0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Just to help the genuine fans out there understand the requirements that referees have been asked to adhere to this season.
if the tackler takes the legs past the horizontal in a tip/spear tackle type manner, the player will be yellow carded.
If the tackler then proceeds to drop or drive the tackled player onto their head/neck/upperback they will be red carded.
Referees have no discretion, and intent cannot be used as a mitigating factor. The ARU & SANZAR are determined to remove the style of tackle from the game.
If the tackle is on the horizontal, or of roughly the same type, but doesn't meet the above, expect a penalty still unless the tackler is successful in either returning the player to their feet, or rectifying the tackle so that they do not become upended.
For more info on how and why tip tackles happen, see the article here: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php...f-a-Tip-Tackle
Maybe you need to explain that one to the referees as well![]()
Perhaps a brief explanation of what a high &/or dangerous tackle would be good, exactly how the ref interprets the shoulder line !
The rule needs some work. Refs should be able to use their discretion. I was yellow carded for spear tackling someone - the guy jumped into the tackle and ended up going over my shoulder head first into the ground. Completely his fault. I actually think it's a penalty to jump into a tackle anyway isn't it?
You dirty bastard Zed.
Funny how every guy who spear tackles someone comes out of it with an innocent look to the ref and can't understand why they were carded.
Wonder if the other guy accepts that it was his fault for being up ended and his head being rammed into the earth?
If you are strong enough to lift a guy then you are strong enough to bring him down safely - or learn a better technique. Either way, the onus is on the tackler.
I think you'll find that the reference point for "high" is the line of the armpits.
There is more discretion for the referees with "dangerous" as intent and the actions of the tackler are different on each occasion.
"Reckless" tackles are another form that the referees need to adjudicate on.
Sometimes tackles are a combination of all three.
There would only be a penalty for jumping into a tackle if there was a dangerous component to it.
i disagree with that. What Zed was saying is that he was stationary, and the bloke jumped, so his centre of gravity is above the tackling player. This will cause him to rotate around, and end up past the horizontal. The tackler wouldn't even have to move for this to happen. And yet, due to jump, the tackler gets carded. There is no lifting involved.
It is something that i have brought up over the last few weeks in Super matches.
I don't know the answer unfortunately, though perhaps a little bit of judgement to be used where the game is stopped due to the tackle, and a penalty awarded, and clearly explained to the team captains that it was due to the jumping that no yellow was awarded.
The law may need work, and it may not be perfect, but this is what refs have been told. Coaches have also been told about it.
With regards to a player jumping into an awaiting player, yes it could be dangerous, but the jumping alone does not make a tip tackle. If you just caught them and held their momentum would take them and you to the floor, without legs going past horizontal. What I have seen in some of my games is that the tackler will push the player up, which assists the rotation. In effect, the tackler takes the legs past horizontal.
What RM says is bang on the money, it is the tacklers responsibility to tackle a player so that they are brought to the floor safely.
You cannot shoulder charge them to the floor, tip tackle them, trip them, or clothes line them. All are dangerous and will probably result in a card of somesort.
If you have momentum you can't perform a tip tackle, because you can't get the lift and twist.
But whatever the feelings of players, fans and coaches, this tackle has the very real potential to disable and maybe even kill someone. Lets not wait for it to happen before we agree to fix it. Lets get rid of it from the game now.
Posted via Mobile Device
shit,if it was 25 years ago it was probably me
Im going to sue you,you mongrel![]()
There is nothing in the law book about high tackles or reckless tackles. They all fall under dangerous tackle. The “high” tackle as being referred to by Oracle is above the line of shoulders.
Sounds like Zed could have also been done for tackling a player in the air!
I agree with RM, the onus is on the tackler to bring down the player safely.
Below is an extract from the laws.
10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(e)Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.Sanction: Penalty kick
A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(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.
Sanction: Penalty kick
when running both feet are off the ground mid stride,therefore tackling per se must be illegal
is it not?