The customer is always right?
-
No one is going to criticise dangerous play being punished, and the players' safety is of fundamental concern.
That said, the hamfisted efforts of World Rugby and the refereeing cabal are in serious danger of destroying the product for the customers; I.e. us the fans. The Chiefs Blues being a good example.
Luatua was a bonehead with his high tackle. But seriously, does anyone think that it was in danger of causing serious injury to TNW?
Some might say that the red card and imbecilic four week ban are a necessary deterrent/incentive to reform technique. That doesn't stand scrutiny in my book.
The punishment will do nothing of substance other than to make tacklers hope that they aren't the ones who are unlucky enough to suffer from an accidental head contact.
If you want to be mollycoddling, simply ban tackling above the chest and watch the product be heavily diminished!
To me it is simply incontestable that the referee retain discretion as to the punishment in such cases. These guys are professionals and ought to be/are quite capable of determining when a red is merited -- deliberate efforts to injure or reckless negligence being key criteria.
If I had been referee Luatua would have seen yellow. That was proportionate and I suggest that TNW would have felt more than satisfied with that outcome.
If an example really needs to be made, please remember the customers
:::
spoiler text
:::
, who pay good money to see a contest, not to be the victims of well meaning dogma. That could be achieved by something along the lines of the idea of a 'super yellow', whereby the culprit sits the rest of the game out, but after 10 a replacement could be brought on.
Rant over -- just one fan's view!
-
-
@Kirwan said in The customer is always right?:
I think this is a step towards no above the chest tackling, even as far as nothing above the waist. It's just coming in baby steps.
They have certainly set out their stall and you may be right - while tacklers might aim lower, with the speed of the game, a chest high hit will never be far from slipping up towards the neck. Whether it moves as low as waist, we'll have to wait and see - players are so good at passing out of the tackle, it might make defence impossible.
-
-
@KiwiPie said in The customer is always right?:
@Kirwan said in The customer is always right?:
I think this is a step towards no above the chest tackling, even as far as nothing above the waist. It's just coming in baby steps.
They have certainly set out their stall and you may be right - while tacklers might aim lower, with the speed of the game, a chest high hit will never be far from slipping up towards the neck. Whether it moves as low as waist, we'll have to wait and see - players are so good at passing out of the tackle, it might make defence impossible.
Some of the Chiefs trys make that point well, with the offloads in the tackle. It would make me laugh if WR make that change and it adds 30points to the All Blacks (and probably Wallabies) scores.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
-
@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 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.
