Yellow Cards for lifting Tackles

This rugularly shit me.

in the 53rd or so minute of the Reds v Bulls, there was a card for a lifting tackle. Winger lifted prop. It is obvious in the replay that the prop jumped up and into the tackler, who was low in anticipation of tackling the prop.

Of course, momentum and centre of gravity takes the prop up and over the tackler, who is pulled back and up due to him holding the props legs.

winger -> yellow card.

how do they not take into account that if the bloke jumps into the tackle, he is always going to go ass up, and due to his poor technique, the tackler goes to the bin.

comments? laws?

also, whoever the fucktards that are commentating this match are horrendous!

Fox commentary team, find some decent commentators that can actually describe what is going on in front of them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palitu

comments? laws?

---

Here be The Way We Referee It this year:

Lifting tackles that place players in danger of injury must have serious consequences.
The onus is on the tackler to complete the tackle safely. Dropping or throwing tackled players once they are in a dangerous position is to be strongly sanctioned.

Any time a tackled player's legs are lifted above horizontal it should result in a yellow card as a minimum.

If the tackled player is lifted and lands on his shoulder or head area it should result in a red card.
A tackled player placing a hand down at the last second to stop a 'head or shoulder area landing' should not influence this sanction.

player raising him self(leaping) into the tackle... Slipper should have been the one in the bin but then commonsence it not in the law book...maybe time for the refs to get some balls...aka it takes leather balls to play rugby

Jono Lamce was yellow carded early in the first half for a lifting tackle and I have to say it was a pretty ordinary call

Number 9 for the Sharks just copped a yellow for a lifting tackle as well

Rebels player landed on his rear end

Horrible decision!

I'd say refs are playing to instructions from above.

Fans: "Refs grow some balls!"
Refs: "OK!"
Refs panel: "You're fired!"
Refs: "Dammit..."

Beige
You got it. Refs are simply applying directions included in ARU (and likely SANZAR) game management guidelines on those tackles. I agree it was very very soft in the FORCE game, but if they don't, then they will bear the brunt in appointments, career.

Oh what to do ?

Sorry, I meant REDS game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecky

Here be The Way We Referee It this year:

Lifting tackles that place players in danger of injury must have serious consequences.
The onus is on the tackler to complete the tackle safely. Dropping or throwing tackled players once they are in a dangerous position is to be strongly sanctioned.

Any time a tackled player's legs are lifted above horizontal it should result in a yellow card as a minimum.

If the tackled player is lifted and lands on his shoulder or head area it should result in a red card.
A tackled player placing a hand down at the last second to stop a 'head or shoulder area landing' should not influence this sanction.

---

OK, so since the player jumped into the air, the tackler didn't actually 'lift' then. the player simply rotated around his centre of gravity, which was a lot higher than the tackler.

But i guess it is a law like in AFL, where there is no room for interpretation to try and rid the game of lifting tackles. It just annoys me that it can be caused by the player, adn the tackler gets the bin.

the other interpretation that is annoying me is the refs application of "through the gate"
during my coaches course we were shown by Tinks what "through the gate" is and this is simply the width of the tackler and the tackled player on the ground. if they are lying cross pitch then the gate is much wider. i saw at least twice where the ref blew up clean outs that were legitimately through the gate. It seams he applied the rule that "if the player comes in at an angle despite him actually engaging from directly behind the tackle zone, he is illegally entering"

ecky what is your enterpretation on this?

Zimeric, I agree with you and Tinky's explanation is spot on. Unfortunately there are times when a player comes thru the gate but because they are at an angle, this can be pinged..this is incorrect. Refs are taught to look for 'triggers' and one is bodies facing up the pitch - it is obviously not foolproof.
Another annoying one is entry into the ruck, where it is perfectly possibly to join a ruck or maul at an angle, on the side, and be onside (feet behind hindmost feet - there is no gate in a ruck but you'll hear commentators say there is all the time). Unfortunately this too can be over pinged, partly because it looks wrong - and to be fair to refs, most of the crowd think it's wrong too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zimeric

the other interpretation that is annoying me is the refs application of "through the gate"
during my coaches course we were shown by Tinks what "through the gate" is and this is simply the width of the tackler and the tackled player on the ground. if they are lying cross pitch then the gate is much wider. i saw at least twice where the ref blew up clean outs that were legitimately through the gate. It seams he applied the rule that "if the player comes in at an angle despite him actually engaging from directly behind the tackle zone, he is illegally entering"

ecky what is your enterpretation on this?

---

Firstly, let me thank my protege sprogrugby for his insight :D

My interpretation is much like sprogrugby's, (and remember Tinky never, ever would have had the opportunity to come through any gate when playing as he was a front-rower....:iconrofl:)BUT:

The main issue is what it looks like, from where the referee's positioned relative to the ruck. If it looks like too extreme an angle then the ref will likely ping it. Remember in suburban rugby no-one has the benefit of a TV replay, so it will always get picked up on televised matches because the telecast can show the replay. That doesn't help the referee at all, as the ref only has one shot at the decision, based on what it looked like at the time it happened.