RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:Is the nipple line a thing?

It would lead to some interesting conversations in the woman’s game and it certainly wouldn’t lead to a level playing field.

Lizard did note he's been playing a long time but I've not heard the term before, maybe talking about nipples not breasts is what keeps NZ ahead

Lizard wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: It would lead to some interesting conversations in the woman’s game and it certainly wouldn’t lead to a level playing field.

Lizard did note he's been playing a long time but I've not heard the term before, maybe talking about nipples not breasts is what keeps NZ ahead

Mate, when you’re playing in the over 35s social grade, “nipple line” is not much of a level playing field for some of the blokes in the front row, either.

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:Irish commentators will have less to whine about every 5 minutes during a match.

You think? Wouldn’t this do quite a lot to remove the ‘choke tackle’?

Not that I think that would be a bad thing. I can’t stand watching Ireland literally strangle the life out of a game doing it.

morepork wrote:If you are not careful, things could really go tits up.

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:Irish commentators will have less to whine about every 5 minutes during a match.

You think? Wouldn’t this do quite a lot to remove the ‘choke tackle’?

Not that I think that would be a bad thing. I can’t stand watching Ireland literally strangle the life out of a game doing it.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:Irish commentators will have less to whine about every 5 minutes during a match.

You think? Wouldn’t this do quite a lot to remove the ‘choke tackle’?

Not that I think that would be a bad thing. I can’t stand watching Ireland literally strangle the life out of a game doing it.

It would do absolutely nothing to stop the choke tackle, since the choke usually involves holding someone up from underneath the armpits to make sure that they can't get to ground.

Lizard wrote:I’ve been playing the game for about 32 years and I don’t think I’ve ever tackled a man above the nipple line. Admittedly I rarely have a weight or height advantage so I’ve not much choice.

I think the problem is much better dealt with by changing the incentives of the tackler and tacklee. When was taught the game, you had to immediately release the ball upon being tackled. There was no crabbing a yard or two, no “placing the ball” and no popping it up off the deck. If you didn’t let go the split second you hit the ground you were either penalised or trampled on by 8 mud stained bullies (and ruck marks on yer back never gave anyone concussion). This had two important effects: first, the ball-carrier’s main aim going into a tackle was not to gain ground - your principle objective was to get to ground quickly in a way that protected the ball without you needing to handle it. So you went into a tackle sideways or even backwards, already heading for the deck, not front on at full speed. Secondly, the tackler’s objective was to get the ball carrier to ground, not knock him 2 yards backwards. Hitting a guy around the shoulders was no use. The point was to make him have to release the ball (ie get his knee on the ground) before the forward suppprt arrived. Knocking him backward into his support was counterproductive.

In the 1980s, no one was talking about “winning the collisions.”

The laws and interpretations were changed to make it easier for the team in possession to retain it and therefore run rather than kick, and to reduce the number of scrums. There’s now probably more penalties at the breakdown than scrums!

I think that requiring tackled players to immediately release the ball before the tackler has released and without rolling or crabbing forward, or “placing” the ball 5 seconds after you hit the deck would solve the problem without bringing in artificial and hard to police limits on exactly which part of the torso you can plant a shoulder into.

/oldguyrant