The customer is always right?



  • @pakman said in The customer is always right?:

    BTW meant to post this topic in Sports Talk, but thwarted as computer said, 'invalid category'. World Rigby is everywhere?!

    Moved.

    Got to watch out for Rigby.



  • @booboo Ta. Fat fingers!!



  • I'd rather see the current product be "heavily diminished" than continue to watch talented players like Afeaki, Broadhurst, Ngatai, etc. sit out years or retire in their prime because of concussion issues (or worse, be crippled or die early deaths). Fuck that.

    I don't think it'd be heavily diminished anyway, just a bit different, same as when any major law change comes into effect.



  • This seems like a round about way to have a moan about Luatua getting banned - I can't really see any other purpose.

    Luatua got what he deserved in my opinion. Off the ball, swinging arm, around the head. Red +Ban.



  • @MajorRage i don't disagree, but a red, and 6-down-to-4 is a hell of a punishment



  • @mariner4life you wanna play the SANZAR judiciary lottery...



  • @mariner4life If you hadn't seen the incident and you read swinging arm off the ball around the head ... what would you expect?



  • I don't mind them enforcing the current laws, but the problem is if they introduce a ruling that lowers the area that can be tackled. At least over the shoulder is pretty clear - anything lower becomes more subjective.

    And as it is, people will still suffer career-ending injuries and concussions from head knocks, or heads on knees and hips. We already know that the tackler is more likely to be injured as it is.



  • @Unco said in The customer is always right?:

    I'd rather see the current product be "heavily diminished" than continue to watch talented players like Afeaki, Broadhurst, Ngatai, etc. sit out years or retire in their prime because of concussion issues (or worse, be crippled or die early deaths). Fuck that.

    I don't think it'd be heavily diminished anyway, just a bit different, same as when any major law change comes into effect.

    So rugby pre-1980s.



  • This point was made by someone else in another thread months back , and at the time I thought you could be on to something,

    This new law could end up being world rugbys worst nightmare , no one is better at keeping the ball alive than us , with tacklers being nervous trying to lock up the ball in the tackle, imagine how many phases we may string together now



  • A few responses.

    This isn't about the Luatua ban. I don't agree with it, but it has a relatively minor effect on future viewing enjoyment.

    As I said, no one disputes the safety element. I believe the current tackling law of height is appropriate.

    However, what I very strongly disagree with is the edict from on high that (as I understand it) contact with the head is sn AUTOMATIC red.

    The key reason is that mandating a red not going to have any real impact on safety.

    I very much doubt that nowadays many professionals attempt to target the head. Mailicous play deserves the book thrown at it.

    But the automatic red is designed to catch careless contact. If one thinks about it, however good the technique, a certain number of times shoulder tackles are going to accidentally ride up and make contact with the head. So what is the intended effect of the MANDATORY red?

    The obvious answer is EITHER to keep coaching shoulder high tackles and take your chances OR to coach chest high and eliminate the risk.

    I believe coaches will stick to shoulder high and emphasise better technique. I suspect World Rugby would prefer the latter.

    I should argue that the situations which are NOW automatic red but were formerly yellow or discretionary red will not diminish in frequency much and the impact on head injuries will be immeasurably low.

    Nonetheless, head knocks will remain a cause celebre in the press.

    Hence, the concern that World Rugby will react in due course by lowering the rule to chest high.

    In the meantime, the requirement for red, in sutuations where most refs would give yellow because they believe it is the appropriate sanction, is certain to ruin more than a few 'Super' games this season. And watch out ABs!

    Instead, I'd like to see a minimum 'double' yellow trialled. Idiots like Luatua off for duration. But after 10 a player could be brought on from bench for remainder of game.

    Strong deterrent but avoids spectators switching off.



  • @pakman No.

    If TNW had the ball, then it would have been a yellow, maybe a red on the right day to the right ref.

    But he didn't. It was off the ball. Thats a red all day.



  • Yeah I can't quite follow that argument. If it's a high probability that you'll get punished for something, it's less likely to happen.

    When was the last time we saw anyone rucked?



  • @Bones It's a low probability that tackling round shoulders will hit head. If it were high probability then clearly coaches would require players to target chest...
    and then we're into the offload debate...



  • @pakman said in The customer is always right?:

    @Bones It's a low probability that tackling round shoulders will hit head. If it were high probability then clearly coaches would require players to target chest...
    and then we're into the offload debate...

    So you're saying that because of law changes, the style of play might change? And the issue there is....?

    Lifting the leg and tip tackles used to be common place....again, something very rarely seen.



  • @MajorRage I watched it again.
    It really is boneheaded by Luatua. My best guess is that he wanted to take TNW out of the move by an 'accidental' block. Not only was it a professional foul (sure you'll find plenty of these if you watch tapes) but it was also really clumsy. No swinging arm -- rather just kept arms outstretched as he stood up and seemed not to occur to him that as as TNW much shorter could catch him in head.
    No qualms if ref would have given discretionary red anyway, but for me not worthy of MANDATORY red. On the other hand would be an excellent use of 'double yellow'.



  • @Bones To me tip tackles were better out than in. So no qualms with legislating against them via rule change.
    By the same reasoning, if the consensus is that tackling ought to be penalised if above chest (which I don't agree with) then just change the rules. Don't try and get there by subterfuge via a failed mandatory red for accidental head impact experiment.
    But if the decision is to stick with shoulder high, leave the refs with discretion. They're professionals and are unlikely to miss any significant number of genuinely dangerous and reckless tackles.
    Or bring in 'double yellow'.



  • @pakman Have you read the rules at all? There is no such thing as an automatic red! Here are some quotes:

    In a change to law, World Rugby has redefined illegal (high) tackle categories and increased sanctions to deter high tackles via a law application guideline. This will apply at all levels of the game from 3 January 2017 introducing minimum on-field sanctions for reckless and accidental contact with the head, effectively lowering the acceptable height of the tackle.
    
    Reckless tackle
    A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders.
     
    Minimum sanction: Yellow card
    Maximum sanction: Red card
     
    Accidental tackle
    When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent's head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle.
     
    Minimum sanction: Penalty
    

    http://www.worldrugby.org/news/213339

    Law no. 10.4(e)
    Dangerous tackling of an Opponent including early or late and including the action known as the "stiff arm tackle"
    
    Entry point based on scale of seriousness of the player's conduct, which constitutes the offending
    Lower end - 2 weeks
    Mid-range - 6 weeks
    Top end - 10+ weeks
    
    Maximum sanction: 52 weeks
    
    Law no. 10.4(e)
    Dangerous tackling of an Opponent including:
    (i) a tackle or attempted tackle above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders;
    (ii) grabbing and rolling/twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders
    
    Entry point based on scale of seriousness of the player's conduct, which constitutes the offending
    Lower end - 2 weeks
    Mid-range - 6 weeks
    Top end - 10+ weeks
    
    A dangerous tackle which results in a strike to the head shall result in at least a mid-range entry point sanction.
    
    Maximum sanction: 52 weeks
    

    0_1488796191462_upload-a97f8167-6305-478f-9de4-6b1b6806d5fd





  • @Stargazer You are dead right. My bad. The rules don't mandate red. However, as your second post indicates there appears to have been 'informal' guidance concerning what is yellow and what is [mandatory] red. Can't seem to find anything for Super Rugby, but I'm pretty sure guidance has been given to refs.


Log in to reply