Red Card! Really?!?!?

by **Ozzy3213** Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:11 pm

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!!!

by TJ1 Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:58 am

MrsP - if the player has all his body off the ground he must have been lifted. He cannot float.

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:05 am

Well that depends on your definition of "lifted".

Many players get knocked off their feet after being tackled but those would not be regarded as "lifting" offences.

For me "lifting" implies moving a person bodily away from the earth rather than just knocking them over so their feet come off the ground.

by TJ1 Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:09 am

something has lifted them into the air? the only force applied comes from the tackler so the tackler has lifted them - inadvertently perhpas

by **Biltong** Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:12 am

TJ wrote:MrsP - if the player has all his body off the ground he must have been lifted. He cannot float.

Come on TJ, you really believe that?

If an object weghing in at 100 KG hits and object weighing 90KG and both are moving toward each other at a speed of 8 meters per second and the heavier object (player) hits the other object around the torso with that force there is a counter force that will impact the other.

Unless you hit the player square on you will be able to take his legs from under him jst by the collosion alone. Similar to someone hitting a clothes line at speed that has their legs taken out from under them. You can go to any judo class and see how it is possible to get someone's feet out from under them by a solid hit and the chest and transferring momentum without lifting a person.

The problem here is a ban like this is setting a vary dangerous precedent. If any and all tackles involved where the player that is tackled loses his footing are going to be cited in this manner rugby Union is in serious trouble.

When you consider someone that is making a leg drive and drives the tackled player in the opposite direction from where e came, it is rather difficult to pick someone up during that drive unless you get your arms under the players hips to lift and tip.

The mere fact that a person lifts his feet of the ground because of the force of the tackle cannot and should not be immediately construed as a tip tackle.

you have to be immensly strong to tackle someone at chest hight and still be able to lift and tip him.

It is absolutely unacceptable to think every time a players feet is off the ground it must be caused because of the cation required to tip a player upside down.

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:12 am

So, any tackle that causes the tackled player's feet to come off the ground is regarded as "lifting"?

That is not sensible and there would be about 15 cards in every game.

by **Biltong** Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:14 am

MRsP, I agree with you.

Take to blocks of wood, fire them at each other from a distance, when they hit each oter, energy is not only despersed into two directions, ask any theoretical physicist, and he will confirm, why these blocks of wood bounces upward at contact.

by Effervescing Elephant Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:16 am

Come on chaps, this is easy to sort out. All a tackler has to do in the split second before he hits is to calculate the speed of himself and the guy he's tackling, remember the given weight of the player he's tackling, work out the angle of attack with reference to the tacklee's height and adjust his speed accordingly. FFS it's simple!

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:21 am

Biltong,

I am pretty sure that firing blocks of wood during a game is a red card offence!

by **Biltong** Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:24 am

They'll go back in the box for 6-8 weeks, depending how high they bounced.

by **Biltong** Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:25 am

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Come on chaps, this is easy to sort out. All a tackler has to do in the split second before he hits is to calculate the speed of himself and the guy he's tackling, remember the given weight of the player he's tackling, work out the angle of attack with reference to the tacklee's height and adjust his speed accordingly. FFS it's simple!

It is a shame I didn't keep up with theoretical physics, I could carve a niche job for myself very quickly. Doh

by TJ1 Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:50 am

MrsP wrote:So, any tackle that causes the tackled player's feet to come off the ground is regarded as "lifting"?

That is not sensible and there would be about 15 cards in every game.

There are other parts to make it a tip tackle - the hips go above the head and the player is dropped on his head / neck / upper body

If you lift and tip a player it is your responsibility to put him down safely.

I agree as I said earlier that this should not be a red card offence - but as the rules are written it is. The ref applied the rules correctly if strictly. Its not the ref at fault - its the rules

by TJ1 Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:51 am

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Come on chaps, this is easy to sort out. All a tackler has to do in the split second before he hits is to calculate the speed of himself and the guy he's tackling, remember the given weight of the player he's tackling, work out the angle of attack with reference to the tacklee's height and adjust his speed accordingly. FFS it's simple!

No - all he has to do is put the player down safely IE not on his head / beck / upper body.

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:57 am

That's why it would have been good to have this tackle dissected.

To help clarify how to apply those Laws.

And, I don't blame the ref. I suspect he has seen feet flying in the air and because he had to make a call went red, perhaps with the help of the TJs (not you).

But I would have liked the disciplinary panel to clarify whether knocking a player of their feet in a tackle actually met their definition of lifting or not.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:59 am

MrsP wrote:
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.

In which case MrsP, there is little point in rugby. Dangers are inherent in the game. Like aspirin, if rugby was invented today, it would not be generally available.

What is necessary is to not to over-codify but to emphasise a degree of rationality.
Dropping a player (or worse spearing) from a height is unacceptable and worthy of bans measured in months, years or lifetimes.
Hitting a player (to my view fairly) and the chaos laws of physics taking over cannot be codified.

Warburton, Ferris and (Umaga and Mealamu) were in decreasing scales of appropriate judgements served, lightly handled. Indeed Umaga and Mealamu were lucky to ever have been near the rugby game again - and out of prison.

by BlueNote Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:13 pm

I struggle to see how the tackler could have avoided that, really.

"I didn't think any of the tackles in Wales defeat to Samoa warranted a red card"

I just re-watched the incident with Dan Biggar. If that's legal, something is badly wrong. The guy isn't clearing out, he just flies in, off his feet, launching himself in an attempt to catch Dan Biggar around his face/head using his shoulder. How can that be legal? The game would be flipping lethal if it were. It looks like a deliberate attempt to take out the player. Why wouldn't that be a red card?

OK, not a tackle, though.

by TJ1 Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:24 pm

MrsP - hopefully we will get some further clarification out of all this. its badly needed.

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:24 pm

Greytiger,

That was why I said dangerous and illegal.

TJ,

We live in hope.

by **Ozzy3213** Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:49 pm

Just to confirm, Chris plead NOT GUILTY to this and I believe that him and the club may be appealling the decision.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:52 pm

Ozzy3213 wrote:Just to confirm, Chris plead NOT GUILTY to this and I believe that him and the club may be appealling the decision.

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:00 pm

That is very weird then Ozzy.

With his record I would have thought a guilty verdict with "no remorse" ie a not guilty plea, would have attracted a much more significant ban.

The report last night did say he had pleaded guilty, didn't it even though LI had said before hand they were planning on contesting the charge.

by **Ozzy3213** Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:09 pm

It does indeed show what nonsense the whole thing is, as you are right, being found guilty after a not guilty plea for a 'tip/spear tackle' you would expect with his previous record the ban would be considerably longer.

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:27 pm

Low End entry point is 4 weeks, yes?

Are they still adding a week as a deterent?

That gets us to his 5 weeks but I would have thought his record would have increased it substancially. Or maybe your record can only be used to reduce a ban.

Not sure on that one.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:34 pm

I assume its to do with his discplinary record, not the severity of this tackle.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:36 pm

My understanding was like many, that the plea was guilty.

But although MrsP and I may agree to disagree on the semantics of how to describe let alone adjudicate on 'fair play', I feel that we'd both agree that this is a weird judgement.

Mind you I felt the same when Lawes got banned in last season's RWC.

But my gut feeling is that the court decision was based more on 'previous' than rationality. Unless there was another camera view available.

Maybe akin to the Hartley fish-hook/ biting decision.

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:41 pm

But you could/should never take his previous record into account when deciding guilt or innocence.

Was this Jeff Blackett? He is a judge right?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:42 pm

Its actually very lenient consider ing he got an 11 week ban last march for a dangerous tackle, and a 7 week one for a dangerous tackle october 2011 , 8 weeks for one at the start of 2011.
Banned twice in 2010 (punching and stamping)

4 in under 2 years is ridiculous.

5 weeks actually says to me they saw it as a case of "well technicaly we have to uphold this red but it wasnt really that bad "

However hes lucky he is allowed to play at all given his record.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:43 pm

MrsP wrote:But you could/should never take his previous record into account when deciding guilt or innocence.

Was this Jeff Blackett? He is a judge right?

No but that wasnt what you said. You asked why didnt he get the minimum?
Thats the reason why. Once they decided he was guilty he was always going to get a fairly solid ban. Hes actually bene let off very lightly considering.
Whether he should have ben found guilty is another questin

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:47 pm

Well actually I was asking how he did get the minimum given his record seeing as they found him guilty.

I just wonder was there some realisation and fudging as they didn't really think it was a dangerous tackle.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:55 pm

Sorry right yep..same page as you then.
Seems they couldnt bring themselves to give him the 20 week ban his record deserves because they know this has fallen into the grey area.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:12 pm

Sometimes as we all know the adjudications are influenced by the authorities' awareness of the public or media's call for SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE!

I think it was 1980 when Paul Ringer (due to previous unpunished misdemeanours) was almost guaranteed a sending off before he set foot on the Cabbage Patch. Even as a callow youth of 29 and 70 yards away from the incident I thought the dismissal was harsh. Good job tinternet wasn't invented then.

Pragmatic decisions are occasionally sought in order to ease taut situations.

But like the Tottenham riots last year, sometimes heavy-handed 'justice' has to be seen to be done - whether right or wrong (as demonstrated in Hala'Ufia's case).

Mind you, if had the IRB had the balls to suspend the NZRU for four years after the BOD Umaga/Mealamu incident for complete abrogation of responsibility, things might have been different.

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:53 pm

If a player wants to appeal the decision as opposed to the ban would they have to present new evidence?

I can't see LI wanting to appeal the ban itself as it is lower than everyone expected if he was found guilty.

I think they either have to show the panel was not entitled to reach the conclusions they did on the evidence presented or they have to ask for a De Novo hearing in light of new evidence.

Not sure if that is right, just trying to remember from the Dupuy fiasco.

by doctor_grey Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:15 pm

MrsP wrote:Well actually I was asking how he did get the minimum given his record seeing as they found him guilty.

I just wonder was there some realisation and fudging as they didn't really think it was a dangerous tackle.

I agree. This was the confounding bit for me:
If indeed he was guilty, then with his past record, the ban should have been longer.
If not guilty, then no ban at all.
This is a very mixed message and makes no sense to me.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:00 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
MrsP wrote:Well actually I was asking how he did get the minimum given his record seeing as they found him guilty.

I just wonder was there some realisation and fudging as they didn't really think it was a dangerous tackle.
I agree. This was the confounding bit for me:
If indeed he was guilty, then with his past record, the ban should have been longer.
If not guilty, then no ban at all.
This is a very mixed message and makes no sense to me.

Indeed Doc and MrsP.

Do either of you think that the decision was actually made irrespective of
a The Laws
b The need to maintain a policy line
c To pre-judge a previous offender

For the life of me I cannot believe that a previously unimpeachable player of good character (say Jonny Wilkinson) would not have walked away unimpugned.
I'd say that Chris was found guilty before he pitched up at court.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:14 pm

If that were the case Portnoy they wouldve given him a ban commensurate with his prior record. Instead theyve given him one that suggests they are rather embarrassed that they had to find him guilty at the lowest end of the range of sanctions they could impose.

by HammerofThunor Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:30 pm

Low entry point is 3 weeks (it's not the minimum, the effective minimum is 50% of the LE, which in this case is 2 weeks rounding up).

A high tackle (including one which started below the shoulders!) has 2 weeks.

http://www.ercrugby.com/images/content/IRB_Sanctions.pdf

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:40 pm

My one says LE entry is 4 weeks?

http://www.ercrugby.com/downloads/IRB_Recommended_Sanctions.pdf

by maestegmafia Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:30 pm

Just saw the news...

I guess his lack of discipline has gone against him.

5 - week ban (Dec 4, 2012)
11-week ban (Mar 1, 2012)
6 - weeks (Dec 17, 2011)

Tackle was innocuous the tackled player shock hands with him after the tackle from what i remember. LW players all commiserated his sending off with pats on the back and so on.

by HammerofThunor Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:31 pm

Halu'afia went over to Jewall and shook his hand and he did get a few claps on the back off the Welsh players. They looked a bit bemused by the decision as well.

by maestegmafia Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:33 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Halu'afia went over to Jewall and shook his hand and he did get a few claps on the back off the Welsh players. They looked a bit bemused by the decision as well.

You are re-itterating what I just said..?

by HammerofThunor Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:34 pm

MrsP wrote:My one says LE entry is 4 weeks?

http://www.ercrugby.com/downloads/IRB_Recommended_Sanctions.pdf

Just went on the ERC website on found yours. Mine was the result of a google search and must be out of date (or so new the ERC are old hat)

EDIT: IRB website has yours as well.

by HammerofThunor Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:36 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Halu'afia went over to Jewall and shook his hand and he did get a few claps on the back off the Welsh players. They looked a bit bemused by the decision as well.
You are re-itterating what I just said..?

I was agreeing with you. Is that not allowed?

by maestegmafia Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:49 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Halu'afia went over to Jewall and shook his hand and he did get a few claps on the back off the Welsh players. They looked a bit bemused by the decision as well.
You are re-itterating what I just said..?

I was agreeing with you. Is that not allowed?

Of course, it is. Just you make agreeing sound more like you are personally verifying something...!

Anyhow Ill accept that as another apology.

You're welcome

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:51 pm

MrsP wrote:My one says LE entry is 4 weeks?

http://www.ercrugby.com/downloads/IRB_Recommended_Sanctions.pdf

yes Humour is looking at dangerous tackle section, not the tipping section

Lifting a Player from the ground and
either dropping or driving that Player’s
head and/or upper body into the ground
whilst the Player’s feet are off the ground
LE – 4 weeks
MR – 8 weeks
TE – 12+ weeks
52 weeks

However...its being reported that he was banned for a dangerous tackle....is that just bad reporting because the lift came in a tackle?
The ref at the time stated it was for lifting the player beyond horizontal and making no effort to bring him down safely.

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:52 pm

Some folks are clearly finding the extent of the argreement on this thread distinctly unsettling!

Very Happy

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:59 pm

" I concur"

On a side note has anyone actually ever been cited under 10.4(f) :

Holding, pushing or obstructing an Opponent not holding the ball, by a Player who is not in possession of the ball, except in a scrum, ruck or maul

If they started enforcing that it would be a busy day at Judge Blackets office

by MrsP Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:16 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:" I concur"

On a side note has anyone actually ever been cited under 10.4(f) :
Holding, pushing or obstructing an Opponent not holding the ball, by a Player who is not in possession of the ball, except in a scrum, ruck or maul

If they started enforcing that it would be a busy day at Judge Blackets office

Only for one week PSW.

After that no club could field a team!

by HammerofThunor Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:38 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
MrsP wrote:My one says LE entry is 4 weeks?

http://www.ercrugby.com/downloads/IRB_Recommended_Sanctions.pdf

yes Humour is looking at dangerous tackle section, not the tipping section

Lifting a Player from the ground and
either dropping or driving that Player’s
head and/or upper body into the ground
whilst the Player’s feet are off the ground
LE – 4 weeks
MR – 8 weeks
TE – 12+ weeks
52 weeks

However...its being reported that he was banned for a dangerous tackle....is that just bad reporting because the lift came in a tackle?
The ref at the time stated it was for lifting the player beyond horizontal and making no effort to bring him down safely.

No I wasn't. I was looking at a different sheet (the one I referenced). It said

10.4(i)
Lifting a Player from the ground
and either dropping or driving
that Player’s head and/or upper
body first into the ground whilst
the Player’s feet are off the
ground
LE – 3 weeks
MR – 6 weeks
TE – 10+ weeks
52 weeks

Maesteg, that wasn't an apology.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:51 am

MrsP wrote:Some folks are clearly finding the extent of the argreement on this thread distinctly unsettling!

All that's left to agree on is whether or not the tackle was legal. Blackett and his panel found a way to consider it dangerous. Just that I can't see it.

As a (not very good admittedly) analogy the Law says that the standard speed limit in built-up areas is 30mph. If a driver monitored by a traffic camera uses his accelerator in order to avoid an accident as braking would be potentially more dangerous, and a magistrate applies the letter of the law then the driver can be found guilty. Speeding beyond is proscribed in law but is very arbitrary. A blunt instrument to prevent dangerous driving.

Logically it can be argued that all speed limits could be abolished whilst applying the careless/reckless/dangerous driving laws in their stead.
We all know that 40mph can be a safe speed and that 30mph can be inappropriate as it depends on driving conditions at the time.

Similarly rugby could be codified simply by something 'no player may play in such a way that by recklessness or intent which may cause harm or injury to another' rather than over-regulation by attempting to describe each of the myriad of possible situations.

by **Biltong** Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:52 am

whether I look at the law or not, to me that tackle is entirely legal. And to be honest no amount of interpretation will change my thoughts on that.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:59 am

Biltong wrote:whether I look at the law or not, to me that tackle is entirely legal. And to be honest no amount of interpretation will change my thoughts on that.

Precisely and I'm in on your campaign to de-clutter the laws, Biltong as the game is attempting to legislate for every single possible situation.
So players, fans and referees alike are just confused imo which to assess and apply.

[ed] I penned a post on forward passing that referenced your views https://www.606v2.com/t38117-forward-passes .

by Sponsored content