Wednesday May 30, 2012 Manu Tuilagi tip-tackle citing dismissed ahead of South Africa tour

31 Comments

• 

  browner

  consideration.....newlywed..... LMAO fab !

  Reply
• 

  browner

  It's all about degree ....... I'm no MT fan, but he kindof drove him sideways not downwards, players reactions don't always tell 100% but no-one in the HQ side batted a eyelid .... which likely says it all, and remember this was a 'pressure' match. i agree with xxxwookie

  Reply
• 

  pretzel

  lucky for you, I got sin binned the last time I put a boot on a player, and it wasn't even THAT bad.... The guy would have rolled out in tatters if he'd lay where he was 5 years ago!!

  Reply
• 

  stroudos

  Colombes, this has already been covered further up the page mate:xxxwookie May 30, 2012 2:39 pm Hartley got an 8 week ban based on no evidence. I'm far from saying he didn't do it, but it sounded rather a lot like conjecture. Someone said he did it so it happened. More to the point, he wasn't banned by the RFU and if you're implying that everyone wants to make England happy, you're on the very wrong path. I think you may remember a year ago, Manu was expected to compete in the Churchill cup in the hope that he may gain the experience necessary for an England world cup campaign. In spite of this, the RFU banned him for a punch which led to him not playing for the Saxons.

  Reply
• 

  colombes

  Tuilagi would have never been banned for that as the RFU never sanction the internationals before England matchs (CQFD: Hartley soft 8 weeks ban) as the tip tackle didn't provocate injury (thanks to Care movement) as the refs still can't harmonize a coherent and strict sanction on these tip tackles. from barnes laissez-faire to Rolland direct calls, another world...

  Reply
• 

  pretzel

  I believe Tuilagi's lawyers put forward that Care's foot or knee or something hit the ground before Care's upper body (not including the arm)... In this day and age I am surprised players are still tackling in such a fashion given that it is now such a risky technique with regards to bans/cards...

  Reply
• 

  stroudos

  Exactly. I am happy to report though, that in the VERY amateur leagues I play in the time-honoured custom of raking studs down the back of a git who's deliberately killing the ball is alive and well...

  Reply
• 

  stroudos

  I hate to be the one to bring up the BOD-Umaga-Mealamu incident (given the tendency for discussions to suddenly disintegrate), but I think it's true to say that that incident was a major factor - in fact the main catalyst - for the change in tackle laws. Completely illogical of course, because that was not a tackle, it was a clearing-out at a ruck. Whatever your opinion of the legality of Umaga and Mealamu's actions that day, it was clearly not a tip tackle, dump tackle, or even a spear tackle. So the IRB basically missed the target completely and clamped down on a non-existent problem. Describing that ruck-clearout-gone-wrong as a spear tackle is the reason rugby fans have to put up with all this frustrating BS around the tackle area now.

  Reply
• 

  stroudos

  Pleased that you made the distinction between spear and dump/tip in your second post. I'm pretty sure people have been injured from spear tackles, but the old-fashioned dump tackle is relatively harmless. I define spear as deliberately driving the player downwards towards the ground. Having said that, I remember not that many years ago team-mates (and I think commentators on TV?) commonly using the phrase "lifted him up and inserted him into the ground" and no-one had a problem with that, it was simply considered a good tackle.

  Reply
• 

  stroudos

  Pleased that you made the distinction between spear and dump/tip in your second post. I'm pretty sure people have been injured from spear tackles, but the old-fashioned dump tackle is relatively harmless. I define spear as deliberately driving the player downwards towards the ground. Having said that, I remember not that many years ago team-mates (and I think commentators on TV?) commonly using the phrase "lifted him up and inserted him into the ground" and no-one had a problem with that, it was simply considered a good tackle.

  Reply
• 

  pretzel

  I was actually referring to the other aspects of the game, I know the scrums are a shambles.. I have yet to hear of a player injured from a spear tackle... I understand that for every 1 spear tackle there are probably a million "normal" tackles, therefore to compare the stats, they cannot really be shown like for like, (if that makes sense)... However out of ALL these horrific spear tackles, why have we not heard of any injuries? Are they just not well publicised or are they not occurring? Correct, a red card is a ban, however what we have nowadays is MORE red cards, MORE yellow cards and even more bans... And more frequently we have seen yellow cards = bans... How can that be the case? If I do something so terrible in a match that they say I should miss 4 matches, then how can a referee possibly feel that it is worth only a 10 minute sit down... Again I understand that the panels assessing these things have hours to sit and watch, slow motion footage, many different angles etc.. but is it too much to expect some sort of consistency, i.e. red cards = bans, yellow cards = nothing more... There should never be any intent to injure your opponent, however that is far from my point. Spear tackles, again I have no quarrels with the bans, or the cards.. by tip tackles, dump tackles, just general BIG tackles, being penalised in the way we have seen? I personally think it's a travesty that THIS tackle in the video is worthy of a penalty!!!

  Reply
• 

  xxxwookie

  I've personally never heard one say anything about the horizontal, but for the same reason as commentators. It's a bit more convoluted to quote the law at someone so using a phrase like "taken through the horizontal and put down on his head" is easier I suppose. The "horizontal" element though is not part of the law. You can lift the player through the horizontal all you like as long as he's put down horizontally.

  Reply
• 

  xxxwookie

  To suggest that the scrum is well policed is actually madness and it's a subject of constant debate. The majority of injuries at scrum time would come from collapsed scrums which happens far too much, sometimes deliberately, often from being poorly set, but that's a separate discussion. The difference is of course that a "tip tackle" is much easier to see and define with video evidence. The end of the day though - a red card is an automatic ban, but anything deemed worthy of a red card is automatically looked into by a disciplinary panel. In much the same way, any incident that could have been red or yellow that comes under law 10.4 (dangerous play) can be subsequently looked at and an appropriate ban given. i.e. if Manu did tip tackle and was not punished, he can be in much the same way that gougers and punchers can be. Often it works out better for you if you're caught on the pitch. There are limited numbers of injuries from spears because they're illegal and people try to avoid it. This is still a gentleman's sport and the point is that you're never trying to injure your opponent and to instill that, you are responsible for making a safe (as possible) tackle and putting the man down. There is a huge chance of being injured in a spear tackle though, same as I've seen many people injured when dragged down in the lineout

  Reply
• 

  thamesrowingclub

  Well put Pretzel^. Was there any data that suggested catastrophic injuries being caused by dump tackles? I'm not sure. I think we're looking at the game like amateur players. The powers that be are looking at the game as a marketable family friendly product. All the stuff that scared Moms is being driven out of the game. Same thing with boots to players lying on the ball. There was no rash of injuries, it just looked bad on tv.

  Reply
• 

  oceansnz

  Well done. I think you've hit the main point on the head here. There was nothing wrong with Tuilagi's tackle, but the fact that Hayman's was similar and gets 4 weeks off raises the inconsistency issue.

  Reply
• 

  pretzel

  Stroudos has pointed this out time, time, time, time, time, time, aaaaaaaaaand time again: How many players have actually ended up with severe injuries through tip/spear tackles? How many players have ended up with severe injuries through legitimate tackles? How many players have ended up with severe injuries through general game play; Scrums, mauls, rucks? I can't say I am aware of a big table of stats showing the above "stuff" however, out of all the incidents I have read about, it appears that the well policed and well supported parts of the game are far more dangerous and "scary" than spear tackles... Whilst I am aware that a spear tackles/tip tackles don't come under your 5 a day, and I am sure those on the receiving end of them don't feel overcome with pleasure, they have appeared not to be the primary cause of severe injuries... Again I understand that we would like for them to stay that way and not suddenly produce a horrific stat, but the way that people (often commentators) keep on about how utterly dangerous THEY ARE, is nonsense, or at least the statistics say so... I believe spear tackles should be policed and perhaps should carry a red card, but all this call for bans that seem to come about is daft... it wasn't that long ago that a lot of people were agreeing that spear tackles need red cards without any real mention of bans, and now it seems the great debates amongst officials is about how long the ban's will be, rather than "was it the right card/no card"... I don't know about you guys but in my experience, when I am playing rugby, not an awful lot has changed... I have suffered a few broken/dislocated digits, bumps, bruises, cuts, the odd deserved black eye, but no increase in injuries... so has the game itself got more dangerous to warrant these bans/cards.... or is it indeed getting softer... For the record, this is about spear tackles/tip tackles/dump tackles in general.. I know there was no card or ban for this...

  Reply
• 

  stroudos

  A) the tackle - beautiful, well-timed, perfectly executed. Not dangerous in this world or any other parallel reality. Tuilagi caressed Care to the ground with the consideration a newlywed might place his bride on the honeymoon bed. B) Wayne Barnes' call - absolutely spot-on. Assessed the tackle in real time with magnificent understanding and empathy. Applied logic and common sense to his interpretation of the law. Communicated his decision in a timely and very clear way to all on the field. C) the citing being dropped? - the only reasonable outcome. The original citing was a total travesty of the citing process.

  Reply
• 

  guy

  Watching the first replay: he even moves his arm up the body of Care to try and make sure he lands safely (I know: a matter of interpretation). Very happy he has not been suspended. Sensible decision.

  Reply
• 

  pretzel

  So why do referee's talk about it all the time?

  Reply
• 

  wolonel

  Actually Tana is right Patrick! It aint tiddlywinks... In tiddlywinks any of the players can send any of the opposition cartwheeling through the air with no censure whatsoever. As us humans need to go to work or school or need the use of our spines and legs and stuff, we have a couple of rules in rugby (the best game on the planet) that allow us to keep this game going generation after healthy generation. Maybe straight red cards for spears and tips, along with lesser bans might be fairer, as they are rarely 'dirty play' by 'dirty players'? It all tends to come down to luck a lot of the time. Or even a 'tackle TMO'?

  Reply
• 

  kettlerugby

  Correct call. Bit beyond horizontal but didnt let go or drive him down. No injury, no reaction, ref called it, End of.

  Reply
• 

  xxxwookie

  The "horizontal" is a myth invented by commentators to explain something to spectators. Like a lot of these things, it's more confusing than helpful. The law only states what happens at the end of the tackle. When Care hits the floor, the contact is on the arms and chest, not the shoulder/neck/head defined in the lawbook.

  Reply
• 

  xxxwookie

  Hartley got an 8 week ban based on no evidence. I'm far from saying he didn't do it, but it sounded rather a lot like conjecture. Someone said he did it so it happened. More to the point, he wasn't banned by the RFU and if you're implying that everyone wants to make England happy, you're on the very wrong path. I think you may remember a year ago, Manu was expected to compete in the Churchill cup in the hope that he may gain the experience necessary for an England world cup campaign. In spite of this, the RFU banned him for a punch which led to him not playing for the Saxons.

  Reply
• 

  katman

  Good call. We want their strongest side here in SA.

  Reply
• 

  stroudos

  Wahey, here he is, it's Mr Sourgrapes. Thought there'd be one along soon. Your comment's all wrong: he was cited (by and idiot), but hasn't been banned. He hasn't been banned because the citing itself was a complete travesty. No case to answer.

  Reply
• 

  stroudos

  Actually just watched again, Jonny's wasn't a spear at all was it. Just an awesome tackle. And by the way, here's the complete series of play from that game, where Wilko was basically tackling anything that moved, including the classic "Bang - Get down" comment: http://www.rugbydump.com/2006/10/31/jonny-wilkinson-big-hit-on-justin-bishop-in-2003

  Reply
• 

  pretzel

  *Yawn*... A) Perfect B) Good call given today's version of rugby C) Good call... A few points.. this tackle was FINE in my eyes, and considering I have only been playing rugby a few years more than Manu it says a lot about how the game has changed!!! Also see tpiddy7's comment and subsequent link... So anyway, my opinion of the tackle counts for jacks**t.. This tackle (in the eyes of the law) was beyond the horizontal and therefore card worthy, so good call from Barnes to use his judgement.... My final point is "watch Tuilagi's body position." He goes in low, then drives/stands UP.. what do players expect is going to happen? I understand the driving back, and the driving up technique when it comes to tackling, but Manu stands up... now there is very little that can go RIGHT (in the eyes of the law!) with that kind of technique... Care was only ever going to go down upper body first... We see it time and time again, last week it was Heymans.. etc... I find it surprising that players are even tackling like this nowadays given the card happy referee's and the ban happy governing bodies...

  Reply
• 

  stroudos

  Classic. But not a fair comparison, Jonny's was an old-school spear tackle, just in the days when spear tackles were applauded not condemned. You're right about the commentary - unfortunately the clip you posted just cut off before the real point of difference, where Brian Moore says "Look at that...", he then went on to say "Bang! Get down!". Which was considered perfectly valid commentary at that time.

  Reply
• 

  tpiddy7

  Good call. It also reminded me of Jonny tackling Justin Bishop (2003) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbr20VPzBqU&feature=relmfu Quite amazing to see the way the game (and subsequently commentary) has changed.

  Reply
• 

  jonowright

  think Wayne barnes has got that spot on. solid hit, yes it went above horizontal but he has used judgement well in the situation. far too many times we have seen tackles like that being yellow carded. also very please that tuilagi is around for the SA tour, will be very useful

  Reply
• 

  ruggernut

  Right call in my opinion. In real time it didn't look like anything at all. I think Wayne Barnes has it right. That is was beyond the horizontal but not dangerous. He's also clearly taken into account the emotion that all players will be feeling and understands there will be a little extra bite in some of these hits. Fair call and no ban seems correct.

  Reply