Red cards
-
@mariner4life said in Red cards:
@MiketheSnow really? I'm astounded.
You prop like that, s bloke falls in to your arm, you get carded? Oosh that's tough
No idea what this means sorry
-
@mariner4life said in Red cards:
@MiketheSnow really? I'm astounded.
You prop like that, s bloke falls in to your arm, you get carded? Oosh that's tough
Something about Mike's recent posts suggests to me he's taken a few too any high shots himself (either that or he's majorly on the piss).
Neither.
But seen the result of too many shots to the head. It's not pretty.
-
Maybe world rugby should introduce a multicolour card system, to take account of the degree of seriousness
"On-field decision is magenta, can you confirm?"
"That's all the angles, and the correct decision is in fact cyan".
"Blue 6, that tackle was between the neck and head, so instead of magenta it's cyan. 12 minutes in the bin, 20 push-ups, 10 burpees" -
@MiketheSnow I dont think there is any argument that we need to be protecting the head, but WR have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the game, and some of the cards that are being handed out are at odds with this.
They should not be using thier showpeice as a testing ground for this, unless thye thnk thier audience is largely ignorant to the technical aspects.
Your arm needs to be swinging/moving toward the player to make the tackle, otherwise you get done for a shoulder charge, how is it the defenders fault if a player trips or dips into a tackle to ensure they are not going to be held up and he then accidentally hits the head because it is too late ot not make a normal tackle?
The Ofa tackle last night, shouldnt even be a penalty, the Nepo one, I am ok it was penalised, not happy it was YCd but can see why given his arm looked to have impacted a bit heavier, but again, very little these guys can do in the situation, already committed, pull back the arm and they shoulder charge, if that ends up collecting the head, RC...
-
Matt Dawson feels this is the perfect stage
-
@MiketheSnow pretty sure Matt Dawson is a f@ckstick....
-
@taniwharugby said in Red cards:
@MiketheSnow pretty sure Matt Dawson is a f@ckstick....
Why only 'pretty sure'?
Your memory playing up or something?
-
@MiketheSnow said in Red cards:
@MiketheSnow said in Red cards:
@mariner4life said in Red cards:
For the "just tackle lower" crowd, what exactly was Ofa T supposed to do differently?
Not lead with a swinging arm to the head.
Let the ball carrier continue his trajectory to the dirt, then jackal.
I agree that is the less risky, but more passive option, which is where the 'tackling instinct ' obviously needs to revert.
But what if he was defending on his tryline in that scenario? Serious question.
Then it would have been a penalty try.
Sorry Mike, but that's just stupid. You've just made it impossible to defend your line from a ruck closer than 2m out.
I asked this question earlier but didn't see anyone answer so I will ask it again - why is it the responsibility of the defender to protect the head of an attacking player who is charging forward recklessly, head and neck first, ball tucked away in his midriff or at his side, a full 2 feet behind the point of impact?
Why isn't it the attackers responsibility to protect his head by running upright, making the shoulder or chest or a fend as the initial point of impact?
Yes I am aware that for 100 years we have coached players to get their body height down, to drive low through tackles etc, and with good reason. But it strikes me as odd that we are now asking defenders to solve the problem for them.
Swinging arms are not necessary, but if you want to lead with your head, then you're going to make contact with my arms. Your issue, not mine.
-
@Crucial I was being kind to @MiketheSnow for referencing Dawson in what seemed a 'positive' way...even though if Dawson has endorsed it, you know it is wrong!
-
@MiketheSnow said in Red cards:
@mariner4life said in Red cards:
For the "just tackle lower" crowd, what exactly was Ofa T supposed to do differently?
Not lead with a swinging arm to the head.
Let the ball carrier continue his trajectory to the dirt, then jackal.
this is a prime example of why I have an issue with half the feedback people give saying players just need to change what they're doing - and it's solutions given by people watching super slow mo replays.
reality is that you've got about half a second to change your technique or make your arm disappear. not farking happening.
and your final sentence means you're not allowed to stop people scoring tries.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Red cards:
On the goal line you don't have the luxury of those metres but as explained on another thread better to not infringe, concede a try, but still be on the park than infringe and be binned.
you're talking about removing one of the fundamentals of the game of rugby. Stopping the opposition from scoring tries.
if we do that we're fcuked. -
This seems like a classic example of a no win scenario. Concussions happen fairly regularly and the severe and long term repercussions are becoming increasingly obvious. Massive pressure on administrators to do something. The nature of a high impact contact sport like rugby is that to make that change work fundamentally changes the nature of the game.
So either we have a game that's increasing pushed to the outer edge of society as the health costs become better understood, or we have a game that's no longer the game we know.
-
@barbarian said in Red cards:
I’ve complained about this on Twitter, and had a few people respond ‘just tackle lower’.
But I’m not sure those people have ever played rugby. High tackles are just a part of the game, and I’m not sure you can ever eradicate them. Yes some are a result of reckless play, but others are just instinct (sticking out an arm when you’ve been stepped by a halfback near the ruck), or tiredness (being caught on the back foot in the late stages of a game).
I’m not sure how you eradicate that from the game. Especially for players above 6ft 6.
At the moment World Rugby have signalled they are happy to ruin games as a spectacle in order to change player behaviour. I think that’s too big a trade-off, and think they need to find a better balance between protecting the players and ensuring games are enjoyable for fans.
This is probably the best post on this issue so far and clearly written from the practical perspective of someone who has played the game (presently or at least in the recent past by the look of things).
Yeah good one. Now people that disagree with you that the poor widdle players should be free to do as they please....well those people have obviously never even played the game, probably don't even watch it eh! What a dumb thing to say.
-
I think the problem is for a lot of the 2010s players were coached to tackle high to smother the offload.
Players with a more classical technique always used to tackle low and hard.
IMHO World Rugby's stand against the high tackle is a good one and is improving the game as a spectacle once again and asvwell as promoting player safety and protecting their long-twrm health.
This has been a really interesting thread to read after-the-fact so to speak.
@sparky post above reflects my view perfectly. I played rugby in the 80's and 90's (yes, I am indeed an old bugger) and we were coached to tackle waist and lower. Players weren't so focused on and adept at the offload, so it was an effective (and safe) technique.
Something which occurs to me is that if World Rugby had to mandate that tackles are to be kept low, you would definitely see more offloads. In a game that is often dominated by defence, I actually kinda like that idea. And you kiwis should especially approve. You're the most adept at it, and will keep the game high paced.On a separate note - I do take issue with the swinging arm tackle technique. It is unnecessary and WWE-esque. If you're going to employ that technique, you accept the risk of getting carded if you're inaccurate in execution - and I have zero sympathy.
-
@Billy-Webb said in Red cards:
I think the problem is for a lot of the 2010s players were coached to tackle high to smother the offload.
Players with a more classical technique always used to tackle low and hard.
IMHO World Rugby's stand against the high tackle is a good one and is improving the game as a spectacle once again and asvwell as promoting player safety and protecting their long-twrm health.
This has been a really interesting thread to read after-the-fact so to speak.
@sparky post above reflects my view perfectly. I played rugby in the 80's and 90's (yes, I am indeed an old bugger) and we were coached to tackle waist and lower. Players weren't so focused on and adept at the offload, so it was an effective (and safe) technique.
Something which occurs to me is that if World Rugby had to mandate that tackles are to be kept low, you would definitely see more offloads. In a game that is often dominated by defence, I actually kinda like that idea. And you kiwis should especially approve. You're the most adept at it, and will keep the game high paced.On a separate note - I do take issue with the swinging arm tackle technique. It is unnecessary and WWE-esque. If you're going to employ that technique, you accept the risk of getting carded if you're inaccurate in execution - and I have zero sympathy.
Hear hear.
Both players were penalised for what the refereeing team deemed was a swinging arm to the neck/head area.
Remove the doubt with better tackling technique.
-
Whichever poster said earlier that Kees Meeuws should come out of retirement to try for the ABs try-scoring record nailed it for me. He's the best I've ever seen at charging with the head 20cm from the turf with a powerful leg drive. Scored 10 tries for the ABs in 42 tests doing that which is the record for a prop? He'd be literally unstoppable from 5m out given the new law interpretations. Defenders would have to choose between giving up a "soft" try or a card+penalty try. Ugh.
-
Whichever poster said earlier that Kees Meeuws should come out of retirement to try for the ABs try-scoring record nailed it for me. He's the best I've ever seen at charging with the head 20cm from the turf with a powerful leg drive. Scored 10 tries for the ABs in 42 tests doing that which is the record for a prop? He'd be literally unstoppable from 5m out given the new law interpretations. Defenders would have to choose between giving up a "soft" try or a card+penalty try. Ugh.
Hmmm... Wouldn't the question be how many times was he stopped due to what would now be an illegal tackle?
-
Whichever poster said earlier that Kees Meeuws should come out of retirement to try for the ABs try-scoring record nailed it for me. He's the best I've ever seen at charging with the head 20cm from the turf with a powerful leg drive. Scored 10 tries for the ABs in 42 tests doing that which is the record for a prop? He'd be literally unstoppable from 5m out given the new law interpretations. Defenders would have to choose between giving up a "soft" try or a card+penalty try. Ugh.
Hmmm... Wouldn't the question be how many times was he stopped due to what would now be an illegal tackle?
I would say 100%!
-
Whichever poster said earlier that Kees Meeuws should come out of retirement to try for the ABs try-scoring record nailed it for me. He's the best I've ever seen at charging with the head 20cm from the turf with a powerful leg drive. Scored 10 tries for the ABs in 42 tests doing that which is the record for a prop? He'd be literally unstoppable from 5m out given the new law interpretations. Defenders would have to choose between giving up a "soft" try or a card+penalty try. Ugh.
Hmmm... Wouldn't the question be how many times was he stopped due to what would now be an illegal tackle?
I would say 100%!
Zero is the answer! Prove otherwise!
