Smart cooks is an ignorant prick, we are not all like him. Just read his other posts and you'll see his condescending attitude.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
New High Tackle Directive for the New Year
- Thread starter RuggerNut
- Start date
Smart cooks is an ignorant prick, we are not all like him. Just read his other posts and you'll see his condescending attitude.
That's not always possible, specially near the in goal.
How are you supposed to stop someone going head in first if by touching his head you are liable to getting a penalty try + YC against you?
The only way you can is by letting him pass (his head) and then grabbing him by torso/legs/whatever. The problem is that by letting his head pass he gains that distance and momentum and it makes the tackler's job pretty much impossible.
This is the situation i picture: I have the ball 5 metres away from try line and my clone is standing on the try line. I have to score he has to stop me. With the new directives, if we played 100 times, i'd either score 100 tries, get 100 penalty tries or a combination of both adding to 100.
Jezza - how "helpful" do you want me to be? I was asked to provide a clip, so I provided the match video and the relevant time stamp. I'm not about to spent 30 minutes creating a YouTube video or a GIF (both of which are at the border of my competence) in order to save you 5 seconds getting to the right time stamp.
As for your points n the reasoning, and theory as to the future - Valid points all, I just happen not to agree with them.
I do agree that high tackles are rarely the cause of concussion, and that head-ground is more likely (eg North), or the tackler getting their head in the wrong position (eg Ellis). However, I don't see how the game can legislate against that; and high tackles do cause many non-concussive injuries, and the occasional concussive, have always* been illegal, and both can and should be legislated against.
*for a certain value of "always" - no idea what the law book may have said in 1862
- - - Updated - - -
I think this is a case of preconception Vs evidence.
As for your points n the reasoning, and theory as to the future - Valid points all, I just happen not to agree with them.
I do agree that high tackles are rarely the cause of concussion, and that head-ground is more likely (eg North), or the tackler getting their head in the wrong position (eg Ellis). However, I don't see how the game can legislate against that; and high tackles do cause many non-concussive injuries, and the occasional concussive, have always* been illegal, and both can and should be legislated against.
*for a certain value of "always" - no idea what the law book may have said in 1862
- - - Updated - - -
I'm at risk of agreeing with cooky here, which always makes me feel a little dirty, but... take a look at Newcastle V Bath from Friday night (linked above) the new directives appeared to make no real difference to those phases of pick-and-go camped on the try line. Certainly not a dozen tries or a dozen cards for the dozen phases.
I think this is a case of preconception Vs evidence.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
That's partly the point... there's only so much you can legislate against.
Stopping the choke tackle (not that I'm dead set against it, but as a means to an end), legislating against going to ground before a tackle, and allowing the refs to take into account carriers lowering/leading with their head.
That's all preferable to changing the definition of a high tackle in my book.
- - - Updated - - -
Because they weren't implemented. You're also ignoring the other match where it did, in fact, happen.
You have to ignore the rule to avoid sending off half of the teams. That's not a healthy situation IMO. You either have deliberately vague rules, so that a higher degree of referee discretion can be applied, or you have very clear, specific laws.
High Tackles
Thank you for this. I have to admit that I was a bit taken back by his onslaught. Is it a question that unless you agree with him one is in for a kicking? Also I am not sure why I am a “junior member†- I am 57!! However I am happy to be considered a “junior†at this age.
Thank you for this. I have to admit that I was a bit taken back by his onslaught. Is it a question that unless you agree with him one is in for a kicking? Also I am not sure why I am a “junior member†- I am 57!! However I am happy to be considered a “junior†at this age.
Just means your new here I'm unsure how it changes.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,878
- Reaction score
- 15
I see what you mean. Stats do show that the majority of tackles are sustained by the defender rather than the ball carrier as well. I'm all for this ideally leading to less ball and all tackles in phase play defence though with defences having to adjust.
The bigger battleground for head concussions is the high ball and breakdown imo. The New Zealand trials alongside the new tackle laws should be interesting.
Somerset born and raised, I've only lived in Gloucestershire for 3 years. Worcester are actually my closest team (by minuites).
I just saw the incident regarding the yellow card and penalty try in the Ulster game - no way in my mind was that the correct decision.
i actually think given time these new rules will make it more entertaining. yes at the moment we are seeing lots of cards but players will eventually start aiming a lot lower, meaning (hopefully) more offloads etc. The only thing i think is a little petty is when there is one arm over the shoulder and one arm under the armpit, i dont deem that to be reckless or dangerous in any way (im thinking of the Jake Ball yellow card in the Scarlets V Ulster game). As others have noted the penalty try was a little harsh against the number 8, Trimble (?) should have been the one who was carded and then a penalty try awarded
I think it's about number of posts. It's a pretty stupid system really because all you need to become a 'senior member' is 100 posts!
100 posts I will be 420 years old by then. Thank you anyway
Care to name any examples where it wasn't implemented? Or were just back to preconception Vs reality.
As to ignoring the other match, I haven't had the chance to watch anything other than Newcastle Bath yet, and won't be able to today either.
I don't remember reading about any matches where every pick-and-go resulted in a try or a red card either TBH
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
Pretty much every single attempt to pick and go on the try-line had contact directly to the head.
And most of the ruck clear outs in the tigers wasps game but no red. Another rule that's not really implemented properly
Superalexmarket
Bench Player
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2012
- Messages
- 867
- Reaction score
- 51
The Pumas' tackle mode, will be on top the next season: cut the legs down low.
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,708
- Reaction score
- 772
http://www.therugbyforum.com/members/20605-smartcooky
"Level 2" is the modern version of Grade B. It means I refereed rugby at Club rugby level (Senior) which is one level below what was then known as "Representative Rugby"; now called Heartland Championship, and National Provincial Championship (Mitre 10 Cup). I did referee a number of Rep games and was set for promotion before a motorcycle accident ended my refereeing carreer
I refereed at a time when high tackles were as rare as hens teeth, and when the vast majority of tackles were made from the waist down, That was a time when players learned to learned to tackle properly and rarely if ever got their heads in the wrong place (which is what that Bath player did- it had nothing whatsoever to do with him being forced to go low by the Laws, and everything to do with crappy tackling technique.
BTW, telling you that the answer was "getting lower" was not an "onslaught", but your reaction to it was OTT, so you got what you deserved.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,760
- Reaction score
- 10,615
There is a point to be made though about tall vs short players. A player who is taller will struggle to get lower than a shorter player. If someone is driving forwards with their head barely above hip height, it becomes practically impossible to stop as most attempts involve grabbing their shoulders. I feel there is too much emphasis being placed on players to ensure others safety with little to none on players ensuring their own safety. If a player does something that puts them in a position where it is highly likely they will get injured and as a result they do, that should be taken into account. As it is, players are now being penalised because their opposing player put themselves in a dangerous position and the player being sanctioned had little they could do except to not be there at all.
Similar threads
