High tackles

[Puja]

I'm fed up with players and ex-players whining about "Refs need to have some empathy" and "There was no malice in it" when someone gets red carded for a high tackle. Tempest was his usual rubbish self today, but that was the one thing he got absolutely right - it's the way the law is being applied at the moment and to introduce 'empathy' into it means variability and inconsistency.

"Can't we save red cards for actual malicious acts?" NO! The point of this is that it's a deterrent. I'm not annoyed with the ref for sending Spencer off or with the law for "ruining the game", I'm annoyed with Spencer for tackling in a way that made a high shot possible. If he's aiming to tackle at the ribcage, then the penalty and red card never occurs, no matter what Taylor does. It's completely within players' control - yes, tacklers may move as you go to tackle them, but if you start low, then you drastically reduce your chance of smacking them in the head. If you start at the shoulders and they move and you hit them in the head, I have no sympathy for you - you put yourself there.

The point of this IRB edict is to get players going lower. If you ignore it, don't go lower and get unlucky, don't whine. If there are enough strong refs giving enough straight reds, then players and coaches will adapt f*cking quickly, so let's cut out the complaining about reds "ruining the game" and instead complain about players ruining it. Cause apart from anything else, I want this game to still be around in 20 years time, and it might not if we half-arse our attempts to protect players heads because we were worried about messing up the spectacle in a couple of games.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I can't disagree.
Laws and interpretations change, players adapt; and they always, ALWAYS bitch in the time frame between the change and themselves adapting.

[Puja]

My concern is that the amount of bitching, especially from players, former players, and pundits, will result in the refs buckling first and the directives being unofficially shelved before anyone adapts.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

That often happens (squint feeds), but tends not to when safety is the quoted reason (tip tackles, player in the air, redcpucing the hit, high tackles, concussion testing... kinda).

FTR: I've bitched plenty in the past, but generally when a change in interpretation comes after the fact, or I get my bitching out ofnthe way when the change is announced and am used to it by the time of implementation.

Okay, okay, how long I bitch for depends on whether I agree with the change or not

[Tigersman]

I think people are annoyed that a team can be punished massively for something as simple as a miss timing.

End of the day it's meant to be a high tempo contact sport, and mistakes do happen so why should a mistake on the day warrant the same punishment as something done with malaise? I think that is what annoys most players and IMO it's very understandable IMO.

Rugby has no middle ground it's either all or nothing ATM, and the thing with laws is there does need to be a degree of flexibility because no two situations are the same and I think it's time to try and build a middle ground.
Be it
1. Orange Card
2. A Yellow Card with a citing after
3. A yellow Card and in the 10 minutes it goes to an independent reffing body via video link (all angles available) where it can be accessed more properly without delaying the game so a panel of 5 or 6 people ranging from ex-players, Referees, etc etc and within the 10 minutes a call is made if it should warrant a red.

If he's aiming to tackle at the ribcage, then the penalty and red card never occurs, no matter what Taylor does. within players' control - yes, tacklers may move as you go to tackle them, but It's completelyif you start low, then you drastically reduce your chance of smacking them in the head. If you start at the shoulders and they move and you hit them in the head, I have no sympathy for you - you put yourself there.
Puja

That isn't really true though.
Thompstone v Bath last season, Harrison does a box kick, Thompstone gets to the point where the ball going to land first stays his ground, Wilson basically jumps over him despite Thompstone being in the area first and Thompstone gets Yellow Card in a position where literally did everything right.

and thats the problem if you hit a player on the head even with a slip letter of the law it's a Red card and you get AB's doing diving shoulder charges to the heads in the rucks to clear out with no sanctions it's frustrating the lack of consistency.

[Puja]

I think people are annoyed that a team can be punished massively for something as simple as a miss timing.

End of the day it's meant to be a high tempo contact sport, and mistakes do happen so why should a mistake on the day warrant the same punishment as something done with malaise? I think that is what annoys most players and IMO it's very understandable IMO.

While I would be in favour of an orange card, I think you're missing the point. It's a massive punishment for a reason, because they want to deter the behaviour. It's crap that a team is punished and a game is swung, but if you don't want that to happen to your team, you know what to do. Aim for the lower ribcage and, barring outstandingly bad luck, you won't get red carded.

And yes, the outstandingly bad luck might happen and in those situations, I have sympathy, but for both George Smith and Spencer, they were not going low enough, they took the risk and it didn't work out for them. Maybe next time, don't take the risk instead of complaining to the ref about "Rugby's changed."

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Of course, there's also a slight difference between deliberately aiming your tackle as high as your allowed, and missing; versus being jumped into whilst waiting for the ball.

Thompson's shouldnt even have been penalised, let alone carded, because the law is wrong IMO. Changing the colour of the card* would make no difference, except to reduce the deterent aspect. For dangerous play, the person creating the dangerous situation should be penalised, not the one on the ground; so a player dipping into a legal tackle makes it dangerous, the player jumping into a static player makes it dangerous etc.

* On which, by "Rug y has no middle ground, it's either all or nothing" do you really mean "Rugby has 4 levels of on-field sanction, and an almost infinite retrospective... But that's not enough, having a 5th on-field level would make all the difference"

As Puja says, the threat of cards is supposed to be a deterent, and as far as safety is concerned, it really doesn't matter if it was malicious, incompetent or an "honest" mistake.

[Digby]

I see also the standard defence he's especially tall has been rolled out when on purpose they've picked an especially tall player. You makes your bet you takes your choice

[fivepointer]

I get that we want to protect players and deliver a strong message that going high is something that should be discouraged, but for me, the penalty for doing so is a bit high. In a fast moving contact sport like ours i think you do have to accept that not every tackle is going to be perfectly timed and executed. Things are happening too fast for that to be case. Should we redcard a player for making a mistake? To me that seems a little harsh.
I want to have a deterrent, but I think that can be better achieved by a lower sanction, like the orange card.
Tigersman raised the issue of ruck clearing above and its one that will, i'm sure, come under greater scrutiny. The way heads are being pummelled in this area should be of very serious concern. The ferocity of clear outs at times is quite frightening.

[Beasties]

Yup, he's always tall in every match he plays, so he needs to get on with improving his tackling. He's a big fekker and it was a surprise he's never been red carded before because he's a fairly robust rugby player. The ref was right on this occasion.

There are incidents where a player does get an unfortunate red. The one that sticks in my mind was the very first one after this directive came in where Barrington got red carded (I forget who Sarries were playing). He was the secondary tackler. The first tackler hit his man (who had just started dipping), the first tackle had the effect of dropping him further whence his head struck Barrington's shoulder. If the first tackler hadn't hit him a split second before Barrington then Barrington's shoulder would've made contact with the tacklee's chest. I have sympathy with the red on that occasion but then for the rest of the match there was a procession of much worse high tackles that received no sanction at all.

Players salmon leaping whilst chasing a high ball is a completely different scenario though and the two aspects of play shouldn't be lumped together here as that aspect is totally fekked up as the laws are currently.

[Oakboy]

I thought the referee got it right according to the laws. He checked with the TMO that force to the head was a factor. Would there have been so many calls for empathy had Taylor been stretchered off with a broken neck?

The irony is that there was an article in the DT beforehand highlighting Spencer's enforcer attributes and comparing him with Johnno. Basically, his violent approach was seen as a great asset to the team. It probaby is - if he stays on the pitch.

[Puja]

I get that we want to protect players and deliver a strong message that going high is something that should be discouraged, but for me, the penalty for doing so is a bit high. In a fast moving contact sport like ours i think you do have to accept that not every tackle is going to be perfectly timed and executed. Things are happening too fast for that to be case. Should we redcard a player for making a mistake? To me that seems a little harsh.

When the player could avoid, or at least massively reduce the possibility of that mistake by changing their technique very slightly? Hell yes. It's the only way they'll adapt.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Yup, he's always tall in every match he plays, so he needs to get on with improving his tackling.

Pithy, funny and spot on. The ‘he’s a very tall player’ is a red herring.
I’ve no sympathy for Spencer. Laws are laws, and it’s a red card. Worryingly, I think I’m in the minority. Sticking your shoulder into someone’s head is dangerous and should be a red. There needs to be mitigation for the ball carrier changing course or head height but in this one Taylor was running on a straight line and stood up right, or as near as you can do when bracing for a hit.

[twitchy]

Just re watched it to make sure but it's clearly high and the decision was correct.


Also, just reading all these comments about how the "game has gone soft" from old ex players? How can they even say this when people are getting knocked out left right and centre and injuries are at an all time high.

The game is harder than it's ever been. Which is why you need stricter laws to protect the players.

Also this is a really bad look




in light of this


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45459890

[Tigersman]

Interesting that I haven’t seen anything from a current player who agrees with the call.

And it won’t be like they don’t know the dangers of concussions.

[Mellsblue]

Alot of the players used to game the HIA system and now acknowledge they were wrong to do so.

[Puja]

Interesting that I haven’t seen anything from a current player who agrees with the call.

And it won’t be like they don’t know the dangers of concussions.

I'm unsurprised - rugby has a macho culture and anyone suggesting that it's Spencer's fault for not starting lower is a) breaking solidarity with Spencer and b) announcing that they're a softy PC nancy who should really be playing tiddlywinks. No-one's going to stick their head above the parapet because Taylor wasn't actually hurt, despite the fact that that is pure luck.

Disappointed in Murphy. Quite apart from the fact that these directives are important for a reason, I hate the use of PC as a pejorative.

Puja

[Raggs]

All these games gone soft ex-players are also the first ones to send commiserations to a player who had to player due to concussion injuries, and say how serious it is.



Mike Fitzgerald shows it's very possible to tackle even the shortest players at hip height, twice, admittedly missing twice, but that's more to do with Wade than the height.

[Raggs]

I have to say, for all the people that complain it's "ruined" a game when there's a red, I'm yet to remember too many games that felt ruined. For the most part it seems like the 14 man team put in a massive effort and it's bloody competitive.

[Puja]

All these games gone soft ex-players are also the first ones to send commiserations to a player who had to player due to concussion injuries, and say how serious it is.



Mike Fitzgerald shows it's very possible to tackle even the shortest players at hip height, twice, admittedly missing twice, but that's more to do with Wade than the height.

You just wanted an excuse to post that clip again!

Puja

[Raggs]

Perhaps. It's a nice one . But it does rather prove a point, tall players can get low.

Spencer wanted to smash Taylor, and was aiming at a risky height, even if Taylor had been an inch or two higher, Spencer would have almost certainly still slid up and smashed him in the face.

[Mellsblue]

Yep. There are quite a few players that can tell you Courtney Lawes can do you some damage without going anywhere near your head. Exhibit A: Jules Plisson.

[Oakboy]

It's a pretty simple choice: cut out the head injuries or lose the game we love.

[Tigersman]

Yep. There are quite a few players that can tell you Courtney Lawes can do you some damage without going anywhere near your head. Exhibit A: Jules Plisson.

But I thought the whole point of this topic is to limit damage done though?
Why are seat-belt tackles, Crocdile rows and shoulder clear outs given more leniency by refs despite all doing some serious damage to players that can threaten players careers.

Right in front of Mr Owens

Nothing, won't get cited.

I'm not necessarily defending high tackles but I don't agree with the one rule fits all that is in place.

[Puja]

Yep. There are quite a few players that can tell you Courtney Lawes can do you some damage without going anywhere near your head. Exhibit A: Jules Plisson.

But I thought the whole point of this topic is to limit damage done though?
Why are seat-belt tackles, Crocdile rows and shoulder clear outs given more leniency by refs despite all doing some serious damage to players that can threaten players careers.

Right in front of Mr Owens

Nothing, won't get cited.

I'm not necessarily defending high tackles but I don't agree with the one rule fits all that is in place.

Whataboutism doesn't help anything though. Yes, there are plenty of other areas that also need attention and policing - that doesn't affect the need for this to be taken care of.

Puja