• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

WR's changes in tackle laws (Video)

Cruz_del_Sur

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
3,667
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:
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

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
 
[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.

So i guess it's trying to make leg only tackles then....boring.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Well, I should have said "duck so much that it would induce a high tackle", e.g. 4 feet or less.
 
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.
 
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".
 

Latest posts

Top