Adam_P wrote:Mallinder is on, replaced Furbank after he was KO'd by an unpenalised high tackle from Ross.
I think that's the first time I've ever seen a penalty given for collapsed maul in a maul from a held up tackle. That has always annoyed me, so fair play Tempest
Wasn't a high tackle, but a nasty head on head. Ross hit him in the chest
Look at the framework. A high tackle is defined as 'high contact by the tackler's shoulder or head'. As Ross's head smashed into Furbank's face, I fail to see how it isn't a high tackle under the World Rugby Framework.
Banquo wrote:
Not sure about that tbh. If you set yourself up for a front on at 15 you’ve either planted your feet and will get caught flat footed or it won’t be on your terms. Historically he just hasn’t fancied it, maybe that was shoulder. I will have to believe you on side ons.
I'll take your word on it - 15 is one of only two positions I've never played myself and I have no desire to expand my repertoire.
Puja
I'd say there's two occasions you plant your feet as a fullback. When it's a big forward making the break and who has a clear intention to try and go over the top of you. The second is where it's a two on one and you've got no chance of making a play, line up the ball carrier and then snot him even if he makes the pass. Put some doubt in his mind for a possible next time.
Hated playing 15. I was only ever average under the high ball and we used to play on a pitch with an obvious slope so for one half you'd get peppered. Never had the knack of knowing when to come into the line either. Tackling wise it's fairly easy as long as you can get the positioning right.
I liked 15 a lot, but preferred 13. Tackling wise at 15, you are often on a hiding to nothing at 15, if you have enough gas you can use the touch line, but at the level we are discussing, most backs will fancy beating you one on one. As you say a lot of the time it will be a couple of attackers, so depending on where you are on the park you have done some decisions to make; from a way out, you can slow the ball carrier down by not committing and give the cover defence a chance. Closer in it’s a lot harder, and hitting the ball carrier as you describe certainly has a binary outcome. Generally as a back, having your feet planted is not ideal in defence mostly.
Adam_P wrote:
I think that's the first time I've ever seen a penalty given for collapsed maul in a maul from a held up tackle. That has always annoyed me, so fair play Tempest
Let's hope it will be consistently applied over the season. One of my annoyances as well. Soon as a choke tackle is called as maul you see the defenders just drag it to the floor. No idea why refs don't consider it a proper maul.
Think I've seen it given once before in an Ireland test, when they went choke tackle, then piled in from all directions as soon as maul was called and the ref had the guts and the eyes to call them for joining from offside positions.
One of the most commonly committed and bloody obvious penalties that never get called.
Adam_P wrote:Mallinder is on, replaced Furbank after he was KO'd by an unpenalised high tackle from Ross.
I think that's the first time I've ever seen a penalty given for collapsed maul in a maul from a held up tackle. That has always annoyed me, so fair play Tempest
Wasn't a high tackle, but a nasty head on head. Ross hit him in the chest
Look at the framework. A high tackle is defined as 'high contact by the tackler's shoulder or head'. As Ross's head smashed into Furbank's face, I fail to see how it isn't a high tackle under the World Rugby Framework.
Pretty sure that head or shoulder of the player being tackled...
Does that mean that the other strand of the flow chart means tackling the arm of the player being tackled? It's quite clear in saying 'high contact by the tackler's...' and then the two strands are either shoulder/head or arm.
I didn’t see this tackle but I’m sick of seeing tacklers injuring the tacklee with their head not getting called, or dismissed as “a rugby incident”. Given its Jono Ross I wouldn’t even bother (re)watching it, I’d just ban him.
Exactly, just because the tackler is happy to risk brain damage doesn't mean they should have carte blanche to smash their head into opposition players heads unpenalised. The whole point of the framework above is to reduce the height of tackles so that things like this don't happen.
Puja wrote:
I'll take your word on it - 15 is one of only two positions I've never played myself and I have no desire to expand my repertoire.
Puja
I'd say there's two occasions you plant your feet as a fullback. When it's a big forward making the break and who has a clear intention to try and go over the top of you. The second is where it's a two on one and you've got no chance of making a play, line up the ball carrier and then snot him even if he makes the pass. Put some doubt in his mind for a possible next time.
Hated playing 15. I was only ever average under the high ball and we used to play on a pitch with an obvious slope so for one half you'd get peppered. Never had the knack of knowing when to come into the line either. Tackling wise it's fairly easy as long as you can get the positioning right.
I liked 15 a lot, but preferred 13. Tackling wise at 15, you are often on a hiding to nothing at 15, if you have enough gas you can use the touch line, but at the level we are discussing, most backs will fancy beating you one on one. As you say a lot of the time it will be a couple of attackers, so depending on where you are on the park you have done some decisions to make; from a way out, you can slow the ball carrier down by not committing and give the cover defence a chance. Closer in it’s a lot harder, and hitting the ball carrier as you describe certainly has a binary outcome. Generally as a back, having your feet planted is not ideal in defence mostly.
Agreed, at professional level of you're planting your feet it means that an absolute monster like Alessana Tuilagi is going to use you as a speed bump or you're about to get stepped.
The backing away to buy time only works if you can cut the pass off and have the touch line as your friend. More of a winger's defence. If you're unlucky enough to get two on one away from the touchline all you can do is go for an intercept or smash the ball carrier after he passes hoping that he's stupid enough to try and dummy and go for personal glory. You don't tend to get that at professional level though.
Adam_P wrote:Exactly, just because the tackler is happy to risk brain damage doesn't mean they should have carte blanche to smash their head into opposition players heads unpenalised. The whole point of the framework above is to reduce the height of tackles so that things like this don't happen.
Head on head is dangerous and needs to be stamped out. Mainly comes from really lazy technique as well. Ewels got away with one today where he should have had a straight red no attempt whatsoever to lower his height into contact.
Adam_P wrote:Exactly, just because the tackler is happy to risk brain damage doesn't mean they should have carte blanche to smash their head into opposition players heads unpenalised. The whole point of the framework above is to reduce the height of tackles so that things like this don't happen.
Head on head is dangerous and needs to be stamped out. Mainly comes from really lazy technique as well. Ewels got away with one today where he should have had a straight red no attempt whatsoever to lower his height into contact.
At least Ewels was actually penalised, not even a penalty was given against Ross.
World Rugby's definition of a high tackle is 'An illegal tackle causing head contact, where head contact is identified by clear contact to ball carrier’s head/neck OR the head visibly moves backwards from the contact point OR the ball carrier requires an HIA'. That, in combination with the flow chart, makes it pretty clear that head on head contact, where no effort has been made by the tackler to go lower, should be penalised the same as a shoulder or arm to the head.
FKAS wrote:
I'd say there's two occasions you plant your feet as a fullback. When it's a big forward making the break and who has a clear intention to try and go over the top of you. The second is where it's a two on one and you've got no chance of making a play, line up the ball carrier and then snot him even if he makes the pass. Put some doubt in his mind for a possible next time.
Hated playing 15. I was only ever average under the high ball and we used to play on a pitch with an obvious slope so for one half you'd get peppered. Never had the knack of knowing when to come into the line either. Tackling wise it's fairly easy as long as you can get the positioning right.
I liked 15 a lot, but preferred 13. Tackling wise at 15, you are often on a hiding to nothing at 15, if you have enough gas you can use the touch line, but at the level we are discussing, most backs will fancy beating you one on one. As you say a lot of the time it will be a couple of attackers, so depending on where you are on the park you have done some decisions to make; from a way out, you can slow the ball carrier down by not committing and give the cover defence a chance. Closer in it’s a lot harder, and hitting the ball carrier as you describe certainly has a binary outcome. Generally as a back, having your feet planted is not ideal in defence mostly.
Agreed, at professional level of you're planting your feet it means that an absolute monster like Alessana Tuilagi is going to use you as a speed bump or you're about to get stepped.
The backing away to buy time only works if you can cut the pass off and have the touch line as your friend. More of a winger's defence. If you're unlucky enough to get two on one away from the touchline all you can do is go for an intercept or smash the ball carrier after he passes hoping that he's stupid enough to try and dummy and go for personal glory. You don't tend to get that at professional level though.
You can still buy time up the pitch, even if it’s a lot less. Commit yourself early and against good players it’s almost guaranteed a try. As I said if you can buy time for the covering defence to get to the ball carrier, you give yourself some chance- I’ve done it and sen it done a lot. The touch line can also be a 15’s friend, though presents the risk of showing the touch line to the winger who says ta and gasses you, as I said !See Latham and Robinson.
Agreed it’s not really much of an option closer to your own line to get the ball carrier guessing.
Banquo wrote:
I liked 15 a lot, but preferred 13. Tackling wise at 15, you are often on a hiding to nothing at 15, if you have enough gas you can use the touch line, but at the level we are discussing, most backs will fancy beating you one on one. As you say a lot of the time it will be a couple of attackers, so depending on where you are on the park you have done some decisions to make; from a way out, you can slow the ball carrier down by not committing and give the cover defence a chance. Closer in it’s a lot harder, and hitting the ball carrier as you describe certainly has a binary outcome. Generally as a back, having your feet planted is not ideal in defence mostly.
Agreed, at professional level of you're planting your feet it means that an absolute monster like Alessana Tuilagi is going to use you as a speed bump or you're about to get stepped.
The backing away to buy time only works if you can cut the pass off and have the touch line as your friend. More of a winger's defence. If you're unlucky enough to get two on one away from the touchline all you can do is go for an intercept or smash the ball carrier after he passes hoping that he's stupid enough to try and dummy and go for personal glory. You don't tend to get that at professional level though.
You can still buy time up the pitch, even if it’s a lot less. Commit yourself early and against good players it’s almost guaranteed a try. As I said if you can buy time for the covering defence to get to the ball carrier, you give yourself some chance- I’ve done it and sen it done a lot. The touch line can also be a 15’s friend, though presents the risk of showing the touch line to the winger who says ta and gasses you, as I said !See Latham and Robinson.
Agreed it’s not really much of an option closer to your own line to get the ball carrier guessing.
Yeah you're always up against it of the ball carrier has gas. Problem with backing off is if they've got gas they'll just run away from you. Certainly more of a tactic the higher up the league's you go as you generally have more players in the backline defending with you.
FKAS wrote:
Agreed, at professional level of you're planting your feet it means that an absolute monster like Alessana Tuilagi is going to use you as a speed bump or you're about to get stepped.
The backing away to buy time only works if you can cut the pass off and have the touch line as your friend. More of a winger's defence. If you're unlucky enough to get two on one away from the touchline all you can do is go for an intercept or smash the ball carrier after he passes hoping that he's stupid enough to try and dummy and go for personal glory. You don't tend to get that at professional level though.
You can still buy time up the pitch, even if it’s a lot less. Commit yourself early and against good players it’s almost guaranteed a try. As I said if you can buy time for the covering defence to get to the ball carrier, you give yourself some chance- I’ve done it and sen it done a lot. The touch line can also be a 15’s friend, though presents the risk of showing the touch line to the winger who says ta and gasses you, as I said !See Latham and Robinson.
Agreed it’s not really much of an option closer to your own line to get the ball carrier guessing.
Yeah you're always up against it of the ball carrier has gas. Problem with backing off is if they've got gas they'll just run away from you. Certainly more of a tactic the higher up the league's you go as you generally have more players in the backline defending with you.
It’s all contextual and gives more options than making it easier for a good attacking carrier; and bear in mind that the vast majority of players are slower carrying the ball, and backing off is a call to make only when other defenders can be brought into the frame; there are other option too, like making the carrier think he has fixed you etc. Just what worked for me as a player in both positions, and as options when coaching. As ever, giving techniques or positional options is only as good as the decision making.
Adam_P wrote:Mallinder is on, replaced Furbank after he was KO'd by an unpenalised high tackle from Ross.
I think that's the first time I've ever seen a penalty given for collapsed maul in a maul from a held up tackle. That has always annoyed me, so fair play Tempest
Wasn't a high tackle, but a nasty head on head. Ross hit him in the chest
Look at the framework. A high tackle is defined as 'high contact by the tackler's shoulder or head'. As Ross's head smashed into Furbank's face, I fail to see how it isn't a high tackle under the World Rugby Framework.
(must be clear and obvious and can only be applied to reduce a sanction by 1 level)
1. Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier’s head
2. BC suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)
3. Tackler is unsighted prior to contact
4. “Reactionary” tackle, immediate release
5. Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck)'
