RugbyRebels

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44950380

Tackle line at the armpit in the Championship Cup, providing the first point of actual interest for the competition. Not sure how well it'll work - it's got to be hard for players to go from one set of rules to another from game to game. Shame the Championship clubs weren't willing to see it go for the league as well.

Good to see it given a go though, however haphazardly.

Puja

Luckily the cup matches are in very distinct blocks so there won’t be too much switching between the different laws. It’ll be interesting to see if much or any difference will be achieved.

A positive move, hopefully

You’d like to think that if players find they can adhere to it for a block of games, and it is effective, they’d not feel the conscious need to start tackling higher when returning to the old rules.

But, you know, it obviously won’t work that way.

Been championing this for ages; it'll be good to see how it works in the real world.
Now to stop reckless charging into rucks with just a shoulder and no intention to ever bind or keep on your feet

Might have to draw the next line above the knee:

I'd not hate the idea of getting rid of those chop tackles. Though for the knee line, it would have to be start of the tackle is above the knee, and can then drop. Would raise a question on how to deal with tap tackles though (or just any tackle where the player has to dive to reach).

Tap tackles would surely be ok as there is little/no chance of head contact. I think most people would agree that chop tackles should be banned. I’d agree that sliding down the leg is fine, as surely the initial impact is where concussion issues arise.

Seems pretty straightforward. Not a big variation.

We managed when collapsing became illegal,.... and then legal again, and then illegal again..
I reckon we can manage below the armpit.

And a load of uneducated, uninformed bollocks presented as a reasonable counterpoint: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44955541

The thing that they're not getting is that no-one is saying that tackles at the shoulder are inherently dangerous in and of themselves, but that any tackle around the shoulder can very easily become a tackle round the head with only a slight mistake or a player falling just a little and it's better to have mistakes going from armpit to shoulder, rather than shoulder to head.

Puja

Puja wrote:And a load of uneducated, uninformed bollocks presented as a reasonable counterpoint: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44955541

The thing that they're not getting is that no-one is saying that tackles at the shoulder are inherently dangerous in and of themselves, but that any tackle around the shoulder can very easily become a tackle round the head with only a slight mistake or a player falling just a little and it's better to have mistakes going from armpit to shoulder, rather than shoulder to head.

Puja

Eggs Act Lee

I'm all in favour of any change that reduces injuries without spoiling the game. How can you account for the simple fact that players are much bigger and that the mathematical measure of momentum (mass x velocity) explains greater impact? Everything then becomes worse by definition - sliding up, accidental head clashes etc. Every little helps, I suppose, and something has to be tried.

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

Lizard wrote: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.

Absolutely agreed.
If you're on the floor, you're out of the game; none of this rolling around, placing, regathering, and placing again more securely etc etc

Which Tyler wrote:

Lizard wrote: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.

Absolutely agreed.
If you're on the floor, you're out of the game; none of this rolling around, placing, regathering, and placing again more securely etc etc

Exactly. I can't believe there's a sensible counter-argument. How has the game evolved as it has?

Although I do enjoy seeing borderline but still legal big hits, it's definitely a sensible move. What do you think might be the unforeseen consequences? Do you think a player like wade would become slightly more effective against bigger guys (just spit balling)?

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

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

And Kiwi commentators even more after the plethora of yellows and reds from NZ high tack... no I can't even finish that sentence with a straight face. I mean, the very idea of NZ being reffed properly!

Puja

You guys are adorable.

Well,... Liz is clearly off on a 'wasn't the world wonderful' nostalgia trip.
I miss the 70's too. They were pretty good fun.

Is the nipple line a thing?

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.

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.

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