absolute coathanger of a high tackle from last weeks itm cup

handsomecake

listen to the ref when he gives him the red card " see ya".

reminds me of this shocker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zSop6FWsEE

just noticed queenslands replacement scrum half.number 20 ,an 18 year old by the name of will genia.benches 172 kgs at 21 years of age.wonder will he go on to bigger things!

PhatPiggins

Used to see that sort of thing on a weekly basis when I played in NZ. The Pollies seem to be particularly suspect to them.

thomond2006

Nasty stuff. Did it warrant a penalty try too? IMO he would have made it if the Canterbury player missed the tackle.

chimchimney

looking at rugbydump i find it strange that 500 people have 'liked' this on facebook... what do they like about this? do they find it entertaining? or are they agreeing with the red card?

from the comments on rugbydump it seems some posters find this sort of tackle hilarious.

i find rugbydump's editors are too fond of 'big' hits, regardless of legality. eg their try-savers and rib-breakers videos. plenty of legal hits on show, no need to include the illegal ones

[Jackass]

It's part of the sport. I really like rugbydump and their featured videos are excellent, with highlights of SH and European games and competitions, T14 top 10 tries of the week, and anything outrageous / of interest that went on, such as this "tackle".

I don't see anything wrong with highlighting it.

daveharnett

thomond2006 wrote: »

Nasty stuff. Did it warrant a penalty try too? IMO he would have made it if the Canterbury player missed the tackle.

That looks like a dead cert for a penalty try. No way in the world the defender is going to stop him legally = "foul play preventing a probable try".

Refs are awfully reluctant to give penalty tries, particularly from any distance out. At the televised level, 'probable' seems to mean 'certain barring acts of god'. I met a rookie ref recently who genuinely suspected that the law didn't allow them if the offence was outside the 22.

[Jackass]

I think it's because of the distance out that it wasn't given, but it's hard to call, especially when weighing up red card being sufficient punishment or red card plus penalty try, or yellow plus penalty try or penalty try only is sufficient punishment...it's always always a massive call for a ref, and I've debated many many situations where this comes up...

Would be interesting to hear Tims take on it, but it's always a very tough one to call on the extent of punishment for something like this...I think on this occasion the ref got it just about right...it wasn't cynical enough to warrant red card and penalty try, i think it was just wreckless...I think he was wrong footed and making a genuine, but wreckless, attempt to recover and make a legitimate tackle.

Refs don't have time to think about it though, they have to make this decision in a heart beat, so it's always a bit harsh to call a ref out on decisions like this...

amacachi

Don't see the big deal about the first one, though it's one of those rare specimens that looks way worse at full speed than in slow motion. :pac:

daveharnett

[Jackass] wrote: »

Refs don't have time to think about it though, they have to make this decision in a heart beat, so it's always a bit harsh to call a ref out on decisions like this...

Re: Red card/ penalty try offences, the general rule is that if you have to think about them, then they probably aren't. I suspect that on first viewing the ref knows that that is a probable try, and he's decided against it because it would be 'too controversial'.

As for 'sufficient punishment', it's the 74th minute. Anything less than a PT is a great result for the defending team.

Shelflife

I think that there are two separate issues here.

1 The tackle itself was illegal and imo warranted a red card anywhere on the pitch.

2 would that player probabaly have scored if he wasnt tackled illegally again imo he would have so a penalty try should have been awarded.

Its not about sufficient punishment its about the issues, clearly the blue side would have scored a 7 pointer which brings them back to a chance of a bonus point.

thomond2006

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,9818_6406896,00.html

He's got 3 weeks.

danthefan

I can't see how that's a penalty try. The clotheslinee probably would have scored if the clothesliner had have just stepped out of the way, the clothesliner also could have made a legitimate tackle. He was in a position to legitimately stop a try from being scored.

Edit - watching again for the third time it is debateable whether the defender could have stopped him legally I suppose, but I sympathise with the ref here.

Shelflife

thomond2006 wrote: »

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,9818_6406896,00.html

He's got 3 weeks.

got away light i think, the more i look at it the worse it gets,

but I sympathise with the ref here.

its a hard one but i think some refs dont want to "over penalise" a team but in truth the more times a team is nailed for illegal/cynical play the less you will see of it.

in fairness to the ref id say he focused on the red and didnt think about the pen try element in the heat of the moment