RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C)
-
-
@Snowy said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@voodoo I don't think you actually read or understood the whole thing?
Clearly I'm exaggerating for effect. But I think the "tackle below the waist" thing is a game wrecker. Losing the dominant tackle will totally change the game. And I still haven't figured out how you tackle a forward running with perfect body height. Imagine trying to tackle Keew Meeuws 1m out from the line!!!
Does run cage v waist make a difference? Maybe, I dunno
-
@voodoo said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
Clearly I'm exaggerating for effect. But I think the "tackle below the waist" thing is a game wrecker.
Which is why I mentioned in my clarification below the ribs. Hit Kees in the belly he still stops, and don't let them get that close because it gets harder to defend, for sure. Maybe more close to the line tries for props. They need the help, don't score too many now.
Yeah I think a little higher makes a difference, it is the ball carry area and you can still knock a guy over, knock the ball out, rather than just cut him down.
-
Yep, a bit higher def helps. I'm just concerned withbthe general direction and think we are losing sight of what we are solving for.
Player safety is obviously paramount, and things like tip tackles that can cause neck injuries and paralysis had to go. Likewise no-arm tackles and head contact that can massively increase concussion occurrences.
But tackling below the shoulders, where a possible mistake can lead to a high shot which is rightly penalised (let's not open that again), I just don't know that we need to solve further for that
-
@voodoo I guess that is why they are trying the "nipple line" at lower levels. Just trying to get players to attack lower without too much end result on the game. It's certainly not touch.
Have another look at what I said about the tackle laws, rather than height. It was a more valuable comment I think.
-
@Bovidae said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@westcoastie said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
this is very true - hadn't considered that angle - but a win tonight doesn't mean they top the pool does it. Plus a loss to France, puts them into a quarter with Wales compared to Australia. They want and need to win the pool.
If the Aussie forwards play like they did in the 2nd half against Wales and Cheika starts To'omua they can beat England.
Yeah I think Wales are far more predictable than the Aussies and that would probably suit England’s game more.
-
Sorry mate, I'll admit I did skip over your tackle comments - i blame daylight savings and my lost your of sleep ...
I guess you're right in that the entire tackle has to be looked at so it works together. The held/release concepts are pretty interesting, I'm not sure I'd want to see us go full NFL-style where you can't keep going after you hit the deck. What if you trip over or are ankle-tapped? I think there needs to be some concept of a made tackle, not sure how you deal with releasing etc after that .
Bloody minefield, and I guess I'm just a bit loathe to tinker with rules repeatedly when I'm not really sure there is a huge issue we need to solve for.
-
One thing I would add is tackling lower is more dangerous for the tackler. Either knees to the head or get your head in slightly the wrong position and you can be KO'd/pick up a neck injury very easily. There's always consequences to whatever laws you have in place.
End of the day rugby is a physical game and injuries will happen.
-
@voodoo Clarifying laws, removing ambiguity for refs, players, and spectators can only be a good thing surely?
If a player must release / pass immediately once one knee on ground, it will mean that he has to have a support player there, or turnover.
If you have been ankle tapped, you have effectively been tackled, taken off your feet you need support players. It's a team game.
If you trip over you have fcked up and should be forced to cede possession anyway.Some of the basic premises of rugby - play on your feet - like contesting the ball (and not being league).
Sometimes change is good. -
@No-Quarter Agreed. Going too high or too low (with poor technique) just changes who is at risk the most, tackler, or the tacklee.
-
@cgrant said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
England had to win five successive hard fought games to win the RWC. Actually, it's only four. They played slowly and saved their energy all game long. The issue was never in doubt. Let's hope France give them a real test. An England loss would be great for the All Blacks.
An England loss puts them on the otherside of the draw to us, we'd likely end up with winner of France v Australia (as their quarter is shaping up to be)
-
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
On the send off . sin bin rule, I follow AFL which has none, and the players get harshly dealt with at a tribunal ,
like anything , there are positives and negatives,
you dont get games decided by the send off which is probably better from a spectacle point of view,
but you could argue the team on the receiving end of the foul play doesnt receive enough compensation , particularly if they have lost a player through that foul play , the team that plays them next it could be argued benefits , because of the suspension,
And it does open a window for a player in a big game to go a bit nuts knowing he wont be sent off
you could change it but i dont think it fixes everything
What about, automatic 7pt try, red player gets replaced, and sent to tribunal for a heavy suspension
-
I watched this delayed and was fair fuming at the card. I thought he ducked into it slightly and maybe should have been a yellow...but to be fair that was probably my bias of being really keen to watch an exciting contest. Ended up switching it off when it became obvious that there was not going to be a miracle 14 man victory. The card turned what should have been an awesome spectacle into a complete dud. Owen's probably had no choice but to make it red but add me to those who think red cards need to change, hell even something like player doesn't return but can be replaced after 20 mins. Still nearly fatal for a team but there is at least a little hope for a contest for an early red.
Have to say though fair play to Farrell not making a big deal of it and just getting straight back up, I imagine a lot of players would have seen that as an opportunity to take the game away.
-
@Rembrandt said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
fair play to Farrell not making a big deal of it
He's often the instigator.
-
@westcoastie said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
On the send off . sin bin rule, I follow AFL which has none, and the players get harshly dealt with at a tribunal ,
like anything , there are positives and negatives,
you dont get games decided by the send off which is probably better from a spectacle point of view,
but you could argue the team on the receiving end of the foul play doesnt receive enough compensation , particularly if they have lost a player through that foul play , the team that plays them next it could be argued benefits , because of the suspension,
And it does open a window for a player in a big game to go a bit nuts knowing he wont be sent off
you could change it but i dont think it fixes everything
What about, automatic 7pt try, red player gets replaced, and sent to tribunal for a heavy suspension
I personally would like this given a trial, a 10 minute sin bin , except that player is gone for good, when the 10 is up he is replaced by someone from the bench.
It’s a bit of a compromise, games won’t be so harshly ruined so to speak, and that player cops a harsh punishment personally.
-
Maybe your red still exists for your intentional acts of foul play that has always been there ,
But I think many are thinking for these new accidental cases , the punishment doesn’t fit the crime and maybe we need something in between yellow and red that might feel more appropriate
-
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@westcoastie said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
On the send off . sin bin rule, I follow AFL which has none, and the players get harshly dealt with at a tribunal ,
like anything , there are positives and negatives,
you dont get games decided by the send off which is probably better from a spectacle point of view,
but you could argue the team on the receiving end of the foul play doesnt receive enough compensation , particularly if they have lost a player through that foul play , the team that plays them next it could be argued benefits , because of the suspension,
And it does open a window for a player in a big game to go a bit nuts knowing he wont be sent off
you could change it but i dont think it fixes everything
What about, automatic 7pt try, red player gets replaced, and sent to tribunal for a heavy suspension
I personally would like this given a trial, a 10 minute sin bin , except that player is gone for good, when the 10 is up he is replaced by someone from the bench.
It’s a bit of a compromise, games won’t be so harshly ruined so to speak, and that player cops a harsh punishment personally.
I like what was suggested above too, and add an automatic penalty try 7 points
