Highlanders vs. Hurricanes



  • @rapido said in Highlanders vs. Hurricanes:

    I know swinging arm is different ruling to a high tackle. But jebus, its rugby.

    There's going to be more and more of this. What cheeses me is the consistency - see Kaino last year with the Lions (YC), but nothign for the hit on Naholo that broke his jaw. Both hits were on people aroudn waist high.

    All of this really begs the question - is it really about protection of the head? If so, there is some duty imposed on the runner to not drop voluntarily in the contact zone. And, for that matter, it shouldn't matter who you connect with - if you inadvertantly smack someone on your own side in the head, if it is about protection, that should get you a consequence.

    Like anything rugby related, it's not the laws, it's the deep inconsistency from week to week (or even within the game) that just make you shake your head.



  • Didn't they change the law so that contact with the head, regardless of height, is a YC offense? Meaning players can just put their head down and charge at the line. It's making it very difficult to ref. I know the standard of reffing is pretty low at the moment, but I really don't envy them with the directives and law changes being rolled out.



  • @no-quarter said in Highlanders vs. Hurricanes:

    Didn't they change the law so that contact with the head, regardless of height, is a YC offense? Meaning players can just put their head down and charge at the line. It's making it very difficult to ref. I know the standard of reffing is pretty low at the moment, but I really don't envy them with the directives and law changes being rolled out.

    It's the directives that are the problem. Refs are unable to make commons sense decisions because they're given inflexible directives.

    Foul play to the head should be punished, rugby accidents should be play on - and maybe if they need to be seen to do something to avoid future legal suits .... some sort of re-education program to encourage changes in techniques ( like driving demerits), if change in outcomes is at all possible in these scenarios



  • @nzzp see had the O'Brien/Naholo hit not happened, Kaino gets a red...but the bed had been made the week before failing to address O'Brien.

    It is a,huge problem with players putting themselves in danger by ducking into tackles or God forbid, diving for the line, and any defender is at the mercy of luck as to whether they make head contact.



  • The thing is people need to recalibrate when someone dives for the line, because even if you are there you may not be able to effect a legal tackle, so you have to let them in. Same as if the only way to stop a try would be kicking the guy in the head, you don't do that, so don't tackle around the head. Means more tries but less cards! Not saying its right but it is the rules. Rugby is sitting on a potential suing nightmare due to concussion effects and have to act. Today's players have to think 'can I stop him without probably whacking him in the head?' If the answer is no, then don't tackle.



  • @rapido said in Highlanders vs. Hurricanes:

    I hate cleanouts, full stop, opportunity to line a player up so no sympathy from me if they get in wrong , and when the do I suspect it's half deliberate

    wait, what? You're a back right?



  • Rugby has created this sort of scenario by being lenient on two things:

    1. the definition of "on your feet" for the jackaler, effectively allowing them to lay down on tackled players; and
    2. attacking players staying on their feet when cleaning out.

    If there was less leeway on either of these things, then there would be fat less force in the cleanout.



  • @mariner4life said in Highlanders vs. Hurricanes:

    @rapido said in Highlanders vs. Hurricanes:

    I hate cleanouts, full stop, opportunity to line a player up so no sympathy from me if they get in wrong , and when the do I suspect it's half deliberate

    wait, what? You're a back right?

    I did both actually. Although I moved from flanker to a back just before the 92 law changes.

    So, we used to bind and blow over the ruck. And if it didn't come out or you didn't shift a body - no dramas. Scrums took 30 seconds to set and we started again.



  • @mariner4life said in Highlanders vs. Hurricanes:

    Rugby has created this sort of scenario by being lenient on two things:

    1. the definition of "on your feet" for the jackaler, effectively allowing them to lay down on tackled players; and
    2. attacking players staying on their feet when cleaning out.

    If there was less leeway on either of these things, then there would be fat less force in the cleanout.

    I think you are right, so many defenders just fly over the ruck and almost, but not quite enough to earn a penalty, lie on the ball. Then they get up onto their hands and knees/feet. And the amount of elbows and forearms on the ground, along with knees/weight on the player on the ground by the jackal is ridiclous. Enforce that hard and things change - ie as soon as anything other than hands on ball/feet on ground touches something, penalise the jackaler, defenders same, feet on ground hands off.

    /dream of rules actually being enforced



  • @rapido yea, i sort of remember those days. Around 2000 suddenly everyone had their hands in rucks, and cleanouts involved a heap of force.


Log in to reply