Horwill & Bismarck Du Plessis slaps


Catch up with MND sufferering Bok legend


Brian O'Driscoll Breakdown Masterclass


Cheslin Kolbe dazzling run, no look pass


Ben Funnell slamming tackle on Hawkins


Ben Tameifuna banned for pushing referee


Tameifuna's huge hit on Michael Hooper


Joe Marler and his unsual pets


George Pisi hit makes Shane Geraghty ill

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Brodie Retallick issued off-field yellow card for tip tackle on Andries Bekker

New Zealand lock Brodie Retallick was handed an off-field Yellow card following his team's 32-16 win over South Africa in Soweto on Saturday. The dangerous tackle was made on opposition second rower Andries Bekker, but was not penalised at the time.

Retallick lifted the legs of Bekker in a tackle, which resulted in the 2.08m lock landing on his back in what is nowadays considering a dangerous tackle, contravening 'Law 10.4 (j) lifting a player from the ground and either dropping or driving that player's head and/or upper body into the ground'.

Referee Alain Rolland, the same man that showed Wales' Sam Warburton red in the 2011 Rugby World Cup semi final, saw the tackle but chose not to penalise or card it, instead giving a penalty for a different offence a few moments later.

By the letter of the law the tackle was dangerous and while it wasn't worthy of a red card, it should have been dealt with at the time. Subsequently, Retallick was issued an off-field yellow card by a SANZAR citing commisioner following a review of the match footage. 

The off-field yellow card will have no impact on the All Blacks' next match, against the Wallabies in Brisbane in two weeks time, but it will count negatively towards Retallick's disciplinary record. 

Do you think Rolland should have taken action at the time, or are you of the opinion that tip-tackles over policed currently? Let us know in the comments below.

Posted at 6:48 pm | 64 comments

All Blacks remain unbeaten with strong win over Boks

Sam Warburton red card in Rugby World Cup Semi Final

Fourie and Cooper both suspended for dangerous tackles

Jean De Villiers suspended for spear tackle on Rene Ranger

Bryan Habana crosses for outstanding Stormers team try

Andries Bekker tells the little ones to settle down

Posted in Big Hits & Dirty Play

Viewing 64 comments

lambchop1234 October 07, 2012 8:11 pm

Definitely worthy of a penalty as he has tipped his legs beyond the horizontal. Not worth anything more though because from my view it wasn't malicious. A penalty and a chat would have been a sufficient sanction!

· Reply · Report

guest October 07, 2012 8:19 pm

maybe a yellow one but no more, not dangerous...

· Reply · Report

Bigbokhunter October 07, 2012 8:23 pm

Worthy of a penalty but not malicious enough for a yellow. It looks a lot worse because Bekker wriggles on his back in the fall. Penalty, no card.

· Reply · Report

Pretzel October 07, 2012 8:33 pm

Agreed, from the picture at the start of the article I was thinking "wow how could this NOT be a card!!!"

· Reply · Report

Alex_The_Kiid October 09, 2012 5:01 am

That is EXACTLY what RD wanted! Come on RD, why put in a picture of when Bekker rolled up on his neck, and also bringing up Warburtons tackle as if they are the same and should/could be treated the same.

Stirring are we?

· Reply · Report

Facepalm October 07, 2012 8:38 pm

I agree. Bekker kicks him self over to try and turn himself which, in real time, makes it look far worse than it actually is. To be perfectly honest for me this isn't even a penalty. Retallick puts him down with reasonable care onto his upper back. Not dissimilar to Ferris' tackle in the 6 Nations against Wales.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain there's no rule about lifting a player past 90 degrees. So why does the commentator make reference to this?

That said I don't really understand why players bother lifting these days. They know citing commissioners are going to be very trigger happy with bans so what's the point in taking the risk.

· Reply · Report

stroudos October 07, 2012 9:14 pm

You're right, the 90 degrees bit is just a commentator's invention, as far as I'm aware anyway. Bit like the "he didn't have his arms wrapped" staple phrase.

The IRB directive is this:
Law 10.4(j) reads: 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.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient


For me, the Retallick tackle would fit somewhere in between the second and third cases above, so applying a retrospective yellow seems about right.

· Reply · Report

FoXtroT October 07, 2012 9:22 pm

I think the 90 degrees bit comes from this part of the law: "player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground".

Now it stands to reason that if your feet have been moved past the 90 degrees your upperback/neck/head will be the first to hit the ground.

· Reply · Report

stroudos October 07, 2012 9:35 pm

Indeed. But as you've just reiterated, "the act of lifting a player porst narnty degrees is penalarsable" is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the law or directive.

· Reply · Report

Pretzel October 08, 2012 2:31 am

You said it yourself Stroudos, "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." So as Foxtrot says, it stands to reason that if your feet are off the ground and your head/upperbody hit the ground first, you've most likely gone past 90 degrees. Referee's often say, "beyond the horizontal" it's the same sort of thing, that choice of words is not in the laws.

The reason 90 degrees comes into it, is in order to make a short snappy sentence so that everyone can understand, rather than actually blurting out the entire law. It's the same as the wrapping thing.

Commentators words should not always be taken completely literally, take dear Bill Mclaren for example, are we really to assume the players he talks about are actually mad octopi? Or rampaging giraffes? Problem we have here nowadays is that a) commentators are commenting on the rules far more whilst not necessarily having a 100% grasp on them themselves, and b) fans are taking their comments literally and trying to apply these layman's laws incorrectly, wrapping being an example.

· Reply · Report

stroudos October 07, 2012 9:37 pm

That moustache warrants at least a two week ban though.

· Reply · Report

Pretzel October 08, 2012 2:44 am

Getting in some training for Movember perhaps? Hope we're all going to participate!

I told myself I was going to do it this year, although with a potential change in employment happening around then, I don't want to risk it with having shoddy "tache" floating around under my nose... *sigh*.. Although maybe I will get positive points if I say I'm doing it for charity?!?? Lol...

· Reply · Report

matt October 07, 2012 9:57 pm

Retallick lifted Bekker's feet up past his own shoulder and lets go, if Bekker hadn't risked his arm and shoulder by sticking arm out he would have landed on his head, that is as clear a breach of Law 10.4 below as I can imagine.

· Reply · Report

Eggman October 07, 2012 8:23 pm

Maybe a penalty, defs not more.. Looked to me like Bekker tried to make it look worse than it was by rolling on to his upper back/neck after Retallik let go of him.. However he probably would've landed on his neck had he not put his forearm to the ground before impact, thus straightening his body again, so a penalty for that...

· Reply · Report

Redexile October 07, 2012 9:08 pm

All players and fans want and expect is consistency from the referee - it is absolutely unbelievable that the same referee red carded Warburton for a far less serious tackle, and effectively ended Wales World Cup tournament...shame on Alain Roland....

· Reply · Report

stroudos October 07, 2012 9:19 pm

The conclusion I draw from Rolland's contrasting application of the law in these two cases is that if you drop a small bloke it's a red, whereas if you're strong enough to lift a big second row then fair play. Maybe he thinks big guys have different types of neck bones or something.

· Reply · Report

Eggman October 07, 2012 9:40 pm

They aren't really comparable... Warburton lifted the French player, turned him around, and let go of him, so that he crashed neck first into the ground. Here Rattelick tackles the player, lifts him and then goes to ground with him, causing him to land on his back, yet not his neck.

· Reply · Report

matt October 07, 2012 9:53 pm

I think you need to take another look at these two tackles mate...

· Reply · Report

Pretzel October 08, 2012 2:42 am

Actually, I was going to disagree with Redexile here because I was sure Warburtons was totally different, however, I agree with Redexile, the two are VERY comparable. Warburton appears to release the French player at a similar time to Retallick releasing Bekker, except the difference here is Retallick seems to avoid going down to try and secure the ball, whereas Warburton is automatically down over the French player and secures the ball... That I am almost 100% sure is the only difference between the two hits...

I honestly thought at the time that Warburton was very harshly punished in that game. I think either Rolland has decided (off camera) that it was a harsh red (after stating that he had no regrets with that red) and is trying to get back on track, or he has no consistency at all...

In fact eggman, reading over your comment again, you're seriously inaccurate in your description of THIS tackle. "Rattelick...goes to ground with him" Um.. not quite...

· Reply · Report

UpandAway October 08, 2012 11:41 am

Retallick's was borderline but I can understand why he was issued a yellow.

Warburton's was more dangerous, happened quicker, and didn't give Clerc a chance to break his fall which is why he landed on his upper back and neck.......... IMO yellow would have sufficed but the law probably necessitates that it was a Red........ a few more degrees and it would have been extremely dangerous.

· Reply · Report

stroudos October 07, 2012 9:24 pm

Comedy moment about 7-8 seconds in - Bryan Habana rushing up hoping for pass directly from the scrumhalf, runs straight into Sam Whitelock who, without actually "saying" anything, unequivocally says "piss off!!".

· Reply · Report

r_hinder October 07, 2012 11:57 pm

Ha ha, spotted that too! So much awesome "Get outta here!"

· Reply · Report

NK October 08, 2012 12:38 am

If you look at this again, Sam Whitelock was actually over a meter off-side here.

· Reply · Report

stroudos October 08, 2012 5:25 am

Yep, ref spotted the offside too. Still hilarious though.

· Reply · Report

NK October 08, 2012 12:35 am

The 90 degrees rule is from rugby league where it is an automatic penalty minimum if you lift the player past the horizontal......which may be something that needs to introduced into union to deal with this blatant dangerous play and obvious yellow card.
I think that the only people who think that this is not a yellow card must be a NZ supporter.
Whatever your opinion of the rule changes over the past few years, this is a rule of safety and must be adhered to completely by referees. I agree with a previous comment, it is surprising that Alain Rolland would red card Sam Warburton and not even a penalty for this!

· Reply · Report

Pretzel October 08, 2012 7:08 am

What? You think this is a yellow card?!?!? sigh..

· Reply · Report

hayden October 08, 2012 6:21 am

Technically i understand how you can compare this to the Warburton tackle... however with the tacklers intent and motion in the Warburtons case, this tackle is soft compared & i wouldnt even compare, forget that its the same ref. I would be surprised if he even gets a week, but knowing the circus of SANZAR he will get 1 week to be made an example of. Every man can control his own actions & i think if Retallick had some more weight behind that frame it would have been a different story.

· Reply · Report

Pretzel October 08, 2012 7:11 am

I totally don't understand what you're saying.. This tackle is nearly identical to Warburtons... I don't even see how any intent varies? Have you watched the videos together? Both players are trying to tackle the opposition player. The only difference is the very end where Retallick lets go and ignores the tackled player, whereas Warburton lets go, but falls down and grabs the ball as he gets to his feet... Neither actions surprising when you consider Retallick is a second row and Warburton is a 7....

Pretty sure Retallick has only got a off field yellow and will get no more for it...

· Reply · Report

Alex_The_Kiid October 09, 2012 4:51 am

Stop talking utter rubbish! This tackle is nowhere near identical to the Warburton tackle. How you came to that conclusion can only be explained as: you are blind, or you have no clue about the game of Rugby. Im guessing the latter.

In Warburton's tackle, he lifts Clerc as high as he can from the hips (meaning Clercs legs are vertical, and torso almost vertical) and drives the players neck into the ground.

In Rettalick's tackle, he hits low wraps up the legs and pulls/lifts them from underneath Bekker resulting in him falling on his back.

Two completely different tackles. One a whole lot more dangerous than the other. Its funny, and starting to become boring, how ignorant and/or bitter many of today's Rugby supporters are, to the point where the many bloggers cannot be objective. Very soccer fan-like sadly. Pretzel you've been talking a lot of crap lately for someone who doesn't understand relative velocity. So your opinions have NO credibility.

· Reply · Report

Pretzel October 10, 2012 10:26 am

As I've said before troll.. If I have been deemed by my RD brethren (not you) to have lost credibility then I will take comfort in the fact that unlike you, I actually had some to begin with! Bye bye.

· Reply · Report

h October 08, 2012 10:17 am

Warburton completely dominates clerc from 1st point of the hit and drives but let's go with some follow through for the ball...in no way could clerc recover like bekker could since retallik only dominated and drove in a lateral movement.. I guess what im saying is it looks different due to clerc being utterly dominated.

· Reply · Report

Phill L October 08, 2012 6:23 am

If there was an offence committed why did not the ref pick it up , and he was in the perfect position, the AR didn't put his flag out , no discussion was entered into , why was he given a yellow card , when the officials were right there , surely they should be reprimanded for not making a decision that was contrary to IRB directive. They should be given a one week suspension from all forms of rugby , a players life was in danger and they stood by and did nothing!
The IRB directive is this:
Law 10.4(j) reads: 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.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

· Reply · Report

stroudos October 08, 2012 10:02 am

I assume you added "a players life was in danger and they stood by and did nothing!" just for dramatic effect?

Fair point though, I wonder if the refs do get reprimanded when their on-field decisions are over-ruled. Presumably they do, but just behind the scenes?

· Reply · Report

Baldric October 08, 2012 10:26 am

As a referee I cant understand how the match officials missed this, particularly the nearside tj whose job is to trail the play watching for incidents off the ball. Shouldve been a yellow at the time by the letter of the laws of the game.
Yes all refs are assessed game by game and even more strenuously at international level. Given Rollys blue with the subs in the aussie match on top of this you may see him fall in the pecking order a bit.

· Reply · Report

Phill L October 08, 2012 5:42 pm

stroudos , the point i'm am making is the IRB uses strong language in anything they deem foul play. I am using IRB language and IRB law. They are quick to finger point at players but DO NOT Criticise IRB refs to the same degree. I think its about time IRB refs start to come under pressure by National unions, Captains and players. The refs at International level are given too much power and can destroy a game ie Warburton incident.We currently have Ref , AR's TMO's , citing commissioners now they will add more power to TMO

· Reply · Report

WelshOsprey October 08, 2012 9:21 am

Seriously, fuck rolland, this is much worse than warburtons

· Reply · Report

stroudos October 08, 2012 10:05 am

Mate, I really got the impression Rolland thought "ah well, he's a big strong lad, he'll be all right", whereas with Ickle Vincent he worried more for the well-being of the little man.

· Reply · Report

h October 08, 2012 10:10 am

Just watched Warburtons hit again...the pace he hits clerc at and clercs inability to control Warburtons power or even his own body makes it look so much worse...this was one lank stopping another lank and driving him back but bekker can control himself because retallik isn't dominating

· Reply · Report

Baldric October 08, 2012 10:32 am

http://p.twimg.com/AbyShhqCQAI1G62.jpg:large
here is the memo issued to all refs prior to the RWC.
I guess what is pertanent here is taht the law doesnt mention this directly but the memo does, is that a player whose legs are brought above the horizontal in a tackle is deemed to have been tip or spear tackled.
As a ref we are constantly being told that you cannot ref intent, so take that out of any arguement for and against right away

· Reply · Report

Guy October 08, 2012 11:57 am

My conclusion is that the referee did nothing because the tackled player kicked his feet up in the air the moment he landed. That made it quite hard to judge the tackle on it's own merit.

Besides: I have a sneaky suspicion that kicking your feet up in the air whilst being on the ground, is more or less illegal too. The same thing has given me an tiny injury to my right eye (a broken tear-tube or something) it can be considered dangerous.

So in this case it's an eye for an eye (pun intended): both actions no penalty.

· Reply · Report

rugby08 October 08, 2012 12:02 pm

This is ridiculous. I give up

I can't believe those of you who are saying Warburton's was worse than this.

Look, i'm of the opinion that tackles like this one and Warburton's aren't worth red cards.

BUT where is the consistently for crying out loud!!!

· Reply · Report

Guy October 08, 2012 1:02 pm

One worse than the other? I don't know. Warburton himself seems to have no problem with the red card, looking back on it. At least, that's what he says.

Consistency? I am not sure there is going to be any as long as a human being has to make split second decisions in situations that can be really hard to oversee. If the ref doesn't see it and the linesman don't .... well, I guess somehow it must have been quite hard to spot. As I said: maybe because he himself mait look worse than it really was.

· Reply · Report

rugby08 October 08, 2012 2:32 pm

It's not that difficult bruv.

All the citing commissioner had to do was look at the laws.

Law 10.4:
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.

IRB directive:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

· Reply · Report

Guy October 08, 2012 3:15 pm

Apparently, someone thought this tackle was considered to be of the third category. Maybe someone thought there WAS regard for player safety in this case. I don't know, I have not seen the decision in writing.

What I do know is that, as long as there is a certain amount of interpretation involved, there is not going to be consistency. Ever.

· Reply · Report

Tc October 08, 2012 2:13 pm

Despite the kiwis being clearly being a cut above in the playing stakes at the moment, why doesn't this get cited? A post match yellow is a pointless sanction

Come to think of it, who was the last nz player to be cited, or even punished for foul play?

· Reply · Report

Alex_The _Kiid October 09, 2012 4:55 am

It must be a conspiracy!!!...The IRB, The Refs, and Santa Clause are all in on it...oh and the Easter Bunny too lmfao!

· Reply · Report

DM October 08, 2012 4:33 pm

It just goes to show that milking anything these days usually pays off to a certain extent. Before you know it the game will be as acting based as soccer.

More importantly than this imitation of synchronised swimming... How should those laser pointing fans in Argentina be punished??? And do you think there are enough tv cameras in the stadium to sacrifice a couple for pinpointing these pricks for security to nab 'em?

· Reply · Report

Melkiwi October 09, 2012 12:15 am

The tackle should have warranted a yellow card because it was a tip tackle i just watched sams tackle and you can't compare the two or even say it's worse, the difference is the force of the impact and the position of the impact. Bekker fell on his back with not much force other than his own body weight, where as cleric fell on his trap and neck region with sams force driving down


· Reply · Report

Leinster Johnny October 09, 2012 7:03 am

The Kiwis gave away loads of cynical penalties in this test to prevent quick ball for the Springboks. Think the penalty count was something like 13-3. They also got a yellow. I'll say it again, these guys continue to get away with murder!

· Reply · Report

Melkiwi October 09, 2012 8:46 am

As you said they were penalised and yellow carded so how is that getting away with murder?

· Reply · Report

stroudos October 09, 2012 2:35 pm

After the Argentina game last week I got a bit obsessive with that game's stats, which showed both teams very similar on most measures, with the Argies enjoying both territorial and possession advantages.

You can see exactly the same pattern this week, with SA taking 55% of possession and 59% of territory. Other than that, stats for both teams were very similar with notable exceptions in the same areas as in the NZ v Arg game:

Tackling success: NZ 95%, SA 86%
Clean breaks: NZ 8, SA 2
Metres run with the ball: NZ 386, SA 178
Turnovers conceded: NZ 7, SA 16

And, most significantly, (in my opinion!):
Penalties conceded: NZ 12, SA 4
I draw the same conclusion that I came to last week - killing the oppo's attack, whether legitimately or slightly less legitimately, is a fundamental part of New Zealand's game plan. If the other team play well but can't register points, they lose confidence and make mistakes. That is when the All Blacks pounce and score. Easy.

And, to reiterate, I'm not calling them cheats; this is smart rugby.


http://www.espnscrum.com/the-rugby-championship/rugby/match/153855.html

· Reply · Report

Phill L October 09, 2012 5:42 pm

Stroudos excellent assumption. You can glean a lot from stats and your correct smart rugby. Another point to be made is the AB's have been building since the Irish tests. Watch closely at the matches look at moves , running lines , players positions on the field. Note they don't panic when the opposition score, As for others who suggest cheating, the AB's have been accused of cheating since 1905 because the way they have played its not British.............

· Reply · Report

Guy October 10, 2012 7:03 am

And the funny thing is: most of the 'cjeating' claims (imho) come from the Southern Hemisphere, mainly South Africa.

Maybe because they get their ass whooped bij the All Blacks more often than teams from the North, not sure. Irrespective of where you come from, claiming you got cheated every time you lose, just makes you a bad looser.

· Reply · Report

Pretzel October 10, 2012 10:32 am

Hmm, I think what we have to be careful about with talking about this sort of stuff is that we make a clear definition that if a player "cheats" it does not mean you have been "cheated" out of a win.

Habana vs me in a race to see who gets to the end of the pitch first, if he starts a split second before me, I can claim he was a cheat by leaving the blocks early, but I CANNOT claim that as a result of it, I was cheated out of a win, because I would know that I'd be well and truly spanked either way.... even if I left the blocks early!...

So although McCaw may "cheat", or use clever dubious tactics that most flankers can only dream about doing as sneakily as him, it does not automatically mean the opposition would have walked away with a win had McCaw not done what he does...

· Reply · Report

Pretzel October 09, 2012 6:24 pm

Careful Stroudos, this is now the second post you have made regarding NZ and penalty counts, you make one more post about them and penalties before 2013 and you'll be held accountable for your blasphemy!

· Reply · Report

Leinster Johnny October 09, 2012 7:05 am

ps it makes no difference whether there is intent or not a tip tackle is like a high tackle-it's either high or it's not! Warburton did not intentionally tip in the WC either!

· Reply · Report

BondTr4der October 09, 2012 8:28 pm

He picks him up, turns him over, and drops him. Yellow card.

end of.

· Reply · Report

codbutt October 10, 2012 5:22 pm

He's an All Black and should be allowed to do what he likes, as they always are. Only other teams get penalised especially by Monsieur Rolland.

· Reply · Report

rgclh October 10, 2012 5:34 pm

that is ALAN rolande for you as consistent as a rubber duck plucked!

· Reply · Report

guest October 20, 2012 10:31 am

northern hemisphere refs have no business officiating southern hemisphere rugby.they are too slow,and our game is too fast.he reffed the all black ireland series and was absoloutely hopeless.thats why he blows the whistle so much...so he can catch his bloody breath.nothing wrong with the tackle btw,he rolls over and lands on his side.let men be men,this isnt a boys game.

· Reply · Report

Commenting as Guest | Register or Login

All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.
 
Site Meter