London Wasps v Toulouse

[Teh Mite]

Adams Park
London, England
Sun Jan 23 2011
at 15:00 (local)​

 

[gingergenius]

fritz sent off for an ordinary dump tackle. shocking refereeing/ iRB interpretation.

 

[Teh Mite]

By their definition, a spear tackle is when a player is driven into the ground. That's what he did, so fair play on the decision. Although I expected it to be a yellow.

 

[gingergenius]

my point is more ideological - that kind of tackle has been called a dump tackle and been perfectly acceptable until the past 12 months where it has suddenly become a spear tackle worthy of a red card.

I seem to remember spear tackles being ones where the player's head is driven into the ground, which is understandably dangerous and illegal.

 

[elgringoborracho]

ref killed the game. absolutely nothing dangerous with that tackle. if you're going to punish the intention, at least start with a yellow.

wasps had a great game, they could have won without Roland handing it to them.

 

[veux]

Fritz is gonna be banned for that finger. Great result for Northampton, should be semi final cert!!!

 

[veux]

my point is more ideological - that kind of tackle has been called a dump tackle and been perfectly acceptable until the past 12 months where it has suddenly become a spear tackle worthy of a red card.

I seem to remember spear tackles being ones where the player's head is driven into the ground, which is understandably dangerous and illegal.

If you watch a replay, the Toulouse 15 had his hand under Varndells head holding him up, stopping him from being tipped over further and pushed head into ground.

 

[Dougydeluxe]

People have died because of Spear tackles. They are trying to stamp it out and now the rule has changed to if the legs are above the head then it is a dangerous tackle. That being said, it still could have been a yellow.

Wasps played well and deserved the win. Lemi's try at the end was wild and a bit lucky.

 

[BigJoe78]

Flipping the bird at the crowd wasnt the wisest move right in front of teh TV cameras. The tackle looked fairly innocent to me, but i can see how it was interpretted as a spear tackle by the ref per the new definition. Lemi's try at the end was decent i thought

 

[madflyhalf]

By their definition, a spear tackle is when a player is driven into the ground. That's what he did, so fair play on the decision. Although I expected it to be a yellow.

I expected yellow too, but I started to think

1) new IRB definition of spear tackle
2) if Fritz would now be banned (as I expect), yellow card would be unfair.

Why giving yellow card, when this foul play deserves 2 wks ban at least?
Just like others spear seen in this season (Quade Cooper, Jacque Fourie, Jean De Villiers...): they all didn't deserve yellow card, but red card, as the players involved got 2-week or more ban.

Rolland did well to me.

 

[smartcooky]

r...absolutely nothing dangerous with that tackle....

Perhaps you would like to come with me to visit the young man I met last year at Burwood Spinal Unit in Christchurch, who was upended in a near identical tackle. The only real difference being that he wasn't skilled enough to get his elbow down the way Varndell did, in order stop his head and neck from hitting the ground first. Watch the video, and try visualising what might have happened to Varndell had he NOT got his elbow down first.



The young man I met will be spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair, being tended to by his family, because he is paralysed from the neck down. While you are there, you can try telling HIM that there is "absolutely nothing dangerous" with this type of tackle.

These tackles have been made illegal PRECISELY because they are very, very dangerous, and have been at the root cause of life-shattering injuries to players. The IRB means to stamp them out of the game, and they will succeed in doing so, because those who continue to execute this type of tackle are going to spend a long time watching rather than playing if they don't modify their behaviour. There is NO GOOD REASON to lift ball carrier up off his feet, and even less reason to turn him over into a vulnerable head down position. It achieves nothing that a good hard hit won't do. There is nothing wrong with driving a player off their feet, just don't LIFT the player up; because you are asking for trouble, for him and you.

 

[elgringoborracho]

Perhaps you would like to come with me to visit the young man I met last year at Burwood Spinal Unit in Christchurch, who was upended in a near identical tackle. The only real difference being that he wasn't skilled enough to get his elbow down the way Varndell did, in order stop his head and neck from hitting the ground first. Watch the video, and try visualising what might have happened to Varndell had he NOT got his elbow down first.



The young man I met will be spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair, being tended to by his family, because he is paralysed from the neck down. While you are there, you can try telling HIM that there is "absolutely nothing dangerous" with this type of tackle.

These tackles have been made illegal PRECISELY because they are very, very dangerous, and have been at the root cause of life-shattering injuries to players. The IRB means to stamp them out of the game, and they will succeed in doing so, because those who continue to execute this type of tackle are going to spend a long time watching rather than playing if they don't modify their behaviour. There is NO GOOD REASON to lift ball carrier up off his feet, and even less reason to turn him over into a vulnerable head down position. It achieves nothing that a good hard hit won't do. There is nothing wrong with driving a player off their feet, just don't LIFT the player up; because you are asking for trouble, for him and you.

Can't say anything against personal experience.

I just think Fritz wanted to make Varndell go backwards and that he lifted Varndell's chest, not his waist, and he didnt lift it high. Then he didn't just dump him, contrary to what the commentator says. So I'm not sure anything really dangerous could have resulted from this tackle, and as I said already I think a yellow would have been enough.

I take your point though, spear tackles have to be severely punished, they are useless and dangerous. I just don't think this was one.

 

[Teh Mite]

Can't say anything against personal experience.

I just think Fritz wanted to make Varndell go backwards and that he lifted Varndell's chest, not his waist, and he didnt lift it high. Then he didn't just dump him, contrary to what the commentator says. So I'm not sure anything really dangerous could have resulted from this tackle, and as I said already I think a yellow would have been enough.

I take your point though, spear tackles have to be severely punished, they are useless and dangerous. I just don't think this was one.

No, he didn't. He DROVE him into the ground.

 

[elgringoborracho]

No, he didn't. He DROVE him into the ground.

0:05 first guy

 

[Teh Mite]

He held Varndells right leg (inside thigh to be precise) with his left hand, lifted said leg to above eye level then accelerated his body into the ground like a WWF wrestlers powerslam.

I don't care how biased an opinion someone/you may have, that is what occurred!

 

[nickdnz]

It was actually very lucky for Varndell that Clément Poitrenaud made a real effort to support Varndell's head before he made contact with the ground. If you look he has his hand pushing upwards trying to keep Vandell vertical, or at lease minimalize the impact. Not the worst spear tackle I've ever seen, but there are no good ones.

 

[elgringoborracho]

He held Varndells right leg (inside thigh to be precise) with his left hand, lifted said leg to above eye level then accelerated his body into the ground like a WWF wrestlers powerslam.

I don't care how biased an opinion someone/you may have, that is what occurred!

A tacke's goal is to make someone reach the ground. Instead of describing the tackle like a robot i just look at it and say: it's not dangerous, i see dozens of those in every game, a red card was too harsh. My opinion is probably as biased as yours, as the WWF exaggeration suggests.

 

[Teh Mite]

A tacke's goal is to make someone reach the ground. Instead of describing the tackle like a robot i just look at it and say: it's not dangerous, i see dozens of those in every game, a red card was too harsh. My opinion is probably as biased as yours, as the WWF exaggeration suggests.

Sorry but that is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever read. Opinions may differ, but yours is biased, dismissal and misguided - A bit like the Kiwis in 2005. I'm leaving my thoughts on this subject at that.

 

[smartcooky]

My view is not biased. I support neither team and am just an interested neutral observer.

Fritz picks Varndell up, turns him over, and slams him into the ground, with his hips above his shoulders. Varndell could have been seriously injured had it not been for two factors;

1. He got his elbow down to lessen the impact of his neck and shoulders on the ground.
2. Poitrenaud had the presence of mind to try to keep Varndell from rotating right over.

Law 10.4
(j) 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 first is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

.....this establishes that the tackle is dangerous, and therefore illegal.

The IRB Spear Tackle Memorandum
Date: 8 June 2009
Subject: Dangerous Tackles
In 2007, the IRB Council approved a Laws Designated Members Ruling which essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and constitute dangerous play.

At a subsequent IRB High Performance Referee Seminar at Lensbury referees were advised that for these types of tackles they were to start at red card as a sanction and work backwards.

Unfortunately these types of tackles are still being made and the purpose of this memorandum is to emphasize that they must be dealt with severely by referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.

Attached is a recent decision of the Judicial Officer Jannie Lubbe SC, in which the differences between the application of the red card test by referees and judicial personnel is highlighted.

In our view, this decision correctly highlights that the lifting of players in the tackle and then either forcing or dropping them to the ground is dangerous and must be dealt with severely.

To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the
ground:

1 The player is lifted and then forced or “speared†into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

2 The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the
player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

3 For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty
or yellow card is sufficient.

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) of the circumstances of the tackle.

Fritz's tackle on Varndell was dangerous, and at the very least was covered by No.2 above, probably No. 1, both of which are a red card.

 

[lynam1104]

thats a no 1 tackle based off the laws he got it right.