1
'Her technique could not be much better': Caslick's yellow card tackle has gone viral
By
Ben Smith
Australian Sevens star Charlotte Caslick was yellow carded for a tackle in her side’s Cup quarter-final clash against France but the tackle has divided opinion after she arguably did everything right.
ADVERTISEMENT
Video of the tackle has now gone viral showing how Caslick went low with close to perfect tackle technique into a French player, aiming waist high, wrapping and bent low for impact.
The French ball carrier ducked into impact causing head contact with Caslick which then resulted in the Australian being yellow carded.
The decision proved influential as Australia ended up losing the quarter-final 10-5 to France.
Brien Seeney, physiotherapist & injury analyst under the NRL Physio Twitter account shared footage of the “super rough card” with a critique of the decision.
“Caslick getting yellow carded for this isn’t punishment driving behaviour change. Focus on technique for mine; her technique could not be much better here,” Seeney wrote.
“Gone low with arms in a wrapping motion, super rough card.”
I’ve been known to be critical of a high tackle or two, but Caslick getting yellow carded for this isn’t punishment driving behaviour change. Focus on technique for mine & her technique could not be much better here. Gone low with arms in a wrapping motion, super rough card pic.twitter.com/cHQ37JTSgH
— NRL PHYSIO (@nrlphysio) January 28, 2023
Australian Sevens coach Tim Walsh was frustrated with the call explaining to media on Day 3 that common sense should be applied in that situation to avoid situations where the rules can be exploited.
ADVERTISEMENT
“If it’s shoulder on head, what are they going to do?” Walsh questioned.
“Do you stick your head down and start running now? Get hit in the head and you’ll get a penalty?
“We wouldn’t do that, but’s that how you would manipulate the rules to get an advantage. That wouldn’t be appropriate.
“The disappointing thing is you have these TMOs as a risk mitigation and they still got it wrong. That’s the frustrating thing.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking with media on Day 3 Caslick revealed on the final day of action that had she gone into the tackle with an upright technique, she may have ended up without the card.
The 27-year-old revealed that Australia had recieved an apology afterward and that the decision was overturned.
“I probably could have had a worse tackle technique and led with my chest instead of my shoulder, but we are taught to go low, shoulder first and wrap,” she said.
“I’m not sure there is much else I could do.
“I think they overturned the decision this morning, they apologised for it. I guess it kind of stings, in that USA-France game there was one where she didn’t bend her back, gets the penalty and stays on the field.”
World Rugby research consultant and sports scientist Ross Tucker weighed in on the incident stating that head contact only occurs due to the actions of the ball carrier and therefore should not have resulted in a card.
“The tackle is good from decision to execution, and the only reason head contact has happened is the BC [ball carrier] actions,” he wrote.
“The HCP already allows or this to NOT be a penalty… it’s a BC initiated head contact and wouldn’t be penalized.”
…say it count very reasonably answered “no” because of no fault by the T. Perhaps that guidance needs to be stronger, but if one can say that the tackler couldn’t have done anything different, then it’s a BC initiated head contact and wouldn’t be penalized, IMO
— Ross Tucker (@Scienceofsport) January 29, 2023
Maybe World rugby should be looking at the body position of attacking players and how they are coached. If they lead with their head they should be penalised. If they keep doing it then they should go to “tackle school” If the player gets in the right position (head, upper body etc…) the Auz player would not have made contact with the head. The blue player is out matched physically, doesn’t want to lose the ball in contact from a big shot, so dips into the tackle, instinct or manipulation of the rules?
Not sure if I believe blue deliberately forced the penalty. I would suggest that unless there is clear failure technically then it should be play on and sort out tackle improvement through clear communication. The idea of assigning responsibility seems inappropriate in this instance.
So ... my feeling on this is that this absulutely be manipulated by the ball carrier to ensure the penalty or card. Having competed and coached in karate for many years.. there is a ruling called "mabobi" it is where the attacking player endangers him/herself by leading with the head or face, with little or no regard for their own safety.
I believe that this can easily and effectively be utilised in rugby...
If the TMO can show that the attacking player lowered their position so as to lead with the head and to make the tackle almost impossible, he/she should be penalised for deliberately endangering themselves and the defending team be awarded a penalty.
This will also avoid a lot of potential issues with the new proposed tackle law as well.
I believe that blue is forcing a penalty by ducking down low, not allowing gold tackling space.
Gold could not get any lower to tackling blue.
I think this is a tackle and defense of two brilliant half styles.
Could blue be penalised for putting the putting themselves in an unsafe position.
Or could gold get penalized for going in too short.
Well, the penalty is for being stupid enough to put a head close to a head. She is tackling and can see that the ball carrier is already low. she then need to either bear hug tackle or to go for the legs..how the tackler approaches as it is, it will be a head on collision...