Red Card! Really?!?!?

First topic message reminder :

I am not normally one for bashing referees, as it is a tough job and a thankless task at times. But.....


How on gods green earth is this tackle a red card???

Spoiler:

Utter nonsense from JP Doyle who should hang his head in shame. 10 minutes into a crucial match for both teams. I really hope the referee review people have a good hard look at this and other similar decisions and issue some guidance. If that is a red card offence then we may as well be playing tag!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujBsNubtH9s

watch this tackle by habana.

feet coming off the ground, hips higher than the head, not put down carefully - the current definition of a tip tackle.

Thats what the law and guidance say.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I am not normally one for bashing referees, as it is a tough job and a thankless task at times. But.....


How on gods green earth is this tackle a red card???

Spoiler:

Utter nonsense from JP Doyle who should hang his head in shame. 10 minutes into a crucial match for both teams. I really hope the referee review people have a good hard look at this and other similar decisions and issue some guidance. If that is a red card offence then we may as well be playing tag!!!

Im sorry Ozzy letter of the law its a red card though i don't think in this instance his reputation didnt do him any favours.

This could have gone either way. There is the suggestion that he drives him to the ground. As the law stands I think the ref may technically be correct, it's the law that needs looking at. The law should look at the tackler's intent. Personally I think it was a good tackle and didn't deserve to be carded.

Biltong wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujBsNubtH9s

watch this tackle by habana.

Before the recent guidance on tip tackles. Now would be red card

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujBsNubtH9s

watch this tackle by habana.

Before the recent guidance on tip tackles. Now would be red card

Forget for a moment of the letter of the law. does that tackle in any way convince you Habana was trying to lift and dump the player, or drive him backwards?

You can't have laws looking at intent - too subjective. IMO the answer is to make a yellow the standard sanction with the option of red at the refs discretion.

TJ wrote:You can't have laws looking at intent - too subjective. IMO the answer is to make a yellow the standard sanction with the option of red at the refs discretion.

You have to look at intent. Both Habana's tackle and the one from the OP, is MOMENTUM tackles and not LIFTING tackles. If these types of tackles are copping cards, then pretty soon we will be playing touch rugby.

Referee here. First of all,

Biltong wrote:You have to look at intent.

No you don't. Everyone agrees Warburton didn't mean to harm Clerc in the WC semi-final. Every sensible person now agrees it was a stonewall RC - had Clerc landed in a slightly different way he would have been paralised.

This one though is far trickier. I can see where JP is coming from - from his slightly unsighted angle he may not have seen the original contact in the chest area and refereed on the outcome, so I can see the reasoning for the RC.

However in this case I think he got it wrong - as others have said this is not a tip-tackle because there is no lift. The player goes off his feet because of momentum (both his and the tacklers) as opposed to any direct action from the tackler. A tip-tackle usually has the following 5 dynamics from the tackler who:
► Comes to a stop
► Grasps the ball carrier below the hips
► Lifts him straight upwards
► Turns him upside-down.
► Lets him go or drives him to the ground.

It is very different from the Halalufyia tackle. He was very much not stationary at any point, hit the ball-carrier in the mid-drift/chest (although one arm does sneak down to the hips), and then drove him in a purely horizontal plane. The final act is the key: there was no lift, so there is no tip tackle as defined in law and by the iRB memo.

Having said that, this decision didn't decide the game. LI had other chances to win it, and should only blame themselves. It was a mistake, but everyone makes them. Let's not make it a hanging offence.

Here is an interesting dissection of the tip tackle. By this standard, what happened there was not one.http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?231-The-Dynamics-of-a-Tip-Tackle

Mike Selig wrote:Referee here. First of all,

Biltong wrote:You have to look at intent.

However in this case I think he got it wrong - as others have said this is not a tip-tackle because there is no lift. The player goes off his feet because of momentum (both his and the tacklers) as opposed to any direct action from the tackler. A tip-tackle usually has the following 3 dynamics from the tackler who:
► Comes to a stop
► Grasps the ball carrier below the hips
► Lifts him straight upwards
► Turns him upside-down.
► Lets him go or drives him to the ground.

And there the intent is proven.

I guess it depends what you mean by "intent": if you mean a conscious decision then not really...

Mike Selig wrote:I guess it depends what you mean by "intent": if you mean a conscious decision then not really...

I mean in the actual physical actions taken.

Like your steps explain above.

To put it in simple terms, when you tackle someone and has a legdrive in the tackle, the momentum will push the ball carrier back.
When you attmept to tip tackle someone, there is a clear seperation in the lift.

Brilliant, Mike Sellig, thanks for clearing that up

Mike Selig wrote: from his slightly unsighted angle he may not have seen the original contact in the chest area and refereed on the outcome,

Mike - in the clip, I think I could hear him say something about "the outcome" when explaining to the captain. He also went to get clarification from his assistant, but I think the assistant said he didn't get a good as the line-out was "breaking up"

Just a stupid decision in my book, mind you 5 bans in 2 years is never going to help!!!

This game is getting more and more like tag by the day!!!

Great description Mike. That was my understanding too.
The IRB guidleines were looking to eliminate lifting and dropping tackles, not horizontal driving ones.

I think my view on this is probably quite clear from the OP, but some decent points raised on both sides.

Disciplinary hearing is today in Bristol and Hala'ufia i spleading not guilty. My understanding is that JP Doyle is to be in attendance at the hearing as well, which I don't think is always the case (often the referees report or a conference call to him are used).

Will be interesting to see which way Judge Jeff goes on this one, as I think it's fair to say that Chris is not his favourite player of all time!

I would be very disappointed if that came into the decision as to whether this was a dangerous tackle or not.

If they were to decide it was then he will certainly get the proverbial book hefted his way but that should have no bearing on guilt or innocence.

Why the dislike? Is he part owned by martyn Thomas or does he have a history of biscuit eating?

Ozzy3213 wrote:Disciplinary hearing is today in Bristol and Hala'ufia i spleading not guilty. My understanding is that JP Doyle is to be in attendance at the hearing as well, which I don't think is always the case (often the referees report or a conference call to him are used).

Standard procedure (at all levels AFAIK) is that refs attend when player pleads not guilty (or in case of serious, or even not so serious abuse, and other exceptions as well). JP will be asked what he saw, what the input from his assistants were, what his thought process was to arrive at a RC. Chris will say why he doesn't think it was a dangerous tackle.

With his disciplinary record and pleading not guilty (so no possibility of remorse) if found guilty there won't be any extenuating circumstances and possibly some aggravating ones. On the other hand, even if guilty, this has to be low-end. Personally, with the benefit of replays, it's not even a PK.

TJ wrote:Guys - can you read the rules? he was off the ground and his legs higher than his head and landed on his upper body

ACCORDING TO THE RULES THAT IS A RED CARD.

Where does it say anything about feet above the head? In your quote it certainly doesn't. Perhaps it's somewhere else in the regs/laws? I mean, you keep banging on about people not reading the rules and that his feet were above his head so I'm presuming you've actually read that somewhere.

I'm hearing that Chris copped a 5 week ban.

Absolute nonsense!

Ozzy,

That really surprises me. I thought they would either say it was a good tackle or throw the book at him given his record. When you think Afoa got 7 weeks....

Very odd indeed.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'm hearing that Chris copped a 5 week ban.

Absolute nonsense!

Where did you hear that?

Initially heard on the jungle drums laurie, but now here...

The Rugby Paper

Ozzy
If you do see a result for this hearing, could you please put it up as I am most interested in this one.

5 Week ban. He pleaded guilty - mistake i reckon to do so, but it is like the American Legal system, safer to plea bargain.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/22059.php#.UL5dUYaojKc

Given his record if they found it was a red card tackle he was always going to cop a big ban. Next time he'll just have to "try and hook him back"

LondonTiger wrote:5 Week ban. He pleaded guilty - mistake i reckon to do so, but it is like the American Legal system, safer to plea bargain.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/22059.php#.UL5dUYaojKc

Thanks Tiger.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Ozzy
If you do see a result for this hearing, could you please put it up as I am most interested in this one.

It'll go up on the RFU website once if it's confirmed he doesn't appeal the ban. They'll still have the analysis of the incident in their determination of the ban. It'll be an interesting one.

The inconsistency of how spear tackles are penalised is a joke. I don't think it's particularly helpful to have a concrete definition of what constitutes a dangerous tackle seeing as I'm sure we can all agree that some of these spear tackles are a penalty at worst. If you have the clear-cut definition of a spear tackle, you are bound to get incompetent referees looking for brownie points by rigid adherence to the law.

It's not as if the tackler can always avoid dropping a player either, especially when there's a size difference between players or there are other players in the contact area. Professional referees should be experienced enough to decide when player safety has been jeopardised, especially with two assistants to give them a second opinion.

Cryptoyourisan wrote:

It's not as if the tackler can always avoid dropping a player either, especially when there's a size difference between players or there are other players in the contact area.

This was the point of the IRB directive though, lifting tackles are not safe for this very reason. It doesnt take intent to put people in serious danger from them. The harsh penalties were designed to eliminate a certain type of tackle form the game altogether after their research showed it was causing a disproportionate number of serious injuries (as with charging at the ruck)
Trouble is like everything where you have to draw a distinct line between Ok and very naughty indeed theres grey cases like this that seem unjust.
CH only has himself to blame for the length of ban though, his record for reckless and dangerous play is pretty extensive. On another day this may have passed the citing commissionaire by though.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:Guys - can you read the rules? he was off the ground and his legs higher than his head and landed on his upper body

ACCORDING TO THE RULES THAT IS A RED CARD.

Where does it say anything about feet above the head? In your quote it certainly doesn't. Perhaps it's somewhere else in the regs/laws? I mean, you keep banging on about people not reading the rules and that his feet were above his head so I'm presuming you've actually read that somewhere.

Hips above head is in the guidance.

anyway its quite clear that the citing commissioners and the ref agree that under the laws and guidance its a tip tackle worthy of a red card although at the lower end.

I find it hard to see why some folk cannot understand this. this tackle whilst marginal still meets the definitions given. If you think this tackle is acceptable then its the laws and guidance that need to change

Hips aren't the feet...are they? I didn't think Jewall landed on his head/neck or upper back. I'll wait until I've read the report before I'll make my mind up, especially since he pleaded guilty.

so where did I say feet? I did not. Read my posts.

There is a bit of the guidance not available on the IRB website however its often quoted.

If the hips go above the head its the tacklers responsibility to put the player down safely. Strict liability - intent is not considered.

Sorry, not feet, legs. Are the legs the hips? Very easy for the legs to be above the head without the hips being so (BTW it does look as though the hips DO go above the head at some point).

I've already said it looked to me like Jewall landed on the middle of his back so that IS safely (in the IRB definition). So he could have been flipped right over 360 and landed in the same way and it shouldn't have been a card.

I dont know who the commentator is, but either he or I dont know what a spear tackle is.

Just watched it again. I don't think his hips do go above his head. They're above his middle back, which hits the floor first but you can see his back is curved up and his head and neck don't touch the ground. No way should that have been illegal tackle from that one angle. There may be more cameras for the panel.

Rough justice imo.
That looked very, very marginal.
But when authorities get a bee in their bonnet, summary justice along with exemplary punishments tend to get handed down.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/22059.php#.UL8TkeSvHSg

Chris Hala'Ufia banned for 5 weeks.

In this case I think it's very harsh but he's got a reputation for poor discipline.

Spends more time banned than actually playing!

That wasn't a tip tackle. Legs were above his head from a solid hit, but his hips weren't and he was put on his back. Not 'speared' into the ground on his head/neck area or dropped in a tip.

He's been badly done there with a 5 week hit. Totally unfair.

I think the player and club took a pragmatic decision in pleading guilty - as if the contested and lost with his redcord he could have been looking at 13 weeks.

The law states if a tackler lifts the player it is dangerous. this did not happen.

Mike Selig has explained the guidance he has as a ref and those things do not happen.

BUT as he pleaded guilty it is moot.

Legs above head and land on upper back is the definition of a tip tackle.

LT,

I think that is the most disappointing thing about the process from a long term point of view.

I can completely understand why LI took the pragmatic option but it has removed the opportunity for further clarification on this subject. It would have been good to have that tackle dissected in the same way the panel were able to look at the Ferris incident last season.

It's a shame that could not have happened without prejudice.

TJ wrote:Legs above head and land on upper back is the definition of a tip tackle.

Where does it say that in the Laws?


It says this:

(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

At no point does the tackler lift the player. He drives him backwards and momentum causes the legs to come up. There is plenty of room within the laws to say that was not a tip-tackle (unlike Warburton/Afoa who did drive upwards into the tackle and lift the plaer). So even if we think the law is an ass - it does not 1005 define that tackle as a tip-tackle.

That you disagree is fine - but please stop stating untrue laws.

Its the guidance issued as I understand it. the player IS lifted from the ground - all of his body is in the air and he is dropped so he lands on his upper body. he is not on the ground so has been lifted off the ground

Your argument is with the rules and guidance - not with what the ref / citing commissioner saw.

TJ wrote:Legs above head and land on upper back is the definition of a tip tackle.

Plus the tackler having the responsibility to return the player safely to ground. Personally I reckon that LI/Hala'Ufia were ill-advised to plea guilty.

For the life of me I can't see anything malicious, unfair or unsporting in that tackle.

Wrong plea. Wrong decision.

TJ,

I'm not sure that "lifting a player" and "causing a player to have both feet off the ground" are the same thing.

There are many perfectly legal tackles where the tackled player's feet both come off the ground.

I do think we can make a distinction between lifting a player and driving a player off his feet. One of the LW's player's feet is actually still on the ground for quite a bit of that tackle.

greytiger wrote:

TJ wrote:Legs above head and land on upper back is the definition of a tip tackle.

Plus the tackler having the responsibility to return the player safely to ground. Personally I reckon that LI/Hala'Ufia were ill-advised to plea guilty.

For the life of me I can't see anything malicious, unfair or unsporting in that tackle.

Wrong plea. Wrong decision.

GT,

It doesn't have to be any of those things to be illegal. The whole reason for this Law is reduce the risk of injury.

Dangerous and illegal should be the adjectives looked for in the description of a red card offence.

Its strict liability - no need for intent