Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
I agree to an extent Sully. While I personally saw no issue in either tackle, it is obviously an area that refs are being overly vigilant on and probably for good reason.
Namun, I am happy to see that the ref was at least consistent with his calls. Whatever we think about the tackles, at least he was consistent in his interpretations.
jimmydubs
Dave Cowper (27)
make that 2. the first one the bigger shocking call.
PiXeL_Ninja
Bill Watson (15)
Slipper jump was by far the most shocking call.
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
This is an IRB directive, once the player is lifted past the horizontal, the referee must start at Yellow.
PiXeL_Ninja
Bill Watson (15)
yeah slipper was defo lifted past the horizontal.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
The player wasn't lifted though..........
I missed the first incident, but in the second one Slipper actually jumped up at the tackler who has gone for the legs and has wound up going over the top of him.........
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
I was a bit frustrated with both YC in Reds/Bulls, thought neither one was really, but ref was consistent.
As a slight change of topic on Refs, I noticed on friday night that ref (Johnathan White?) in H'landers/ Chiefs game ask for a play to be replayed on big screen so HE could check on foul play, actually thought that a good idea, even if not sure if it legal.
As a slight change of topic on Refs, I noticed on friday night that ref (Johnathan White?) in H'landers/ Chiefs game ask for a play to be replayed on big screen so HE could check on foul play, actually thought that a good idea, even if not sure if it legal.
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
As part of the tackle, he went past horizontal, the IRB has directed that these situations start at Yellow.
I agree that it's contentious, but the ref is only doing what the IRB have directed them to. As a current referee it was interexting to see those two cards because as a rugby fan I didn't think either was particularly dangerous or intended to hurt the ball carrier, butthe ref followed the IRB and ARU GMG and started at yellow.
Isn't the offence NOT to safely bring the tackled player to ground IF the player is lifted past the horizontal, rather than just lifting past the horizontal?
If there is no "incentive" to return the player safely to ground, then this could "encourage" a potentially dangerous act to become dangerous. If you are to be carded regardless, then what is to stop the players from going for broke? Yellow Card vs Red Card is not all that much of an "incentive".
If there is no "incentive" to return the player safely to ground, then this could "encourage" a potentially dangerous act to become dangerous. If you are to be carded regardless, then what is to stop the players from going for broke? Yellow Card vs Red Card is not all that much of an "incentive".
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
You are correct there HJ, I was far too brief in my description above. You can lift a player past the horizontal as long as he is brought to ground safely.
The "Return to ground safely" seems to have a bit of scope for subjectivity and inconsistency between referees. Seems some may be erring on the side of caution.
It is probably better being cautious than being the referee that calls a tackle "safe" when the player ends up in a wheelchair.
It is probably better being cautious than being the referee that calls a tackle "safe" when the player ends up in a wheelchair.
Spot on. The refs have been given clear directives regarding such tackles. Vent at SANZAR / the IRB or whatever, but the 2 tackles, while hardly "dangerous" satisfied the criteria to be penalised and given a yellow. It is far better to err at this end of the spectrum, than to let many go and only jump on tackles that are truly evil. Slipper's was just bizarre - looked like an old-school Western Roll in the high jump!!
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
A bit frustrating as a spectator though I fully support zero tolerance directed on these tackles. Having scope to decide the severity of the tackle is only going to open up a grey area of subjectivity and inconsistantsy.
As a player I find the zero tolerance a guide to my own play and encouraging to my well being on the field.
As a player I find the zero tolerance a guide to my own play and encouraging to my well being on the field.
I thought Lance's tackle was worse and definitely deserved a yellow. If the tackled player hadn't lost the ball and then stuck his arm out to protect himself on the fall, it would have looked a lot more ugly.
The tackle on Slipper by Mapoe was probably unlucky for Mapoe more than anything. Slipper jumped into the tackle so any low tackle was going to send him flipping over. Whilst Mapoe has a greater responsibility to bring the player down safely which he didn't do, it's probably hard for someone his size to control Slipper in the air. For his own sake, Slipper shouldn't jump into tackles.
The tackle on Slipper by Mapoe was probably unlucky for Mapoe more than anything. Slipper jumped into the tackle so any low tackle was going to send him flipping over. Whilst Mapoe has a greater responsibility to bring the player down safely which he didn't do, it's probably hard for someone his size to control Slipper in the air. For his own sake, Slipper shouldn't jump into tackles.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I have conspiracy that the IRB are deliberating being vague on this point on purpose. You outline one of the reasons why below:
Exactly why I don't think I would give a yellow card to a tackle where the player gets brought down safely. It's illogical. But if the player comes close to being dropped on his head and is only brought back down safe at the last second that is when I would employ this interpretation.
But even under this school of thought the Reds yellow was justified. Everyone from coaches to refs have been told that if the arm is used to break the fall it doesn't change the fact that a dangerous tackle has just occurred. Soft in some cases, but no one is saying the system is perfect.
Sidbarret
Fred Wood (13)
Kind of agree with this. Lance's technique (though I would stop short of inferring any malice) meant that the player was always going to go past horizontal. On that basis along it deserved some form of sanction, but it was still a very soft yellow. A penalty for potential danger would have been enough in my opinion.
Mapoe and Reinach didn't do much wrong from what I saw. Slipper put himself in a dangerous position and there is little Mapoe could have done differently. Reinach's yellow was just a really bad call.
JOC (James O'Connor)'s was pretty clear cut in terms of the way tip tackles have been reffed for the last couple of seasons and he should be looking at short rest.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I thought you could "see" (maybe "sense") Lance pulling the player back towards him so as to control his landing. I think the problem is that it's a mandatory yellow - someone correct me?
Sidbarret
Fred Wood (13)
My comment actually refers to the lifting part of the tackle. There was no reason for Lance to lift the player in the first place. Lance was lucky that Hattingh had already lost ball and could break his fall with his hand and also that whole tackle seemed to happen in slow motion. There is lesson to be learnt here and that is that one must be very carefull when you decide to lift a player of the ground and that to me is the major difference between the Lance tackle and the Mapoe tackle. There is simply nothing that Mapoe could have done differently.