkwardly over Player A and flips/rotates landing on head/neck/shoulder etc.

In my mind the moment Player A does not jump he is resposible/at fault for what happens next. If he jumps looking at the ball like Player B does then it can only be describes as a fair contest. So the moment that, using those examples SC mentioned, Pisi, Russell and Daly decided once they had arrived at the meeting point that they weren't jumping for it they became the reason, by becoming a solid obstacle, for the catchers fall.

What happens though when player A moves into position to take a high kick with a mind to catch it with his feet on the ground player B comes steaming forwards unexpected with a mind on jumping to catch it from a moving start?

 

[Mike Rolls]

To me, it boils down to this;

Player A puts up a high kick and chases it with a mind on jumping to catch it from a moving start
Player B comes forward, eyes on the ball with a mind on jumping to catch it from a moving start
Player A, after looking at the ball and oncoming Player B decides not to go for the ball and stays still/ducks away
Player B takes the ball but because Player A never left the ground he falls awkwardly over Player A and flips/rotates landing on head/neck/shoulder etc.

In my mind the moment Player A does not jump he is resposible/at fault for what happens next. .

And in the circumstances that you describe, how often will getting out the way actually be possible? Take Daly's red card against Argentina - how could he get out of the way/ Levitate backwards? And, according to what you have said, had he jumped. collided in mid-air and been involved in an even worse landing for his opponent, that would be OK?
Mike
Mike

 

[smartcooky]

I disagree there. In a situation both are used to its more than fair to think they knew the opponent would jump for the ball.

Equally, its fair to say that a jumping player should reasonably be expected to know that he could be about to land on another player and so he should act accordingly.

The problem I have (and that many of my fellow referees share) is that blame is being assigned where it should not be. It has never been a part of the game that a stationary player has to get out of the way of a moving player, and nor should it ever be.

A fellow referee from another site had this to say

What I'd like to see as the principle for determining if a penalty should be awarded is something like: "Would the player's actions be deemed reasonable had the opponent not been where he was?"

As a player chasing the ball, your focus is on the ball, not the opposition and it's perfectly reasonable to jump for any ball for a variety of reasons, as it is to hold your ground if you're already in the right place, or not have time to get out of the way when something unexpected happens.

This would lead to situations like North's a couple of weeks ago ...... being dealt with sensibly whilst still allowing a contest - just not one where you risk a card if you lose - and still penalising/carding genuine cases of playing a man in the air.

I tend to agree with DocY on this. A player with his feet on the ground has every right to try to catch the ball; why should those rights be superseded by a player who creates danger by jumping recklessly. Does WR really want to encourage scenarios like this...



...both of these players are very, very lucky that the body collision killed some of their momentum. If they had clashed heads first at that speed we could have seen serious, perhaps career ending injuries to one or both players.

IMO, on encouraging players to jump by severely sanctioning those who don't, WR is promoting this kind of contest - and sooner or later, it will end in tragedy.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

This kind of mess is what happens when you try to micro manage and get over prescriptive. The Snow White sevens team would now be unbeatable as no-one would be able to tackle them legally.

By all means have strong guiding principles, but give the onfield refs more discretion, not less. Let them ref what actually happens on the pitch, with sympathy to the intent and circumstances. I'd rather have the odd inconsistency than the current shambles.

 

[Which Tyler]

With the player in the air thing, sometimes the player on the ground arrives late and should know an aerial challenge was coming, and not looking is no excuse (eg Daly on Senatore) in which case they are reckless, and should be penalised. On other occasions the grounded player is already in position, or it's unreasonable to expect an aerial player, in which case the jumping player should know that there's an opponent where he's flying in, and the jumper should be penalised (eg North on Thompstone).

IMO whoever is creating the dangerous situation is the one at fault and should be penalised. If you jump into someone that you should know is there, your fault. Equally if you run into someone you should know will be in the air, your fault. I accept that these days ignorance is no excuse (eyes on the ball) in much the same way that refusing to look for traffic at a roundabout is no excuse when you cause an accident. Being aware of other players may make it less likely that you'll cleanly catch the ball, but player safety really is more important than reducing that risk of a knock on.

 

[Amiga500]

IMO, the Scarlet's penalty try and YC would likely have been a penalty try and YC last year too.

Your balls!


When was a tackle that didn't torque the neck, but involved an arm going from shoulder to chest result in a YC + PT?

 

[Mike Rolls]

Equally, its fair to say that a jumping player should reasonably be expected to know that he could be about to land on another player and so he should act accordingly.

The problem I have (and that many of my fellow referees share) is that blame is being assigned where it should not be. It has never been a part of the game that a stationary player has to get out of the way of a moving player, and nor should it ever be.

A fellow referee from another site had this to say



I tend to agree with DocY on this. A player with his feet on the ground has every right to try to catch the ball; why should those rights be superseded by a player who creates danger by jumping recklessly. Does WR really want to encourage scenarios like this...



...both of these players are very, very lucky that the body collision killed some of their momentum. If they had clashed heads first at that speed we could have seen serious, perhaps career ending injuries to one or both players.

IMO, on encouraging players to jump by severely sanctioning those who don't, WR is promoting this kind of contest - and sooner or later, it will end in tragedy.

I agree
Mike

 

[Mike Rolls]

Equally, its fair to say that a jumping player should reasonably be expected to know that he could be about to land on another player and so he should act accordingly.

The problem I have (and that many of my fellow referees share) is that blame is being assigned where it should not be. It has never been a part of the game that a stationary player has to get out of the way of a moving player, and nor should it ever be.

A fellow referee from another site had this to say



I tend to agree with DocY on this. A player with his feet on the ground has every right to try to catch the ball; why should those rights be superseded by a player who creates danger by jumping recklessly. Does WR really want to encourage scenarios like this...



...both of these players are very, very lucky that the body collision killed some of their momentum. If they had clashed heads first at that speed we could have seen serious, perhaps career ending injuries to one or both players.

IMO, on encouraging players to jump by severely sanctioning those who don't, WR is promoting this kind of contest - and sooner or later, it will end in tragedy.

I agree
Mike

 

[smartcooky]

When was a tackle that didn't torque the neck, but involved an arm going from shoulder to chest result in a YC + PT?

That is not what happened. I suggest you have another look at the video, this time, take your Ulster eye-patch off.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/38514314

White 8's right upper arm clatters Red 2's head
before it strikes anything else...

White 14's left swinging arm also strikes Red 2
directly in the head...

White can consider themselves lucky they didn't lose both players for 10 minutes

 

[Gavin]

White 8's right upper arm clatters Red 2's head
before it strikes anything else...

Looks like first contact is on the right shoulder of the Scarlets player to me.