Law Discussion: Tipping red

South Africa has just finished its splendid Craven Week in East London – matches played by provincial Under-18 teams in an excellent spirit and yet three matches were greatly affected by red cards for “tip tackles”.

The question is not about the dangerous nature of the tackle or the player’s culpability but about the effect of the sanction.

There was a time when they were called spear tackles. It is now defined in law.

Law 10.4 (i) 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.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

It happened three times at Craven Week and three times the guilty player was sent off. Red card and off you go. The authorities made it clear that this kind of tackle is unacceptable and reinforced what they were saying with the drastic sanction of a red card.

There was a tip tackle in the Currie Cup match in Durban on Friday night and this time the infringing player was given a yellow card. Not that the law is any different for Under-19 players and Currie Cup players. Same law, different sanctions. That was not great.

But it is the effect on the game that is our main thrust.

First point to make is that the three matches concerned were played in an excellent spirit. The three incidents were  exceptions, so out of character with the nature of the game as to be accidents, reckless rather than malicious. But it meant that Boland played for 57 minutes out of 70 with 14 players and were thumped. Limpopo played with 65 minutes out of 70 and were thumped. SA Academy played for 40 minutes out of 70 and were thumped.

In neither case was there a group responsibility for what happened, let alone a team responsibility. There was one single act and the player was – rightly – punished for that act, but why should the team be punished as well?

It was not as if the team had created the environment in which such punishment was their due. It was not like the yellow card against an individual when his team has repeatedly infringed. It was not like that. There was in these three cases no collective guilt. But there was a collective punishment.

What is an alternative possibility?

The procedure could be as follows:

The player is sent off the field for the duration of the match.
The player is penalised, as happens whenever and individual infringes in the match.
Later the player appears before a disciplinary committee who take whatever further steps are necessary.
But the team is then allowed to send on a replacement.

In that way the guilty player is sanctioned – stopped from playing and possibly suspended.

Apart from the actual penalty against them, the team is possibly penalised by losing a first-choice player  but the game can continue in an orderly fashion with 15 against 15.

There is an added complication at Under-19 level in that equal numbers must pack in the scrum and the packing is laid down – 3-4 if one player is missing. That means that even the non-offending team is penalised because they have nobody at No.8 to channel the ball and to play with the ball.

The idea of replacing a red-carded player bears thinking about.

Anybody who has thoughts about the matter could send them to pauld@365digital.co.za