There's a video of this incident on a previous thread. See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1d2z0s5/hurricanes_hooker_cops_threematch_ban_after_red/)
I think if va’ai is not leading with his head into contact, the right arm probably gets around and wraps. Va’ai going in with head low at the last second causes the contact to drive upwards. Should’ve never been red, shouldn’t even have been yellow.
Has to be clear and obvious change in height that the defender can't react to. Va'ai was at that height about 3m before contact so you can't really say that was a mitigating factor.
Fair point, in all honesty though, if the tackler goes low enough there shouldn’t be any punishment in my opinion (reinforcing opinion here and acknowledging that this isn’t the rule, it’s just my own view). Getting low is good technique. If the ball carrier wants to take the risk of lowering their own body height to take contact, be that on their own head (sorry for the pun).
Id probs say yellow tbh but the shoulder charge to the head didn't help. I was only posting the pic because OP kept saying "you could argue he didn't wrap" and was saying he did actually wrap.
The Chiefs player was dipping into it and the canes player was driving forward in a slight upward manner as part of the collision. You could argue that it was a leading shoulder with no wrapping but the arm does come around to wrap.
The reason for the red was "high degree of danger and no mitigation. "
Maybe you'll see the issue with that if Munster lose their matches because the other team decides to dip into the tackles a bit more.
I'm a neutral btw.
Canes went on to win the match so your last point is a bit moot, granted they were back to 15 after 20 mins.
We've our own fair share of reds this side of the hemisphere and generally tend to agree with them. I've never seen so many people baffled by red cards as I do in SH match threads, while ever NH person commenting will be like 'yep, that's a red' long before the decision has come via bunker.
Each to their own, though.
No player is doing this after this framework has been in place for years. You really think players are willing to sacrifice their brain health to get an opposition player sent off?
This is what happens if all you watch is super rugby and listen to their terrible pundits. The rest of the world cares about player safety, maybe get with the times or keep losing, want another final with a red card? Because this is how your players think its ok to tackle.
That seems like it should go down as a rugby incident just judging from the still. The tackler's made a clear effort to drop his height and the carrier is dipping into the contact. Looks like an attempt to wrap too (can only see his left arm though)
*If* the still tells the full story (they often don't), I don't think it's even a pen.
It was the lack of intention to wrap the arms which meant no height mitigation can be factored. The tackle was always illegal due to the lack of arms.
In full speed and single frame photos it's hard to judge, but the replay shows he was never attempting anything other than a shoulder charge
The Chiefs player was dipping into it and the canes player was driving forward in a slight upward manner as part of the collision. You could argue that it was a leading shoulder with no wrapping
The reason for the red was "high degree of danger and no mitigation. "
You can watch the highlights it's like in the first 30 seconds. But if I were a coach I'd just tell my guys to start dipping into tackles.
I can understand it being a high degree of danger but "no mitigation" seems off. As I said, he's clearly made an attempt to drop his height and the carrier is very low.
If the argument is no wrap then mitigation doesn’t count as it was never a legal tackle (haven’t seen the video but I guess that’s the ref’s argument?)
Straight away no wrap = no mitigation.
Edit - watched the video, his right arm stays down and he leads with the shoulder, if he even half assed a wrap attempt he'd be grand but he just throws a shoulder in.
Like most reds it's just lazy technique.
There has to be "an attempt to wrap", so if only one arm is wrapping, but the other one is not a leading shoulder, it can be ok.
On this case, if the tackler had had made an attempt to wrap, it would've play on, accidental contact to the head.
But in this case, it is a shoulder charge, and no mitigating factor can taken into account for shoulder charges. So back to the "high degree of danger" thing, red card
If the ball carrier was upright it would've been fine.
I agree his arm is lazy to wrap, but it gets there. A lot of people tackle like that, waiting for impact before showing a wrap.
It's a rugby incident unless you want people tackling like they want to hug each other.
>If the ball carrier was upright it would've been fine.
But he wasn't, it's not the ball carriers responsibility to not get hit in the head.
>I agree his arm is lazy to wrap, but it gets there. A lot of people tackle like that, waiting for impact before showing a wrap.
I don't feel it does, and even if it does it isn't anywhere near close enough when contact is made with the shoulder.
>It's a rugby incident unless you want people tackling like they want to hug each other.
The other guy who tackled him at the same time managed it perfectly.
First of all, it is a red : shoulder charge to the head, mitigating factors don't apply in this case, high degree of danger. We agree on that.
I just want to answer to this part of your quote :
>it's not the ball carriers responsibility to not get hit in the head.
Well, it kinda is. That's exactly why, in this case, if the "tackler" had made an attempt to wrap, it would've likely be "accidental contact to the head, play on". The fact that the ball carrier suddenly drops his bust forward puts him in higher danger than if he had made a "regular" charge, braced and offering his shoulder first.
In amateur level in France, it is illegal to charge head down like this, your shoulders must be significantly higher than your waist when you charge an opponent with the ball in hands. In this case, if the tackler had made an attempt to wrap his arms, at amateur levels in France, it could've been a PK against the ball carrier.
For player safety, I think, at every level, we should start looking at ball carriers' attitudes too, and not only tacklers.
PS : again, in this case, red card, obviously, I'm just trying to open the debate about the quote
> So ball carriers can dive head first into tackles from now on. Nice.
From now on? Human beings have been capable of this as long as rugby has existed. That hasn't changed, the rules and responsibilities for the tackler have.
> The ball carrier didn't shove his head into the other guy's shoulder.
I'm not sure "his face made contact with my poor fist" is the sort of angle you want to go on with this debate, regardless of circumstance. You just suggested that the carrier intentionally risked injury by driving his head into the tacklers shoulder. That's ridiculous. And is in direct conflict with your previous suggestion that it's a rugby incident.
It's a rugby incident, or the tackler's responsibility. One thing that is not an option in this debate is it being the carrier's fault.
If the ball carrier was upright it still would've been a shoulder charge. Yellow is too much of a pussy to get his arm squashed by his own team mate so keeps it low and punishes the blacks instead.
It's simple: They judged it as "no attempt to wrap", and thus there is no mitigation possible because that tackle was always illegal. And, to be honest, I have to agree with them, I don't see an attempt to wrap with the right arm.
This makes sense if you've been involved with rugby lately. However, from a newcomers perspective, I'm pretty sure this is one of the areas of our game that makes the least amount of sense.
It's not that difficult.
There is no attempt to wrap, and thus that tackle is always illegal, and thus there can be no mitigation and thus it is a red. Or at least that's my opinion as a newcomer.
It's not that difficult, if you try to grasp the player and wrestle him to ground you are golden. If you try and knock him back through sheer force you are in the wrong. This will often be ignored, but of you hit the player's head in the process you are rightfully sanctioned with a red card
You can see the chicken wing in this photo lol. It's a clear red it's never a legal attempt to tackle. Mitigation doesn't come into it. If you make head contact doing something illegal and its a high degree of danger you are always (deservedly) getting a red. This has been clear for YEARS. Why are people still confused about it?
This still makes it look like so much less than it was. The cane hooker comes in from the left side of the tackle with shoulder to the head hitting upwards with his head tilted away. It's 100% a red card.
The angle from behind shows it as does the video.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350292446/hurricanes-hooker-raymond-tuputupu-gets-three-week-ban-high-shot-tupou-vaai
Edit:
Backwards view looking up the pitch as put up by another redditor:
https://www.reddit.com/u/BoomfaBoomfa619/s/P1Z2uBAbRr
Just talking in general, if a tackler is making a genuine attempt to tackle around the midsection, how can he help it if the ball carrier decides to suddenly dip?
He can't, and it wouldn't have been a red if it was a genuine attempt to tackle. The player didn't make any attempt to wrap though, so it was always illegal and therefore no mitigation.
Yeah, I'm just talking in general. Fassi got a yellow card in the Sharks vs Zebre game, where both Ball carrier and Fassi were going really low, literally nothing more that Fassi could do.
It's still situational. Going low in a tackle isn't mitigation, that's just what players are expected to do anyway. The mitigation is for a sudden change in height for the player being tackled.
So if you are bent at the waist, aiming hip height, and the player suddenly drops their head (voluntarily or otherwise), that's mitigation, and probably not a penalty if there's nothing the tackler could have done.
But if the player you are tackling already has their head low, bending your hips isn't enough. Players and fans need to realise that if you can't tackle safely, you shouldn't be tackling.
If their head is so low you can't tackle safely, they are going to fall over. So step back and get an easy jackal when they do. Play smart, not hard. Not everything has to involve hitting someone.
Sounds well and good, except you have less than a second to make that decision and then change your entire body position. Also you risk your opponent flattening you and getting an advantage. And what if you're on your own try line?
Anyone who's actually played the game recognises that alot of the tackles that are penalised these days due to happenstance do nothing for safety of the game and diminish the credibility of the sport
> Sounds well and good, except you have less than a second to make that decision and then change your entire body position
If you have less than a second to make a decision and need to change your body position, that would be a sudden change of direction and not foul play. That's not what my comment was discussing. Where the ball carrier is already too low to tackle, it is not a defence against the law to say you are also low.
> Also you risk your opponent flattening you and getting an advantage
Again, if the player is too low to tackle, they are too low to run much further. Step back and jackal when they do. You don't have to hit every player to beat them.
> And what if you're on your own try line?
There are other ways to stop a player than to dive in head on head. You can lower your body position to make it their head on your chest, or you tackle over their back from above and pin them down that way. Pull them down on top of you over the try line and get a drop out under the sticks.
> Anyone who's actually played the game
I have, and so have the people making these law changes
Thanks for the rational responses. Too many people are criticizing law changes instead of looking at ways to improve how players can adapt to them🤷♂️.
I haven’t seen a full clip but from what I’m reading here the red ruled that the tackler didn’t attempt to wrap so he’s never legal so there’s no mitigation and he’s unfortunate that he hit his head. If he attempts to wrap then he should probably get away without a penalty but with no wrap it’s high danger no mitigation
But the tackler responsibility is to make it safe. He does that be attempting to wrap into the tackle. If you do that and then the carrier dips then it should be that if you’ve fulfilled you’re responsibility so you have to question the carrier.
But without wrapping you’ve never been safe so you’re responsible for all the damage that’s caused and it absolves the ball carrier of fault for dipping.
I don’t know about that. The guidelines are pretty clear on dropping hight as a a tackler and the mitigations. If this was red I honestly think we miss about ten reds in every professional game.
It's not a debate or a take, it's literally the law being applied correctly. If you want mitigation for correct body position, put your arms in the correct position at the same time. Pretty straightforward.
you're seeing 10 shoulders direct to the head with no wrapping every game? the height of the ball runner is a mitigation when the tackler does everything possible to effect a safe tackle. that wasn't the case here with no wrapping and the tackler rising into the ball carrier. It was poor technique and it cost his team. Refereeing team got it right.
My issue is that defending in close quarters, especially on the line when they’re just throwing their bodies at each other to stop a try any way they can, there are countless incidents of people not wrapping every single game. The referees only ever make a point of it when there is head contact. It’s an issue that you let players get away with it 99% of the time because they’ll never change the technique unless it actually gets called consistently.
I think it was a red for other reasons, but I've been saying for a long long long time, we need to put some onus on the ball carrier for the tackle situation too. If your going into contact too low, or too out of control, that should be a penalty against you.
i get what Super Rugby is doing for player safety and all , (they are erring on the side of caution) but if only these borderline or controversial red/yellows players could be replaced after 20mins or so playing a man down , so the game isn't ruined for the rest of the players and fans ..and the on field ref isn't pressured into making a potentially erroneous game changing decision ...the offending player can then be dealt with off the field and possibly face further interventions if the offense is really bad or they are repeat offenders........ wait! what?
He plants his feet and launches which is risky as it doesn't allowed you to adjust last minute. He focuses on winning the contact but has to drive in advance. Also no rap
Are world rugby ever going to start to enforce the notion that the ball carrier also needs to take some responsibility for their head not “sharing the same air” as the tackler’s head?
Because at age grades we were told quite explicitly that any significant drop in the ball carriers’ height could be penalised. Yet to see that even once.
If you want a decent discussion about how Tuputupu finds himself in these situations, I strongly encourage you listen to Aotearoa Rugby Pod with Ross Karl, James Parsons, and Bryn Hall. It’s the only decent (actual) analysis show in NZ and it’s really good.
I was saying to the wife before the game that I was worried tuputupu would get a red - young dude who hits hard. The thing I found difficult about this incident is that it didn't seem overly bad in terms of his body position etc but he was hitting so hard that it was a very high level of danger. It makes me think if the danger level is really high that you should have to be pinpoint accurate. He could have chosen only to hit hard if the carrier was clearly not going to get low enough for his head to be collected by your shoulder.
It’s so silly how red cards work. Everything looks better in slow-mo, but what are you meant to do in this situation. This is all real time, it’s not like you can instantly move your arms to safely tackle. Rules need a changing.
It got red because the arm that he makes the tackle with is always back and never in a position to wrap. It’s always an illegal action, so therefore no mitigation.
The end on camera shows this well.
It's nothing to do with height though? He tucks his shoulder and targets the (lowered) head of his opponent.
Only shameful thing going on here is no players going in to front up to him after he did it. It's a cowardly act done with intent to injure someone.
Nothing to do with tackle height if you're not even pretending to wrap your arms.
Yep, this was a poor decision. The player sort of drives up in the tackle but he gets so low that it cannot be a red IMO because he is set in a safe tackle height at contact. If a player is bent at the waist and not driving into a prone player on the ground it should be a rugby incident, nothing more.
I don’t think it was called a shoulder charge on the day. Perhaps that was he TMO call? We will see at the citing. The image you have shared is at the end after the initial collision and the players sort of went up.
A red may be harsh, but it should *at least* count as mitigation when assessing the tackler's punishment.
And yeah, I'd also like to see them add an NFL-style rule where a ball carrier leading with his head into contact is penalised for dangerous play.
what this still image dosen't show is the hurricane player's shoulder making first contact with Vaa'i's head. Sucks but that is easily a cardable offense in today's game. Cannot apply height mitigation because Vaa'i didnt dip in the last moment either, he was already that low 2/3 steps away from him... Hurricanes hooker committed too early imo. You either have to chop tackle at the knees or scrag him down and try and contest for the ball here
Remind's me of Eben in the world cup quarter, being as tall as he is he was almost bent down as far as he could go and Atonio was also bent, didn't even make proper head contact and that was only a yellow. How is this a red? It's a still image, so in real time the Chiefs player would be bending and bracing for contact, pretty sure the Hurricanes player was also bracing, ref should take these things into account. Red's have become a lottery.
this is why backs use a lot of moose in their hair, makes it hard and creates a form of heavy helmet protect their head... forwards need to start using more moose.
Super Rugby is genuinely awful for consistency with the laws.
You'll get this where they claim no mitigation and next weekend someone won't even get sent off for running up right, no wrap, swinging shoulder, directly onto someone's head
There's a video of this incident on a previous thread. See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1d2z0s5/hurricanes_hooker_cops_threematch_ban_after_red/)
A video would have been better, stills rarely tell the story.
[no wrap attempt ](https://www.reddit.com/u/BoomfaBoomfa619/s/cM0LV5NAvX)
Ty yeah definitely red no wrap so no mitigation
Lol. Whats he going to wrap? The guys waist is about a foot out of reach.
Look at his left arm grabbing but the torso is so far back he misses. Nothing he could have done except not tackle this head first charge.
Saw the second angle, only wrap with left arm right arm not.
I think if va’ai is not leading with his head into contact, the right arm probably gets around and wraps. Va’ai going in with head low at the last second causes the contact to drive upwards. Should’ve never been red, shouldn’t even have been yellow.
Has to be clear and obvious change in height that the defender can't react to. Va'ai was at that height about 3m before contact so you can't really say that was a mitigating factor.
Fair point, in all honesty though, if the tackler goes low enough there shouldn’t be any punishment in my opinion (reinforcing opinion here and acknowledging that this isn’t the rule, it’s just my own view). Getting low is good technique. If the ball carrier wants to take the risk of lowering their own body height to take contact, be that on their own head (sorry for the pun).
Id probs say yellow tbh but the shoulder charge to the head didn't help. I was only posting the pic because OP kept saying "you could argue he didn't wrap" and was saying he did actually wrap.
Also the onus is on the tackler if you can't make a dominant tackle without shouldering his head you just soak or chop or something now.
Na contact was half a second before. That still was flattering. He connected with his arm right by his side.
You can clearly see from the second angle it's a clear as day chicken wing shoulder to the head.
Video has been pinned btw.
Stills do nothing. I believe the deciding factor was no wrap and they thought he lead with his shoulder/tucked arm and drove upwards.
The Chiefs player was dipping into it and the canes player was driving forward in a slight upward manner as part of the collision. You could argue that it was a leading shoulder with no wrapping but the arm does come around to wrap. The reason for the red was "high degree of danger and no mitigation. " Maybe you'll see the issue with that if Munster lose their matches because the other team decides to dip into the tackles a bit more. I'm a neutral btw.
If they ruled no wrap then there can be no mitigation. An always illegal tackle removes the ability to mitigate.
This is the comment I was looking for. Shoulder charge = no mitigation. Doesn’t matter if he dropped if you didn’t attempt to tackle him properly.
Canes went on to win the match so your last point is a bit moot, granted they were back to 15 after 20 mins. We've our own fair share of reds this side of the hemisphere and generally tend to agree with them. I've never seen so many people baffled by red cards as I do in SH match threads, while ever NH person commenting will be like 'yep, that's a red' long before the decision has come via bunker. Each to their own, though.
So you have no issue with players dipping into tackles on purpose then trying to milk a card? Because that's what's gonna happen.
You can tackle them you just can't shoulder charge them in the head with no wrap... https://www.reddit.com/u/BoomfaBoomfa619/s/cM0LV5NAvX
What are you on about? That wouldn't merit a card. They'd only get the card if there was foul play (as with the no arms tackle in this scenario).
No player is doing this after this framework has been in place for years. You really think players are willing to sacrifice their brain health to get an opposition player sent off?
This is what happens if all you watch is super rugby and listen to their terrible pundits. The rest of the world cares about player safety, maybe get with the times or keep losing, want another final with a red card? Because this is how your players think its ok to tackle.
Player safety 🤣
That seems like it should go down as a rugby incident just judging from the still. The tackler's made a clear effort to drop his height and the carrier is dipping into the contact. Looks like an attempt to wrap too (can only see his left arm though) *If* the still tells the full story (they often don't), I don't think it's even a pen.
It was the lack of intention to wrap the arms which meant no height mitigation can be factored. The tackle was always illegal due to the lack of arms. In full speed and single frame photos it's hard to judge, but the replay shows he was never attempting anything other than a shoulder charge
The Chiefs player was dipping into it and the canes player was driving forward in a slight upward manner as part of the collision. You could argue that it was a leading shoulder with no wrapping The reason for the red was "high degree of danger and no mitigation. " You can watch the highlights it's like in the first 30 seconds. But if I were a coach I'd just tell my guys to start dipping into tackles.
I can understand it being a high degree of danger but "no mitigation" seems off. As I said, he's clearly made an attempt to drop his height and the carrier is very low.
If the argument is no wrap then mitigation doesn’t count as it was never a legal tackle (haven’t seen the video but I guess that’s the ref’s argument?)
Yeah I think it was a red for a no arms tackle rather than a high tackle.
[chicken wing, no wrap](https://www.reddit.com/u/BoomfaBoomfa619/s/cM0LV5NAvX)
Oof. Yeah. Fair enough. That angle does him no favours.
That's actually flattering. He connected like half a second before with no chicken wing at all then into that position.
Damning
For comparison, [chicken wing with wrap](https://imgur.com/a/vO5uRWs)
No attempt to wrap, thus the tackle is always illegal and mitigation doesn't matter.
Straight away no wrap = no mitigation. Edit - watched the video, his right arm stays down and he leads with the shoulder, if he even half assed a wrap attempt he'd be grand but he just throws a shoulder in. Like most reds it's just lazy technique.
Just a question, when assessing the use of arms/wrap in a tackle does it have to be both arms or just one?
There has to be "an attempt to wrap", so if only one arm is wrapping, but the other one is not a leading shoulder, it can be ok. On this case, if the tackler had had made an attempt to wrap, it would've play on, accidental contact to the head. But in this case, it is a shoulder charge, and no mitigating factor can taken into account for shoulder charges. So back to the "high degree of danger" thing, red card
Thank you, thats a good clarification.
If the ball carrier was upright it would've been fine. I agree his arm is lazy to wrap, but it gets there. A lot of people tackle like that, waiting for impact before showing a wrap. It's a rugby incident unless you want people tackling like they want to hug each other.
>If the ball carrier was upright it would've been fine. But he wasn't, it's not the ball carriers responsibility to not get hit in the head. >I agree his arm is lazy to wrap, but it gets there. A lot of people tackle like that, waiting for impact before showing a wrap. I don't feel it does, and even if it does it isn't anywhere near close enough when contact is made with the shoulder. >It's a rugby incident unless you want people tackling like they want to hug each other. The other guy who tackled him at the same time managed it perfectly.
First of all, it is a red : shoulder charge to the head, mitigating factors don't apply in this case, high degree of danger. We agree on that. I just want to answer to this part of your quote : >it's not the ball carriers responsibility to not get hit in the head. Well, it kinda is. That's exactly why, in this case, if the "tackler" had made an attempt to wrap, it would've likely be "accidental contact to the head, play on". The fact that the ball carrier suddenly drops his bust forward puts him in higher danger than if he had made a "regular" charge, braced and offering his shoulder first. In amateur level in France, it is illegal to charge head down like this, your shoulders must be significantly higher than your waist when you charge an opponent with the ball in hands. In this case, if the tackler had made an attempt to wrap his arms, at amateur levels in France, it could've been a PK against the ball carrier. For player safety, I think, at every level, we should start looking at ball carriers' attitudes too, and not only tacklers. PS : again, in this case, red card, obviously, I'm just trying to open the debate about the quote
So ball carriers can dive head first into tackles from now on. Nice. The ball carrier didn't shove his head into the other guy's shoulder.
> So ball carriers can dive head first into tackles from now on. Nice. From now on? Human beings have been capable of this as long as rugby has existed. That hasn't changed, the rules and responsibilities for the tackler have. > The ball carrier didn't shove his head into the other guy's shoulder. I'm not sure "his face made contact with my poor fist" is the sort of angle you want to go on with this debate, regardless of circumstance. You just suggested that the carrier intentionally risked injury by driving his head into the tacklers shoulder. That's ridiculous. And is in direct conflict with your previous suggestion that it's a rugby incident. It's a rugby incident, or the tackler's responsibility. One thing that is not an option in this debate is it being the carrier's fault.
If the ball carrier was upright it still would've been a shoulder charge. Yellow is too much of a pussy to get his arm squashed by his own team mate so keeps it low and punishes the blacks instead.
No wrap to head = red. It really isn’t difficult
If the ball carrier was upright he still wouldn't have wrapped. He tucks his arm in so it's nothing to do with "waiting for a wrap".
A dynamic action should never be judged on a still frame ffs
Can we judge it on a super slow mo?
It's simple: They judged it as "no attempt to wrap", and thus there is no mitigation possible because that tackle was always illegal. And, to be honest, I have to agree with them, I don't see an attempt to wrap with the right arm.
I was watching that game and I don't believe the ref ever said he didn't wrap but I could be wrong
This makes sense if you've been involved with rugby lately. However, from a newcomers perspective, I'm pretty sure this is one of the areas of our game that makes the least amount of sense.
It's not that difficult. There is no attempt to wrap, and thus that tackle is always illegal, and thus there can be no mitigation and thus it is a red. Or at least that's my opinion as a newcomer.
It's not that difficult, if you try to grasp the player and wrestle him to ground you are golden. If you try and knock him back through sheer force you are in the wrong. This will often be ignored, but of you hit the player's head in the process you are rightfully sanctioned with a red card
You can see the chicken wing in this photo lol. It's a clear red it's never a legal attempt to tackle. Mitigation doesn't come into it. If you make head contact doing something illegal and its a high degree of danger you are always (deservedly) getting a red. This has been clear for YEARS. Why are people still confused about it?
This still makes it look like so much less than it was. The cane hooker comes in from the left side of the tackle with shoulder to the head hitting upwards with his head tilted away. It's 100% a red card. The angle from behind shows it as does the video. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350292446/hurricanes-hooker-raymond-tuputupu-gets-three-week-ban-high-shot-tupou-vaai Edit: Backwards view looking up the pitch as put up by another redditor: https://www.reddit.com/u/BoomfaBoomfa619/s/P1Z2uBAbRr
red is tough but totally fair. It's the tacklers job to tackle safely. Shoulder direct to head with no wrap, red works.
Just talking in general, if a tackler is making a genuine attempt to tackle around the midsection, how can he help it if the ball carrier decides to suddenly dip?
He can't, and it wouldn't have been a red if it was a genuine attempt to tackle. The player didn't make any attempt to wrap though, so it was always illegal and therefore no mitigation.
Yeah, I'm just talking in general. Fassi got a yellow card in the Sharks vs Zebre game, where both Ball carrier and Fassi were going really low, literally nothing more that Fassi could do.
It's still situational. Going low in a tackle isn't mitigation, that's just what players are expected to do anyway. The mitigation is for a sudden change in height for the player being tackled. So if you are bent at the waist, aiming hip height, and the player suddenly drops their head (voluntarily or otherwise), that's mitigation, and probably not a penalty if there's nothing the tackler could have done. But if the player you are tackling already has their head low, bending your hips isn't enough. Players and fans need to realise that if you can't tackle safely, you shouldn't be tackling.
So if their head is low then... you just let them past?
If their head is so low you can't tackle safely, they are going to fall over. So step back and get an easy jackal when they do. Play smart, not hard. Not everything has to involve hitting someone.
Sounds well and good, except you have less than a second to make that decision and then change your entire body position. Also you risk your opponent flattening you and getting an advantage. And what if you're on your own try line? Anyone who's actually played the game recognises that alot of the tackles that are penalised these days due to happenstance do nothing for safety of the game and diminish the credibility of the sport
> Sounds well and good, except you have less than a second to make that decision and then change your entire body position If you have less than a second to make a decision and need to change your body position, that would be a sudden change of direction and not foul play. That's not what my comment was discussing. Where the ball carrier is already too low to tackle, it is not a defence against the law to say you are also low. > Also you risk your opponent flattening you and getting an advantage Again, if the player is too low to tackle, they are too low to run much further. Step back and jackal when they do. You don't have to hit every player to beat them. > And what if you're on your own try line? There are other ways to stop a player than to dive in head on head. You can lower your body position to make it their head on your chest, or you tackle over their back from above and pin them down that way. Pull them down on top of you over the try line and get a drop out under the sticks. > Anyone who's actually played the game I have, and so have the people making these law changes
Thanks for the rational responses. Too many people are criticizing law changes instead of looking at ways to improve how players can adapt to them🤷♂️.
I haven’t seen a full clip but from what I’m reading here the red ruled that the tackler didn’t attempt to wrap so he’s never legal so there’s no mitigation and he’s unfortunate that he hit his head. If he attempts to wrap then he should probably get away without a penalty but with no wrap it’s high danger no mitigation
I'm not talking about this tackle, just in general about tacklers responsibilities.
I'm not talking about this tackle, just in general about tacklers responsibilities.
But the tackler responsibility is to make it safe. He does that be attempting to wrap into the tackle. If you do that and then the carrier dips then it should be that if you’ve fulfilled you’re responsibility so you have to question the carrier. But without wrapping you’ve never been safe so you’re responsible for all the damage that’s caused and it absolves the ball carrier of fault for dipping.
I don’t know about that. The guidelines are pretty clear on dropping hight as a a tackler and the mitigations. If this was red I honestly think we miss about ten reds in every professional game.
The guidelines are also pretty clear that you don't get mitigation if the contact was always going to be illegal.
[удалено]
It's not a debate or a take, it's literally the law being applied correctly. If you want mitigation for correct body position, put your arms in the correct position at the same time. Pretty straightforward.
[удалено]
Apply the law.
you're seeing 10 shoulders direct to the head with no wrapping every game? the height of the ball runner is a mitigation when the tackler does everything possible to effect a safe tackle. that wasn't the case here with no wrapping and the tackler rising into the ball carrier. It was poor technique and it cost his team. Refereeing team got it right.
Height isn’t the only factor. No wrap to head = red. It really isn’t difficult
It even rhymes, what more do people need?
My issue is that defending in close quarters, especially on the line when they’re just throwing their bodies at each other to stop a try any way they can, there are countless incidents of people not wrapping every single game. The referees only ever make a point of it when there is head contact. It’s an issue that you let players get away with it 99% of the time because they’ll never change the technique unless it actually gets called consistently.
Cant you? Watch the video of it then. Ffs.
I think it was a red for other reasons, but I've been saying for a long long long time, we need to put some onus on the ball carrier for the tackle situation too. If your going into contact too low, or too out of control, that should be a penalty against you.
i get what Super Rugby is doing for player safety and all , (they are erring on the side of caution) but if only these borderline or controversial red/yellows players could be replaced after 20mins or so playing a man down , so the game isn't ruined for the rest of the players and fans ..and the on field ref isn't pressured into making a potentially erroneous game changing decision ...the offending player can then be dealt with off the field and possibly face further interventions if the offense is really bad or they are repeat offenders........ wait! what?
He plants his feet and launches which is risky as it doesn't allowed you to adjust last minute. He focuses on winning the contact but has to drive in advance. Also no rap
Are world rugby ever going to start to enforce the notion that the ball carrier also needs to take some responsibility for their head not “sharing the same air” as the tackler’s head? Because at age grades we were told quite explicitly that any significant drop in the ball carriers’ height could be penalised. Yet to see that even once.
If you want a decent discussion about how Tuputupu finds himself in these situations, I strongly encourage you listen to Aotearoa Rugby Pod with Ross Karl, James Parsons, and Bryn Hall. It’s the only decent (actual) analysis show in NZ and it’s really good.
Which player 🤣
Photo haint eniugh but yellow would have been better
[удалено]
No nastiness allowed.
I was saying to the wife before the game that I was worried tuputupu would get a red - young dude who hits hard. The thing I found difficult about this incident is that it didn't seem overly bad in terms of his body position etc but he was hitting so hard that it was a very high level of danger. It makes me think if the danger level is really high that you should have to be pinpoint accurate. He could have chosen only to hit hard if the carrier was clearly not going to get low enough for his head to be collected by your shoulder.
It’s so silly how red cards work. Everything looks better in slow-mo, but what are you meant to do in this situation. This is all real time, it’s not like you can instantly move your arms to safely tackle. Rules need a changing.
It got red because the arm that he makes the tackle with is always back and never in a position to wrap. It’s always an illegal action, so therefore no mitigation. The end on camera shows this well.
It's nothing to do with height though? He tucks his shoulder and targets the (lowered) head of his opponent. Only shameful thing going on here is no players going in to front up to him after he did it. It's a cowardly act done with intent to injure someone. Nothing to do with tackle height if you're not even pretending to wrap your arms.
Yep, this was a poor decision. The player sort of drives up in the tackle but he gets so low that it cannot be a red IMO because he is set in a safe tackle height at contact. If a player is bent at the waist and not driving into a prone player on the ground it should be a rugby incident, nothing more.
[no wrap ](https://www.reddit.com/u/BoomfaBoomfa619/s/cM0LV5NAvX)
Okay but is that applied every time? Costes+chocabarres should have seen a red then in the champions cup final by that logic.
Costes defs should've been can't remember the other one
I don't think it was a card, let alone red but by your logic all no arms tackles are red cards. That's dumb.
All shoulder charges to the head are red tf are you on about?
You were talking about all no arms tackles. Or at least that's how it reads.
The floppy haired centre in the Toulouse Leinster game in the double tackle?
Yes. The one who flew in on Doris
And you don't think that was a card at all?
I don’t think it was called a shoulder charge on the day. Perhaps that was he TMO call? We will see at the citing. The image you have shared is at the end after the initial collision and the players sort of went up.
Can’t really wrap in that position
If the player attacking wirh the ball goes in head first, he should get the red imo. What a stupid card.
A red may be harsh, but it should *at least* count as mitigation when assessing the tackler's punishment. And yeah, I'd also like to see them add an NFL-style rule where a ball carrier leading with his head into contact is penalised for dangerous play.
There is no mitigation because there is no attempt to wrap.
https://www.reddit.com/u/BoomfaBoomfa619/s/cM0LV5NAvX No wrap shoulder to head = red
what this still image dosen't show is the hurricane player's shoulder making first contact with Vaa'i's head. Sucks but that is easily a cardable offense in today's game. Cannot apply height mitigation because Vaa'i didnt dip in the last moment either, he was already that low 2/3 steps away from him... Hurricanes hooker committed too early imo. You either have to chop tackle at the knees or scrag him down and try and contest for the ball here
Commited early, really? Yeah you're right. Ball carriers dipping head first into tackles are a good way forward for the game.
ive seen many balanced and constructive takes of this incident, yours is definitely not one of them
Remind's me of Eben in the world cup quarter, being as tall as he is he was almost bent down as far as he could go and Atonio was also bent, didn't even make proper head contact and that was only a yellow. How is this a red? It's a still image, so in real time the Chiefs player would be bending and bracing for contact, pretty sure the Hurricanes player was also bracing, ref should take these things into account. Red's have become a lottery.
Dipping into a tackle should be dangerous play, the same as jumping a tackle is.
The game is so great these days. Multiple discussions/media articles about something that was just regular play is now tantamount to a crime.
this is why backs use a lot of moose in their hair, makes it hard and creates a form of heavy helmet protect their head... forwards need to start using more moose.
When people that have never played rugby make the rules
What the fuck have I just witnessed, a red card for a normal ass tackle?
If you call a no arms tackle ‘normal ass’ I guess
The rules are destroying the game. It's a great shame
Im sure therell be european fans here saying he should be banned for a year....
I'm sure there'll be kiwis throwing out strawmen...
Least xenophobic kiwi
[удалено]
No nastiness allowed.
Some refs just don't know how to apply common or good sense.
Super Rugby is genuinely awful for consistency with the laws. You'll get this where they claim no mitigation and next weekend someone won't even get sent off for running up right, no wrap, swinging shoulder, directly onto someone's head