WR's changes in tackle laws (Video)

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by Cruz_del_Sur, Dec 15, 2016.

  1. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,393
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    [video]https://youtu.be/p6SKgwx7syo[/video]


    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: Dec 15, 2016
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,393
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    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/index.php?action=social&c=7380ad8a673226ae47fce7bff88e9c33.513

    This part is the one that worries me

     
  4. living sacrifice

    living sacrifice Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,605
    Location:
    Rugby
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    So i guess it's trying to make leg only tackles then....boring.
     
  5. Which Tyler

    Which Tyler Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,409
    Location:
    Tewkesbury
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    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.
     
  6. Ddanno

    Ddanno Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    534
    Location:
    London
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    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!
     
  7. Bruce_ma_goose

    Bruce_ma_goose Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,525
    Country Flag:

    Scotland

    Club or Nation:

    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. living sacrifice

    living sacrifice Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,605
    Location:
    Rugby
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    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.
     
  9. Bruce_ma_goose

    Bruce_ma_goose Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,525
    Country Flag:

    Scotland

    Club or Nation:

    Italy

    Well, I should have said "duck so much that it would induce a high tackle", e.g. 4 feet or less.
     
  10. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,393
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    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. FNS

    FNS Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    301
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    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".
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page