Law trials and changes
-
Looks like the tackle height is going lower, not waist (stupid) but lower at pro level. Maybe the below the nipples idea? Be good for us fast paced off loading type teams, really
-
Looks like the tackle height is going lower, not waist (stupid) but lower at pro level. Maybe the below the nipples idea? Be good for us fast paced off loading type teams, really
@Machpants I like you Mach think waist a bit too low, I do think NZR are about right with sternum. I am just sitting here watching a live game on tv Sale vs Bath from up north, and you know what I finding ineteresting? Most of the tackles (especially effective ones ) at thie level are actually at waist or below anyway. I know it's just one game etc and not saying anything is right or wrong but interesting anyway. Even pick and go the most effective tackles are around legs.
I also have a real thought that perhaps one of the big problems is too much training with tackle bags? Bare with me, when I coached kids back in 70s and 80s and I thaught them to defend, we alawys taught kids to go into tackles waist or below, with eyes open and head to side. I used to actually start at walking pace, then trotting and built up speed. I have noticed the thing to do for defence training from kids to club level seems to be get someone hold tackle bags, and let players fly into them, I watched a lot of junior teams training since I was involved at senior level etc, and always amazed how all defensive training seemed to require bags, and noone actually being taught the proper technigue. Even at senior club level I think players rely on hitting a tackle bag etc and aren't training good techniques. -
https://twitter.com/SonnyBWilliams/status/1618928272435445761
Sexton has also commented about waist tackling being more dangerous in terms of concussions also.
Shall we just go to touch rugby? It's a contact sport, this is unavoidable when there is contact.
-
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1619091105320157186
So Tucker suggests that it's not going to happen?
-
Have no problem with the authorities looking at making the game safer and understand they need to manage the balance between player safety and keeping the physicality of the game, but fark me, they're making a right pigs ear of the tackle height issue.
And it can't be that bloody difficult to communicate what you are looking at, set out the options, trial them at several levels, publish the feedback, explain the decisions that have been made and then manage the roll-out out in a sensible manner. Oh, and a semblance of communications planning would be nice.
Instead we have a pig-ear of a situation where confusion reigns, players at all levels are pissed off, serious students of the game (the Fern can take a bow) are scratching their heads and the rugby public are shaking their heads in disbelief.
It's a total - and avoidable - omnishambles
-
Have no problem with the authorities looking at making the game safer and understand they need to manage the balance between player safety and keeping the physicality of the game, but fark me, they're making a right pigs ear of the tackle height issue.
And it can't be that bloody difficult to communicate what you are looking at, set out the options, trial them at several levels, publish the feedback, explain the decisions that have been made and then manage the roll-out out in a sensible manner. Oh, and a semblance of communications planning would be nice.
Instead we have a pig-ear of a situation where confusion reigns, players at all levels are pissed off, serious students of the game (the Fern can take a bow) are scratching their heads and the rugby public are shaking their heads in disbelief.
It's a total - and avoidable - omnishambles
@Victor-Meldrew Agree 100%.
-
Have no problem with the authorities looking at making the game safer and understand they need to manage the balance between player safety and keeping the physicality of the game, but fark me, they're making a right pigs ear of the tackle height issue.
And it can't be that bloody difficult to communicate what you are looking at, set out the options, trial them at several levels, publish the feedback, explain the decisions that have been made and then manage the roll-out out in a sensible manner. Oh, and a semblance of communications planning would be nice.
Instead we have a pig-ear of a situation where confusion reigns, players at all levels are pissed off, serious students of the game (the Fern can take a bow) are scratching their heads and the rugby public are shaking their heads in disbelief.
It's a total - and avoidable - omnishambles
@Victor-Meldrew Agree, seems pisspoor comunication, but I wondering how much we have looked at it, isn't it RU doing it in England and they seemed to stuffed up communicating with their clubs, they don't need to communicate it to me here in NZ!
Actually was just talking to Welsh mate and he was saying the laws are also going to cover players bending so low so they can't be tackled legally, buggered if I know how. -
@Victor-Meldrew Agree, seems pisspoor comunication, but I wondering how much we have looked at it, isn't it RU doing it in England and they seemed to stuffed up communicating with their clubs, they don't need to communicate it to me here in NZ!
Actually was just talking to Welsh mate and he was saying the laws are also going to cover players bending so low so they can't be tackled legally, buggered if I know how.@Dan54 said in Law trials and changes:
@Victor-Meldrew Agree, seems pisspoor comunication, but I wondering how much we have looked at it, isn't it RU doing it in England and they seemed to stuffed up communicating with their clubs, they don't need to communicate it to me here in NZ!
Actually was just talking to Welsh mate and he was saying the laws are also going to cover players bending so low so they can't be tackled legally, buggered if I know how.Have a read back in the thread. Covered in a good article. The law makers think it won’t be a problem just like you can grab near the head and shoulders near the line because it isn’t deemed dangerous unless you neck roll.
After a few times getting your face slammed into the ground and people landing on you it won’t be that attractive an option. -
Have no problem with the authorities looking at making the game safer and understand they need to manage the balance between player safety and keeping the physicality of the game, but fark me, they're making a right pigs ear of the tackle height issue.
And it can't be that bloody difficult to communicate what you are looking at, set out the options, trial them at several levels, publish the feedback, explain the decisions that have been made and then manage the roll-out out in a sensible manner. Oh, and a semblance of communications planning would be nice.
Instead we have a pig-ear of a situation where confusion reigns, players at all levels are pissed off, serious students of the game (the Fern can take a bow) are scratching their heads and the rugby public are shaking their heads in disbelief.
It's a total - and avoidable - omnishambles
@Victor-Meldrew Mate just out of interest on trialling and feedback etc, not sure if you saw this from NZR in November, and not sure where you reside mate, but we in NZ have been kept informed about this change quite well I thought.
https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-events/latest-news/reduced-tackle-height-the-focus-of-community-rugby-game-innovations-for-2023/ -
@Victor-Meldrew Mate just out of interest on trialling and feedback etc, not sure if you saw this from NZR in November, and not sure where you reside mate, but we in NZ have been kept informed about this change quite well I thought.
https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-events/latest-news/reduced-tackle-height-the-focus-of-community-rugby-game-innovations-for-2023/ -
@Victor-Meldrew Mate just out of interest on trialling and feedback etc, not sure if you saw this from NZR in November, and not sure where you reside mate, but we in NZ have been kept informed about this change quite well I thought.
https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-events/latest-news/reduced-tackle-height-the-focus-of-community-rugby-game-innovations-for-2023/@Dan54 said in Law trials and changes:
@Victor-Meldrew Mate just out of interest on trialling and feedback etc, not sure if you saw this from NZR in November, and not sure where you reside mate, but we in NZ have been kept informed about this change quite well I thought.
https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-events/latest-news/reduced-tackle-height-the-focus-of-community-rugby-game-innovations-for-2023/Yeah, that's good to hear/see.
I was mainly thinking of the debacle in England, but it could be anywhere. Was talking to a Junior coach last Monday and he didn't have a clue on how he was supposed to coach his youngsters. A total screw-up.
-
@Dan54 said in Law trials and changes:
@Victor-Meldrew Mate just out of interest on trialling and feedback etc, not sure if you saw this from NZR in November, and not sure where you reside mate, but we in NZ have been kept informed about this change quite well I thought.
https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-events/latest-news/reduced-tackle-height-the-focus-of-community-rugby-game-innovations-for-2023/Yeah, that's good to hear/see.
I was mainly thinking of the debacle in England, but it could be anywhere. Was talking to a Junior coach last Monday and he didn't have a clue on how he was supposed to coach his youngsters. A total screw-up.
@Victor-Meldrew Yep mate, sounds a little like mates club haven't maybe passed on info as NZR released all this stuff in November.
-
-
@Stargazer nothing there except actually applying the laws. Strange how they make out it is all 'new' when it is what the law makers wanted all along.
Stop the time wasting. Make desicions on clear and obvious law transgressions etc. Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
-
@Stargazer nothing there except actually applying the laws. Strange how they make out it is all 'new' when it is what the law makers wanted all along.
Stop the time wasting. Make desicions on clear and obvious law transgressions etc. Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
In a perfect world I would agree, but the media and the fans aren't going to quietly accept mistakes. And fans/media aren't going to limit themselves to a quick one or two looks.
-
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
In a perfect world I would agree, but the media and the fans aren't going to quietly accept mistakes. And fans/media aren't going to limit themselves to a quick one or two looks.
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
In a perfect world I would agree, but the media and the fans aren't going to quietly accept mistakes. And fans/media aren't going to limit themselves to a quick one or two looks.
It is setting expectations though. If everyone knows that only clear and obvious stuff is whistled AND mouthy commentators also convey that (not looking at anyone in particular Justin) then a lot of the noise will reduce.
It is amazing how many people take their lead from commentators that have been shown over and over to be wrong. -
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
In a perfect world I would agree, but the media and the fans aren't going to quietly accept mistakes. And fans/media aren't going to limit themselves to a quick one or two looks.
It is setting expectations though. If everyone knows that only clear and obvious stuff is whistled AND mouthy commentators also convey that (not looking at anyone in particular Justin) then a lot of the noise will reduce.
It is amazing how many people take their lead from commentators that have been shown over and over to be wrong.@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
In a perfect world I would agree, but the media and the fans aren't going to quietly accept mistakes. And fans/media aren't going to limit themselves to a quick one or two looks.
It is setting expectations though. If everyone knows that only clear and obvious stuff is whistled AND mouthy commentators also convey that (not looking at anyone in particular Justin) then a lot of the noise will reduce.
It is amazing how many people take their lead from commentators that have been shown over and over to be wrong.That's a big if. You have more faith in human nature than me. It'll be shits and giggles from everyone until their team comes out on the wrong side of a decision.
-
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
In a perfect world I would agree, but the media and the fans aren't going to quietly accept mistakes. And fans/media aren't going to limit themselves to a quick one or two looks.
It is setting expectations though. If everyone knows that only clear and obvious stuff is whistled AND mouthy commentators also convey that (not looking at anyone in particular Justin) then a lot of the noise will reduce.
It is amazing how many people take their lead from commentators that have been shown over and over to be wrong.That's a big if. You have more faith in human nature than me. It'll be shits and giggles from everyone until their team comes out on the wrong side of a decision.
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
In a perfect world I would agree, but the media and the fans aren't going to quietly accept mistakes. And fans/media aren't going to limit themselves to a quick one or two looks.
It is setting expectations though. If everyone knows that only clear and obvious stuff is whistled AND mouthy commentators also convey that (not looking at anyone in particular Justin) then a lot of the noise will reduce.
It is amazing how many people take their lead from commentators that have been shown over and over to be wrong.That's a big if. You have more faith in human nature than me. It'll be shits and giggles from everyone until their team comes out on the wrong side of a decision.
Clear and Obvious blunders then yes. Hairline decisions on foot in touch or grounding then there won't be a leg to stand on if not clear and obvious. They can shout at clouds all they like.
I do get the opinions on whether something is clear and obvious will differ. We have all heard commentators, seeing the same picture as us, declare something as obvious and we are sitting there wondering what they are on.
Forward passes are a good example. It has long been accepted that C&O is the ruler. Sometimes refs don't seem to let C&O guide them but when they do the decisions are usually 'right' (or accepted) -
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Don't go looking for clear and obvious that is only such by endless replays.
In a perfect world I would agree, but the media and the fans aren't going to quietly accept mistakes. And fans/media aren't going to limit themselves to a quick one or two looks.
It is setting expectations though. If everyone knows that only clear and obvious stuff is whistled AND mouthy commentators also convey that (not looking at anyone in particular Justin) then a lot of the noise will reduce.
It is amazing how many people take their lead from commentators that have been shown over and over to be wrong.That's a big if. You have more faith in human nature than me. It'll be shits and giggles from everyone until their team comes out on the wrong side of a decision.
Clear and Obvious blunders then yes. Hairline decisions on foot in touch or grounding then there won't be a leg to stand on if not clear and obvious. They can shout at clouds all they like.
I do get the opinions on whether something is clear and obvious will differ. We have all heard commentators, seeing the same picture as us, declare something as obvious and we are sitting there wondering what they are on.
Forward passes are a good example. It has long been accepted that C&O is the ruler. Sometimes refs don't seem to let C&O guide them but when they do the decisions are usually 'right' (or accepted)
