We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Sun 7 Oct 2012 | 06:48
Brodie Retallick issued off-field yellow card for tip tackle on Andries Bekker

41
Comments

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 By: Grant Constable

41 Comments

  • pretzel
    11:32 AM 10/10/2012

    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...

  • pretzel
    11:26 AM 10/10/2012

    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.

  • guy
    8:03 AM 10/10/2012

    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.

  • rugby08
    3:30 AM 10/10/2012

    Nope incorrect

  • melkiwi
    3:23 AM 10/10/2012

    Nope correct

  • bondtr4der
    9:28 PM 09/10/2012

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

    end of.

  • pretzel
    7:24 PM 09/10/2012

    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!

  • philll
    6:42 PM 09/10/2012

    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.............

  • stroudos
    3:35 PM 09/10/2012

    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

  • stroudos
    3:13 PM 09/10/2012

    Incorrect.

  • melkiwi
    9:46 AM 09/10/2012

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

  • melkiwi
    1:15 AM 09/10/2012

    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


  • 6:42 PM 08/10/2012

    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

  • guy
    4:15 PM 08/10/2012

    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.

  • guy
    2:02 PM 08/10/2012

    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.

  • rugby08
    1:03 PM 08/10/2012

    *consistency

  • rugby08
    1:02 PM 08/10/2012

    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!!!

  • guy
    12:57 PM 08/10/2012

    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.

  • baldric
    11:32 AM 08/10/2012

    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

  • baldric
    11:26 AM 08/10/2012

    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.

  • stroudos
    11:05 AM 08/10/2012

    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.

  • stroudos
    11:02 AM 08/10/2012

    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?

  • welshosprey
    10:21 AM 08/10/2012

    Seriously, fuck rolland, this is much worse than warburtons

  • pretzel
    8:11 AM 08/10/2012

    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...

  • pretzel
    8:08 AM 08/10/2012

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

  • stroudos
    6:25 AM 08/10/2012

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

  • pretzel
    3:44 AM 08/10/2012

    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...

  • pretzel
    3:42 AM 08/10/2012

    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...

  • r_hinder
    12:57 AM 08/10/2012

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

  • matt
    10:57 PM 07/10/2012

    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.

  • matt
    10:53 PM 07/10/2012

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

  • eggman
    10:40 PM 07/10/2012

    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.

  • stroudos
    10:37 PM 07/10/2012

    That moustache warrants at least a two week ban though.

  • stroudos
    10:35 PM 07/10/2012

    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.

  • stroudos
    10:24 PM 07/10/2012

    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!!".

  • stroudos
    10:19 PM 07/10/2012

    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.

  • redexile
    10:08 PM 07/10/2012

    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....

  • facepalm
    9:38 PM 07/10/2012

    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.

  • pretzel
    9:33 PM 07/10/2012

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

  • eggman
    9:23 PM 07/10/2012

    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...

  • lambchop1234
    9:11 PM 07/10/2012

    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!

Related Articles