Five tip tackles, three different bans.

Digby Ioane recieved a 5 week ban after a TIP TACKLE on Marcel Coetzee.
Francois Hougaard recieved a ban of 1 week for a tip tackle on Robert Ebersohn
Rob Horne recieved a ban of 2 weeks for a tip tackle on Kurtley Beale.
Luke Jones recieved a ban of 2 weeks for a tip tackle on Bjorn Basson.
Cooper Vuna recieved a ban of 2 weeks for a TIP TACKLE on Kade Poki.

My apologies, but I couldn't find videos for all of them. The problem for me is the unbelieveable inconsistencies in these bans.

Does it matter how the player goes to ground? Does it matter the intent with which you lift a player? Does it matter if the player gets injured?

The point is if the IRB want to irradicate the tip tackle, there cannot be any extenuating circumstances to "soften" the ban if you decide to lift a player past the horisontal. Will the IRB only become strict on this once a player has broken his neck? I think there should be a standard ban of 8 weeks for a player that lifts someone. There should be no discussion about it, if you lift a player you pay the price.

It is really simple, when you lift a player there are so many things that can influence how the player gets back to ground. It could be another player interfering, it could be momentum, it could be that the player you lift falls sideways instaed of back ward or whatever. You can only irradicate this if every professional player knows he will take a two month break if he decides to lift someone.

I don't want to see anyone break their neck, becuase there are different interpretations due to extenuating circumstances, the fact is a player being lifted has little or no control over how he lands.

Reality is that the "tip tackle" is only a very recent phenomenon, they didnt even exist 5 years ago.
If its the IRBs intention to eradicate the "tip tackle" then the methods theyve adopted to do so definitely arent working,Perhaps they should forget about the "tip tackle",repeal it from the laws and concentrate their energies on things far more productive,worhwhile and seek to benefit the future of the game.

So you see those numbers and immediately see inconsistencies?

I see 4 bans between 1-2 weeks. And then one ban of 5 weeks. Without seeing all of the incidents and reading all of the discipline reports there's no way of comparing them. And if you want identical bans for all offences of the same type you you have a ridiculous situation. A clumsy tackle which resulted in the head contacting the floor would have the same ban as some being picked up and tombstoned. There is flexibility in the banning for a reason. The IRB give recommendations and full reports are published. I've yet to read one which I thought was ridiculous (some I've disagreed with with but understand).

Hammer, I couldn't get video footage of all fuve, believe me I tried.

The point is not in the inconsistencies only, it the point that if the IRB want to erradicate it, two weeks bans ain't gonna do it.

Jonathan Davies pointed out something on Scrum V. The definaition of a tip tackle something along the lines of 'lifting the player of their feet in the tackle, and this resulting in dropping/lowering them on their upper body/head/neck'. If you tackle a player with a good old fashion 'dump' tackle, then that is now technically a tip tackle (going by the wording of the law).

depends where the momentum is going in my view.

a tip tackle is one where the defender is standing still and lifting a player in an upwards motion.

An old fashioned dump tackle is where the defender is in forward motion and his momentum DRIVES the ball carrier backwards.

It is virtually impossible to do a tip tackle on the run, technically you need leverage and for that you need your balance and both feet on the ground.

Scarlet
Well if thats what Jonathan Davies said then I agree with him.

Difference being if you do a "dump" tackle hardly anyone batts an eyelid,But should you be charged with executing a "tip" tackle there are some people that want to take you out the back and shoot you.

biltongbek wrote:depends where the momentum is going in my view.

I agree totally, some tackles are dangerous by accident and some are outright leathal due to a player being aggresive/nasty.

However the wording of the offense doesn't mention the momentum, or if there was any agression/nasty in the tackle. It is just raising someone off their feet, and their upper body making contact with the ground before their lower body.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Scarlet
Well if thats what Jonathan Davies said then I agree with him.

Difference being if you do a "dump" tackle hardly anyone batts an eyelid,But should you be charged with executing a "tip" tackle there are some people that want to take you out the back and shoot you.

The problem is in the Rabo (an NH in general) the range of offences that class as tip tackles (and have seen yellow cards) range from Bradley Davies' picking up a player off the ball and spearing him (7 week ban), to a player putting in the tackle, as the opposition twisting to ofload and landing on his shoulder (yellow card).

True and thats what happens when people try to manufacture an offence.and it looks even sillier when one looks at the rugby crime rate "tip" tackles are soaring.

On this topic, Will Greenwood's column in The Telegraph offered an insight into this topic. He said the following:
"There needs to be a shift in how the tip tackle is viewed. It takes two to tackle, and the actions of the player being tackled is overlooked far too often. We only see the point of contact with the ground.
Emotions and fear often cloud our judgment. They are not on a suicide mission but very often they are doing something that contributes to a spear tackle occurring through a willingness to protect the ball.
A referee who sees what he believes to be an act of foul play but is not sure of its severity can highlight the incident to independent reviewers. After the final whistle they can then study each case to understand intent and any illegality."

Biltong: Here's a clip of the Luke Jones tip tackle on Basson. http://www.superxv.com/video/rebels-luke-jones-tackle-on-bjorn-basson-super-rugby-video-highlights-2012/rebels-luke-jones-tackle-on-bjorn-basson-super-rugby-video-highlights-2012-video_cfe4fb8d9.html

I think Jones' is worse than Ioane's, and he received a significantly shorter ban. Basson seems to land on his neck and bend awkwardly, and in my opinion, is put in a lot more danger than Coetzee.

SneakySideStep wrote:On this topic, Will Greenwood's column in The Telegraph offered an insight into this topic. He said the following:
"There needs to be a shift in how the tip tackle is viewed. It takes two to tackle, and the actions of the player being tackled is overlooked far too often. We only see the point of contact with the ground.
Emotions and fear often cloud our judgment. They are not on a suicide mission but very often they are doing something that contributes to a spear tackle occurring through a willingness to protect the ball.
A referee who sees what he believes to be an act of foul play but is not sure of its severity can highlight the incident to independent reviewers. After the final whistle they can then study each case to understand intent and any illegality."

As far as I'm concerned if a player lands on his head after being lifted it's a dangerous tackle and the tackler should be banned. If it's bad technique, a first offence and marginal then a short ban is fine. If a player keeps doing it then increase the ban. If it was a 'bad' one then increase the ban. If it was deliberate increase the ban.

In a good old fashioned dump tackle, wouldn't the player land on their back? That's still fine. It's only an issue (or it should be under current laws/guidance) if they land on their head or neck.

There was someone in a game recently who picked a guy up and turned him over. He then very gentle put the guy down. Making sure he landed safely. No penalty, no citing, no problem.

I'd be curious to know exactly what Greenwood is talking about. In that quote he doesn't mention what things the tackled player is doing to tip himself.

bluestonevedder wrote:Biltong: Here's a clip of the Luke Jones tip tackle on Basson. http://www.superxv.com/video/rebels-luke-jones-tackle-on-bjorn-basson-super-rugby-video-highlights-2012/rebels-luke-jones-tackle-on-bjorn-basson-super-rugby-video-highlights-2012-video_cfe4fb8d9.html

I think Jones' is worse than Ioane's, and he received a significantly shorter ban. Basson seems to land on his neck and bend awkwardly, and in my opinion, is put in a lot more danger than Coetzee.

Thanks mate, couldn't find one, ut that just strengthens my case about the inconsistencies of the judicial system.

HammerofThunor wrote:In a good old fashioned dump tackle, wouldn't the player land on their back? That's still fine. It's only an issue (or it should be under current laws/guidance) if they land on their head or neck.

There was someone in a game recently who picked a guy up and turned him over. He then very gentle put the guy down. Making sure he landed safely. No penalty, no citing, no problem.

Its an offense, technically, if the upper body is the first point of contact with the ground, so landing a player on their back is a tip tackle, technically. And as such it all comes down to who the ref is, and how much of a 'letter of the law' man they are.

HammerofThunor wrote:
I'd be curious to know exactly what Greenwood is talking about. In that quote he doesn't mention what things the tackled player is doing to tip himself.

I presume he is referring to the tackled player turning to offload or place the ball. The tackled player is not an inanimate object and can play a big part in what part of their body they land on.

HammerofThunor - the quote is an extract from Greenwood's book so I can't place it properly in context. However, I think what he's getting at is that there is such an emphasis in the modern game on the tackled player placing the ball to ensure quick recycling that sometimes the tackled player contributes to the tip-tackle as well as the tackler. As the viewer is focussed on is the landing point, the role of the tackled player is often overlooked.

My own view is that tip tackles are bad and need getting rid of, but that we need to keep some perspective. It happened a few years back with tackling the player in the air - a dreadful crime for sure in many cases - but refs and commentators then jump in on seeing marginal calls and demand severe punishments just because they want to apply the topical badge to their judgement/commentary.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Scarlet
Well if thats what Jonathan Davies said then I agree with him.

Difference being if you do a "dump" tackle hardly anyone batts an eyelid,But should you be charged with executing a "tip" tackle there are some people that want to take you out the back and shoot you.

The problem is in the Rabo (an NH in general) the range of offences that class as tip tackles (and have seen yellow cards) range from Bradley Davies' picking up a player off the ball and spearing him (7 week ban), to a player putting in the tackle, as the opposition twisting to ofload and landing on his shoulder (yellow card).

I don't think Bradley spear tackled Ryan, he tipped him over and dropped him, if he drove him into the ground he would have had a much longer abd deserved ban. BOD was the last player I saw being spear tackled and he was driven into the ground.

Alun - Yeah it wasn't a spear, but it was probably closer to a spear than some 'tip tackles' have been to being a 'tip tackle'.