New High Tackle Directive for the New Year

[ratsapprentice]

Because players dip into the tackle in an attempt to prevent themselves being held up.

Whereas RL players want to stay up in the tackle, RU players want to get to ground... hence why you get players literally diving at the ground before taking contact.

 

[ALJ]

Because players dip into the tackle in an attempt to prevent themselves being held up.

Whereas RL players want to stay up in the tackle, RU players want to get to ground... hence why you get players literally diving at the ground before taking contact.

Hmmm, not a bad theory but I don't think it quite stands up tbh.

RL players dip into tackles for a number of reasons - to protect the ball from being stripped (one on one), to protect against the impact of contact, to prevent getting shoved backwards in the tackle and to get over the line.

Plus from that I see of recent high tackles in rugby union, most of them don't appear to be about the carrier dipping in but the tackler sliding up when trying to execute a big hit (not that I've seen them all by any means).

 

[ratsapprentice]

Watch RL hit ups... they run almost vertically into contact.

Then watch a RU pick and go or short carry... they run like they're trying to duck under a stable door.

 

[ALJ]

Watch RL hit ups... they run almost vertically into contact.

Then watch a RU pick and go or short carry... they run like they're trying to duck under a stable door.

I'm thinking more along the lines of watching matches rather than highlight reels and my own experience as a player (I know that sounds like I'm trying to be a d!ck, it's not intended that way) - RL players dip into tackles I assure you.

I get the pick and go but again, in RL you have the pick and go from the play the ball and the markers are right there.
On that point though, how many high tackles are around the edges of the breakdown? Usually seems to be in more open play to me.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Either way, I'm not sure I'd actually agree with your point that rugby league doesn't have a "problem" with high tackles.

If you judged RL from a RU official's perspective, it would...

 

[ALJ]

Maybe you're right.

It's just that you will get someone attacking the ball in pretty much every tackle in RL and yet this doesn't seem to be a problem in the same way and I don't buy that RL is less concerned with player welfare.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I wouldn't frame it as RL being less concerned with player welfare, I'd say that RU (officials, admins and fans alike) is hyperbolic about it. The sport is historically far more knee-jerk in it's efforts to modify the game.

As I say, IMO a large reason for it not being a problem is because the carrier is more upright, and doesn't try to get to ground during the tackle.

 

[RedruthRFC]

What are players supposed to do when defending pick and go's, particularly on their own try-line?

Last night's games bore out everything you have said in this thread IMO. 8 minutes into the game, Newcastle's flanker got his head in the wrong place against a ball carrier leaning forward and took no further part in the game. Ulster conceded a penalty try when three players made accidental contact with the head of a ball carrier running head first at the line. The BBC and their pundits described it as controversial, it was nothing of the sort to my mind, the referee followed the new laws to the letter IMO.

Edit: to be fair, there I suppose that there was a controversial element in deciding whether the tackle was reckless or accidental, the same goes for Scarlets' yellow. It didn't seem like the BBC pundits had done their homework on the new laws.

 

[BRSTLDRGN]

Last night's games bore out everything you have said in this thread IMO. 8 minutes into the game, Newcastle's flanker got his head in the wrong place against a ball carrier leaning forward and took no further part in the game. Ulster conceded a penalty try when three players made accidental contact with the head of a ball carrier running head first at the line. The BBC and their pundits described it as controversial, it was nothing of the sort to my mind, the referee followed the new laws to the letter IMO.

Edit: to be fair, there I suppose that there was a controversial element in deciding whether the tackle was reckless or accidental, the same goes for Scarlets' yellow. It didn't seem like the BBC pundits had done their homework on the new laws.

The contraversy in the Scarlets game was the wrong tackle got the punishment. Trimble connects with the forearm and gets nothing, the Ulster 8 makes, in the new laws, a penalty only high tackle yet hes the one binned and the try given as a resut

 

[smartcooky]

IMO, the Scarlet's penalty try and YC would likely have been a penalty try and YC last year too.

As for the Falcons v Bath match, I watched a replay of the whole match yesterday. There were only two PKs for high tackles in the entire match (one in each half) and one other that I saw by a Falcons player (which was not penalised) in the lead-up to Semesa Rokoduguni's 2nd try for Bath. It was quite noticeable that the tacklers were targeting ball carriers lower than usual.

So, what about the claim that the new head-high tackle protocols would make it impossible to defend pick and drives near the goal-line? Well, this match showed that things haven't changed at all in that regard. There were several long periods of pick and drive by both teams close to their opposition's goal-line (perhaps as many as fifty tackles of ball carriers picking and driving), all of which were legally and successfully defended; some of them where the tackler gets underneath the ball carrier to trap the ball between their bodies. It wasn't until Falcons' two late tries to Mark Wilson and Ben Harris that pick and drives finally resulted in tries, and those were due to tired defenders under the pump, not the defence being neutered by the Laws. IMO, both of those tries would have been scored regardless of the Laws.

 

[Which Tyler]

Last night's games bore out everything you have said in this thread IMO. 8 minutes into the game, Newcastle's flanker got his head in the wrong place against a ball carrier leaning forward and took no further part in the game..

If that was your take-home, then you need to watch again, this time with 2 eyes and reduced confirmation bias.

8 minutes in, BATH flanker got his head in an awful position and headbutted the ball carrier's hip, which had nothing to do with the ball carrier's gait.
Last night's reffing was a fantastic example of what should happen - Garner comfortably MOTM

- - - Updated - - -

Stolen from elsewhere

I will note that, when the ruling on tip tackles came in, there was this same furore about, "We'll be playing 12-a-side" and "You just can't control it sometimes and players will be constantly sent off for accidents."

6 years on, how many tip tackles do you see? Players will learn, and bloody quickly as well, not to do things which might end up with them getting sent off and they'll adapt their techniques to avoid even the chance of it happening accidentally. You will notice that no-one else even looked like making a high tackle in that match after the red card.

Puja

 

[BRSTLDRGN]

In the Bristol v Northampton game there was a tackle late on which involved an unfortunate clash of heads that took Woodward off the pitch with an HIA, it then showed our captain discussing the incident and his assertion that because Woodward recieved contact to the head in the collision that should be considered foul play under the new laws. Ref quite rightly told him no.

 

[RedruthRFC]

If that was your take-home, then you need to watch again, this time with 2 eyes and reduced confirmation bias.

8 minutes in, BATH flanker got his head in an awful position and headbutted the ball carrier's hip, which had nothing to do with the ball carrier's gait.
Last night's reffing was a fantastic example of what should happen - Garner comfortably MOTM

You're absolutely right, apologies for the case of mistaken identity. I wasn't paying much attention, but happened to look up at the right time to witness this incident. I find it hard to tell the difference between two sides that have lost their identity. I'd like to re-watch the incident, please share the link. Until you do, I'll continue to question why the tackler felt the need to go that low.

Has the person you quote not seen a contest for the ball in the air of late? And what forum does he post on that necessitates him posting his moniker? Is rec.sport.rugby.union still a legitimate thing?

The new laws don't appear to have filtered down to level 4 yet, Sara Cox and her ARs ignored at least one clear penalty that with the benefit of a replay probably would have been a yellow today at Redruth.

 

[Jezza]

High Tackle

How is somebody who is somebody at 6'10" supposed to tackle somebody at 5'8" around the ruck area without being around the upper body which might be above shoulder height but making no contact with head?

 

[smartcooky]

How is somebody who is somebody at 6'10" supposed to tackle somebody at 5'8" around the ruck area without being around the upper body which might be above shoulder height but making no contact with head?

Get lower!

 

[Jezza]

High tackle new rules

Get lower!

Helpful answer! I have only just joined this forum and I can see what I am going to experience. So I am off - permanently.

 

[smartcooky]

Helpful answer! I have only just joined this forum and I can see what I am going to experience.

It was a perfectly legitimate answer to your question, and what's more, it is exactly what WR are trying to encourage players to do - get lower in the tackle to reduce the risk of head contact.

So I am off - permanently.

Well, if you feel you have to flounce off in a big huff because you don't like hearing a truth that you dislike, then I suggest that you don't let the door hit you on the way out. You probably wouldn't do very well here anyway as this is a rugby discussion forum for grown ups.

You might be better off joining Planet Rugby and posting there with all the squabbling kiddies.

 

[Which Tyler]

You're absolutely right, apologies for the case of mistaken identity. I wasn't paying much attention, but happened to look up at the right time to witness this incident. I find it hard to tell the difference between two sides that have lost their identity. I'd like to re-watch the incident, please share the link. Until you do, I'll continue to question why the tackler felt the need to go that low.

Has the person you quote not seen a contest for the ball in the air of late? And what forum does he post on that necessitates him posting his moniker? Is rec.sport.rugby.union still a legitimate thing?

The new laws don't appear to have filtered down to level 4 yet, Sara Cox and her ARs ignored at least one clear penalty that with the benefit of a replay probably would have been a yellow today at Redruth.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/video/full-match-newcastle-falcons-v-bath-rugby-round-13/
14.50 on the video clock
Attempting to tackle with his head, not his shoulder; nothing to do with the ballcarrier's body position IMO

As for the poster I quoted - a lot of boards don't like posting links to the direct competition; so I won't do that unless/until I know it's ok here - he signs his username as an affectation; and is known to several posters here. As for contesting the ball in the air - I'm not really sure what your point is TBH; so I can't really address it - but yes, I can confirm that he watches a lot of rugby.

Yes, the new laws have filtered down and affect all levels of the game as of 3rd January; the ref in one match making a mistake (if she did - there's still room for interpretation) doesn't change that.

 

[Jezza]

That was not very helpful either. Tom ELLIS for Bath off he goes with concussion going low into a tackle, Garvey same game off the concussion got unlucky nothing to do with high tackles. We want to protect players of course but I have a nasty feeling that it will make injuries worse and as there will be no players left on the pitch as trigger happy refs (who have to follow the rules) send everybody off and awarding penalty tries willy nilly. what is the best game in the world is being wrecked by over analysis during and after the game. It is not a dirty game anymore but it is tough as is boxing. It is like business with the health and safety nutters putting a stranglehold on common sense. There are ways and means and I don't think the concussions come from high tackles for the majority of the time. However low tackles will I fear increase them and as teams get so nervous about competing for the ball (as is already happening under the high ball) the game will suffer from a spectator point of view. It is already noticeable that teams are not competing at the breakdown as they are worried about giving away penalties which might or might not lead to another yellow card. If I can remind you yellow cards were brought in for cheating and low level foul play not to sanitise the game to the level of 10 pin bowling.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Attempting to tackle with his head, not his shoulder; nothing to do with the ballcarrier's body position IMO

Has everything to do with RU's cultural acceptance that "lower=better/safer" for both carriers and tacklers, though.

Which, as I've made my position quite clear several times in the past, I strongly disagree with.