Is the lack of a ban on Tuilagi a farce.

First topic message reminder :

Should he have been banned. To me there is, once again, an issue of inconsistency with rugby's judicial process. For me it's not a question of whether these types of tackles should be banned or not. What I want is consistency. It seems to me that there is little. This tackle was probably worse that Haymans tackle in the French league that got him banned recently. Before anyone tells me I'm having a go at the poms, I think consistency us an IRB wide issue that wont go away.

If it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish: I'm guessing it's fish.

Spot the difference competition

Hayman

http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/05/2606/carl-hayman-suspended-for-four-weeks-for-zee-ngwenya-spear-tackle
Afoa

Spoiler:

Tuilagi

Spoiler:

enough with this near identical cr@p

PSBW

I dont get the point you are trying to make...
Look at your two photos.. look at Tuilagi and Afoa.. bang on, dead set, identical.

....identically fine tackles....

aucklandlaurie wrote: PSBW

I dont get the point you are trying to make...
Look at your two photos.. look at Tuilagi and Afoa.. bang on, dead set, identical.

Not even remotely. The Afoa one was much higher, tipped much further ( look at the body angles), drove the player down , and bought the player down angled toward his head/upper back ( the danger area) wheras the Tuiagii tackle bought him down to his side.
Theres been lots of comments saying its inconsitency, one tackle only one leg ever went above horizontal, the other both over 45 degrees.
The Hayman one is another level again of course.
yes Im aware they are only snapshots but thats the most gratuitous shot I can find published of the Tuilagi tackle and the only one of the Afoa one ( not even showing the high point the player reached). If anyone has a still showing the Tuilagi one was worse Ill happily step back. But they are only identical in the same way that all cats are.

psbw

Can you not remember about 20 years ago when it was decided that still frame snapshots were regarded as unhelpful in Dangerous play hearings? because they not only contort the event but also take the entirety of the tackle out of context.

I also shake my head in dismay when people put up a single photograph claiming that it somehow proves how dangerous a tackle is.

I also think you have lost track of the fact that its the tackler thats getting penalised, carded,cited,suspended and not the Tacklee.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

thomh wrote:

kiwireddevil wrote:

The issue was more that he was given time off the ban in mitigation, but the mitigation didn't take into account that the ban covered several weeks of off-season.

Well whatever part of the ban was reduced would have been served during the off season as well. I don't see how that matters. If anything the few weeks mitigation had no impact at all, because he wouldn't have missed any more games had there been no mitigation.

I didn't have an issue with mitigation per se. I do have an issue with people "serving" bans when they're not actually playing.

Of course, and I agree with that, but I just didn't think your initial point held together.

Aucklandlaurie

Of course snapshots can give a false picture, but that picture of the Tuilagi one sums it up quite well. I don't know what Leicester fans mean when they say he brought Care down on his side - If Care hadn't stuck his hand out he'd have landed on his shoulder - but as these tackles go it wasn't a serious one at all.

The whole citing/tip tackle and banning etc is a farce.

Rugby is a contact sport and I agree there must be safety measures in place but the amount of citings and bans now is a complete joke.

We are seeing them for the most ridiculous tackles when there shouldn't be.

And then when there are more serious events like eye gouging we seem to see extra leniency!

Lions 2009: Burger should have had a red card and a monumental ban for gouging Luke Fitzgerald.

I can understand the citing but i was certain that he would not get banned. Not because of any impending tour but because it simply was not a bad tackle in my eyes.

As an aside,

I once got penalised completely unfairly by a ref for tackling a guy who tried to jump over the tackle. I came up with him and caught him off the ground by the legs. I put him down quite carefully too once i realised what had happened.

I am right surely in saying that he should have been penalised NOT me?

It is illegal to jump tackles no?


I think all the circs need to be looked at including what the tacklee is doing.

Triangulation, yes it is illegal to try and jump a tackle.

On the Tuilagi incident, the report I read stated that the case was dismissed as his QC proved without doubt that Cares knee hit the ground before his torso, ergo no tip tackle. The hand or arm reaching the ground before the torso is to be deemed irrelevant and is specifically covered bt the applicable Law, but a leg or part of a leg hitting the ground first, dictates that it cannot be considered as a tip tackle.

That's the Law, argued over by lawyers and judged correctly by a judiciary hearing. Not a farce then.

I have to be honest, I didn't see the game and haven't seen the tackle, I also thought when I read Tuilagi had been cited, that it would be a shock if he got banned from the tour, but I wouldn't allow my cynicism to stand in the way of a correct decision.

aucklandlaurie wrote: psbw

Can you not remember about 20 years ago when it was decided that still frame snapshots were regarded as unhelpful in Dangerous play hearings? because they not only contort the event but also take the entirety of the tackle out of context.

I also shake my head in dismay when people put up a single photograph claiming that it somehow proves how dangerous a tackle is.

I also think you have lost track of the fact that its the tackler thats getting penalised, carded,cited,suspended and not the Tacklee.

No I agree there but as i stted these are the most gratuitos shots available. I dont have links to the footage ( due to sky being copyright meanies) but watching the Tuilagi one realtime that really is as high/angled as he ever got Care. The still of Afoa is probably also about the worst point in his tackle, but you can see its far higher and far more tipped, and the landing was much more angled and dangerous.
According to the citing panel report the Tuilagi tackle also bought the leg down first, he bought the player down safely. Theres no way you could argue that for the Afoa case. Care was not driven into the ground nor was he ever in serious danger of landing on his head/upper back.
Certainly the assertion made by the topic starter that it was no different to the Hayman one is just plain embaressing.

To sat they are identical tackles is willful ignorace of what actually happened.

For what its worth at the time I thought tuilagis was a nailed on yellow but it seems a bit odd that a yellow card offence would be worth a ban, if its that bad surely ity should be a red on the field...and youd really be pushing it to imagine the Tuilagi one met the criteria for a red. If he had got a ban it would have been because the panel deemed he wasnt punished in the game with a yellow, so we couldve blamed Barnes for that. as it is the panels backed Barnes (for a change). A borderline case, I guess if the the laws of probability suggest he was going to get one right sooner or later.

Well the reason that there was no ban was that Tuilagis lawyer proved beyond doubt that Cares knee hit the ground before any other part of him. Which apparently proves the tackle was not dangerous.

I agree that this tackle should never have been cited and that the tacklee also needs to be looked at. In many cases when the tackled player is lifted in the air they turn their bodies to try and either present the ball well or to ensure they have some control themselves in the landing. Half the time this is fine but in other occassions it can cause the tackler to lose control of them and drop them in a way that is more dangerous.

I agree with auckland in that this whole new creation of a tip-tackle offence is causing far more confusion and a ridiculous number of citings and that it should have been left under spear tackles and dangerous play.

viewtothegym wrote:My mate a tiger's fan and massive england fan said he won't get a ban,not him and not this close to a summer tour!
I guess he was right.
Personally I think the tackle wasn't that bad but to the letter of the law he should be banned

The reason he didn't get a ban was because Care's knee hit the ground first, to the letter of the law it wasn't a tip tackle.