European Club Rugby
-
@Bones what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you a paid shill?
If, and it's a big if, he could get low enough to get under the head, then i still think the HB scores.
Did you play rugby in slow motion?
@mariner4life said in NH club rugby:
@Bones what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you a paid shill?
If, and it's a big if, he could get low enough to get under the head, then i still think the HB scores.
Did you play rugby in slow motion?
What the fuck is wrong with me? I'm posting in a forum where all of a sudden some usually reasonable people have decided to whinge like the irish because you can't commit foul play in rugby and get away with it!
Since fucking when has it been ok to commit foul play if you think you've got no other option? What the fuck is wrong with people that think a high tackle is ok if the oppositions upper body is lower than usual, or it's ok if you weren't afforded time or weren't in the right spot to make a legal hit.
What next? Well I couldn't reach him with a tackle, so I foot tripped him. What's wrong with that?! It was all I could do!
What do you mean it's no try? I put the ball on the ground! I just wasn't able to place it over the tryline! Not my fault!
-
And since when is "but he would have scored a try" a defence? Is it cool to tackle players chasing a kick now because they might score a try?
If you can't stop a player from scoring using a legal tackle, why does that mean it's a free for all? Surely it just means you don't attempt the tackle or risk facing the consequences.
-
See, we're coming at this from 2 different angles. My experience, and the way I was taught to tackle says that's not high as the ball runner has ducked in to it. I have made hundreds of similar tackles, in open play and most especially next to the ruck. A taller player will find it very very difficult to get under a player of that height who is also ducking (and open himself up to a greater risk of a knee to the temple, a concussion, and the very thing we have tried to avoid).
Ducking his head has gained him a massive advantage, and that's a poor outcome
-
That was a great example of why we are going to see endless pick and goes from smart teams until these laws iron themselves out.
It is near impossible to stop a ball carrier from making easy ground when they run like that without contacting them above the shoulder. Even if you don't make direct head contact you will only need to make some head contact to risk a card.
These laws fall under the Dangerous play section and the definition of dangerous has been stretched.Oh, and the other tackle that has now been eliminated from the game is the one from behind where you reach over the shoulder and drag the player down.
-
And since when is "but he would have scored a try" a defence? Is it cool to tackle players chasing a kick now because they might score a try?
If you can't stop a player from scoring using a legal tackle, why does that mean it's a free for all? Surely it just means you don't attempt the tackle or risk facing the consequences.
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
And since when is "but he would have scored a try" a defence? Is it cool to tackle players chasing a kick now because they might score a try?
If you can't stop a player from scoring using a legal tackle, why does that mean it's a free for all? Surely it just means you don't attempt the tackle or risk facing the consequences.
It's the new rules that are causing the issues. What was not illegal is now illegal and based on early evidence it is going to be easy for teams to exploit. I'm all for player safety but any new rules they introduce have to be practical, or they risk ruining the product.
-
@mariner4life said in NH club rugby:
@Bones what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you a paid shill?
If, and it's a big if, he could get low enough to get under the head, then i still think the HB scores.
Did you play rugby in slow motion?
What the fuck is wrong with me? I'm posting in a forum where all of a sudden some usually reasonable people have decided to whinge like the irish because you can't commit foul play in rugby and get away with it!
Since fucking when has it been ok to commit foul play if you think you've got no other option? What the fuck is wrong with people that think a high tackle is ok if the oppositions upper body is lower than usual, or it's ok if you weren't afforded time or weren't in the right spot to make a legal hit.
What next? Well I couldn't reach him with a tackle, so I foot tripped him. What's wrong with that?! It was all I could do!
What do you mean it's no try? I put the ball on the ground! I just wasn't able to place it over the tryline! Not my fault!
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
@mariner4life said in NH club rugby:
@Bones what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you a paid shill?
If, and it's a big if, he could get low enough to get under the head, then i still think the HB scores.
Did you play rugby in slow motion?
What the fuck is wrong with me? I'm posting in a forum where all of a sudden some usually reasonable people have decided to whinge like the irish because you can't commit foul play in rugby and get away with it!
Since fucking when has it been ok to commit foul play if you think you've got no other option? What the fuck is wrong with people that think a high tackle is ok if the oppositions upper body is lower than usual, or it's ok if you weren't afforded time or weren't in the right spot to make a legal hit.
What next? Well I couldn't reach him with a tackle, so I foot tripped him. What's wrong with that?! It was all I could do!
What do you mean it's no try? I put the ball on the ground! I just wasn't able to place it over the tryline! Not my fault!
I think that's the point though. These new laws/law interpretations have gone too far and are leading to these ridiculous situations where players are getting carded for some pretty soft shit. It has the porential to turn the game into a farce. If anything a defender trying to get low enough to stop a guy diving for the line head first is going to lead to more head injuries than if a shoulder height tackle was allowed, as it has been for decades.
Like the policing of mauls the balance has gone too far in one direction and it doesn't sit right with the way the game is played.
-
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
And since when is "but he would have scored a try" a defence? Is it cool to tackle players chasing a kick now because they might score a try?
If you can't stop a player from scoring using a legal tackle, why does that mean it's a free for all? Surely it just means you don't attempt the tackle or risk facing the consequences.
It's the new rules that are causing the issues. What was not illegal is now illegal and based on early evidence it is going to be easy for teams to exploit. I'm all for player safety but any new rules they introduce have to be practical, or they risk ruining the product.
@No-Quarter said in NH club rugby:
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
And since when is "but he would have scored a try" a defence? Is it cool to tackle players chasing a kick now because they might score a try?
If you can't stop a player from scoring using a legal tackle, why does that mean it's a free for all? Surely it just means you don't attempt the tackle or risk facing the consequences.
It's the new rules that are causing the issues. What was not illegal is now illegal and based on early evidence it is going to be easy for teams to exploit. I'm all for player safety but any new rules they introduce have to be practical, or they risk ruining the product.
Beat me to it.
-
See, we're coming at this from 2 different angles. My experience, and the way I was taught to tackle says that's not high as the ball runner has ducked in to it. I have made hundreds of similar tackles, in open play and most especially next to the ruck. A taller player will find it very very difficult to get under a player of that height who is also ducking (and open himself up to a greater risk of a knee to the temple, a concussion, and the very thing we have tried to avoid).
Ducking his head has gained him a massive advantage, and that's a poor outcome
@mariner4life said in NH club rugby:
See, we're coming at this from 2 different angles. My experience, and the way I was taught to tackle says that's not high as the ball runner has ducked in to it. I have made hundreds of similar tackles, in open play and most especially next to the ruck. A taller player will find it very very difficult to get under a player of that height who is also ducking (and open himself up to a greater risk of a knee to the temple, a concussion, and the very thing we have tried to avoid).
Ducking his head has gained him a massive advantage, and that's a poor outcome
You were taught it's ok to tackle high if you're tall or the other guy isn't completely upright? Well fuck, now I see the problem. Is it ok to tackle high if I jump and the other guy doesn't?
-
@mariner4life said in NH club rugby:
See, we're coming at this from 2 different angles. My experience, and the way I was taught to tackle says that's not high as the ball runner has ducked in to it. I have made hundreds of similar tackles, in open play and most especially next to the ruck. A taller player will find it very very difficult to get under a player of that height who is also ducking (and open himself up to a greater risk of a knee to the temple, a concussion, and the very thing we have tried to avoid).
Ducking his head has gained him a massive advantage, and that's a poor outcome
You were taught it's ok to tackle high if you're tall or the other guy isn't completely upright? Well fuck, now I see the problem. Is it ok to tackle high if I jump and the other guy doesn't?
-
@taniwharugby Yeah, I'd agree TR but this then means he is not then paying due care and attention to the collision (under the current guidelines). So he's almost automatically a goner. Similar to the Daly red v Argentina. Can't really argue with either..
Whether that's right or wrong is another matter.
@Catogrande so much about rugby is instinct and decisions made at the last split second or as late as possible, and IMO right to the point where he did leap he had done everything right. I don't believe for a second his actions were deliberate or with any intent, all down to a decision probably 1/10th of a second too late and he ends up with a red card....harsh IMO
It is ones where they are so close like this that will become controversial rather than some of the dumb shit ones we see where players get it very wrong, see Naholo v Wales, and iirc the landing of the Welshman probably saved Naholo, which IMO is wrong.
Although I guess you do get a different sentence for attempted murder than actual murder don't you....
-
@Bones you are being a dick now
@mariner4life said in NH club rugby:
@Bones you are being a dick now
You just intimated a high tackle is ok if you're a taller player and don't have the opportunity to get lower. That's like saying a late tackle is ok if you're a slower player. And I'm being a dick?
-
TBF on the Saracens one, Barrington and/or Barritt would have been in trouble for that one if it had occurred last year. It was pretty ugly
-
@mariner4life said in NH club rugby:
@Bones you are being a dick now
You just intimated a high tackle is ok if you're a taller player and don't have the opportunity to get lower. That's like saying a late tackle is ok if you're a slower player. And I'm being a dick?
@Bones The issue for me is not that they're being penalised per se, but that they're being carded for these tackles.
-
It's not about tall players vs short players, though that does exasberate the issue. It's about players charging at the line with their head down. It's nearly impossible to tackle them without some contact around the shoulders. If a team is 5m out the percentage option will be for the props or halfback to have a go at the line with their head as low as possible. Penalty try plus yellow/red card on the offer.
-
It's not about tall players vs short players, though that does exasberate the issue. It's about players charging at the line with their head down. It's nearly impossible to tackle them without some contact around the shoulders. If a team is 5m out the percentage option will be for the props or halfback to have a go at the line with their head as low as possible. Penalty try plus yellow/red card on the offer.
@No-Quarter said in NH club rugby:
It's not about tall players vs short players, though that does exasberate the issue. It's about players charging at the line with their head down. It's nearly impossible to tackle them without some contact around the shoulders. If a team is 5m out the percentage option will be for the props or halfback to have a go at the line with their head as low as possible. Penalty try plus yellow/red card on the offer.
And where's the problem with that? Just like teams may have a strong scrum/lineout and be nigh on unstoppable from 5m out. If you don't want teams to do that, don't let them get 5m out...
-
@No-Quarter said in NH club rugby:
It's not about tall players vs short players, though that does exasberate the issue. It's about players charging at the line with their head down. It's nearly impossible to tackle them without some contact around the shoulders. If a team is 5m out the percentage option will be for the props or halfback to have a go at the line with their head as low as possible. Penalty try plus yellow/red card on the offer.
And where's the problem with that? Just like teams may have a strong scrum/lineout and be nigh on unstoppable from 5m out. If you don't want teams to do that, don't let them get 5m out...
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
@No-Quarter said in NH club rugby:
It's not about tall players vs short players, though that does exasberate the issue. It's about players charging at the line with their head down. It's nearly impossible to tackle them without some contact around the shoulders. If a team is 5m out the percentage option will be for the props or halfback to have a go at the line with their head as low as possible. Penalty try plus yellow/red card on the offer.
And where's the problem with that? Just like teams may have a strong scrum/lineout and be nigh on unstoppable from 5m out. If you don't want teams to do that, don't let them get 5m out...
Because what was previously an accidental and not very dangerous contact that even under the new rules would result in a penalty only becomes a penalty try and card because of proximity to the line.
The punishment way exceeds the offence.
In fact there is now the perverse danger that players who, once, would think twice about going head first toward the opposition out of self preservation are now rewarded for increasing the risk level to themselves -
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
@No-Quarter said in NH club rugby:
It's not about tall players vs short players, though that does exasberate the issue. It's about players charging at the line with their head down. It's nearly impossible to tackle them without some contact around the shoulders. If a team is 5m out the percentage option will be for the props or halfback to have a go at the line with their head as low as possible. Penalty try plus yellow/red card on the offer.
And where's the problem with that? Just like teams may have a strong scrum/lineout and be nigh on unstoppable from 5m out. If you don't want teams to do that, don't let them get 5m out...
Because what was previously an accidental and not very dangerous contact that even under the new rules would result in a penalty only becomes a penalty try and card because of proximity to the line.
The punishment way exceeds the offence.
In fact there is now the perverse danger that players who, once, would think twice about going head first toward the opposition out of self preservation are now rewarded for increasing the risk level to themselves
