WR's changes in tackle laws (Video)

+ Post a Reply
  1. #1
    Senior Member

    • Argentina
    • 1,254 posts
    • Joined: Sep 2011
    • From: Yurop
    • Mentioned
      6 Post(s)
    CASI

    WR's changes in tackle laws (Video)

    https://youtu.be/p6SKgwx7syo


    I was "Hmm, ok, that looks fine.... sounds reasonable.... sure, course...... what-the-*****"

    "Including when the ball carrier slips into the tackle."


    I'm all in favour of protecting players in vulnerable positions, but what is the tackler supposed to do if the ball carrier slips into the tackle?

    A common principle in law/management/any regulation that involves the most minimal degree of common sense is that the ability to make a decision must go hand in hand with accountability for the consequences of that decision. You have have a choice, then you should be aware of the potential consequences of that choice and make an informed decision weighing the pro and cons.
    The problem here is that i find it unreasonable for the tackler to have to factor in a potential slip from the ball carrier. Not only that, but there is nothing he can do to prevent the ball carrier from slipping.

    Don't even get me started on how this could be exploited the wrong way.

    PS: tried 5 times to embed the video but for some reason it's not working. Happy if any mod can edit the post and correct that for me. Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by Cruz_del_Sur; 15-12-16 at 09:23 PM.
    Like this topic? Share it:

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member

    • Argentina
    • 1,254 posts
    • Joined: Sep 2011
    • From: Yurop
    • Mentioned
      6 Post(s)
    CASI
    Sorry for the double post but i'm kinda furious. It can completely change the way ball carriers and tacklers play, in a bad way.
    A not-so-hard raise from the arms can raise the arms of the tacklers around to be around the head area.

    This is an accident waiting to happen.


    Here's a link to WR's memo

    http://worldrugby.matchdaymail.com/i...bff88e9c33.513

    This part is the one that worries me

    Global education programme
    World Rugby will support this initiative with a global awareness and education programme aimed at:
    • Educating that illegal tackles are not necessarily defined by where they start as they can slip up from a legal position to make contact with the neck/head

  4. #3
    Senior Member

    living sacrifice's Avatar

    • England
    • 1,578 posts
    • Joined: May 2008
    • From: Rugby
    • Mentioned
      0 Post(s)
    Northampton
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruz_del_Sur View Post
    https://youtu.be/p6SKgwx7syo


    I was "Hmm, ok, that looks fine.... sounds reasonable.... sure, course...... what-the-*****"

    "Including when the ball carrier slips into the tackle."


    I'm all in favour of protecting players in vulnerable positions, but what is the tackler supposed to do if the ball carrier slips into the tackle?

    A common principle in law/management/any regulation that involves the most minimal degree of common sense is that the ability to make a decision must go hand in hand with accountability for the consequences of that decision. You have have a choice, then you should be aware of the potential consequences of that choice and make an informed decision weighing the pro and cons.
    The problem here is that i find it unreasonable for the tackler to have to factor in a potential slip from the ball carrier. Not only that, but there is nothing he can do to prevent the ball carrier from slipping.

    Don't even get me started on how this could be exploited the wrong way.

    PS: tried 5 times to embed the video but for some reason it's not working. Happy if any mod can edit the post and correct that for me. Thanks in advance.
    So i guess it's trying to make leg only tackles then....boring.
    This is my signature. I really should change it.

  5. #4
    Senior Member

    Which Tyler's Avatar

    • England
    • 1,234 posts
    • Joined: Nov 2015
    • From: Tewkesbury
    • Mentioned
      4 Post(s)
    Bath
    I can see what they're trying to do - but the law of unintended consequences will carry the day - and those unintended consequences are bloody obvious too, making it pretty inexcusable.
    A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

  6. #5
    Senior Member

    Ddanno's Avatar

    • England
    • 512 posts
    • Joined: Mar 2015
    • From: London
    • Mentioned
      0 Post(s)
    Harlequins
    Classic legal thin skull principle. But fails to take into account the position that players are putting themselves into in taking part in the first place. And who said wet liberalism was dead in 2016!
    "There are plenty of chips in England. Whenever you buy a meal there are chips on the side. I donít have to go looking for chips too hard"

  7. #6
    Senior Member

    Bruce_ma_goose's Avatar

    • Scotland
    • 1,076 posts
    • Joined: Jun 2016
    • Mentioned
      3 Post(s)
    Italy
    I think people are overestimating the willingness of a player to deliberately put their body on the line and duck into a tackle so they can receive a blow to the head. It benefits the ball carrier if they receive a tackle below the shoulders. In the NFL they changed rules in contact and prophecised a load of cheap low hits to the knees. It failed to materialise.

  8. #7
    Senior Member

    living sacrifice's Avatar

    • England
    • 1,578 posts
    • Joined: May 2008
    • From: Rugby
    • Mentioned
      0 Post(s)
    Northampton
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce_ma_goose View Post
    I think people are overestimating the willingness of a player to deliberately put their body on the line and duck into a tackle so they can receive a blow to the head. It benefits the ball carrier if they receive a tackle below the shoulders. In the NFL they changed rules in contact and prophecised a load of cheap low hits to the knees. It failed to materialise.
    A majority of players already duck into the tackle, that's how you get better body positioning when carrying the ball. Perhaps because a lot of players are taller these days.
    This is my signature. I really should change it.

  9. #8
    Senior Member

    Bruce_ma_goose's Avatar

    • Scotland
    • 1,076 posts
    • Joined: Jun 2016
    • Mentioned
      3 Post(s)
    Italy
    Well, I should have said "duck so much that it would induce a high tackle", e.g. 4 feet or less.

  10. #9
    Senior Member

    • Argentina
    • 1,254 posts
    • Joined: Sep 2011
    • From: Yurop
    • Mentioned
      6 Post(s)
    CASI
    You don't even need to duck. In a considerable number of cases (say the tackler wraps his arms around you) all you need to do is lift the arms at the right time and voila, you are pushing the tacklers arms towards your face= penalty.

  11. #10
    Senior Member

    FNS's Avatar

    • Argentina
    • 253 posts
    • Joined: Oct 2015
    • Mentioned
      1 Post(s)
    Yey off load Pumas are back in play!

    I thing it should be "if tackling player first point on contact is near head then whatever sanction" and "if first point of contact is not near and the by result of the play ends near then no sanction".

+ Post a Reply
To reply to this topic you just need to register for a user name (it's free!)
Already a member? You need to login at the top right of this page to post a reply.