The ambiquity of yellow cards and offences.

Following the debate of the Stephen Ferris yellow card and seeing how it becomes personal for posters when their own players are involved I thought it would be good to show everyone that what happens unfairly to one team happens to the other team as well.

Remember when the British and Irish fans were in uproar when Bakkie Botha took Jones out in the ruck and he got injured? SA fans were up in arms, the springboks themselves did the Bakkies4Justice thing and everyone was ridiculing us.

Have a look at these comparative attempts to clear a ruck.

Look at Donnacha Ryan on 23 seconds of this clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUm9Whlaydc

Then compare it to Bakkies Botha on this clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CM-_JlG64

Donnacha ryan went into the ruck to clear the same Adam Jones in exactly the same fashion. Yet he received no citing, it was never even spoken about again.

Have a look at these comparative tip tackles.

Look at Stephen Ferris on 3min:12 seconds on this clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUm9Whlaydc

Then compare it to Brad Thorne on this clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZchPz1xQII

It happens right in front of Stuart Dickinson and no card.

The point I think that is important to understand is that rugby is a sport that talks to out primal roots and our emotions can run high, we want to defend our players and we want to prosecute other nation’s players. We get personal with each other and the whole thing blows out of proportion.
Maybe we need to look at the inconsistencies of the laws, the way they are interpreted and how impossible it is to maintain objectivity and consistency between different referees.

Perhaps this is the way to get payback?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZchPz1xQII

The citings and cards are just inconsistent between referrees thats the problem, the severity of tackles vary so much that they cannot all deserve the same punishment.

Florian Fritz in this clip ~23 seconds in. Is that REALLY a red card?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALt9gDaf-10

Mike I don't think that is a red, the tackled player didn't go past the horisontal. At best a yellow card.

I wouldnt even say thats a yellow card, looked like a decent tackle to me.

problem is both feet and it wasn't a forward driving tackle, but a lift.

Bakkies Botha. Well, there is history there. History isn't forgotten when a player with history plays. He will always be watched carefully by the opposition fan to see if he's going to be acting true to 'form'.

I think Bakkies hit on Jones was a reaction to the man more than the aggression of his clearing of the ruck.

I'm not saying it was right to always chase a man's reputation rather than what is actually taking place in the game itself but I am saying it is inevitable. If you have a reputation, it'll chase you to the end of your career.

Good stuff, Biltong.
I agree there are major inconsistencies. Not sure if within the Laws, but no doubts from referee to referee.

But, let's start with the premise that things happen very quickly in Rugby, and can be misjudged. This was one of the ressons the Touch Judge position was enhabced to Assistant Referee. In the Bradley Davies situation, the referee did not see it because it was off the ball. The Assistant Referee saw it and called it Yellow, when the replays clearly show it as a Red Card.

Frankly, I never thought the Bakkies Botha play was a penalty of any kind. Perhaps, as suggested earlier, it is human nature to judge someone with a track record than someone with a clean slate. Not saying its right, but is understandable.

The Brad Thorn play was unacceptable and he should have had the book thrown at him.

I like discussion about these kinds of things. This is where consistency eventaully comes from. I don't get where the personal stuff comes from though. If one of my lads picked someone up and drilled him into the ground, I would not be amused.

Great post Biltongbek.

As another example. Much was made of the this famous spear tackle on BOD:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTVhckB3juk

And yet, the Lions got away with this 3 times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLyBpqaXGBc

miteyironpaw wrote:Great post Biltongbek.
the Lions got away with this 3 times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLyBpqaXGBc

Good point!
Instant Red Card. I believe this is why the Lions lost all three matches. Inspiring as mud. Insulting to all.

Can any of the inconsistancies demonstrated be partially explained by which year they happened in?

There has definately been more attention on the Tip tackle in recent years. I don't remember when the Thorn on Smit one happened.

Its an odd thing that the O'Driscoll dump tackle happened 6-and-a-half years ago and it still seems very recent. I would have to believe if that happened today, both Umaga and Mealamu would have been shown red and received long suspensions. I think this tackle was the seminal moment when people started screaming for these kinds of plays to be properly and severely punished. And, in consequence, the IRB in their own plodding fashion, started taking action, which is still not consistently or properly adjuticated. I remember loooking at this afterwards and thinking if he came straight down on his head, he could have fractured his neck and been paralysed or worse.

And in the context of paralysed or worse, I still don't understand why none of the Lions did anything afterwards to even the scores. They stood there meekly, like sheep. They didn't protect thmselves or their teammate and were duly thrashed and not respected. I am not condoning this kind of thing. In fact, this is what we have been working diligently to get out of Rugby. But this was some time ago now, and having come up in Rugby when I did, I cannot help but think harder guys, or simply guys with more character, would have ensured justice was done, especially if the officials wouldn't. Two men went out, in my opinion, to deliberately injure a Rugby player........

MrsP wrote:Can any of the inconsistancies demonstrated be partially explained by which year they happened in?

There has definately been more attention on the Tip tackle in recent years. I don't remember when the Thorn on Smit one happened.

Smit's tip tackle was in the 2009 Tri Nations.

Bakkies charge into the ruck 2009.

But alreay in 2009 tip tackles were carded.

Biltong, these were great examples.

But for those of us here, what kind of penalty/suspension/fine, etc. do you think appropriate for each offense. Let's assume going forwards the punishments will be reasonably consistent. And forget IRB guidelines. Its about us now.

As I said the Bakkies incident was nothing. But what about others?

Grey I would think that clearing a ruck in that manner is nothing wrong with, it happens in every match a number of times and if you take that type of physicality out of rugby, you might as well make it touch rugby.

As far as the tip tackle, I think logic is necessary.

The first situation is when a players feet are off the ground. You can tackle a guy back, similar to the clip of John Smit tackling Brad Thorne where your momentum is going forward and you hit the player with a drving tackle in his bread basket, now referees must be careful not to see that as a dangerous tackle.

For a tackle to qualify as a tip tackle, the tackler has to lift both feet in an attempt to turn the player at leat horisontal to the ground.

So those are my first two criteria.

Both feet
Horisontal with the ground. (or more)

Without both present, there is no tip tackle in my view.

If you tip tackle a guy and let go before he safely reaches the ground RED card.

If you tip tackle a guy (which can happen in the heat of the moment) but you realise what you are doing and bring him as safely to the ground as you can, then only YELLOW card.

That is about as simple as I can see it being. And even then interpretation will vary.

Doc Grey,

i'm not sure the Bakkies one was nothing. It does happen many many times in many many matches and it was totally illogical to penalise Bakkies and not the others but I feel it was an illegal Charge into a ruck in contravention of Law 10 (h),

(h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.

It also caused a significant injury and so could be construed as "dangerous" which you would hope is why it was illegal in the first place.

Now's here's the rub.

Often "dangerous" illegal play will result in no injury and sometimes legal play will result in injury. The question for me is, was Bakkies punished for the resultant injury rather than for the actual offence?

Ryan could have been punished for a similar, although not so robust, a charge. It is interesting to note that the IRB "Laws" section does not give an on the field sanction for that offence. If it was not deemed to warrant a red card it could not have been cited.

It is also interesting to note that Davies said at his hearing that it was not the nature of Ryan's charge at Jones, but rather that it was effective which made him lose his cool.

MrsP wrote:Doc Grey,

i'm not sure the Bakkies one was nothing. It does happen many many times in many many matches and it was totally illogical to penalise Bakkies and not the others but I feel it was an illegal Charge into a ruck in contravention of Law 10 (h),

(h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.

It also caused a significant injury and so could be construed as "dangerous" which you would hope is why it was illegal in the first place.

Now's here's the rub.

Often "dangerous" illegal play will result in no injury and sometimes legal play will result in injury. The question for me is, was Bakkies punished for the resultant injury rather than for the actual offence?

Ryan could have been punished for a similar, although not so robust, a charge. It is interesting to note that the IRB "Laws" section does not give an on the field sanction for that offence. If it was not deemed to warrant a red card it could not have been cited.

It is also interesting to note that Davies said at his hearing that it was not the nature of Ryan's charge at Jones, but rather that it was effective which made him lose his cool.

Mrs P, see this is where perhaps the biased view comes into play. I disagree that there is any difference in the manner in which Bakkies and Ryan went into those two respective rucks.

The fact that is on on the same player makes it even more interesting.

With Bakkies' charge Adam Jones' arm was inside the ruck and had no where to go, ryan's charge Adam Jones' arm was loose, both players used their shoulder to charge into the ruck.

The fact that there was an injury to Joens was the deciding factor. you will NEVER stop that, even if you hand out yellow cards for every charge into a ruck. If that starts becoming a problem for the IRB, pretty soon, we will hav no rucks and we will amalgamate with rugby league. No doubt about that.

what will be next, remove counter rucking, then the tackle, then lo and behold the line out lift, and you may not jump in the air to catch a ball.

This is rugby it is a contact sport and if you remove the contact the game is doomed.

I was looking at the velocity of the "hit" on Jones as the difference but I think it is definately one of those laws which not often used by refs.

Hopefully you will rememeber my defending Bakkies at the time on the old 606 although I did agree that it was illegal Ithought it was very unfair to punish Bakkies and then not be consistant by punishing others.

My dozy puter won't play the Bakkies one just now so I am going from memory on that one.