Why you should always tackle low


Brian O'Driscoll Breakdown Masterclass


Learn more about incomparable Brad Thorn


Joe Marler and his unsual pets


Step and unbelievable dummy sets up try


Southland sensational try after big bump


Tameifuna's huge hit on Michael Hooper


Cheslin Kolbe dazzling run, no look pass


One Year to Go 'til Rugby World Cup 2015

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Francisco Chaparro red carded and banned for 10 weeks for tip tackle

Newport Gwent Dragons replacement prop Francisco Chaparro has been suspended for ten weeks following his red card for a dangerous tackle in the RaboDirect PRO12 match between Leinster and the Dragons on Friday evening. He has the right to appeal.

Chaparro cleared through the ruck by lifting Leinster replacement scrumhalf Isaac Boss, turning him past horizontal and then dumping him on his back with a fair amount of force. The Ireland number nine was clearly winded, and the referee sent the Argentine off after a TMO consultation.

Earlier today an independant PRO12 disciplinary committee, chaired by Pamela Woodman with Iain Goodall and Douglas Hunter, viewed video footage of the incident and listened to submissions by and on behalf of the player.

They determined that the offence committed, contrary to Law 10.4 (j), was at the top end of the IRB's scale of seriousness. In reaching their decision they took into account aggravating factors, including the need for a deterrent for that type of tackle, along with mitigating factors such as the player's previous good record, and conduct at the hearing.

Law 10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

Chaparro is suspended for ten weeks, which runs until midnight, Sunday 27th April 2014. 

Posted at 6:44 pm | 66 comments

Posted in Big Hits & Dirty Play

Viewing 66 comments

Liam February 18, 2014 8:21 pm

There's no way in hell that's 10 weeks! Rugby getting soft if that's even a ban!

· · Reply · Report

Hawkeye February 18, 2014 10:23 pm

You wouldn't be saying that if he had of broke his neck. Intent was there to seriously injure

· · Reply · Report

sportsfan1 February 18, 2014 10:46 pm

agree. To me that's not a tip tackle. it's just a dump tackle. he only has one leg for starters. It's a shame the guy got injured but people get injured at rugby. I'd feel pretty bad if someone got a 10 week ban for doing that to me

· · Reply · Report

Kevin February 18, 2014 8:36 pm

seems harsh. dangerous but harsh. 4 weeks is more than enough, which is what it will end up as when appealed.

· · Reply · Report

tphillipsstl February 18, 2014 9:04 pm

there's no room for that in rugby. 10 weeks is harsh, but that's the definition of what the tip tackle rule is trying to eliminate. I'm ok with it.

· · Reply · Report

Jean February 18, 2014 9:04 pm

Its the Law of the Game. IRB wants the dump tackling to stop. A neck injury is no laughing matter and he deserves to be punished for not controlling his actions. Bear in mind he did also lift the man's leg to push him back, which at the ruck, is also illegal.

· · Reply · Report

finedisregard February 19, 2014 3:13 am

I'm not saying this player should not be sent off, but players lose their feet at almost every breakdown these days and keeping your feet is a "Law of the Game". It's not the 10 Commandments we're talking about.

I personally have never seen anything that warrants a 10 game ban (with the exception of an eye gouge and an assault on a referee). If suspending players is such an important part of what the IRB does they should codify the punishments to fit the infringement.

· Reply · Report

Ithilsul February 19, 2014 9:01 am

I agree on the fact that the sanction is harsh, but we clearly see (at least, I do) that he +meant+ to tip tackle and hurt.
He probably was too happy to have an "easy" cleaning against a scrum half, and did something totally unnecessary.

· · Reply · Report

DrG February 19, 2014 12:30 pm

Last I heard lifting a leg in a ruck is perfectly legal, it's lifting legs in mauls which is illegal...

...then again I don't follow the laws that closely!

· · Reply · Report

Conor February 18, 2014 9:05 pm

Not soft when someone gets concussed. Have to look after player welfare in the long term. Not getting soft, just getting smart.

· · Reply · Report

Josh February 18, 2014 9:11 pm

Happens to me on a regular basis, but 10 weeks is way too harsh, the game is starting to turn soft.

· Reply · Report

Mareantes4567 February 18, 2014 9:16 pm

It was definitely a cheap shot and I would call it intentional; the ruck was clear and there was no need to lift and then tip the player IMO. 10 weeks does seem harsh but it's no secret that they hand out long bans for these sorts of tackles so I don't think he can have too many complaints.

· · Reply · Report

Ronan February 18, 2014 10:06 pm

would a ten week ban be harsh if he broke his neck??
he then pushes his hand into his face when hes lying on the ground.
nice fella....

· Reply · Report

DrG February 19, 2014 2:13 am

We don't play 'what if', we play rugby.

Scrum collapse - Red card and ban the offending prop (if you can determine who is at fault), wait why? Well 'what if' someone broke their neck during that collapse.

Player loses balance in a lineout and falls head first - Red card and ban his lifters, AND the player himself - why? Well, 'what if' that player broke his neck...

Not arguing that neck injuries aren't serious, but there is a near death 'what if' for nearly every scenario...

· · Reply · Report

FatProp February 19, 2014 9:44 am

But the difference is this guy is trying to hurt the scrum-half. Why is he doing it ? Because he wants to hurt the scrum half by dumping him on his head so the 'what if' is very much important if you are just trying to hurt a player.

· · Reply · Report

DrG February 19, 2014 12:32 pm

How do you know what went through his mind? Maybe he was just trying to 'impose' himself.

· · Reply · Report

FatProp February 19, 2014 12:40 pm

'impose himself' not really sure what this means apart from being a fucking thug. The guy doesn't have the ball. Now you put it like that I see that he shouldn't have got the ban and that acts of thuggery of the ball should be part of the game and encouraged in young players because breaking a guys neck is so much more important than trying to win the game or actually being good at rugby.

· · Reply · Report

DrG February 20, 2014 12:10 am

Sorry, I can't quite tell what you're getting with your wild accusations...

Didn't realise you were so brilliant at interpreting what others think. I mean you managed to get that I think breaking a guys neck is important during a game from my two sentences and you clearly know what went through his mind...

· Reply · Report

FatProp February 20, 2014 10:53 am

Well I guessed it from the comments above and the other one you made talking about 'what ifs' is that you seem to think that this is okay. Fair enough then just I don't want too see it on a rugby pitch and I certainly have never done it on a rugby field. The way I play rugby to 'impose' myself on someone is tackling someone who has the ball as hard as I can, not the smallest guy on the pitch who hasn't got the ball. What he done is not rugby it's just attacking someone when they weren't even on the ball. If he had hit him would you make the same argument? Of course you wouldn't because it's not part of rugby and neither is dropping someone on his head.

· · Reply · Report

DanKnapp February 20, 2014 10:57 am

Boooooring. You wrote 'impose himself', which I would understand to mean 'hurt someone' in any language.

There is a right way and a wrong way to hurt someone. You can smash the shit out of someone when they run down your channel, send them back, and do it clean - and 'impose yourself'. They won't come looking for work down there again.

Or you can pick someone up illegally, turn them over, land them on the top of their back/base of their neck and land on their upper body. That is also imposing yourself, but not in a good way.

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to start arguing that FatProp doesn't know what he's thinking. Unless he was distracted by Plato's Analogy of the Cave, which is possible I guess, I would imagine he was thinking along the lines of: "Me hurt hobbit. Me bash good! Man blow whistle. Me see card. Me sad."

· · Reply · Report

DrG February 20, 2014 6:02 pm

@ Dan, Fatprop.

I don't for a second believe this didn't warrant the card.

My statement of 'Impose himself' in any form (not just this video) translates as - applies excessive force to an opposition player in order to intimidate; and/or, make them more hesitant. Whether it be, unnecessarily ramming your shoulder into exposed stomach/ribcage of the person at the front of an opposition maul; thus making them think twice next time. Lifting a leg and driving someone out of a ruck and beyond; which sort of happened here (but not with the same outcome). Deciding to smash someone when you clearly don't have to etc.

Aside from this incident, rugby is about getting the edge, lets not forget all those dark arts - I was taught in your typical private school, where you're taught discipline, respect etc, on the rugby pitch in the later years we had two coaches, one was a utility back, who also could cover as a flanker, one was a prop, the back/flanker, taught us some sneaky 'dark arts' and the prop taught us some less sneaky techniques. I'm not about bullying other players, but at the end of the day, you want people to fear running at you, fear holding on tight to the ball in a maul etc - you want the edge.

I agree with you all that this prop in THIS video went too far in this day and age, but we can't live on 'what ifs' and flicking through the video almost frame by frame, it appears more that Boss landed mostly on his mid back (his backside isn't too close to hitting the ground straight away, so I can't say flat of his back) - Agreed that these days, that is all that is needed for a ban, red card, yellow card etc, however all this neck break knee jerking etc stuff is a bit like the arms/grasping thing in the tackle, it was brought into to stop a specific tackle type from happening, and now it is being applied to every tackle.

Different code but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHtwmJPSKhs - more dangerous than this incident in my opinion.

View Video

· Reply · Report

DanKnapp February 20, 2014 8:11 pm

Your original comment, starting 'we don't play what if' is pretty ludicrous. You've created a straw man there. Now that you've dialled the rhetoric back a bit you have made some decent points, but you are aware that you were the first person to use the phrase 'what if'?

Ronan made a perfectly valid point which I support - the ban wouldn't seem remotely harsh if he had been badly injured. The fact that he WASN'T injured just supports the decision to ban. We don't ban a player for a legitimate tackle which causes an injury, and we do for an illegitimate one which doesn't. This was an illegitimate one. That is exactly the point which FatProp seemed to build on and which you reacted so badly to with talk of 'wild accusations'. This sort of 'tackle' gains little for your team other than hurting the other player. Now that's all fine and dandy in legal situations, but not in completely illegal ones. This isn't a 'bad challenge' but a massively over the top and dangerous one. The IRB have rightly taken steps to try to improve the safety risks in games with ever-larger athletes. Actions like this are just too dangerous to be allowed to be part of the game.

The link you have posted is really helpful, because it shows just how bad decision making can be when the adrenalin is pumping. The IRB is therefore right to enforce the laws of the game as and when they are flagrantly broken.

I'm not entirely sure about the point you were making in your earlier posts, and until this last one I thought you were trolling. Hence my 'boooooring' comment.

· · Reply · Report

DrG February 21, 2014 2:00 am

My point with the 'what if' is that we cannot sit back and dream up every nasty scenario. Watching this particular video, there is no way that landing how he did he would have broken his neck, so to stick in a 'what if he broke his neck' would require an entirely different tackle, albeit still classed as a 'dangerous tackle' or 'spear' but entirely different (as you see on the link provided). Now I am aware this is not a 'tackle' as such and of course read between the lines even though I am referring to it as a tackle.

I have actually heard of a story from a old man when I was in early secondary school of a school boy dying from a tap tackle, he got tripped, somehow landed on his neck and broke it... So one could argue that all tap tackles could lead to broken necks... I know it's legal vs illegal, but what I am trying to get across is that forget legality, 'what ifs' in rugby are pointless, they didn't happen, so how can you rule on them..

Would you red card BOD for that missed punch he did a few years ago? Could have been nasty if it connected, what if it lead to a concussion or even death?

http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/05/1960/brian-odriscolls-air-punch-at-ulsters-chris-henry

I get your point, this was dangerous, but it should be and can only be judged according to what it was - dangerous, and not what it 'could have been' as to do so would mean the tackle was entirely different... - Clearer?

· Reply · Report

DanKnapp February 22, 2014 11:14 pm

I think you're looking at this the wrong way round.

Your example of the tap tackle leading to death is useful. A tap tackle is perfectly legal and is not, in itself, an inherently dangerous tackle. Of course you can get hurt as a result of one, but the tackle itself is fine. Therefore the 'what if' is ignored.

We DON'T say:

"Aha! But 'what if' you died from a tap tackle? Let's red card players who do it!"

Instead we accept it as a tragic accident when, or if, it happens.

In this instance the man was not injured, but an inherently more dangerous tackle (one where a player is lifted from the ground and driven downwards onto the upper body) took place. Because these tackles are more dangerous and are not necessary in order for the game to function satisfactorily for 99% of spectators and players, such tackles are banned. Therefore the player who completed the tackle was banned.

He was not punished more severely as a result of injury. He was not punished because he wanted to hurt the other player. He was punished because he completed an action which has been banned, which he knew was banned, and which he did anyway.

Your point about this tackle being judged on what it 'could have been' is irrelevant. This tackle WAS illegal, based on the laws of the game. It didn't have the potential to be illegal, it was illegal.

Regarding BOD's actions, then I've got to be consistent and argue that strictly speaking that should also be a ban. Trying to punch someone else in the face is against the laws of the game. If anyone other than you or I is reading this (which I doubt) then I imagine I'll now have to face the standard charge of 'rugby going soft'.

And again, I don't know if you know what a 'straw man' is, but stop making them. You didn't need to add the 'what if it led to a concussion or even death'. It undermined an otherwise interesting point.

· Reply · Report

DrG February 23, 2014 2:05 pm

Dan when I added the 'what if it led to a concussion or even death' part, it was done in two fashions; firstly tongue in cheek - lets play on this whole thing, and secondly a fact - people have died from a single punch - generally they bounce their head off a pavement after the punch, but it has happened. So really as much as you may view it as a straw man argument, it is perfectly in line with potential overzealous comments by others and indeed a potentially very real argument....if the punch had connected, that is...

'Your point about this tackle being judged on what it 'could have been' is irrelevant. This tackle WAS illegal, based on the laws of the game. It didn't have the potential to be illegal, it was illegal.' I will not every try to deny that this was illegal, this was ban worthy, or this was cardworthy. All things considered, it was illegal and dangerous, however that was not my point with that section of comment. My point was, this tackle was illegal yes, however, THIS tackle with the outcome that it did have, would never have resulted in a broken neck - there is no arguing against that point. The following tackle I will show you is in the same category as an illegal spear (if we're both on the same page that they are spear tackles - again, please ignore the absence of the ball in Boss' hands!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8eXmwuk4Sk THAT tackle however, in it's outcome, COULD have very easily lead to a broken neck. So in order for Chaparro to have put Boss' neck in danger, the tackle would have had to have been different.

I'm not trying to argue one was dangerous and the other was not, however in days gone by Chaparro's tackle would have been a borderline dump tackle (provided Boss had the ball of course). I am merely trying to explain my original 'we don't play what ifs' comment.

For the record I accept your point regarding the tap tackle scenario definitely go me looking at this differently.

View Video

· Reply · Report

DanKnapp February 24, 2014 9:55 am

Ok, sounds like we're probably agreed on the main points, but squabbling over around the fringes :)

That Tuqiri tackle is definitely bad, do you know what/if he got banned?

· Reply · Report

DrG February 24, 2014 10:20 pm

I believe he did get a ban, searched for anything online and came up with this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/australia/2343849/Tuqiri-given-11-week-ban-for-tackle.html

I'd imagine it's for the same tackle - Surely he can't have speared King McCaw twice???

· Reply · Report

Full Back February 20, 2014 10:38 am

DRG, you can't compare "what if's" in legal scenarios to the dangers of purposely trying to injure someone. I've broken both my arms (on seperate occasions) in perfectly legal play and so have no complaints.
then you take this fucker...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkmMK76xARo
and you think, he deserves the 32 week ban he received, why? Because it was unnecessary, un sportsmanlike and shouldn't be part of the game....like this sort of tip tackle.
A Prop prepares for the eventualities of the scrum, locks and backrows prepare for lineouts, you can't prepare yourself for having your head and neck driven into the ground and you shouldn't have to either

View Video

· · Reply · Report

DrG February 20, 2014 5:40 pm

That wasn't a 'what if' Full back, that was outrageous and I'm glad he got banned...

For the record everyone, I'm not saying this isn't bad, but you simply can't ban a player on a 'what if' outcome, ban them on what they have done, but not on what could have happened if, when, where, how, etc.

· Reply · Report

Hendogo February 18, 2014 10:13 pm

Here's the thing. He didn't have to do it. He has already driven the scrum half off the ball, by the time he tackles him.

· · Reply · Report

stroudos February 19, 2014 7:42 am

That's the point I was going to make. What a big fucking bully. Totally unnecessary.

· · Reply · Report

Phil mc avity February 18, 2014 11:18 pm

It's good he gets a red because most of the fans don't hear about the ban, and won't take any notice on what happens after the match, people copy what they see.
He deserved the red, and at least a 4-5 week ban I think. The tackle was dangerous, and didn't look controlled. Not professionnal. And if the tackle could lead in someone breaking their neck it should be punished properly.

· Reply · Report

Tl56 February 18, 2014 11:46 pm

He didn't need to go through with it. That wasn't cleaning out and the player did not have the ball so going through and lifting the player and dumping him was not on. Red card and the ban definitely warranted

· Reply · Report

Ceileachair February 18, 2014 11:48 pm

If people do not think that was 10 weeks then they need to look at that tackle again. He drove his shoulder straight down on upper part of Boss' chest isolating his head. He could have broken a collarbone or his neck.

Awful. Needless. 10 weeks.

Far worse than 90% of the tip tackles where see where the player can protect themselves with their arms.

· Reply · Report

Chrismtl February 19, 2014 12:08 am

It's also key to note his back elbow is pointing straight up to the sky. If his elbows are tucked by his sides where they're supposed to be, the suspension would be much shorter. By having his elbow up it shows that the player interntionally tipped the guy he was tackling. Just sloppy play and complete disregard for the laws of the game and the other players welfare. He deserves what he got.

· Reply · Report

PiratesRugby February 19, 2014 12:43 am

Milked it.

· Reply · Report

DrG February 19, 2014 2:29 am

Seen a lot worse go for a lot less...

'Law 10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.'

Interesting law actually, 'what if' (he's got me doing it now!) you hit a player who is running hard, and their body stays still but their legs come out from under them, you drive them slightly back (which would involve a small amount of lifting) and dump them on the flat of their back... - Their feet would be in the air, their upper body came into contact with the ground first, and you drove them into the ground - albeit not directly, but at an angle..

· Reply · Report

Phil mc avity February 19, 2014 8:48 am

Only Courtney Lawes can do that. XD
And you've got to hit the attacker with some speed for his legs to stay still, and body hit the ground first. I think any dangerous tackle (ref to decide with TMO if its dangerous) should be punished. Also if a teams lifters drop the jumper in the air and he falls dangerously (happened to nyanga this 6 nations FRA vs ENG) the the team should be punished (free kick to the other team)

· Reply · Report

DrG February 19, 2014 12:33 pm

I watched the Lima v Hougaard (sp?) tackle to see if it fit the criteria, it doesn't quite, but almost does...

· Reply · Report

Full Back February 20, 2014 10:45 am

the intent has to come into DrG, you don't need to mind read, but it's like the difference between colliding mid-air when both are going for the ball and one player going for the ball while the other tries to take him out. You can get hurt in both but in the first case it's an unfortunate accident where both players put their bodies on the line, in the latter an eventual injury would come from one players reckless intent.

· · Reply · Report

DrG February 21, 2014 2:02 am

So what if the player intends to hurt the other players ribs with his shoulder...

· Reply · Report

CaliHooker February 21, 2014 1:50 pm

Tackles like that end up as penalties sometimes. They rarely hand out a card for a good clean hard tackle where someone gets "decleated."

And you better intend to hurt someone ribs when you tackle them. You better intend to drive his ribs off of his spine.

But I think you know all this and are trolling.

· Reply · Report

DrG February 21, 2014 10:25 pm

...um.. care to repeat?

Funny how you jump into other replies yet ignore the first comment at the top of the page...

· Reply · Report

Jon February 19, 2014 2:59 am

This is a complete BS hit. Completely unnecessary. The #9 doesn't have the ball - there's no need to completely tackle him. Plus, he does put his hips above his shoulders and, at the point of contact there is head to head contact. The little extra hand to the face at the end is fairly asinine too.

· · Reply · Report

stroudos February 19, 2014 7:48 am

This is precisely the sort of shit the IRB was trying to address when they came up with the new tip tackle directive. It was after all in the wake of the BOD Lions Tour clear-out, which in many ways is similar to this.

Compared with some other "tip tackles" we've seen, this one involves deliberately lifting and driving a player into the ground, shoulders/neck first with the head taking a pretty hard bang on the turf too.

I love a big tackle, however nasty, unnecessary cheap shots, where you're solely looking to bully, intimidate and (I believe in this case) injure another player should certainly be punished.

Ten weeks may sound harsh to some, but this is the kind of action that does need a deterrent against it, so I'm all in favour of the lengthy ban.

· · Reply · Report

Phil mc avity February 19, 2014 8:54 am

The bigger the ban, the less he's likely to do it again and same with other players. People might think "unlucky for him" but he was being an intimidating dick and cocked up and put someones body at risk. At the end of the day the citing pannel aren't there to ruin a players career, and they're a type of referee so seen as this is rugby, let's not argue with the ref.

· · Reply · Report

DrG February 19, 2014 12:35 pm

'I love a big tackle, however nasty, unnecessary cheap shots, where you're solely looking to bully, intimidate and (I believe in this case) injure another player should certainly be punished.'

'stroudos February 14, 2014 2:33 pm

@MisterDavid - totally agree in principle. I always try to observe the mantra "Get your first tackle in early, even if it's late".'

mhmmm....

· · Reply · Report

stroudos February 20, 2014 7:50 am

Nice one. ;)

But I don't think the two statements are contradictory.

· · Reply · Report

DrG February 20, 2014 10:34 am

...well, I'm not getting on the moral high ground here, as I can hardly be granted a Sainthood with my behaviour on a rugby pitch, but surely a tackle that is late could be defined as a 'nasty, unnecessary cheap shot'...

I wouldn't suggest that 'you're solely looking to bully or injure', but perhaps intimidate might could be used in the scenario - "Don't run down my channel again" or perhaps "next time you'll pass a bit sooner" etc...

But I see you've carefully worded your two statements giving yourself a nice loophole :)

· Reply · Report

Full Back February 20, 2014 10:55 am

there's tackles and then there's spears....

· Reply · Report

DrG February 20, 2014 6:03 pm

It's tongue in cheek full back, I was merely taking his two statements out of context yet having a chuckle at their similarities.

In many scenarios a late tackle is considered a cheap shot...

· Reply · Report

Phil mc avity February 19, 2014 8:55 am

And people saying "seen worse for less of a ban" is that a good thing?! Two wrongs don't make a right!

· Reply · Report

Ithilsul February 19, 2014 9:14 am

Argentine dirty play is back ! \o/ ^^

· · Reply · Report

muli-bolo February 19, 2014 10:14 am

10 weeks harsh considering if he had a ball in his hand then he wouldnt of even been penalised IMO

· · Reply · Report

45678 February 19, 2014 11:21 am

I think you've nailed the problem with this. There isn't even a ruck formed, so you can't just go around lifting people up and dumping them. That is assault
However, if boss had the ball in hand this would have been a good tackle. He didn't drop him or drive his head neck or shoulders in the ground, so it's not a tip tackle

· · Reply · Report

DanKnapp February 20, 2014 11:01 am

If he had the ball in his hand it would still have been a dangerous tackle.

· · Reply · Report

Scott S Sherwood February 19, 2014 5:41 pm

ONLY 10 weeks i say. Ban for life. That will soon stop this nonsense...play the game. don't beat each other up...boring rugby!!!

· · Reply · Report

Rugbyfun February 19, 2014 9:42 pm

Warburton´s tacke was much worst than this one and he only had a 3 weeks ban. Too harsh!!

· · Reply · Report

Phil mc avity February 20, 2014 1:10 am

Warbuton's tackle got him a red card which lost the game for Wales, ok he deserved it but that's as bad as any ban. People should stop comparing bans that's bollocks! If he got a ten week ban, deal with it, he shouldn't have been such a dick. Also Warbuton picked up a Sprinting Vincent Clerc and tipped him, (it was dangerous but at least Clerc had the ball) this guy is just 'imposing himself'/being a dick, it is a cheap shot. Don't compare those two tip tackles, that's bollocks. No offence.

· · Reply · Report

Full Back February 20, 2014 10:54 am

much worse? I don't agree at all!

· Reply · Report

Phil mc avity February 20, 2014 7:31 pm

You can't compare the two. This guy was taken of the ball.

· Reply · Report

Juggernauter February 21, 2014 4:51 am

Dirty and unnecessary... why go for a "tip tackle" on a guy who a) doesn't have the ball and b) isn't even part of the ruck? I coach U16s and this is exactly the kind of thing I teach them never to do on the pitch, it doesn't give you any advantage rugbywise to do so, and you'll end up hurting someone and getting punished. Nobody wins.

· · Reply · Report

rememberthemer February 22, 2014 12:46 am

Pretty fucking stupid and deserving of a ban. I just wish there was consistency in punishment. Bradley Davies vs Ireland was far worse for a lesser ban. Tuqiri on McCaw was far far worse for a lesser ban. And of course Mealamu & Umaga had no case to answer.

· · Reply · Report

Munsterfan February 22, 2014 8:27 pm

People get hurt in rugby, that's the nature of any contact sport. But to needlessly pick up someone and drive them into the ground is wreckless and pretty pathetic. Hope he spends some time developing some proper useful skills during his ten week break!

· Reply · Report

Commenting as Guest | Register or Login

All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.
 
Site Meter