A change around the laws in the tackle.
-
Wouldn't it be easier to just go tot he ripper rugby format?
-
-
-
Some of the worst head injuries are knee -> head when trying to tackle low.
As he says: Rafferty added: "We have to be sure that if we do make changes that improve the situation with head injuries, we are not causing another problem."
Could easily just increase the chances of other injuries occuring.
I'm all for the studies into head injuries and what we can do to mitigate them. But any changes have to be practical and not ruin the game as a spectacle.
-
@No-Quarter said in A change around the laws in the tackle.:
Some of the worst head injuries are knee -> head when trying to tackle low.
As he says: Rafferty added: "We have to be sure that if we do make changes that improve the situation with head injuries, we are not causing another problem."
Could easily just increase the chances of other injuries occuring.
I'm all for the studies into head injuries and what we can do to mitigate them. But any changes have to be practical and not ruin the game as a spectacle.
And how many times have we seen somone knocked out by someones hip?!?
-
@Hooroo said in A change around the laws in the tackle.:
@Kirwan said in A change around the laws in the tackle.:
Well that would be a quick way to completely ruin rugby.
Do you mean the new trial? Agree.
Yes, a completely stupid change.
-
Funny how that article shows a picture of Brodie Retallick during Bledisloe III. That concussion wasn't caused by a tackle but by Dean Mumm elbowing him in the face.
Anyway, as long as they keep that trial well away from Super Rugby and NPC, and limit that trial to - say - U16s ... The trial they had in this year's Mitre 10 Cup was terrible for the game. Has anyone seen a evaluation of that trial, yet?
-
It will be interesting to see this law in action in the U20 JWC.
I'm not against it. In my playing time (80s to early 90s) I'd say this was pretty close to the unwritten rule anyway. If you went shoulder height you had a 50/50 chance of being pinged for head high tackle so you aimed lower. But game was less physical then and with less offloads.
I remember when Western Samoa started getting televised from 1991 onwards they would often get penalised for tackles that weren't technically high but were pushing the boundary as they obviously got refereed differently in their domestics and had built up a culture of the big hit.
My hunch is it will see an increase in offloads due to this change unless there is a wrap around technique that is currently unknown an unpracticed that can do the role of the high tackle to prevent the offload.
If there are more offloads, which is fine, then I think to balance this we will need to re-visit the passing the ball off the ground in the tackle that is currently allowed. I fucking hate this law/interpretation anyway and am now off to the the 'things that annoy you" thread to vent my reasons .....
I see see parellels with the forward pass rule.
Back in my day the passes had to go back, so if you passed flat you were probably going to get pinged for a forward pass. So you didn't/
Now refs interpret flat passes as ok, and therefore the line has slipped to slightly forward passes going uncalled.
It used to be that slightly high tackles got called, then we lifted that line so the margin of error means that a few genuinely high tackles slip through unpunished . E.g. it started at chest height but slipped up .... etc
As long as it is sensible, penalties not cards etc, if players duck in and are driving parallel to the ground. etc.
I don't have much faith in rugby union referees, their bosses, and common sense though.
-
@rapido said in A change around the laws in the tackle.:
As long as it is sensible, penalties not cards etc, if players duck in and are driving parallel to the ground. etc.
This is the issue. Runners cannot drop their heads into the contact zone - some people are head down runners, and how the hell do you tackle that? Gets like Lions 3 last year, wtih JK copping a YC for tackling someone running with their head and torso parallel to the ground
Agree on passing off the ground. If this comes in, make it that once you're down, it's place not pass.
-
@nzzp said in A change around the laws in the tackle.:
@rapido said in A change around the laws in the tackle.:
As long as it is sensible, penalties not cards etc, if players duck in and are driving parallel to the ground. etc.
This is the issue. Runners cannot drop their heads into the contact zone - some people are head down runners, and how the hell do you tackle that? Gets like Lions 3 last year, wtih JK copping a YC for tackling someone running with their head and torso parallel to the ground
Agree on passing off the ground. If this comes in, make it that once you're down, it's place not pass.
Yes, this is where i get worried.
I don't mind the law interpretation.
But i doubt some/many refs abilities to use common sense for the first x months after a new directive, especially when the camera is zooming in on them.
It seems if IRB Referees Head Office give out a new directive then refs world wide lose their abilities to think, sometimes, for a while.
-
"The directive is for the tackler to bend at the waist and make contact below the nipple. Generally before that it was underneath the armpits, so the height hasn't changed a lot, it's more focus on the tackler bending at the waist and making sure they aren't upright," Gilmore said.
This may cause some issues tbh. E.g IIRC correctly Kaino last year was standing upright and a Lion ran into him at waist height.
I wonder if Kaino was to think "as long as i bend at the waist", and tried to quickly get in a non-penalisable position that there is actually more of a chance of a head clash.
