Thursday, August 05, 2010
The Rugby Club Plays of the Week - Dear Refs, Sort it out!
Things reached an all time low this weekend as a few decisions, in both the Tri Nations and ITM Cup, were incredibly weak and made some question if rugby is a contact sport after all.
While were all about making the game safe and avoiding big injuries, if a guy is tackled and his legs happen to go above the horizontal, that doesnt necessarily mean its a dangerous tackle. This is the problem. Sure, if you dump a player on his head, you deserve to be penalised, carded, and perhaps suspended. Anything less than that though, and were not only diluting the game of its physicality, but causing mass uncertainty at the same time.
By trying to protect our great sport from having its name tarnished with life threatening injuries, the powers that be are actually changing the game to such an extent that club players, school players, and even professional players, dont really know where they stand anymore.
When hitting, and lifting in a tackle, you're meant to bring the guy down safely, but then youre also told to not drive him into the ground. This isnt synchronised swimming. Balance, speed, and power all come into the equation and unfortunately at times its not pretty, and while there can be no malice whatsoever, a guys legs can be lifted above the horizontal, causing the refs and assistant refs who these days are getting way too involved for my liking to start waving their flags and blowing their whistles.
A precedent has been set and while remaining consistent is important as we saw with the officials being consistently harsh this past weekend the worry is that this Tri Nations, and indeed the ITM Cup and Currie Cup seasons, will continue to disappoint and dismay the viewers out there as players are going to be sent to the naughty corner for offences that have been a part of the game for as long as its existed.
Yes, no arms in the tackle needs to be penalised, as this is Union, not League. But the over-policing of these tip tackles and the general feeling that the referees are trigger happy with whats in their pocket needs to change, for the good of rugby.
Rant over.
This video is a bit more light hearted, but also illustrates the feeling that while refs are trying to stamp their authority, things are getting a little out of control. We also get to see a bit of Tana Umaga in action, some of the tries of the week, and a few other great hits. Enjoy.
:: Related Posts ::
Tana Umaga and Counties upset Otago in the opening game
The build up to the Drew Mitchell red card
All Blacks on fire as they beat the Wallabies in Melbourne
Time:
02:36
Tana Umaga and Counties upset Otago in the opening game
The build up to the Drew Mitchell red card
All Blacks on fire as they beat the Wallabies in Melbourne
Posted at 12:50 pm | 98 comments
|
|
|
Viewing 98 comments
Luxi August 05, 2010 1:20 pm
defo agree with RD's red rant, some great legal tackles are being penalised (as seen in the vid)
so yeah, refs, SORT IT OUT !!!!!!!!
so yeah, refs, SORT IT OUT !!!!!!!!
Luxi August 05, 2010 1:20 pm
defo agree with RD's red rant, some great legal tackles are being penalised (as seen in the vid)
so yeah, refs, SORT IT OUT !!!!!!!!
so yeah, refs, SORT IT OUT !!!!!!!!
jpm August 05, 2010 1:27 pm
"Yes, no arms in the tackle needs to be penalised, as this is Union, not League."
While I agree that dumping someone on their head is obviously dangerous, I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why no-arms tackles are per se dangerous and need to be outlawed.
After all a player can get crushed knocked out, concussed and swallow his tongue from a pefectly "legal" arms wrap tackle. i.e. Jerry Collins on Colin Charvis.
Your argument that the no arms tackle "needs to be penalised because this is union not league" holds no water.....as League is more direct and the collisions are pehaps bigger, wouldn't this mitigate in favor of allowing no arms tackles. If they allow it in league....why not union? I don't think the rate of injury in league is greater than in union.
The only tackles that need to be outlawed are trips, clothes lines with the arm, high tackles, and spear tackles (I agree that tipping past the horizontal should qualify as as spear to help get rid of this problme).
The game has always been a violent collision sport and people have alwys flocked to play it because that's part of the appeal. The authorities should stop trying to cater to "worried moms" and accept that no arms tackles should be legal...as long as they are not high.
While I agree that dumping someone on their head is obviously dangerous, I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why no-arms tackles are per se dangerous and need to be outlawed.
After all a player can get crushed knocked out, concussed and swallow his tongue from a pefectly "legal" arms wrap tackle. i.e. Jerry Collins on Colin Charvis.
Your argument that the no arms tackle "needs to be penalised because this is union not league" holds no water.....as League is more direct and the collisions are pehaps bigger, wouldn't this mitigate in favor of allowing no arms tackles. If they allow it in league....why not union? I don't think the rate of injury in league is greater than in union.
The only tackles that need to be outlawed are trips, clothes lines with the arm, high tackles, and spear tackles (I agree that tipping past the horizontal should qualify as as spear to help get rid of this problme).
The game has always been a violent collision sport and people have alwys flocked to play it because that's part of the appeal. The authorities should stop trying to cater to "worried moms" and accept that no arms tackles should be legal...as long as they are not high.
jpm August 05, 2010 1:27 pm
"Yes, no arms in the tackle needs to be penalised, as this is Union, not League."
While I agree that dumping someone on their head is obviously dangerous, I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why no-arms tackles are per se dangerous and need to be outlawed.
After all a player can get crushed knocked out, concussed and swallow his tongue from a pefectly "legal" arms wrap tackle. i.e. Jerry Collins on Colin Charvis.
Your argument that the no arms tackle "needs to be penalised because this is union not league" holds no water.....as League is more direct and the collisions are pehaps bigger, wouldn't this mitigate in favor of allowing no arms tackles. If they allow it in league....why not union? I don't think the rate of injury in league is greater than in union.
The only tackles that need to be outlawed are trips, clothes lines with the arm, high tackles, and spear tackles (I agree that tipping past the horizontal should qualify as as spear to help get rid of this problme).
The game has always been a violent collision sport and people have alwys flocked to play it because that's part of the appeal. The authorities should stop trying to cater to "worried moms" and accept that no arms tackles should be legal...as long as they are not high.
While I agree that dumping someone on their head is obviously dangerous, I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why no-arms tackles are per se dangerous and need to be outlawed.
After all a player can get crushed knocked out, concussed and swallow his tongue from a pefectly "legal" arms wrap tackle. i.e. Jerry Collins on Colin Charvis.
Your argument that the no arms tackle "needs to be penalised because this is union not league" holds no water.....as League is more direct and the collisions are pehaps bigger, wouldn't this mitigate in favor of allowing no arms tackles. If they allow it in league....why not union? I don't think the rate of injury in league is greater than in union.
The only tackles that need to be outlawed are trips, clothes lines with the arm, high tackles, and spear tackles (I agree that tipping past the horizontal should qualify as as spear to help get rid of this problme).
The game has always been a violent collision sport and people have alwys flocked to play it because that's part of the appeal. The authorities should stop trying to cater to "worried moms" and accept that no arms tackles should be legal...as long as they are not high.
NiWiTa August 05, 2010 1:32 pm
Agree with JPM on the arm wrap thing...and yeah SORT IT OUT REFS!!!
Good to see some big hits going in, reminds me of why I'm a fan
Good to see some big hits going in, reminds me of why I'm a fan
NiWiTa August 05, 2010 1:32 pm
Agree with JPM on the arm wrap thing...and yeah SORT IT OUT REFS!!!
Good to see some big hits going in, reminds me of why I'm a fan
Good to see some big hits going in, reminds me of why I'm a fan
RD August 05, 2010 1:32 pm
@ JPM, well, this is Union though, so the point stands. I'm not saying the laws should be changed - that's a different debate altogether, and one that many would be keen to discuss I'm sure.
RD August 05, 2010 1:32 pm
@ JPM, well, this is Union though, so the point stands. I'm not saying the laws should be changed - that's a different debate altogether, and one that many would be keen to discuss I'm sure.
jpm August 05, 2010 1:39 pm
RD....yes it is Union...but one has to ask the question...why is no arms not allowed in union and allowed in league...when for all practical purposes there is no difference in the tackling? It's one big strong guy guy with a ball running into a another at a rate of speed. If no arms was so inherently dangerous they would not allow it in league would they? League recognizes that spear tackling is dangeous and like union it bans the practice and dishes out cards and suspensions for it. Of course we all recognize the dangers involved in dropping or driving an unprotected and disoriented player onto his head....the danger of spinal injuries and concussion.
My point is that a no arms tackle, as long as it is not high, should be legal in union.
My point is that a no arms tackle, as long as it is not high, should be legal in union.
jpm August 05, 2010 1:39 pm
RD....yes it is Union...but one has to ask the question...why is no arms not allowed in union and allowed in league...when for all practical purposes there is no difference in the tackling? It's one big strong guy guy with a ball running into a another at a rate of speed. If no arms was so inherently dangerous they would not allow it in league would they? League recognizes that spear tackling is dangeous and like union it bans the practice and dishes out cards and suspensions for it. Of course we all recognize the dangers involved in dropping or driving an unprotected and disoriented player onto his head....the danger of spinal injuries and concussion.
My point is that a no arms tackle, as long as it is not high, should be legal in union.
My point is that a no arms tackle, as long as it is not high, should be legal in union.
Fester August 05, 2010 1:40 pm
I am pretty discouraged by these continuous attempts to turn the great game of rugby into some sort of ballet. Looks like the Board officials are struggling between the greed and the game, and hence all this regulations.
Fester August 05, 2010 1:40 pm
I am pretty discouraged by these continuous attempts to turn the great game of rugby into some sort of ballet. Looks like the Board officials are struggling between the greed and the game, and hence all this regulations.
Nick August 05, 2010 1:40 pm
Agree with the rant. One of the reasons that I love playing at watching this sport is because it is an all out physical and mental game. The last thing we need is this turning into football where anyone can throw themselves to the ground in the most theatrical manner possible when an opposing player gets vaguely close, in the hope they'll be carded.
I don't think any of the tackles we saw were to heavy and the tip tackle thing completely baffles me. If he's driving the player into the ground head/shoulder first it's a spear. If he isn't it's fine.
I don't think any of the tackles we saw were to heavy and the tip tackle thing completely baffles me. If he's driving the player into the ground head/shoulder first it's a spear. If he isn't it's fine.
Nick August 05, 2010 1:40 pm
Agree with the rant. One of the reasons that I love playing at watching this sport is because it is an all out physical and mental game. The last thing we need is this turning into football where anyone can throw themselves to the ground in the most theatrical manner possible when an opposing player gets vaguely close, in the hope they'll be carded.
I don't think any of the tackles we saw were to heavy and the tip tackle thing completely baffles me. If he's driving the player into the ground head/shoulder first it's a spear. If he isn't it's fine.
I don't think any of the tackles we saw were to heavy and the tip tackle thing completely baffles me. If he's driving the player into the ground head/shoulder first it's a spear. If he isn't it's fine.
Anonymous August 05, 2010 1:44 pm
I'm going to suggest something that would better define a dangerous tackle. Right now, the interpretation is that lifting the legs past horizontal makes it dangerous. But how many tackles have you seen in the last few weeks where the legs were past horizontal, but it was clearly NOT dangerous? Many. The danger is when the TORSO goes past horizontal. The legs can be almost completely upside down and still have the torso be horizontal and the tackle therefore safe.
Anonymous August 05, 2010 1:44 pm
I'm going to suggest something that would better define a dangerous tackle. Right now, the interpretation is that lifting the legs past horizontal makes it dangerous. But how many tackles have you seen in the last few weeks where the legs were past horizontal, but it was clearly NOT dangerous? Many. The danger is when the TORSO goes past horizontal. The legs can be almost completely upside down and still have the torso be horizontal and the tackle therefore safe.
Anonymous August 05, 2010 1:51 pm
I'll put it this way. I got into rugby at the age of 16. Why? Because the physicality of the game appealed to me.
That physical nature is year by year dissapearing.
As others alluded to the wrapping rule itself is retarded.
Another thing alot of Union officials don't like to admit is that shoulder charges being legal in League actually lower the number of dump and spear tackles!
Because there's far less wrapping and lifting. It's extremely rare to see a spear tackle in League.
If anything the wrapping laws of Union make the game more DANGEROUS!!!
That physical nature is year by year dissapearing.
As others alluded to the wrapping rule itself is retarded.
Another thing alot of Union officials don't like to admit is that shoulder charges being legal in League actually lower the number of dump and spear tackles!
Because there's far less wrapping and lifting. It's extremely rare to see a spear tackle in League.
If anything the wrapping laws of Union make the game more DANGEROUS!!!
Anonymous August 05, 2010 1:51 pm
I'll put it this way. I got into rugby at the age of 16. Why? Because the physicality of the game appealed to me.
That physical nature is year by year dissapearing.
As others alluded to the wrapping rule itself is retarded.
Another thing alot of Union officials don't like to admit is that shoulder charges being legal in League actually lower the number of dump and spear tackles!
Because there's far less wrapping and lifting. It's extremely rare to see a spear tackle in League.
If anything the wrapping laws of Union make the game more DANGEROUS!!!
That physical nature is year by year dissapearing.
As others alluded to the wrapping rule itself is retarded.
Another thing alot of Union officials don't like to admit is that shoulder charges being legal in League actually lower the number of dump and spear tackles!
Because there's far less wrapping and lifting. It's extremely rare to see a spear tackle in League.
If anything the wrapping laws of Union make the game more DANGEROUS!!!
Anonymous August 05, 2010 2:18 pm
Maybe we should all go down to the nearest ballet shop and get some tutu's...... inspired words
Anonymous August 05, 2010 2:18 pm
Maybe we should all go down to the nearest ballet shop and get some tutu's...... inspired words
Von August 05, 2010 2:19 pm
Sorry, but I disagree with all of you. No-arms tackles are just clumsy, poor technique and demonstrate a lack of intelligence. There are several good reasons why spear and its illegitmate offspring "tip" tackles are not allowed: chief among those reasons are broken collarbones, whiplash and spinal injuries.
There is nothing more beautiful in rugby union than a massive booming tackle, (well maybe an off-the-top lineout comes close). Big tackling is one of the main attractions for people playing the game, as evidenced by the comments here. Far more impressive to execute a huge tackle fairly and squarely than to just bash into someone or insert them into the ground.
On this note, a request to RD: on your excellent "trysavers & rib-breakers" series, please eliminate the foul, dirty and cynical plays, which generally detract from the amazing tackles that make up the majority. Thanks.
I would agree though that Drew Mitchell's first yellow the other day was unwarranted - it even looked to me like Offside Rich milked it, i.e. dived like some pansy footballer, which is very upsetting to see from a bloke of his calibre. It was also called by a meddling "assistant referee", who I agree were much more useful when they were touch judges. The second yellow was unfortunate for Mitchell, but totally the right call - the cynical play was threatening to spoil the game and Ref had warned both sides plenty of times.
And another thing: can the incredibly dull people who seem to think it's hilarious to jump on a new story and post the word "first", usually anonymously, please desist. You're not funny and never will be. Thanks.
There is nothing more beautiful in rugby union than a massive booming tackle, (well maybe an off-the-top lineout comes close). Big tackling is one of the main attractions for people playing the game, as evidenced by the comments here. Far more impressive to execute a huge tackle fairly and squarely than to just bash into someone or insert them into the ground.
On this note, a request to RD: on your excellent "trysavers & rib-breakers" series, please eliminate the foul, dirty and cynical plays, which generally detract from the amazing tackles that make up the majority. Thanks.
I would agree though that Drew Mitchell's first yellow the other day was unwarranted - it even looked to me like Offside Rich milked it, i.e. dived like some pansy footballer, which is very upsetting to see from a bloke of his calibre. It was also called by a meddling "assistant referee", who I agree were much more useful when they were touch judges. The second yellow was unfortunate for Mitchell, but totally the right call - the cynical play was threatening to spoil the game and Ref had warned both sides plenty of times.
And another thing: can the incredibly dull people who seem to think it's hilarious to jump on a new story and post the word "first", usually anonymously, please desist. You're not funny and never will be. Thanks.
Von August 05, 2010 2:19 pm
Sorry, but I disagree with all of you. No-arms tackles are just clumsy, poor technique and demonstrate a lack of intelligence. There are several good reasons why spear and its illegitmate offspring "tip" tackles are not allowed: chief among those reasons are broken collarbones, whiplash and spinal injuries.
There is nothing more beautiful in rugby union than a massive booming tackle, (well maybe an off-the-top lineout comes close). Big tackling is one of the main attractions for people playing the game, as evidenced by the comments here. Far more impressive to execute a huge tackle fairly and squarely than to just bash into someone or insert them into the ground.
On this note, a request to RD: on your excellent "trysavers & rib-breakers" series, please eliminate the foul, dirty and cynical plays, which generally detract from the amazing tackles that make up the majority. Thanks.
I would agree though that Drew Mitchell's first yellow the other day was unwarranted - it even looked to me like Offside Rich milked it, i.e. dived like some pansy footballer, which is very upsetting to see from a bloke of his calibre. It was also called by a meddling "assistant referee", who I agree were much more useful when they were touch judges. The second yellow was unfortunate for Mitchell, but totally the right call - the cynical play was threatening to spoil the game and Ref had warned both sides plenty of times.
And another thing: can the incredibly dull people who seem to think it's hilarious to jump on a new story and post the word "first", usually anonymously, please desist. You're not funny and never will be. Thanks.
There is nothing more beautiful in rugby union than a massive booming tackle, (well maybe an off-the-top lineout comes close). Big tackling is one of the main attractions for people playing the game, as evidenced by the comments here. Far more impressive to execute a huge tackle fairly and squarely than to just bash into someone or insert them into the ground.
On this note, a request to RD: on your excellent "trysavers & rib-breakers" series, please eliminate the foul, dirty and cynical plays, which generally detract from the amazing tackles that make up the majority. Thanks.
I would agree though that Drew Mitchell's first yellow the other day was unwarranted - it even looked to me like Offside Rich milked it, i.e. dived like some pansy footballer, which is very upsetting to see from a bloke of his calibre. It was also called by a meddling "assistant referee", who I agree were much more useful when they were touch judges. The second yellow was unfortunate for Mitchell, but totally the right call - the cynical play was threatening to spoil the game and Ref had warned both sides plenty of times.
And another thing: can the incredibly dull people who seem to think it's hilarious to jump on a new story and post the word "first", usually anonymously, please desist. You're not funny and never will be. Thanks.
Anonymous August 05, 2010 2:24 pm
JPM, the rate of injury in tackles is greater in league than in union. Whithout any doubt this is due to the fact rugby league allows player to use no arms in the tackle.
As studies show, severe injuries from rugby league are the consequence of tackles, unlike in union where serious injuries happen in scrums.
Cervical spinal cord injury in rugby union and rugby league:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16800205
As studies show, severe injuries from rugby league are the consequence of tackles, unlike in union where serious injuries happen in scrums.
Cervical spinal cord injury in rugby union and rugby league:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16800205
Anonymous August 05, 2010 2:24 pm
JPM, the rate of injury in tackles is greater in league than in union. Whithout any doubt this is due to the fact rugby league allows player to use no arms in the tackle.
As studies show, severe injuries from rugby league are the consequence of tackles, unlike in union where serious injuries happen in scrums.
Cervical spinal cord injury in rugby union and rugby league:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16800205
As studies show, severe injuries from rugby league are the consequence of tackles, unlike in union where serious injuries happen in scrums.
Cervical spinal cord injury in rugby union and rugby league:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16800205
Anonymous August 05, 2010 2:28 pm
JPM, the rate of injury in tackles is greater in league than in union. Whithout any doubt this is due to the fact rugby league allows player to use no arms in the tackle.
........
Not serious injuries. Minor injuries. Concussions and the like.
This is a man sport. The day people are worried about getting knocked out is the day the sport is dead.
Union tackles are soft as fuck these days. As the players seem to be.
Man up. Take a fucking hit up fairies.
........
Not serious injuries. Minor injuries. Concussions and the like.
This is a man sport. The day people are worried about getting knocked out is the day the sport is dead.
Union tackles are soft as fuck these days. As the players seem to be.
Man up. Take a fucking hit up fairies.
Anonymous August 05, 2010 2:28 pm
JPM, the rate of injury in tackles is greater in league than in union. Whithout any doubt this is due to the fact rugby league allows player to use no arms in the tackle.
........
Not serious injuries. Minor injuries. Concussions and the like.
This is a man sport. The day people are worried about getting knocked out is the day the sport is dead.
Union tackles are soft as fuck these days. As the players seem to be.
Man up. Take a fucking hit up fairies.
........
Not serious injuries. Minor injuries. Concussions and the like.
This is a man sport. The day people are worried about getting knocked out is the day the sport is dead.
Union tackles are soft as fuck these days. As the players seem to be.
Man up. Take a fucking hit up fairies.
Jacob August 05, 2010 2:47 pm
I think I'm not alone when I say I don't really care which tackles are illegal or legal for practicality or safety reasons; I just want to see some consistency... I'll be playing my first season of rugby at college in a month, so I've been watching Currie Cup and Tri-Nations to do my homework on the rules. The worst thing about it is that I see perfect tackles costing the hitting side a player in the bin! I certainly don't want to go to my first games afraid to hit someone for fear I'll be sent off to the disadvantage of my teammates. Please sort it out, refs.
Yours truly,
Jake
Yours truly,
Jake
Jacob August 05, 2010 2:47 pm
I think I'm not alone when I say I don't really care which tackles are illegal or legal for practicality or safety reasons; I just want to see some consistency... I'll be playing my first season of rugby at college in a month, so I've been watching Currie Cup and Tri-Nations to do my homework on the rules. The worst thing about it is that I see perfect tackles costing the hitting side a player in the bin! I certainly don't want to go to my first games afraid to hit someone for fear I'll be sent off to the disadvantage of my teammates. Please sort it out, refs.
Yours truly,
Jake
Yours truly,
Jake
Jake August 05, 2010 3:09 pm
"This is a man sport. The day people are worried about getting knocked out is the day the sport is dead."
I disagree with this comments intention. This sport is not about pure and unfocused violence. The hits NEED to be regulated, and strictly so, but that does not mean it's time for touch. Being a man has nothing to do with being dumped on your head half-conscious. Let's just get these rules straight so we can go play some rugby.
I disagree with this comments intention. This sport is not about pure and unfocused violence. The hits NEED to be regulated, and strictly so, but that does not mean it's time for touch. Being a man has nothing to do with being dumped on your head half-conscious. Let's just get these rules straight so we can go play some rugby.
Jake August 05, 2010 3:09 pm
"This is a man sport. The day people are worried about getting knocked out is the day the sport is dead."
I disagree with this comments intention. This sport is not about pure and unfocused violence. The hits NEED to be regulated, and strictly so, but that does not mean it's time for touch. Being a man has nothing to do with being dumped on your head half-conscious. Let's just get these rules straight so we can go play some rugby.
I disagree with this comments intention. This sport is not about pure and unfocused violence. The hits NEED to be regulated, and strictly so, but that does not mean it's time for touch. Being a man has nothing to do with being dumped on your head half-conscious. Let's just get these rules straight so we can go play some rugby.
Blaed August 05, 2010 3:21 pm
the refs really do need this sorted out but as fester said the board is strugling with greed. They trying to make it "safer" so they get better ratings which means more money, but in the process they are just going to ruin the game
Blaed August 05, 2010 3:21 pm
the refs really do need this sorted out but as fester said the board is strugling with greed. They trying to make it "safer" so they get better ratings which means more money, but in the process they are just going to ruin the game
David August 05, 2010 3:29 pm
I reckon that since we have a TMO who presently sits and waits to be summoned to look at a clip of a try being scored or not should have added responsibility. They should watch the entire game and get in the refs ear when he or his touch judge has made a cock up. It would very simply rule out poor calls. I must say when I saw Ben Franks' "shoulder charge" in real time, I called yellow straight away but seeing the replay in slow motion cleared it up a bit. Penalty OZ and get on with it. The same for a late call by Wessels in the same game against the ABs. Sam Whitelock performed a "tip tackle" but neither the ref nor the touch judge got a number. On the replay you can see the number clear as day. Christ above I was watching it in Ireland and I still saw it on Sky, they replayed it for me! Perhaps there is an argument for the IRB to get Sky Plus in?
David August 05, 2010 3:29 pm
I reckon that since we have a TMO who presently sits and waits to be summoned to look at a clip of a try being scored or not should have added responsibility. They should watch the entire game and get in the refs ear when he or his touch judge has made a cock up. It would very simply rule out poor calls. I must say when I saw Ben Franks' "shoulder charge" in real time, I called yellow straight away but seeing the replay in slow motion cleared it up a bit. Penalty OZ and get on with it. The same for a late call by Wessels in the same game against the ABs. Sam Whitelock performed a "tip tackle" but neither the ref nor the touch judge got a number. On the replay you can see the number clear as day. Christ above I was watching it in Ireland and I still saw it on Sky, they replayed it for me! Perhaps there is an argument for the IRB to get Sky Plus in?
Anonymous August 05, 2010 6:50 pm
Let's be clear, it's not the ref that need to be told, but the IRB who set the framework for them to operate in.
Anonymous August 05, 2010 6:50 pm
Let's be clear, it's not the ref that need to be told, but the IRB who set the framework for them to operate in.
Jimbo August 05, 2010 8:08 pm
How's about we get rid of line outs, play with 13 men, hold in the tackle and stand up and roll the ball backwards? Only 6 tackles anyone? Oh hang on thats Rugby League!!! There are lots of rules that are different and one of them is that you must attempt to wrap in the tackle. If you can't do it then 'f' off and play league.
I for one and someone who would much rather make the try saving tackle than actually score the try! I love the physicallity of the sport. However, Anon, being prepared to be knocked out has nothing to do with manning up. Go bang your head against a brick wall if that's what you want out of a game of rugby because I for one don't want to play with idiots like you.
Bring on the big hits. Refs, stop stealing the limelight. IRB pull your finger out otherwise you'll ruin the game. Australia, please keep producing pundits like those on this video. Awesome :)
I for one and someone who would much rather make the try saving tackle than actually score the try! I love the physicallity of the sport. However, Anon, being prepared to be knocked out has nothing to do with manning up. Go bang your head against a brick wall if that's what you want out of a game of rugby because I for one don't want to play with idiots like you.
Bring on the big hits. Refs, stop stealing the limelight. IRB pull your finger out otherwise you'll ruin the game. Australia, please keep producing pundits like those on this video. Awesome :)
Jimbo August 05, 2010 8:08 pm
How's about we get rid of line outs, play with 13 men, hold in the tackle and stand up and roll the ball backwards? Only 6 tackles anyone? Oh hang on thats Rugby League!!! There are lots of rules that are different and one of them is that you must attempt to wrap in the tackle. If you can't do it then 'f' off and play league.
I for one and someone who would much rather make the try saving tackle than actually score the try! I love the physicallity of the sport. However, Anon, being prepared to be knocked out has nothing to do with manning up. Go bang your head against a brick wall if that's what you want out of a game of rugby because I for one don't want to play with idiots like you.
Bring on the big hits. Refs, stop stealing the limelight. IRB pull your finger out otherwise you'll ruin the game. Australia, please keep producing pundits like those on this video. Awesome :)
I for one and someone who would much rather make the try saving tackle than actually score the try! I love the physicallity of the sport. However, Anon, being prepared to be knocked out has nothing to do with manning up. Go bang your head against a brick wall if that's what you want out of a game of rugby because I for one don't want to play with idiots like you.
Bring on the big hits. Refs, stop stealing the limelight. IRB pull your finger out otherwise you'll ruin the game. Australia, please keep producing pundits like those on this video. Awesome :)
Canadian Content August 05, 2010 9:37 pm
I agree with RD and the Rugby club's sentiments on all the tackling but Frank's. Sorry but no arms is no arms, even if you fail them afterward to make it look like you were attempting to wrap. Frank went in high and led with the shoulder, making a poor attempt to wrap.
I for one don't want to see the shoulder charge come into Union. I regularly watch league and see lots of guys get head injuries due to shoulder charges. You will see shoulder charges hit the head regularly and worse, see players "cut block" runners's legs out from underneath them, a la American football. This type of no holds barred tackling will definitely lead to more injuries. Just look at the NFL.
Great to see Tana and Robinson back playing for the love of the game.
I know it was on another post, but I find it hard to believe anyone questioned the unmatchable elusiveness of Billy Whiz.
I for one don't want to see the shoulder charge come into Union. I regularly watch league and see lots of guys get head injuries due to shoulder charges. You will see shoulder charges hit the head regularly and worse, see players "cut block" runners's legs out from underneath them, a la American football. This type of no holds barred tackling will definitely lead to more injuries. Just look at the NFL.
Great to see Tana and Robinson back playing for the love of the game.
I know it was on another post, but I find it hard to believe anyone questioned the unmatchable elusiveness of Billy Whiz.
Canadian Content August 05, 2010 9:37 pm
I agree with RD and the Rugby club's sentiments on all the tackling but Frank's. Sorry but no arms is no arms, even if you fail them afterward to make it look like you were attempting to wrap. Frank went in high and led with the shoulder, making a poor attempt to wrap.
I for one don't want to see the shoulder charge come into Union. I regularly watch league and see lots of guys get head injuries due to shoulder charges. You will see shoulder charges hit the head regularly and worse, see players "cut block" runners's legs out from underneath them, a la American football. This type of no holds barred tackling will definitely lead to more injuries. Just look at the NFL.
Great to see Tana and Robinson back playing for the love of the game.
I know it was on another post, but I find it hard to believe anyone questioned the unmatchable elusiveness of Billy Whiz.
I for one don't want to see the shoulder charge come into Union. I regularly watch league and see lots of guys get head injuries due to shoulder charges. You will see shoulder charges hit the head regularly and worse, see players "cut block" runners's legs out from underneath them, a la American football. This type of no holds barred tackling will definitely lead to more injuries. Just look at the NFL.
Great to see Tana and Robinson back playing for the love of the game.
I know it was on another post, but I find it hard to believe anyone questioned the unmatchable elusiveness of Billy Whiz.
Anonymous August 05, 2010 10:20 pm
I think Percy Montgomery was red-carded for two yellows against Wales or Scotland
Anonymous August 05, 2010 10:20 pm
I think Percy Montgomery was red-carded for two yellows against Wales or Scotland
Jono August 05, 2010 11:12 pm
It seems like no matter what, people don't know the laws around shoulder charges.
The rule simpyl states that a player has to make an attempt to grasp the other player at some point during the tackle. Just an attempt, they don't have to succeed.
So it doesn't actually matter about where the arms are technically, or whther they actually grasp the other player, just that they try.
There are problems, so many problems with this rule.
Modern tackling technique (which all proffesional players, and most ametuer players are taught) is to enter a tackle with your arms to your side, leading with the point of your shoulder.
You tackle chest to chest 90% of the time, two main reasons -
1. Stop the offload
2. Players are too big and strong and too skilled these days to tackle round the legs, you'll get brushed most times. The only way to create enough of an impact on a big guy, say a no 8 or something, is to hit him really hard, chest to chest and drive him back.
You want all the impact of the hit to be taken on your shoulder, because then you get the support of your whole body, from your shoulder down to your feet, allt he energy gets channelled thru the point of your shoulder.
Your arms then come round after the initial impact, to graps the player, or drag him to the ground now that you've stopped his momentum and put the hit on.
At this point it's a wrestling match and your arms actually matter, but not before this.
League learned long ago that shoulder charges were a normal evolution of the tackling technique.
All that aside, most of the hits that are called shoulders these days aren't even shoulders under the rules.
If you hit with your shoulder, and try to bring your arms round, even if you don't succeed, it's not ilegal at all.
Only if you tuck your arms up and make noa ttempt to bring them round, is it a shoulder.
Enough of the soft bullshit, players love hits, love smashing each other, I love doing and I love watching it. It's one of the great parts of the game.
The IRB are emasculating the game.
The rule simpyl states that a player has to make an attempt to grasp the other player at some point during the tackle. Just an attempt, they don't have to succeed.
So it doesn't actually matter about where the arms are technically, or whther they actually grasp the other player, just that they try.
There are problems, so many problems with this rule.
Modern tackling technique (which all proffesional players, and most ametuer players are taught) is to enter a tackle with your arms to your side, leading with the point of your shoulder.
You tackle chest to chest 90% of the time, two main reasons -
1. Stop the offload
2. Players are too big and strong and too skilled these days to tackle round the legs, you'll get brushed most times. The only way to create enough of an impact on a big guy, say a no 8 or something, is to hit him really hard, chest to chest and drive him back.
You want all the impact of the hit to be taken on your shoulder, because then you get the support of your whole body, from your shoulder down to your feet, allt he energy gets channelled thru the point of your shoulder.
Your arms then come round after the initial impact, to graps the player, or drag him to the ground now that you've stopped his momentum and put the hit on.
At this point it's a wrestling match and your arms actually matter, but not before this.
League learned long ago that shoulder charges were a normal evolution of the tackling technique.
All that aside, most of the hits that are called shoulders these days aren't even shoulders under the rules.
If you hit with your shoulder, and try to bring your arms round, even if you don't succeed, it's not ilegal at all.
Only if you tuck your arms up and make noa ttempt to bring them round, is it a shoulder.
Enough of the soft bullshit, players love hits, love smashing each other, I love doing and I love watching it. It's one of the great parts of the game.
The IRB are emasculating the game.
Jono August 05, 2010 11:12 pm
It seems like no matter what, people don't know the laws around shoulder charges.
The rule simpyl states that a player has to make an attempt to grasp the other player at some point during the tackle. Just an attempt, they don't have to succeed.
So it doesn't actually matter about where the arms are technically, or whther they actually grasp the other player, just that they try.
There are problems, so many problems with this rule.
Modern tackling technique (which all proffesional players, and most ametuer players are taught) is to enter a tackle with your arms to your side, leading with the point of your shoulder.
You tackle chest to chest 90% of the time, two main reasons -
1. Stop the offload
2. Players are too big and strong and too skilled these days to tackle round the legs, you'll get brushed most times. The only way to create enough of an impact on a big guy, say a no 8 or something, is to hit him really hard, chest to chest and drive him back.
You want all the impact of the hit to be taken on your shoulder, because then you get the support of your whole body, from your shoulder down to your feet, allt he energy gets channelled thru the point of your shoulder.
Your arms then come round after the initial impact, to graps the player, or drag him to the ground now that you've stopped his momentum and put the hit on.
At this point it's a wrestling match and your arms actually matter, but not before this.
League learned long ago that shoulder charges were a normal evolution of the tackling technique.
All that aside, most of the hits that are called shoulders these days aren't even shoulders under the rules.
If you hit with your shoulder, and try to bring your arms round, even if you don't succeed, it's not ilegal at all.
Only if you tuck your arms up and make noa ttempt to bring them round, is it a shoulder.
Enough of the soft bullshit, players love hits, love smashing each other, I love doing and I love watching it. It's one of the great parts of the game.
The IRB are emasculating the game.
The rule simpyl states that a player has to make an attempt to grasp the other player at some point during the tackle. Just an attempt, they don't have to succeed.
So it doesn't actually matter about where the arms are technically, or whther they actually grasp the other player, just that they try.
There are problems, so many problems with this rule.
Modern tackling technique (which all proffesional players, and most ametuer players are taught) is to enter a tackle with your arms to your side, leading with the point of your shoulder.
You tackle chest to chest 90% of the time, two main reasons -
1. Stop the offload
2. Players are too big and strong and too skilled these days to tackle round the legs, you'll get brushed most times. The only way to create enough of an impact on a big guy, say a no 8 or something, is to hit him really hard, chest to chest and drive him back.
You want all the impact of the hit to be taken on your shoulder, because then you get the support of your whole body, from your shoulder down to your feet, allt he energy gets channelled thru the point of your shoulder.
Your arms then come round after the initial impact, to graps the player, or drag him to the ground now that you've stopped his momentum and put the hit on.
At this point it's a wrestling match and your arms actually matter, but not before this.
League learned long ago that shoulder charges were a normal evolution of the tackling technique.
All that aside, most of the hits that are called shoulders these days aren't even shoulders under the rules.
If you hit with your shoulder, and try to bring your arms round, even if you don't succeed, it's not ilegal at all.
Only if you tuck your arms up and make noa ttempt to bring them round, is it a shoulder.
Enough of the soft bullshit, players love hits, love smashing each other, I love doing and I love watching it. It's one of the great parts of the game.
The IRB are emasculating the game.
Tony August 05, 2010 11:24 pm
RE: The first red for 2 yellows in a test
Percy Montgomery did receive a red card for 2 yellows in a test match, against Wales in 2005.
Equally as controversial, especially the second yellow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpFOUsPAHI
Percy Montgomery did receive a red card for 2 yellows in a test match, against Wales in 2005.
Equally as controversial, especially the second yellow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpFOUsPAHI
Tony August 05, 2010 11:24 pm
RE: The first red for 2 yellows in a test
Percy Montgomery did receive a red card for 2 yellows in a test match, against Wales in 2005.
Equally as controversial, especially the second yellow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpFOUsPAHI
Percy Montgomery did receive a red card for 2 yellows in a test match, against Wales in 2005.
Equally as controversial, especially the second yellow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpFOUsPAHI
Jono August 05, 2010 11:53 pm
Canadian Content, i don't know what league you're watching, but players do not cut other players legs out, it doesn't happen at all.
Players don't have pads, they would fuck themselves up badly if they tackled like NFL players.
You are getting league and NFL mixed up, and equating them, they are very different.
The tackling style in league is almost exactly the same as union, they are just allowed more leniancy when it comes to shoulders.
Shoulders do not result in mroe injuries, that's bullshit. There are more injuries in elague because they get hit alot more, in league it's not unusual for top players to make 50 or 60 tackles in a agme and 15 or 20 runs with the ball, just in one game. That's why they get injured more, they get thru mroe contact.
Shoulders aren't more dangerous at all, they just look spectacular.
As a former league and union player, I'd much rather get shouldered than lifted and dumped on my back (which isn't a problem either, it's just part of the game, and legal in both league and union).
Half the time it's the defender who ends up on his arse anyway.
And for people who say it's stupid, wtf do you think this is, a poetry competition? Who cares if it's not cerebral enough for you, soft fuckers.
Players don't have pads, they would fuck themselves up badly if they tackled like NFL players.
You are getting league and NFL mixed up, and equating them, they are very different.
The tackling style in league is almost exactly the same as union, they are just allowed more leniancy when it comes to shoulders.
Shoulders do not result in mroe injuries, that's bullshit. There are more injuries in elague because they get hit alot more, in league it's not unusual for top players to make 50 or 60 tackles in a agme and 15 or 20 runs with the ball, just in one game. That's why they get injured more, they get thru mroe contact.
Shoulders aren't more dangerous at all, they just look spectacular.
As a former league and union player, I'd much rather get shouldered than lifted and dumped on my back (which isn't a problem either, it's just part of the game, and legal in both league and union).
Half the time it's the defender who ends up on his arse anyway.
And for people who say it's stupid, wtf do you think this is, a poetry competition? Who cares if it's not cerebral enough for you, soft fuckers.
Jono August 05, 2010 11:53 pm
Canadian Content, i don't know what league you're watching, but players do not cut other players legs out, it doesn't happen at all.
Players don't have pads, they would fuck themselves up badly if they tackled like NFL players.
You are getting league and NFL mixed up, and equating them, they are very different.
The tackling style in league is almost exactly the same as union, they are just allowed more leniancy when it comes to shoulders.
Shoulders do not result in mroe injuries, that's bullshit. There are more injuries in elague because they get hit alot more, in league it's not unusual for top players to make 50 or 60 tackles in a agme and 15 or 20 runs with the ball, just in one game. That's why they get injured more, they get thru mroe contact.
Shoulders aren't more dangerous at all, they just look spectacular.
As a former league and union player, I'd much rather get shouldered than lifted and dumped on my back (which isn't a problem either, it's just part of the game, and legal in both league and union).
Half the time it's the defender who ends up on his arse anyway.
And for people who say it's stupid, wtf do you think this is, a poetry competition? Who cares if it's not cerebral enough for you, soft fuckers.
Players don't have pads, they would fuck themselves up badly if they tackled like NFL players.
You are getting league and NFL mixed up, and equating them, they are very different.
The tackling style in league is almost exactly the same as union, they are just allowed more leniancy when it comes to shoulders.
Shoulders do not result in mroe injuries, that's bullshit. There are more injuries in elague because they get hit alot more, in league it's not unusual for top players to make 50 or 60 tackles in a agme and 15 or 20 runs with the ball, just in one game. That's why they get injured more, they get thru mroe contact.
Shoulders aren't more dangerous at all, they just look spectacular.
As a former league and union player, I'd much rather get shouldered than lifted and dumped on my back (which isn't a problem either, it's just part of the game, and legal in both league and union).
Half the time it's the defender who ends up on his arse anyway.
And for people who say it's stupid, wtf do you think this is, a poetry competition? Who cares if it's not cerebral enough for you, soft fuckers.
mise August 06, 2010 12:07 am
assistant refs - once they say it, it seems the ref has to actually agree, even if he's also seen it. WTF?
How many times have I seen an AR recommend sth, only for the R to automatically agree? It is v v rare to see him disagree.
And cheers to the unfortunately anonymous guy for actually posting real research to make your point. That's even rarer again!
This also then refutes everyone else who disagrees and speculates about tackle rates in the two codes. League's version of a tackle equals more injuries. If you disagree, you'll have to go to the link and figure out a critique.
A final suggestion RD (justified in placing it here I think, based on the conversation):
Seeing both league and union non-wrap tackles side by side in a vid for comparative purposes.
How many times have I seen an AR recommend sth, only for the R to automatically agree? It is v v rare to see him disagree.
And cheers to the unfortunately anonymous guy for actually posting real research to make your point. That's even rarer again!
This also then refutes everyone else who disagrees and speculates about tackle rates in the two codes. League's version of a tackle equals more injuries. If you disagree, you'll have to go to the link and figure out a critique.
A final suggestion RD (justified in placing it here I think, based on the conversation):
Seeing both league and union non-wrap tackles side by side in a vid for comparative purposes.
mise August 06, 2010 12:07 am
assistant refs - once they say it, it seems the ref has to actually agree, even if he's also seen it. WTF?
How many times have I seen an AR recommend sth, only for the R to automatically agree? It is v v rare to see him disagree.
And cheers to the unfortunately anonymous guy for actually posting real research to make your point. That's even rarer again!
This also then refutes everyone else who disagrees and speculates about tackle rates in the two codes. League's version of a tackle equals more injuries. If you disagree, you'll have to go to the link and figure out a critique.
A final suggestion RD (justified in placing it here I think, based on the conversation):
Seeing both league and union non-wrap tackles side by side in a vid for comparative purposes.
How many times have I seen an AR recommend sth, only for the R to automatically agree? It is v v rare to see him disagree.
And cheers to the unfortunately anonymous guy for actually posting real research to make your point. That's even rarer again!
This also then refutes everyone else who disagrees and speculates about tackle rates in the two codes. League's version of a tackle equals more injuries. If you disagree, you'll have to go to the link and figure out a critique.
A final suggestion RD (justified in placing it here I think, based on the conversation):
Seeing both league and union non-wrap tackles side by side in a vid for comparative purposes.
jono August 06, 2010 12:36 am
Mise, as I just said, plyers in league make up to four or five times as many tackles and runs as union players do.
That completely explains the statistics reflected in that study.
You will note that at no point in that research do the researchers ever suggest, or even hint that shoulder charges are in any way even partially responsible for the higher rate of injury in league over union.
The fact that more spinal injuries occur in scrums in union, than in tackles, says alot more about the danger of scrummaging then it does about tackling, and there is no sensible or scientific logic one could draw from that study tos upport any claims about shoulder charging.
At no point does the study address this or refer to it.
That completely explains the statistics reflected in that study.
You will note that at no point in that research do the researchers ever suggest, or even hint that shoulder charges are in any way even partially responsible for the higher rate of injury in league over union.
The fact that more spinal injuries occur in scrums in union, than in tackles, says alot more about the danger of scrummaging then it does about tackling, and there is no sensible or scientific logic one could draw from that study tos upport any claims about shoulder charging.
At no point does the study address this or refer to it.
jono August 06, 2010 12:36 am
Mise, as I just said, plyers in league make up to four or five times as many tackles and runs as union players do.
That completely explains the statistics reflected in that study.
You will note that at no point in that research do the researchers ever suggest, or even hint that shoulder charges are in any way even partially responsible for the higher rate of injury in league over union.
The fact that more spinal injuries occur in scrums in union, than in tackles, says alot more about the danger of scrummaging then it does about tackling, and there is no sensible or scientific logic one could draw from that study tos upport any claims about shoulder charging.
At no point does the study address this or refer to it.
That completely explains the statistics reflected in that study.
You will note that at no point in that research do the researchers ever suggest, or even hint that shoulder charges are in any way even partially responsible for the higher rate of injury in league over union.
The fact that more spinal injuries occur in scrums in union, than in tackles, says alot more about the danger of scrummaging then it does about tackling, and there is no sensible or scientific logic one could draw from that study tos upport any claims about shoulder charging.
At no point does the study address this or refer to it.
Anonymous August 06, 2010 1:03 am
isn't the "no arms" rule meant to stop shoulder charging some one in the chest?just say no shoulder charging. it's impossible with the speed of play not to use your arms because you're trying to slow the guy down anyway you can
Anonymous August 06, 2010 1:03 am
isn't the "no arms" rule meant to stop shoulder charging some one in the chest?just say no shoulder charging. it's impossible with the speed of play not to use your arms because you're trying to slow the guy down anyway you can
Bill August 06, 2010 1:13 am
It's meant to stop people tucking their arms up, and running in side on, to hit with the shoudler.
This kind of hit is common in league, no problems but union doesn't want it for whatever reason.
However, now, for some ridiculous PC reason, they are carding legitimate tackles, just because they are big hits, because they assume it must be a shoulder charge.
Arms are often not used in a tackle, it is very possible to hit without them, and the real force of a hit, the bit that stops them, is the hit with the shoulder.
This kind of hit is common in league, no problems but union doesn't want it for whatever reason.
However, now, for some ridiculous PC reason, they are carding legitimate tackles, just because they are big hits, because they assume it must be a shoulder charge.
Arms are often not used in a tackle, it is very possible to hit without them, and the real force of a hit, the bit that stops them, is the hit with the shoulder.
Bill August 06, 2010 1:13 am
It's meant to stop people tucking their arms up, and running in side on, to hit with the shoudler.
This kind of hit is common in league, no problems but union doesn't want it for whatever reason.
However, now, for some ridiculous PC reason, they are carding legitimate tackles, just because they are big hits, because they assume it must be a shoulder charge.
Arms are often not used in a tackle, it is very possible to hit without them, and the real force of a hit, the bit that stops them, is the hit with the shoulder.
This kind of hit is common in league, no problems but union doesn't want it for whatever reason.
However, now, for some ridiculous PC reason, they are carding legitimate tackles, just because they are big hits, because they assume it must be a shoulder charge.
Arms are often not used in a tackle, it is very possible to hit without them, and the real force of a hit, the bit that stops them, is the hit with the shoulder.
mise August 06, 2010 1:15 am
@Jono:
we must have both been typing at the same time. Fair points.
Thou there are also significant differences in what constitutes a tackles in both codes, which alters the 'impact' of the numbers:
league has many more 'tackles', but also a lot of 'holding' type tackles, where a number of players crowd the ball carrier out.
Often,tackles start with two players on the ball carrier - many of their many tackles are not significant in impact terms, thou of course the big more open shoulder/chest hits have a massive impact.
So its understanding the difference between the big open hits and the 'death by a thousand daggers' of many mini hits that is key.
In any case, Union has in reality in recent years moved over towards the hits rather than tackles for the reasons outlined earlier and elsewhere by others, and doctors all of the world are talking about the serious car crash-like impact of this.
How important arms actually are in all of this is difficult to define: at least, arms involve 'doing more stuff' - stuff that's a slight distraction from the impact-orientation of the modern hit.
While this clip features inconsistencies and over zealous interpretation of the tip tackle, and while the arm wrapping discussion is relevant, I would also worry about the trend towards mega hits and where the game might end up: with monsters playing a game that once everyone of every size could play in some position.
And in simple terms the mega hits, great and all as they are to watch, are moving the game in the direction of concussion risks. using no arms seems to increase this likelihood, as there is literally nothing else to do but hit like a kamikaze pilot and hope to come off best.
(Obviously agree on the scrum injuries' points btw)
we must have both been typing at the same time. Fair points.
Thou there are also significant differences in what constitutes a tackles in both codes, which alters the 'impact' of the numbers:
league has many more 'tackles', but also a lot of 'holding' type tackles, where a number of players crowd the ball carrier out.
Often,tackles start with two players on the ball carrier - many of their many tackles are not significant in impact terms, thou of course the big more open shoulder/chest hits have a massive impact.
So its understanding the difference between the big open hits and the 'death by a thousand daggers' of many mini hits that is key.
In any case, Union has in reality in recent years moved over towards the hits rather than tackles for the reasons outlined earlier and elsewhere by others, and doctors all of the world are talking about the serious car crash-like impact of this.
How important arms actually are in all of this is difficult to define: at least, arms involve 'doing more stuff' - stuff that's a slight distraction from the impact-orientation of the modern hit.
While this clip features inconsistencies and over zealous interpretation of the tip tackle, and while the arm wrapping discussion is relevant, I would also worry about the trend towards mega hits and where the game might end up: with monsters playing a game that once everyone of every size could play in some position.
And in simple terms the mega hits, great and all as they are to watch, are moving the game in the direction of concussion risks. using no arms seems to increase this likelihood, as there is literally nothing else to do but hit like a kamikaze pilot and hope to come off best.
(Obviously agree on the scrum injuries' points btw)
mise August 06, 2010 1:15 am
@Jono:
we must have both been typing at the same time. Fair points.
Thou there are also significant differences in what constitutes a tackles in both codes, which alters the 'impact' of the numbers:
league has many more 'tackles', but also a lot of 'holding' type tackles, where a number of players crowd the ball carrier out.
Often,tackles start with two players on the ball carrier - many of their many tackles are not significant in impact terms, thou of course the big more open shoulder/chest hits have a massive impact.
So its understanding the difference between the big open hits and the 'death by a thousand daggers' of many mini hits that is key.
In any case, Union has in reality in recent years moved over towards the hits rather than tackles for the reasons outlined earlier and elsewhere by others, and doctors all of the world are talking about the serious car crash-like impact of this.
How important arms actually are in all of this is difficult to define: at least, arms involve 'doing more stuff' - stuff that's a slight distraction from the impact-orientation of the modern hit.
While this clip features inconsistencies and over zealous interpretation of the tip tackle, and while the arm wrapping discussion is relevant, I would also worry about the trend towards mega hits and where the game might end up: with monsters playing a game that once everyone of every size could play in some position.
And in simple terms the mega hits, great and all as they are to watch, are moving the game in the direction of concussion risks. using no arms seems to increase this likelihood, as there is literally nothing else to do but hit like a kamikaze pilot and hope to come off best.
(Obviously agree on the scrum injuries' points btw)
we must have both been typing at the same time. Fair points.
Thou there are also significant differences in what constitutes a tackles in both codes, which alters the 'impact' of the numbers:
league has many more 'tackles', but also a lot of 'holding' type tackles, where a number of players crowd the ball carrier out.
Often,tackles start with two players on the ball carrier - many of their many tackles are not significant in impact terms, thou of course the big more open shoulder/chest hits have a massive impact.
So its understanding the difference between the big open hits and the 'death by a thousand daggers' of many mini hits that is key.
In any case, Union has in reality in recent years moved over towards the hits rather than tackles for the reasons outlined earlier and elsewhere by others, and doctors all of the world are talking about the serious car crash-like impact of this.
How important arms actually are in all of this is difficult to define: at least, arms involve 'doing more stuff' - stuff that's a slight distraction from the impact-orientation of the modern hit.
While this clip features inconsistencies and over zealous interpretation of the tip tackle, and while the arm wrapping discussion is relevant, I would also worry about the trend towards mega hits and where the game might end up: with monsters playing a game that once everyone of every size could play in some position.
And in simple terms the mega hits, great and all as they are to watch, are moving the game in the direction of concussion risks. using no arms seems to increase this likelihood, as there is literally nothing else to do but hit like a kamikaze pilot and hope to come off best.
(Obviously agree on the scrum injuries' points btw)
freedesign August 06, 2010 1:50 am
Look at 95% of the tackles in league. They are all wrap tackles. Rugby league players are taught to wrap tackle, not shoulder charge. Shoulder charging is allowed because it stops all the bullshit penalities and the pedantic over analysis of what constitutes a tackle.
Allowing 'shoulder charges' in union will not mean the end of rugby. I guarantee you that they will still be wrap tackling.
Allowing 'shoulder charges' in union will not mean the end of rugby. I guarantee you that they will still be wrap tackling.
freedesign August 06, 2010 1:50 am
Look at 95% of the tackles in league. They are all wrap tackles. Rugby league players are taught to wrap tackle, not shoulder charge. Shoulder charging is allowed because it stops all the bullshit penalities and the pedantic over analysis of what constitutes a tackle.
Allowing 'shoulder charges' in union will not mean the end of rugby. I guarantee you that they will still be wrap tackling.
Allowing 'shoulder charges' in union will not mean the end of rugby. I guarantee you that they will still be wrap tackling.
Ryan August 06, 2010 2:02 am
a no arm tackle usually means a smaller and harder surface area is connecting with the oppossing player as suppose to the bigger squishier surface area (shoulder vs entire arm and shoulder). We're not leauge, never have been, never will, as far as i'm concerned the only similarity we have with that sport is that both codes have the word 'rugby' in the title... So stop comparing union that that game. It's dangerous, not as much fun, and dangerous. So get over it, the rules aren't going to be changed.
Ryan August 06, 2010 2:02 am
a no arm tackle usually means a smaller and harder surface area is connecting with the oppossing player as suppose to the bigger squishier surface area (shoulder vs entire arm and shoulder). We're not leauge, never have been, never will, as far as i'm concerned the only similarity we have with that sport is that both codes have the word 'rugby' in the title... So stop comparing union that that game. It's dangerous, not as much fun, and dangerous. So get over it, the rules aren't going to be changed.
Hi Ho August 06, 2010 2:23 am
Just clicked on the link provided earlier and watched the vid of Percy Montgomery get two yellows followed by the red.
My God, we all thought Drew Mitchell was hard done by getting his first yellow and ultimately a red, but what a bullshit decision for both of Percy's yellows. Neither deserved a yellow, let alone an ultimate red.
So touch judges have fucked things up plenty of times before... nothing has changed.
Lucky RSA were so far ahead with only 10 min to go... I presume they hung on to win.
My God, we all thought Drew Mitchell was hard done by getting his first yellow and ultimately a red, but what a bullshit decision for both of Percy's yellows. Neither deserved a yellow, let alone an ultimate red.
So touch judges have fucked things up plenty of times before... nothing has changed.
Lucky RSA were so far ahead with only 10 min to go... I presume they hung on to win.
Hi Ho August 06, 2010 2:23 am
Just clicked on the link provided earlier and watched the vid of Percy Montgomery get two yellows followed by the red.
My God, we all thought Drew Mitchell was hard done by getting his first yellow and ultimately a red, but what a bullshit decision for both of Percy's yellows. Neither deserved a yellow, let alone an ultimate red.
So touch judges have fucked things up plenty of times before... nothing has changed.
Lucky RSA were so far ahead with only 10 min to go... I presume they hung on to win.
My God, we all thought Drew Mitchell was hard done by getting his first yellow and ultimately a red, but what a bullshit decision for both of Percy's yellows. Neither deserved a yellow, let alone an ultimate red.
So touch judges have fucked things up plenty of times before... nothing has changed.
Lucky RSA were so far ahead with only 10 min to go... I presume they hung on to win.
Jono August 06, 2010 3:13 am
Ryan, you are incredibly ignorant if you actual believe the rubbish you've written.
League was union 100 years ago, and after 100 years of proffesionalism it evolved to what it is today.
If you think there are no more similarities than the name you need to get your head examined.
League has slightly higher rates of injury (but anecdotally I would say in terms of spinal injuries, nothing in league compares to the potential spinal damage that can be caused scrummaging) but this has exactly 0 to do with shoulder charges, and everything to do with the much higher number of collisions a league player experiences than a union player.
If you want to talk sense and logic, fine, but don't jsut spout rubbish, skewed by your bias.
League was union 100 years ago, and after 100 years of proffesionalism it evolved to what it is today.
If you think there are no more similarities than the name you need to get your head examined.
League has slightly higher rates of injury (but anecdotally I would say in terms of spinal injuries, nothing in league compares to the potential spinal damage that can be caused scrummaging) but this has exactly 0 to do with shoulder charges, and everything to do with the much higher number of collisions a league player experiences than a union player.
If you want to talk sense and logic, fine, but don't jsut spout rubbish, skewed by your bias.
Jono August 06, 2010 3:13 am
Ryan, you are incredibly ignorant if you actual believe the rubbish you've written.
League was union 100 years ago, and after 100 years of proffesionalism it evolved to what it is today.
If you think there are no more similarities than the name you need to get your head examined.
League has slightly higher rates of injury (but anecdotally I would say in terms of spinal injuries, nothing in league compares to the potential spinal damage that can be caused scrummaging) but this has exactly 0 to do with shoulder charges, and everything to do with the much higher number of collisions a league player experiences than a union player.
If you want to talk sense and logic, fine, but don't jsut spout rubbish, skewed by your bias.
League was union 100 years ago, and after 100 years of proffesionalism it evolved to what it is today.
If you think there are no more similarities than the name you need to get your head examined.
League has slightly higher rates of injury (but anecdotally I would say in terms of spinal injuries, nothing in league compares to the potential spinal damage that can be caused scrummaging) but this has exactly 0 to do with shoulder charges, and everything to do with the much higher number of collisions a league player experiences than a union player.
If you want to talk sense and logic, fine, but don't jsut spout rubbish, skewed by your bias.
Jono August 06, 2010 3:18 am
Mise, in my personal experience, league has bigger hits overall, simply because players build up alot of momentuma and speed before they hit you as they run the ten metres towards you that seperates the offensive and defensive lines.
As you say, they are also more likely to ganag tackle you, it is normal to get tackled by three or four players in most of your runs, if you're a forward.
This doesn't really have anything to do with shoulder charges though, which aren't any more dangerous than any other hit.
Honestly, from a league perspective, union attitudes towards shoulder charges are incredibly soft and basically ridiculous.
It's laughable, how afraid of shoulders union people sometimes are.
In league they happen all the time and if you cired about them, you;d be laughed off the team.
As you say, they are also more likely to ganag tackle you, it is normal to get tackled by three or four players in most of your runs, if you're a forward.
This doesn't really have anything to do with shoulder charges though, which aren't any more dangerous than any other hit.
Honestly, from a league perspective, union attitudes towards shoulder charges are incredibly soft and basically ridiculous.
It's laughable, how afraid of shoulders union people sometimes are.
In league they happen all the time and if you cired about them, you;d be laughed off the team.
Jono August 06, 2010 3:18 am
Mise, in my personal experience, league has bigger hits overall, simply because players build up alot of momentuma and speed before they hit you as they run the ten metres towards you that seperates the offensive and defensive lines.
As you say, they are also more likely to ganag tackle you, it is normal to get tackled by three or four players in most of your runs, if you're a forward.
This doesn't really have anything to do with shoulder charges though, which aren't any more dangerous than any other hit.
Honestly, from a league perspective, union attitudes towards shoulder charges are incredibly soft and basically ridiculous.
It's laughable, how afraid of shoulders union people sometimes are.
In league they happen all the time and if you cired about them, you;d be laughed off the team.
As you say, they are also more likely to ganag tackle you, it is normal to get tackled by three or four players in most of your runs, if you're a forward.
This doesn't really have anything to do with shoulder charges though, which aren't any more dangerous than any other hit.
Honestly, from a league perspective, union attitudes towards shoulder charges are incredibly soft and basically ridiculous.
It's laughable, how afraid of shoulders union people sometimes are.
In league they happen all the time and if you cired about them, you;d be laughed off the team.
Nog August 06, 2010 4:49 am
The only reason union fans are so anti-shouldercharge is because of their phobia of league.
Seriously if union players can withstand the punishment of scrummages and rucks and mauls, a shoulder charge is nothing.
And players hit just as hard if not harder when they use their arms anyway so it's not like should charging all of a sudden makes rugby dangerous.
Seriously if union players can withstand the punishment of scrummages and rucks and mauls, a shoulder charge is nothing.
And players hit just as hard if not harder when they use their arms anyway so it's not like should charging all of a sudden makes rugby dangerous.
Nog August 06, 2010 4:49 am
The only reason union fans are so anti-shouldercharge is because of their phobia of league.
Seriously if union players can withstand the punishment of scrummages and rucks and mauls, a shoulder charge is nothing.
And players hit just as hard if not harder when they use their arms anyway so it's not like should charging all of a sudden makes rugby dangerous.
Seriously if union players can withstand the punishment of scrummages and rucks and mauls, a shoulder charge is nothing.
And players hit just as hard if not harder when they use their arms anyway so it's not like should charging all of a sudden makes rugby dangerous.
2020 August 06, 2010 7:32 am
Love the vid and agree with every point made by Rugby Club and Rugbydump.
The thing i dont get is how the Australians can consistently bag themselves. If an Ozzy could explain, please do.
The thing i dont get is how the Australians can consistently bag themselves. If an Ozzy could explain, please do.
2020 August 06, 2010 7:32 am
Love the vid and agree with every point made by Rugby Club and Rugbydump.
The thing i dont get is how the Australians can consistently bag themselves. If an Ozzy could explain, please do.
The thing i dont get is how the Australians can consistently bag themselves. If an Ozzy could explain, please do.
H August 06, 2010 10:38 am
They are sin-binning for the potentially dangerous tackles rather than the dangerous tackles.. which is ridiculous. I dont think any of the tackles we've seen warranted any punishment.. the type they have to wait for is the Tuqiri on McCaw tackle (which if you'll probably have seen).
H August 06, 2010 10:38 am
They are sin-binning for the potentially dangerous tackles rather than the dangerous tackles.. which is ridiculous. I dont think any of the tackles we've seen warranted any punishment.. the type they have to wait for is the Tuqiri on McCaw tackle (which if you'll probably have seen).
NiWiTa August 06, 2010 12:17 pm
agreeing with @Jono and @Nog...
I love union and think that both codes can learn aspects of play from each other..
The insistent and sad fear of "shoulder charges" and over zealous yellow-carding is just getting bloody silly. If you start to over officiate this side then soon all eyes will turn to scrummaging....
Imagine a magic game of union without the contest of the scrum...WAIT lets ban line-outs because someone could land on their ass!
As for the wally that showed a total lack of respect for League - the northern league only began because the working-men players were losing pay to feed their families etc..As a result they were ostracised from the Rugby Union....
I love union and think that both codes can learn aspects of play from each other..
The insistent and sad fear of "shoulder charges" and over zealous yellow-carding is just getting bloody silly. If you start to over officiate this side then soon all eyes will turn to scrummaging....
Imagine a magic game of union without the contest of the scrum...WAIT lets ban line-outs because someone could land on their ass!
As for the wally that showed a total lack of respect for League - the northern league only began because the working-men players were losing pay to feed their families etc..As a result they were ostracised from the Rugby Union....
NiWiTa August 06, 2010 12:17 pm
agreeing with @Jono and @Nog...
I love union and think that both codes can learn aspects of play from each other..
The insistent and sad fear of "shoulder charges" and over zealous yellow-carding is just getting bloody silly. If you start to over officiate this side then soon all eyes will turn to scrummaging....
Imagine a magic game of union without the contest of the scrum...WAIT lets ban line-outs because someone could land on their ass!
As for the wally that showed a total lack of respect for League - the northern league only began because the working-men players were losing pay to feed their families etc..As a result they were ostracised from the Rugby Union....
I love union and think that both codes can learn aspects of play from each other..
The insistent and sad fear of "shoulder charges" and over zealous yellow-carding is just getting bloody silly. If you start to over officiate this side then soon all eyes will turn to scrummaging....
Imagine a magic game of union without the contest of the scrum...WAIT lets ban line-outs because someone could land on their ass!
As for the wally that showed a total lack of respect for League - the northern league only began because the working-men players were losing pay to feed their families etc..As a result they were ostracised from the Rugby Union....
Anonymous August 06, 2010 1:22 pm
CHALLENGE TO YOU ALL:
Give reffing a go - just for one game - and then tell us your opinion!
Give reffing a go - just for one game - and then tell us your opinion!
Anonymous August 06, 2010 1:22 pm
CHALLENGE TO YOU ALL:
Give reffing a go - just for one game - and then tell us your opinion!
Give reffing a go - just for one game - and then tell us your opinion!
olwakachangchang August 06, 2010 1:42 pm
Great article. Good to see that there is no mention of the ABs getting favours from the refs.
olwakachangchang August 06, 2010 1:42 pm
Great article. Good to see that there is no mention of the ABs getting favours from the refs.
Anonymous August 06, 2010 3:57 pm
The All Blacks are getting all the favours from the refs!
Anonymous August 06, 2010 3:57 pm
The All Blacks are getting all the favours from the refs!
pointa August 07, 2010 12:49 am
2020 said:
"The thing i dont get is how the Australians can consistently bag themselves. If an Ozzy could explain, please do."
It's all in good humour. Aussie humour of often about taking the piss. Although many a true word is spoken in jest ;)
"The thing i dont get is how the Australians can consistently bag themselves. If an Ozzy could explain, please do."
It's all in good humour. Aussie humour of often about taking the piss. Although many a true word is spoken in jest ;)
pointa August 07, 2010 12:49 am
2020 said:
"The thing i dont get is how the Australians can consistently bag themselves. If an Ozzy could explain, please do."
It's all in good humour. Aussie humour of often about taking the piss. Although many a true word is spoken in jest ;)
"The thing i dont get is how the Australians can consistently bag themselves. If an Ozzy could explain, please do."
It's all in good humour. Aussie humour of often about taking the piss. Although many a true word is spoken in jest ;)
Tommy August 09, 2010 11:21 pm
2020, Aussies are self-deprecating by nature.
No one likes a big noter in Australia, everyone is expected to not take themselves too seriously, and to be able to laugh at themselves.
Also, Aussies are just hard on themselves, they expect the best, particularly when it comes to sport.
We either win and deserve praise, or we lose and deserve criticism. There's no in between.
No one likes a big noter in Australia, everyone is expected to not take themselves too seriously, and to be able to laugh at themselves.
Also, Aussies are just hard on themselves, they expect the best, particularly when it comes to sport.
We either win and deserve praise, or we lose and deserve criticism. There's no in between.
Tommy August 09, 2010 11:21 pm
2020, Aussies are self-deprecating by nature.
No one likes a big noter in Australia, everyone is expected to not take themselves too seriously, and to be able to laugh at themselves.
Also, Aussies are just hard on themselves, they expect the best, particularly when it comes to sport.
We either win and deserve praise, or we lose and deserve criticism. There's no in between.
No one likes a big noter in Australia, everyone is expected to not take themselves too seriously, and to be able to laugh at themselves.
Also, Aussies are just hard on themselves, they expect the best, particularly when it comes to sport.
We either win and deserve praise, or we lose and deserve criticism. There's no in between.
(u-p)rick August 10, 2010 6:10 pm
.....Def agree with RD's rant..whats next? No horses in the grand national? Danger of drowning in the swimming parts of olympics...so no water in the pools?
(u-p)rick August 10, 2010 6:10 pm
.....Def agree with RD's rant..whats next? No horses in the grand national? Danger of drowning in the swimming parts of olympics...so no water in the pools?
Commenting as Guest | Register or Login