Law trials and changes
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
Tackle Height in Premier 1st XV School Rugby: 90% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Men's Rugby: 78% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Women's Rugby: 72% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Type in Teenage Boys' 1st XV: Nearly 90% of tackles involved 1 tackler.
Interesting to know how they plan to referee this.
-
@Victor-Meldrew These tackle laws were already applied in 2023. Is it that much different to applying another tackle height?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Law trials and changes:
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
Tackle Height in Premier 1st XV School Rugby: 90% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Men's Rugby: 78% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Women's Rugby: 72% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Type in Teenage Boys' 1st XV: Nearly 90% of tackles involved 1 tackler.
Interesting to know how they plan to referee this.
If it's the same as over here - very loosely unless they're being assessed. Just don't be stupid - as long as you're hitting lower shoulder line or below you're fine.
-
Sorry should have been clearer (painting ceilings addles my brain..). Was wondering how they are going to referee/judge/officiate on the percentages?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Law trials and changes:
Sorry should have been clearer (painting ceilings addles my brain..). Was wondering how they are going to referee/judge/officiate on the percentages?
I can't tell if that was meant to be a joke or not and I'm not even painting.
-
@Bones said in Law trials and changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Law trials and changes:
Sorry should have been clearer (painting ceilings addles my brain..). Was wondering how they are going to referee/judge/officiate on the percentages?
I can't tell if that was meant to be a joke or not and I'm not even painting.
Tackle Height in Premier 1st XV School Rugby: 90% of first tackles below the sternum.
How and who is going to check on the 90% figure?
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
Reduced tackle height in community rugby: 2023 key insights
@Victor-Meldrew check out those last two words, they might be important.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Was just posting the same thing as Bones, without reading his comment first.
The percentages aren't targets; they're stats from 2023.
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
@Victor-Meldrew Was just posting the same thing as Bones, without reading his comment first.
The percentages aren't targets; they're stats from 2023.
Ah, thanks.
-
-
World Rugby more interested in prosecuting "fans" than asking themselves what they could do to fix the problem(s). Other than pandering to the blind watching on TV.
World Rugby to take action against fans over World Cup referee abuse
Exclusive: Around 200 incidents of abuse have been referred to law-enforcement and government agencies
-
@antipodean I'm glad they're going after those idiots. I don't think they are fans btw.
-
@Machpants said in Law trials and changes:
Should be rolled out to Pro, right now, imo. It's going to have to anyway so do it now.
It works as a really good guideline in community rugby as refs can just use the eye test and only penalise if it's actually high, but at the higher level it'd be a farce, imagine all the replays.
Something that appears to be missing that's used over here though is the one around the dip in height of the ball carrier.
-
@Bones said in Law trials and changes:
@Machpants said in Law trials and changes:
Should be rolled out to Pro, right now, imo. It's going to have to anyway so do it now.
It works as a really good guideline in community rugby as refs can just use the eye test and only penalise if it's actually high, but at the higher level it'd be a farce, imagine all the replays.
Something that appears to be missing that's used over here though is the one around the dip in height of the ball carrier.
Disagree, penalty only for above nipple line or whatever they call it, unless head. As everyone is aiming lower there will be less. But agree with the dip and leading with the head, that needs sorting
-
@Machpants said in Law trials and changes:
Disagree, penalty only for above nipple line or whatever they call it
We already get enough check check with it being a pretty clear distinction. Imagine how many we're going to get while the tmo says "hold on barnesy, just going to draw some nipples on him".
-
The logical conclusion of this race to the bottom will be you can only tackle around the ankles. Then they'll complain about the amount of knee injuries...
-
So I've watched a few games now with the new tackle height rule (nipple line) and with a keen referee it seems every third tackle is considered a penalizable offence. Without consideration of whether this will reduce head injury occurrences it seems to me that you can't overcome 10-20 years of muscle memory.
IMO what they should've done was introduced it at a young age group and then had the law interpretation follow that cohort as they age. Obviously that would pose a bit of a conundrum for young colts moving into second/ first grade ahead of this schedule, but it's currently making the game an even worse stop start affair.
-
I also think that if they are going to have this tackle height we'll see more offloads, so they should be stricter on the tackle release to even it up between attack and defence. If you git the ground, and are released, you have to get to your feet and pick up the ball again - always.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@antipodean it seems fine here now at normal club level rugby - a happy medium is met and only actual high tackles are penalised. Only time I've seen a case like you describe in the last couple of years is when the ref was being assessed.
