New High Tackle Directive for the New Year

[Mike Rolls]

'First contact' doesn't count - it's where the arm/s ends up - I agree (English and neutral) that Ulster were lucky nnot to have both players binned.
Mike

 

[Amiga500]

That is not what happened. I suggest you have another look at the video, this time, take your Ulster eye-patch off.

That is what happened - there was no displacement of head*, given the tackling position and loads that mean the arm was on shoulder and chest.

Of course, I don't expect a referee to admit they are full of it.


*as your own pictures prove.

 

[Blindside]

'First contact' doesn't count - it's where the arm/s ends up - I agree (English and neutral) that Ulster were lucky nnot to have both players binned.
Mike

What the pic also showed was that a legal tackle was perfectly possible, however it may have been far less likely to prevent the try.

 

[smartcooky]

That is what happened - there was no displacement of head*, given the tackling position and loads that mean the arm was on shoulder and chest.

Of course, I don't expect a referee to admit they are full of it.


*as your own pictures prove.

Bwhahahah! No displacement of the head? Really? Your Ulster eye-patch really is giving you selective vision.

Have a look at the video from 0:55

At 0:58, White 8's upper arm strikes Red 2 squarely on his right jaw and fractionally later, White 14's left forearm strikes Red 2 on his right cheek. This double impact jerks Red 2's head to his left severely enough to shake up his hair. It takes quite an impact to do that.

Better still, here's a short gif for you

Now if you deny the clear and obvious head displacement from the impact, then IMO, you are being deliberately blinded by your hometown bias.

 

[Amiga500]

Bwhahahah! No displacement of the head? Really? Your Ulster eye-patch really is giving you selective vision.

Have a look at the video from 0:55

His hair got shook. "It takes quite an impact to do that."

That is an insignificant to the point of non-existent displacement. Caused by his arm running down the side of his head and onto the collarbone region.


If you are that clueless about impacts, go away off and referee wee girls netball ffs instead of ruining rugby.



This is a high tackle:

 

[smartcooky]

His hair got shook. "It takes quite an impact to do that."

That is an insignificant to the point of non-existent displacement. Caused by his arm running down the side of his head and onto the collarbone region.

Four elite referees disagreed.

If you are that clueless about impacts, go away off and referee wee girls netball ffs instead of ruining rugby.

Being an insulting prick is not helping your case.

Clear and obvious contact with the head. YC & PT was the right call. Done and dusted.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Cause if you are standing still somewhere that puts another person in danger that's reckless.

That is not necessarily true and begs the question why is the one jumping not reckless.

I suggest you have another look at the video, this time, take your Ulster eye-patch off.

Pot kettle black. You've been called biased yourself so many times here you had to put a warning in your sig.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I agree with Amiga.

 

[Japhet]

Addressing the high tackle issue will take quite a while and, in my opinion will lead to further rule changes. I think the rule of holding a player up in the tackle which leads to an almost automatic penalty will have to go. Players are going into contact lower in order to get to ground, particularly when they are isolated, which leads to tackles at or above shoulder height. I also fail to see how you can have a rule/law which is not applicable in certain circumstances (i.e. the low body position pick and go type scenario where head/shoulder contact is unavoidable if you want to stop the ball carrier.

As for the high ball/ contact in the air debate, in my opinion the player who is either first or in the best position to catch the ball, whether airborn or not should have the advantage. Initiating contact by throwing yourself at a player attempting to legitimately catch the ball should not be rewarded.

 

[Amiga500]

Four elite referees disagreed.

So now we've 5 referees who know f**k all about the kinematics of a collision.

You keep digging the hole.

 

[smartcooky]

Actually, I have to admit that think I might be wrong about the penalty try, although not for the reasons some might think (I still think the yellow card was warranted, and that White 14 is lucky he didn't get one as well).

If you watch this video again, and this time, ignore the actions of White 8 and 14 and watch what White 5 does.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/38514314

HE is the player who actually prevents the try being scored. He slides his hand and arm around the ball and wraps it up to prevent Red 2 from getting the ball to ground.

This makes me think that the penalty try might not have been justified on the same grounds that they are often not awarded where there is another defender in a position to legally prevent the try being scored (e.g. player late-tackled after kicking ahead but another cover defender in position would usual rule out a penalty try being awarded)

However, it also shows that it is perfectly possible to legally defend against a player low to the ground. Red 2 was lower to the ground when White 5 tackled him than when the other two did, and he actually stopped the ball carrier from grounding the ball.

- - - Updated - - -

So now we've 5 referees who know f**k all about the kinematics of a collision.

You keep digging the hole.

You still whining on and on and on about it I see.

What a sad little prat you are

 

[smartcooky]

Pot kettle black. You've been called biased yourself so many times here you had to put a warning in your sig.

I am unashamedly biased when it comes to All Blacks, Crusaders, Tasman and Riwaka. Furthermore, I am honest enough to admit that, and never pretend to be anything else!

The same cannot be said for quite a number of the mendacious and disingenuous posters on this forum.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The problem is that because you are, as you eloquently state, unashamedly biased, you assume other people are too, when that is clearly not (not always at least) the case. This thread is a perfect example. You've got several posters who couldn't give a flying turd about Ulster agreeing with Amiga yet your entire argument stems from calling his view biased.
Utter nonsense.

 

[Amiga500]

What a sad little prat you are

At least I'm not the prick with the whistle who is that arrogant he believes he can do no wrong... even when they are f**king clueless.

 

[smartcooky]

At least I'm not the prick with the whistle who is that arrogant he believes he can do no wrong... even when they are f**king clueless.

Clueless? Pot, meet kettle!

 

[AzaMatt]

*eats popcorn*

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Really? That's justifiable under the laws?

Actually, I have to admit that think I might be wrong about the penalty try, although not for the reasons some might think (I still think the yellow card was warranted, and that White 14 is lucky he didn't get one as well).

If you watch this video again, and this time, ignore the actions of White 8 and 14 and watch what White 5 does.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/38514314

HE is the player who actually prevents the try being scored. He slides his hand and arm around the ball and wraps it up to prevent Red 2 from getting the ball to ground.

This makes me think that the penalty try might not have been justified on the same grounds that they are often not awarded where there is another defender in a position to legally prevent the try being scored (e.g. player late-tackled after kicking ahead but another cover defender in position would usual rule out a penalty try being awarded)

However, it also shows that it is perfectly possible to legally defend against a player low to the ground. Red 2 was lower to the ground when White 5 tackled him than when the other two did, and he actually stopped the ball carrier from grounding the ball.

- - - Updated - - -



You still whining on and on and on about it I see.

What a sad little prat you are

The 5 is only able to make any attempt at the ball due to the torsional force being applied by the tackler who receives the yellow card. Without the illegal (and it's soft) intervention of the player he makes the line with his body in a position where 5 cannot make that intervention. If it's a yellow card for a high tackle (which under the laws now it is, but it's not in my view particularly dangerous). In which case surely it's a penalty try?

 

[Blindside]

The 5 is only able to make any attempt at the ball due to the torsional force being applied by the tackler who receives the yellow card. Without the illegal (and it's soft) intervention of the player he makes the line with his body in a position where 5 cannot make that intervention. If it's a yellow card for a high tackle (which under the laws now it is, but it's not in my view particularly dangerous). In which case surely it's a penalty try?

That is the only sensible way of looking at it. Its clearly the case.

The issue is the enforcement of the rules. Had this rule not been "in fashion" i doubt ti would even have been a penalty. But it looks like this fashion is going to become a on going trend, which we have to (or at least the players have to) adjust too

 

[bertiec]

As SC says, bad technique will cause high tackles and head/neck injuries. As for in air offences I wonder if claiming penalties by pogoing round the pitch into folk and squeaking will become par for the course. The choke tackle is mystifying, I am sure if you wob over and at the shout of maul you are collapsing and the penalty goes against you. And don't even start on the scrum, the bending, changing, messing with things without thinking of the long term tends to f*** it all up. Should be following the kiss rule not making it more complicated. Like the forward pass thing, eh SC. lol.

 

[smartcooky]

That is the only sensible way of looking at it. Its clearly the case.

The issue is the enforcement of the rules. Had this rule not been "in fashion" i doubt ti would even have been a penalty. But it looks like this fashion is going to become a on going trend, which we have to (or at least the players have to) adjust too

Some interesting comments from the two presenters, Mark Durden-Smith and David Flatman during the ITV4 AP Highlights package I saw on The Rugby Channel on NZ Sky TV last night. The upshot was that Flatman reckons the whole aim of the new head contact Laws is not so much for the professional game, where the players are trained to take those hits, but for the millions of amateur players world wide, who are generally not equipped to deal with the intensity or the magnitudes of the hits that elite players take.

Earlier, a poster here (not sure if it was in this thread) suggested that it might be time for a different set of Laws, or at least modified laws, for the amateur and the professional games. I'm inclined to agree.

As for the "player in the air" scenarios. I really like basketball's approach to this. Basketball is a game where there is limited space, the players are much closer together that they are on a the rugby field, and they spend proportionally more time jumping and "in the air"

From the FIBA Basketball Rules

[TEXTAREA]Rule 6 - Article 33.6 - A player who is in the air

A player who has jumped into the air from a place on the playing court has the right to land again at the same place.

He has the right to land on another place on the playing court provided that the landing place and the direct path between the take-off and landing place is not already occupied by an opponent(s) at the time of take-off.

If a player has taken off and landed but his momentum causes him to contact an opponent who has taken a legal guarding position beyond the landing place, the jumper is responsible for the contact.

An opponent may not move into the path of a player after that player has jumped into the air.

Moving under a player who is in the air and causing contact is usually an unsportsmanlike foul and in certain circumstances may be a disqualifying foul.[/TEXTAREA]

I like this, and it could be easily adapted to apply to Rugby.

The player is allowed to jump provided the space between his take off and landing is clear at the time of the jump.

If its not clear, and he clatters an opponent who was already in that space at the time he jumped, the jumper is PK for dangerous charging.

If it is clear, but an opponent moves into that space after the jumper has jumped, then the opponent is PK for playing a player in the air.

Simple, straightforward and easy to officiate.