Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Autumn Internationals Team Announcement/Talk

1356720

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,031 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    No the black jersey and matching socks + shorts combination is quite easy to see.
    In fact I find the USA one harder to make out.
    Head does not hit the ground first. Completely fatuous statement, and if true would have been a red card.

    But this is the law:

    " that the player’s head and/or upper body
    come into contact with the ground is dangerous play."

    And shoulders hit first.

    I played rugby for a long time, was a referee for a while and a coach, but I find myself getting more and more drawn away from watching rugby and towards individual sports where it is only down to the skill/speed/power of the individual and where there is no dubious decision in the middle of a game which impacts the outcome.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    The Japanese captain needing a translator to give an aftermath interview in Japanese was a sad indictment of the modern game.

    Michael Leitch has lived in Japan half his life and speaks fluent Japanese.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭hahashake


    Japanese try scorers: Samuela Anise, Hendrik Tui, Tim Lafaele 2, Jamie Henry.

    Suprrised there has been not a peep about this
    hahashake wrote: »
    DopeyDependentCondor-size_restricted.gif
    No penalty. Thought it looked a bit familiar.




  • hahashake wrote: »
    DopeyDependentCondor-size_restricted.gif
    No penalty. Thought it looked a bit familiar.

    That's nuts, how was it not penalised. Right in front of the ref as well.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 128 ✭✭The Dagestani Eagle


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Michael Leitch has lived in Japan half his life and speaks fluent Japanese.

    don't understand the need for a translator then. bizarre.

    Fabulous player for what its worth.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 128 ✭✭The Dagestani Eagle


    That's nuts, how was it not penalised. Right in front of the ref as well.

    Carley had a shocker of a game. Not cut out for it.

    All this talk of safety first is nonsense. its all window dressing.

    I personally think the game has gone soft , but decisions I've seen even in last few weeks alone leave me wondering in what spirit is the game being reffed.

    Kaino, Cipriani, Farrell for instance. i had no issue with any of the tackles , but i have an issue with how they were reffed and also the spirit in which people enter in discussions about the tackles. The dice is loaded before discussion starts.

    Also its patently obvious that refs ref the clock, ref the table and ref the "optics" of the people involved, as in for Farrells tackle -if in the 5th minute its a yellow, if its a Pacific Islander its a yellow and if its a big team against a minnow its a yellow.

    Morgan Tuirinui's take on it was spot on today on the rugby ruckus podcast.
    He's probably the best voice in rugby at the moment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,599 ✭✭✭ScrubsfanChris




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Carley had a shocker of a game. Not cut out for it.

    All this talk of safety first is nonsense. its all window dressing.

    I personally think the game has gone soft , but decisions I've seen even in last few weeks alone leave me wondering in what spirit is the game being reffed.

    How many early retirees have we had this season?

    How often did players have to retire early back when the game was 'hard'?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 128 ✭✭The Dagestani Eagle


    How many early retirees have we had this season?

    How often did players have to retire early back when the game was 'hard'?


    To be honest, i think that comment is a little disingenuous. I don't think its to do with tackle technique rules or their application. Professionalism has made the players bigger and faster with forwards as fast as backs and 106kg backs like SBW.
    The players are just too big and too strong now.


    But if we take your point at face value i would also offer the argument that was put forward in a recent study ( i can try and dig it up) that it is in fact the tack-LER not the tack-LEE who statistically had more concussions and field leaving injuries.


    As an aside, I find it all hard to take seriously, if indeed player safety is at the forefront, that things like one man open field lifts a la stander on O'Mahoney are not prohibited , and then innocuous things are sanctioned like Alesana Tuilagi pumping the legs in contact , or parisse being sent of for bracing himself for impact.

    There is no consistency in ideology, application or spirit and i just feel that if we are going to clutch our pearls then lets clutch them uniformly across the board with a bit of clarity.

    It's an a le carte menu now and it is deciding games.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    To be honest, i think that comment is a little disingenuous. I don't think its to do with tackle technique rules or their application. Professionalism has made the players bigger and faster with forwards as fast as backs and 106kg backs like SBW.
    The players are just too big and too strong now.


    But if we take your point at face value i would also offer the argument that was put forward in a recent study ( i can try and dig it up) that it is in fact the tack-LER not the tack-LEE who statistically had more concussions and field leaving injuries.


    As an aside, I find it all hard to take seriously, if indeed player safety is at the forefront, that things like one man open field lifts a la stander on O'Mahoney are not prohibited , and then innocuous things are sanctioned like Alesana Tuilagi pumping the legs in contact , or parisse being sent of for bracing himself for impact.

    There is no consistency in ideology, application or spirit and i just feel that if we are going to clutch our pearls then lets clutch them uniformly across the board with a bit of clarity.

    It's an a le carte menu now and it is deciding games.

    There is a big difference in what you said above, and saying the game has 'gone soft'.

    There is a growing inconsistency problem and interpretation problem that World Rugby needs to 'tackle'. I think saying 'the game has gone soft' undermines this effort. At it's core, I believe improved player safety is the desired goal, If some poor calls happen on the road to this result then fair enough, not ideal but better than more early retirements and serious injuries.

    I don't think the game has ever been tougher personally. Huge intensity over 80 minutes with continuous massive collisions.

    I think the game is getting more strict, not more soft. The strictness around contact in the sport is a direct consequence of the increased toughness of it imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,658 ✭✭✭✭lawred2



    Probably being dim here and that's it's obvious to all except me but please tell me that was staged to lampoon what happened last Saturday!?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,741 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    Players retiring due to concussions, and back injuries etc that will have life long effects on their health and well-being.

    "The game's gone soft".


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 128 ✭✭The Dagestani Eagle


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Probably being dim here and that's it's obvious to all except me but please tell me that was staged to lampoon what happened last Saturday!?

    Rassie is playing a blinder.

    And to be honest i kind of hope a springbok folds a french player in half this weekend with a shoulder to see what happens.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,625 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    I'd have sympathy for any other team. But the Saffers are consistently the most on the edge physically. So **** em.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,468 ✭✭✭kuang1


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Probably being dim here and that's it's obvious to all except me but please tell me that was staged to lampoon what happened last Saturday!?

    That was my immediate assumption anyway.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 128 ✭✭The Dagestani Eagle


    There is a big difference in what you said above, and saying the game has 'gone soft'.

    There is a growing inconsistency problem and interpretation problem that World Rugby needs to 'tackle'. I think saying 'the game has gone soft' undermines this effort. At it's core, I believe improved player safety is the desired goal, If some poor calls happen on the road to this result then fair enough, not ideal but better than more early retirements and serious injuries.

    I don't think the game has ever been tougher personally. Huge intensity over 80 minutes with continuous massive collisions.

    I think the game is getting more strict, not more soft. The strictness around contact in the sport is a direct consequence of the increased toughness of it imo.


    tHe game is being reffed softly would be a better way of putting it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 128 ✭✭The Dagestani Eagle


    Players retiring due to concussions, and back injuries etc that will have life long effects on their health and well-being.

    "The game's gone soft".

    The concussions were always there. The players are just more aware of it now.

    Back in the day the gob****es just played on.


    The increase in concussion diagnosis and an opinion the games gone soft can both be right at the same time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,387 ✭✭✭OldRio


    'Game gone soft'?
    Seriously?
    'Back in the day the gob... just played on'

    No, we just laughed at them because they looked drunk until they passed out and were sick. We were ignorant arseholes. Untold damage was done at every level of the sport. Physical and mental. Thank God attitudes have changed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    OldRio wrote: »
    'Game gone soft'?
    Seriously?
    'Back in the day the gob... just played on'

    No, we just laughed at them because they looked drunk until they passed out and were sick. We were ignorant arseholes. Untold damage was done at every level of the sport. Physical and mental. Thank God attitudes are changing


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,185 ✭✭✭troyzer




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,819 ✭✭✭Tigerandahalf


    In fairness he is leading with the shoulder there. It is subtle but they are very clear that the arm has to wrap around.

    It will be interesting to see if attacking players are penalised for leading with the shoulder. We see it with several players who turn their shoulder into the defending player's chest.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,917 ✭✭✭accensi0n




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    In fairness he is leading with the shoulder there. It is subtle but they are very clear that the arm has to wrap around.

    It will be interesting to see if attacking players are penalised for leading with the shoulder. We see it with several players who turn their shoulder into the defending player's chest.

    There's nothing wrong with leading with the shoulder. It's to be expected. It's about where contact is made and whether the arms are involved.

    In the above example, it's hard to really judge it relative to the Farrell incident with only one angle but it is incredibly similar from that angle aside from the fact that contact is fractionally higher.

    The right arm drops to the side to allow maximum contact/force from the shoulder. The left arm appears to come up to a 90 degree angle (although is largely obscured), similar to how Farrell's did which suggests to me again that it's more about momentum and natural body movement than any genuine effort to wrap. If you make a hit with one side, your opposite arm naturally lifts unless you're trying to do an impression of a human pogo-stick.


  • Subscribers Posts: 42,439 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    In fairness he is leading with the shoulder there..

    i know buer has addressed this already but lets nip this in the bud right here. Id like to think boards.ie rugby forum is beyond such comments.

    Every legal tackle in the game begins with the player "leading with the shoulder"... its exactly how you should tackle and how its taught from 7 year olds upwards.

    feet, eyes, shoulder, arms.....

    The amount of ill informed crap ive read over the last few days about "leading with the shoulder" somehow being against the laws of the game is astounding.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,741 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    How do you tackle without leading with the shoulder? You have to lead with the shoulder, that's what makes the first impact, not a swinging arm. That's exactly how you're taught how to tackle.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,846 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    The first point of contact is the shoulder but because the arms should be wrapping they are effectively leading the motion towards the ball carrier, meaning the shoulder itself is more cushion than mallet in shape and function.

    Or something.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    Really dont like this tackle ruling, its getting extremely difficult to make dominant tackles on players anynmore in defence. Esterhuizen is running a hundred miles an hour, Farrell decides he wants to make a dominant tackle so hits him with his shoulder 
    If Farrell was to bring his arm up at a horizontal angle he's gonna dislocate his shoulder, the only way to make that impact without injuring himself is to do exactly what he did
    I think if tackles like that are coming under so much criticism the game is in trouble....hits like that are exactly what makes the sport so exciting to watch
    Soon players will have no opportunity to physically impose themselves in the tackle area


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    There is very little sympathy from the rules on just how fast these collisions are happening, 100 mile an hour tackles are being super slow motion replayed and analysed like a surgeon
    Its getting ridiculous


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,658 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Really dont like this tackle ruling, its getting extremely difficult to make dominant tackles on players anynmore in defence. Esterhuizen is running a hundred miles an hour, Farrell decides he wants to make a dominant tackle so hits him with his shoulder 
    If Farrell was to bring his arm up at a horizontal angle he's gonna dislocate his shoulder, the only way to make that impact without injuring himself is to do exactly what he did
    I think if tackles like that are coming under so much criticism the game is in trouble....hits like that are exactly what makes the sport so exciting to watch
    Soon players will have no opportunity to physically impose themselves in the tackle area

    Ah for god sake - dominant tackle... There is a difference between a shoulder charge where you just plant the shoulder squarely in the chest and a tackle where you hit and wrap as you should... you can still hit someone hard within the laws as they exist

    The tackler is not free to do what he wants so as to protect himself from injury... :confused:

    "Ah ref I couldn't have used the arms there like - I had him well lined up and the force of the hit would have dislocated my arm"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Really dont like this tackle ruling, its getting extremely difficult to make dominant tackles on players anynmore in defence. Esterhuizen is running a hundred miles an hour, Farrell decides he wants to make a dominant tackle so hits him with his shoulder 
    If Farrell was to bring his arm up at a horizontal angle he's gonna dislocate his shoulder, the only way to make that impact without injuring himself is to do exactly what he did
    I think if tackles like that are coming under so much criticism the game is in trouble....hits like that are exactly what makes the sport so exciting to watch
    Soon players will have no opportunity to physically impose themselves in the tackle area

    Sorry, that's completely wrong. Farrell can easily put him to ground without tackling the way he did. If you think that tackling like that is what makes the game exciting, I'd imagine you'd find rugby league twice as entertaining as union.

    I've no idea how you state that Farrell is going to disloate his shoulder by tackling correctly with his arm up. If that was the case, we'd see half a dozen dislocated shoulders in every match.

    A player can very easily take down a player on the full charge with a legitimate tackle using proper technique. Watch the Namibian fullback put Mtawarira down despite being half his size, having a stationary position and using his arms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Really dont like this tackle ruling, its getting extremely difficult to make dominant tackles on players anynmore in defence. Esterhuizen is running a hundred miles an hour, Farrell decides he wants to make a dominant tackle so hits him with his shoulder 
    If Farrell was to bring his arm up at a horizontal angle he's gonna dislocate his shoulder, the only way to make that impact without injuring himself is to do exactly what he did
    I think if tackles like that are coming under so much criticism the game is in trouble....hits like that are exactly what makes the sport so exciting to watch
    Soon players will have no opportunity to physically impose themselves in the tackle area

    Ah for god sake - dominant tackle... There is a difference between a shoulder charge where you just plant the shoulder squarely in the chest and a tackle where you hit and wrap as you should... you can still hit someone hard within the laws as they exist

    The tackler is not free to do what he wants to protect himself from injury... :confused:

    "Ah ref I couldn't have used the arms there like - I had him well lined up and the force of the hit would have dislocated my arm"
    that wasnt a bloody shoulder charge lol, his arm isnt tucked enough , his arm is as wrapped as it could possibly be at that speed


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,658 ✭✭✭✭lawred2




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    Buer wrote: »
    Really dont like this tackle ruling, its getting extremely difficult to make dominant tackles on players anynmore in defence. Esterhuizen is running a hundred miles an hour, Farrell decides he wants to make a dominant tackle so hits him with his shoulder 
    If Farrell was to bring his arm up at a horizontal angle he's gonna dislocate his shoulder, the only way to make that impact without injuring himself is to do exactly what he did
    I think if tackles like that are coming under so much criticism the game is in trouble....hits like that are exactly what makes the sport so exciting to watch
    Soon players will have no opportunity to physically impose themselves in the tackle area

    Sorry, that's completely wrong. Farrell can easily put him to ground without tackling the way he did. If you think that tackling like that is what makes the game exciting, I'd imagine you'd find rugby league twice as entertaining as union.

    I've no idea how you state that Farrell is going to disloate his shoulder by tackling correctly with his arm up. If that was the case, we'd see half a dozen dislocated shoulders in every match.

    A player can very easily take down a player on the full charge with a legitimate tackle using proper technique. Watch the Namibian fullback put Mtawarira down despite being half his size, having a stationary position and using his arms.

    Of course he could have tackled him normally but he didnt .....he decided to absolutely smash him and that what he did, thats as hard a collision that could possibly have happened and no injury, not a high tackle it was dead on the money and a great shot, thats the game I pay to go and see...
    Arm up a 90 degree angle hitting a player at that speed on his chest wouldve smashed his shoulder its pretty basic body mechanics and delivering force...exactly like a benchpress you tuck your elbows in towards your body and don't flare your arms up at 90 degrees to avoid injury....same applies here regards a heavy collision to an exposed unpacked shoulder joint is dumb and a huge injury risk,
    The tackle you've shown is a completley different body position and height within the laws your allowed to go higher and hit chest high.. which is what Farrel did 
    Again farrell could also have ankle tackeld the bloody guy if he wanted to however he decided to smash him instead which he should imo be allowed to do in the game of rugby
    If farrell had hit him in the head then different story but he didnt.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,658 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Of course he could have tackled him normally but he didnt .....he decided to absolutely smash him and that what he did, thats as hard a collision that could possibly have happened and no injury, not a high tackle it was dead on the money and a great shot, thats the game I pay to go and see...
    Arm up a 90 degree angle hitting a player at that speed on his chest wouldve smashed his shoulder its pretty basic body mechanics and delivering force...exactly like a benchpress you tuck your elbows in towards your body and don't flare your arms up at 90 degrees to avoid injury....same applies here regards a heavy collision to an exposed unpacked shoulder joint is dumb and a huge injury risk,
    The tackle you've shown is a completley different body position and height within the laws your allowed to go higher and hit chest high.. which is what Farrel did 
    Again farrell could also have ankle tackeld the bloody guy if he wanted to however he decided to smash him instead which he should imo be allowed to do in the game of rugby
    If farrell had hit him in the head then different story but he didnt.

    This is the rule
    A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player'.

    "Smashing" without use of the arms is not allowed. Whether you think it should be or would like it to be is irrelevant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,185 ✭✭✭troyzer


    Of course he could have tackled him normally but he didnt .....he decided to absolutely smash him and that what he did, thats as hard a collision that could possibly have happened and no injury, not a high tackle it was dead on the money and a great shot, thats the game I pay to go and see...
    Arm up a 90 degree angle hitting a player at that speed on his chest wouldve smashed his shoulder its pretty basic body mechanics and delivering force...exactly like a benchpress you tuck your elbows in towards your body and don't flare your arms up at 90 degrees to avoid injury....same applies here regards a heavy collision to an exposed unpacked shoulder joint is dumb and a huge injury risk,
    The tackle you've shown is a completley different body position and height within the laws your allowed to go higher and hit chest high.. which is what Farrel did 
    Again farrell could also have ankle tackeld the bloody guy if he wanted to however he decided to smash him instead which he should imo be allowed to do in the game of rugby
    If farrell had hit him in the head then different story but he didnt.

    The whole point of banning that tackle was because it's extremely difficult to do and make sure you don't hit them in the neck or head.

    World rugby is trying to lower the tackle area precisely to prevent a shoulder drifting up and knocking someone out.

    This tackle is so blatantly illegal I struggle to comprehend anyone suggesting otherwise.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    troyzer wrote: »
    Of course he could have tackled him normally but he didnt .....he decided to absolutely smash him and that what he did, thats as hard a collision that could possibly have happened and no injury, not a high tackle it was dead on the money and a great shot, thats the game I pay to go and see...
    Arm up a 90 degree angle hitting a player at that speed on his chest wouldve smashed his shoulder its pretty basic body mechanics and delivering force...exactly like a benchpress you tuck your elbows in towards your body and don't flare your arms up at 90 degrees to avoid injury....same applies here regards a heavy collision to an exposed unpacked shoulder joint is dumb and a huge injury risk,
    The tackle you've shown is a completley different body position and height within the laws your allowed to go higher and hit chest high.. which is what Farrel did 
    Again farrell could also have ankle tackeld the bloody guy if he wanted to however he decided to smash him instead which he should imo be allowed to do in the game of rugby
    If farrell had hit him in the head then different story but he didnt.

    The whole point of banning that tackle was because it's extremely difficult to do and make sure you don't hit them in the neck or head.

    World rugby is trying to lower the tackle area precisely to prevent a shoulder drifting up and knocking someone out.

    This tackle is so blatantly illegal I struggle to comprehend anyone suggesting otherwise.
    If it was so blatantly illegal the ref wouldve called it in the match, it may be ruled illegal later this week but to say its blatantly illegal is stupid,
    Brian o'driscoll one of the greatest ever centres thinks it was fine....thus not blatant or is his opinion that far off...lol

    Your just as likely to get KO'd from diving a someones knee.....should the game become touch rugby....
    Its also likely to break your neck in a scrum, or accidental collisions jumping for a high ball.....should jumping in the air and scrums be banned also?...
    What are the actual stats of players being Ko'd from shoulder charges vs Knees/ falling from a lineout/highball etc 
    And also it wasnt a high tackle by Farrel so the only thing that could be illegal that you can argue is the position of his arm and whether or not its classified as a shoulder charge...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Of course he could have tackled him normally but he didnt .....he decided to absolutely smash him and that what he did, thats as hard a collision that could possibly have happened and no injury, not a high tackle it was dead on the money and a great shot, thats the game I pay to go and see...
    Arm up a 90 degree angle hitting a player at that speed on his chest wouldve smashed his shoulder its pretty basic body mechanics and delivering force...exactly like a benchpress you tuck your elbows in towards your body and don't flare your arms up at 90 degrees to avoid injury....same applies here regards a heavy collision to an exposed unpacked shoulder joint is dumb and a huge injury risk,
    The tackle you've shown is a completley different body position and height within the laws your allowed to go higher and hit chest high.. which is what Farrel did 
    Again farrell could also have ankle tackeld the bloody guy if he wanted to however he decided to smash him instead which he should imo be allowed to do in the game of rugby
    If farrell had hit him in the head then different story but he didnt.

    This is the rule
    A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player'.

    "Smashing" without use of the arms is not allowed. Whether you think it should be or would like it to be is irrelevant.
    He did use his arm...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,658 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    He did use his arm...

    well this is where the interpretation comes into play isn't it...

    I don't believe that was the case and I especially don't believe it from a player who has history of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,185 ✭✭✭troyzer


    If it was so blatantly illegal the ref wouldve called it in the match, it may be ruled illegal later this week but to say its blatantly illegal is stupid,
    Brian o'driscoll one of the greatest ever centres thinks it was fine....thus not blatant or is his opinion that far off...lol

    Your just as likely to get KO'd from diving a someones knee.....should the game become touch rugby....
    Its also likely to break your neck in a scrum, or accidental collisions jumping for a high ball.....should jumping in the air and scrums be banned also?...
    What are the actual stats of players being Ko'd from shoulder charges vs Knees/ falling from a lineout/highball etc 
    And also it wasnt a high tackle by Farrel so the only thing that could be illegal that you can argue is the position of his arm and whether or not its classified as a shoulder charge...

    BOD is wrong and has form on this issue. The referee was also wrong. This kind of tackle results in yellow cards every day in junior and senior rugby games all over the world.

    You can't eliminate risk from the game but just as world rugby changed the scrum rules to mitigate neck injuries and changed the rules around line outs and restarts to protect receivers, so too have they changed the tackle height.

    The tackle is illegal by the letter of the law and in any other game at any other time it would have been a tackle and a yellow card.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    6034073


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    465599.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    troyzer wrote: »
    If it was so blatantly illegal the ref wouldve called it in the match, it may be ruled illegal later this week but to say its blatantly illegal is stupid,
    Brian o'driscoll one of the greatest ever centres thinks it was fine....thus not blatant or is his opinion that far off...lol

    Your just as likely to get KO'd from diving a someones knee.....should the game become touch rugby....
    Its also likely to break your neck in a scrum, or accidental collisions jumping for a high ball.....should jumping in the air and scrums be banned also?...
    What are the actual stats of players being Ko'd from shoulder charges vs Knees/ falling from a lineout/highball etc 
    And also it wasnt a high tackle by Farrel so the only thing that could be illegal that you can argue is the position of his arm and whether or not its classified as a shoulder charge...

    BOD is wrong and has form on this issue. The referee was also wrong. This kind of tackle results in yellow cards every day in junior and senior rugby games all over the world.

    You can't eliminate risk from the game but just as world rugby changed the scrum rules to mitigate neck injuries and changed the rules around line outs and restarts to protect receivers, so too have they changed the tackle height.

    The tackle is illegal by the letter of the law and in any other game at any other time it would have been a tackle and a yellow card.
    you argued it was 'blatant' for it to be blatant there cant be this many people who disagree with you ....lol


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,185 ✭✭✭troyzer


    you argued it was 'blatant' for it to be blatant there cant be this many people who disagree with you ....lol

    Yes and you're all wrong.

    Which is why I'm so flabbergasted at your collective wrongness.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    troyzer wrote: »
    you argued it was 'blatant' for it to be blatant there cant be this many people who disagree with you ....lol

    Yes and you're all wrong.

    Which is why I'm so flabbergasted at your collective wrongness.

    Hahah your entitled to you opinion, look World rugby might come out and say it was a shoulder charge and might make you feel better but until then it was legal and you infact are wrong
    They should play rugby under water just so everyone has enough time to make brain surgeon precise tackles lol


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,185 ✭✭✭troyzer


    They should play rugby under water just so everyone has enough time to make brain surgeon precise tackles lol

    Or you make it absolutely clear that you're not allowed to shoulder charge or tackle high.

    That way they'll always go low for the wrap.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    troyzer wrote: »
    The tackle is illegal by the letter of the law and in any other game at any other time it would have been a tackle and a yellow card.

    The actual problem here is that the exact opposite of this is true.

    It was a tackle that looks like it should be illegal by the letter of the law, but is not. And some refs take this upon themselves to remedy (I think Owens would have penalised it for example). But the actual appropriate thing to do to deal with tackles like this is to make them ACTUALLY illegal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    troyzer wrote: »
    They should play rugby under water just so everyone has enough time to make brain surgeon precise tackles lol

    Or you make it absolutely clear that you're not allowed to shoulder charge or tackle high.

    That way they'll always go low for the wrap.
    It wasnt high and he used enough of an arm thats my opinion


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Of course he could have tackled him normally but he didnt .....he decided to absolutely smash him and that what he did, thats as hard a collision that could possibly have happened and no injury, not a high tackle it was dead on the money and a great shot, thats the game I pay to go and see...
    Arm up a 90 degree angle hitting a player at that speed on his chest wouldve smashed his shoulder its pretty basic body mechanics and delivering force...exactly like a benchpress you tuck your elbows in towards your body and don't flare your arms up at 90 degrees to avoid injury....same applies here regards a heavy collision to an exposed unpacked shoulder joint is dumb and a huge injury risk,
    The tackle you've shown is a completley different body position and height within the laws your allowed to go higher and hit chest high.. which is what Farrel did 
    Again farrell could also have ankle tackeld the bloody guy if he wanted to however he decided to smash him instead which he should imo be allowed to do in the game of rugby
    If farrell had hit him in the head then different story but he didnt.

    Thankfully, the pool of spectators who go to games to see people try to "absolutely smash" with a "great shot" is diminishing year by year. That's the mentality that has guys retiring early and blacking out from minor head contact by the time they're 30.

    As for the lesson in physiology, what you're saying is that players shouldn't try to wrap with their leading arm as they might hurt themselves? You do know that Farrell went down hurt straight after the collision? You believe that the method of safe tackling we were all taught when we first picked up a ball should be disregarded to make a "great shot" in high velocity tackles? You appear to be advocating deliberately dropping your arm to your side to smash someone with your protruding shoulder. That is utter lunacy. At speed and in professional level intensity, there would be multiple injuries to players being hit by shoulders to the upper body.

    My clip from the other match wasn't to show a similar tackle to Farrell's effort, it was to illustrate how one can safely and efficiently put down a man who is coming at high speed without risking injury to the carrier.

    There is a risk for a tackler making that sort of his tackle though. But it's not to do with injury. It's because he's likely to get bounced and give away a line break. That's why everyone is taught to go low on players moving at pace or those who are much bigger than them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭kingofthekong


    what are your stats on audiences and how they are diminishing and the trends on what spectators like to see would love to see it, 
    The whole audience in twickenham jumped to their feet and let out the biggest roar of the game when that tackle was made it was a really effective hit 
    Yes imagine if Farrell had raised his arm 90 degrees he wouldve hurt himself even more... lol,
    Use the two eyes in your head to look at the photos you'll see he uses his arm.. 
    Its a fantastic hit


Advertisement