nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread IV

RoundBox11

Pairing Luke Marshall with Cave in the centre and Payne at fullback could be really good for the wolfhounds backline. They should know each other inside out. Then Gilroy could be on one wing.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

total former

Flipper22 wrote: »

I have no doubt about his intent either, but what was actually illegal about the tackle? It was risky, as half a second later or 6 inches higher and he could have been sent off, but as it was, it was legal imo.

He's certainly a thuggish player who sets out to cause damage, but he's pretty good at stopping just short of illegality. IIRC didn't he seriously injure one of the argies in WC 2011 with a very similar tackle.

It's a late tackle. There's nothing in the laws that says you can cream a guy late so long as you commit before the pass. That's Owens' interpretation of this instance and I wouldn't particularly agree with it.

OK think about tackling the man in the air. All the onus is on the tackler to ensure the man in the air lands safely, "being committed" is no defence. Why should this be any different? Lawes had no regard for Plisson's safety and Plisson was completely exposed to the hit.

dregin

Can anyone see Lawes trying the same hit on Paul O'Connell? No. He blind-sided a player half his size with a cheap shot. Same old from Lawes.

.ak

dregin wrote: »

Can anyone see Lawes trying the same hit on Paul O'Connell? No. He blind-sided a player half his size with a cheap shot. Same old from Lawes.

Personally I think that's good play by a pack player. Remember bensen on Wilko? I think what Lawes does is nasty but your loose forwards should always be hastling the 10, within the law.

I don't agree with TF, there has to be an interpretation that allows late tackles. So many tackles would be pinged otherwise where a player offloads just before tackle is completed. Players have to commit themselves to a tackle and in certain circumstances cannot pull out of the tackle.

[Deleted User]

dregin wrote: »

Can anyone see Lawes trying the same hit on Paul O'Connell? No.

Certainly. Why not exactly?

He blind-sided a player half his size with a cheap shot. Same old from Lawes.

What was cheap about it? Arms wrapped, not high, committed long before the ball carrier had passed the ball. There was nothing wrong with the tackle.

BoardsMember

.ak wrote: »

Personally I think that's good play by a pack player. Remember bensen on Wilko? I think what Lawes does is nasty but your loose forwards should always be hastling the 10, within the law.

I don't agree with TF, there has to be an interpretation that allows late tackles. So many tackles would be pinged otherwise where a player offloads just before tackle is completed. Players have to commit themselves to a tackle and in certain circumstances cannot pull out of the tackle.

The main issue I have with that tackle is that Plisson ends up landing on his head, with Lawes on top of him. Isn't the tackler supposed to be responsible for the tackled player arriving back to ground safely? The tackle results in Plisson leaving the ground, Lawes is in contact with him all the way to the ground, and so should be responsible for Plisson not landing on his head

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3QDOWk1qIo

It's pretty clear Plisson leaves the ground and lands on his head due to Lawes tackle. I know that law is usually implemented relating to someone actually lifting in the tackle, I can't find the actual law, but surely it should apply in this type of tackle, i.e. it needs to be changed if it does not currently cover this scenario.

BoardsMember

BoardsMember wrote: »

The main issue I have with that tackle is that Plisson ends up landing on his head, with Lawes on top of him. Isn't the tackler supposed to be responsible for the tackled player arriving back to ground safely? The tackle results in Plisson leaving the ground, Lawes is in contact with him all the way to the ground, and so should be responsible for Plisson not landing on his head

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3QDOWk1qIo

It's pretty clear Plisson leaves the ground and lands on his head due to Lawes tackle. I know that law is usually implemented relating to someone actually lifting in the tackle, I can't find the actual law, but surely it should apply in this type of tackle, i.e. it needs to be changed if it does not currently cover this scenario.

Found the Law:
http://irbplayerwelfare.com/?documentid=63

(e) Dangerous tackling.
A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Plisson lands on his head, feet in the air, with Lawes on top of him. It's a dangerous tackle. It should have been a penalty.

sydthebeat

But is it dangerous because of lawes actions or plissons?

Eoin

I'm fairly sure Healy put in a hit like that against Australia (RWC?) - not as crunching, but same sort of timing. The ball was always going to be gone before he made the hit, but he was "committed" to the tackle.

BoardsMember

sydthebeat wrote: »

But is it dangerous because of lawes actions or plissons?

Plisson's actions? what were they?

total former

.ak wrote: »

Personally I think that's good play by a pack player. Remember bensen on Wilko? I think what Lawes does is nasty but your loose forwards should always be hastling the 10, within the law.

I don't agree with TF, there has to be an interpretation that allows late tackles. So many tackles would be pinged otherwise where a player offloads just before tackle is completed. Players have to commit themselves to a tackle and in certain circumstances cannot pull out of the tackle.

That's not what I meant though. People were asking why it was illegal, by the letter of the law it's a foul.
But of course you have to have interpretation. If you have a two on one overlap, the ball carrier will hold the ball until the last possible second to draw the tackle. That's fair enough. If there's a genuine attempt to make a fair tackle on the carrier then fair enough. I don't think there was any such attempt in this case.

That interpretation of "the tackler was committed, therefore it's open season" is completely contrary to other situations where the tackler has a duty of care to the exposed player. Why?

Lawes set out to smash Plisson, the ball was not on his mind at all. It's way beyond legitimate hassling of the 10. I think it's a bad road to be going down if we're condoning that, it can only end in serious injury.

desertcircus

If that kind of tackle isn't illegal, then there's a problem with the laws as they stand. Late tackles are punishable at least in part because a player who's just released the ball has no opportunity to brace themselves for the hit, and so are at heavily increased risk of injury. Lawes in particular seems to have developed the slightly-late smash on the ten as something of a specialty, and the reason it works is because 1) the ten is completely unprepared for contact as he's already released the ball, and 2) Lawes never really makes an effort to actually wrap the player. The result is that an outhalf who's completely unable to mitigate any impact gets hit full force by a sprinting lock who knows full well the ball is gone and only wants to hurt the guy in front of him. That tackle on Plisson is horrific to watch; he's hit from behind, his head is snapped back in a sickening way, and he ends up landing on his skull. In any world where we actually care about player welfare, doing something like that should be punished severely.

randomname2005

desertcircus wrote: »

That tackle on Plisson is horrific to watch; he's hit from behind, his head is snapped back in a sickening way, and he ends up landing on his skull. In any world where we actually care about player welfare, doing something like that should be punished severely.

The issue I have with the tackle is that the player lands on his head. Possibly slightly late too, but have seen relatively later tackles go unpunished. I thought the rules were that you must ensure the safety of a player you take into the air. The tackled player was lifted into the air, brought over the horizontal and lands on his head. I don't necessarily think that Lawes planned to do that, but we have seen cases before where the intent to tip a player beyond horizontal is not relevant, and I believe this to be one of them.

Quint2010

[QUOTE=desertcircus;94817982 Late tackles are punishable at least in part because a player who's just released the ball has no opportunity to brace themselves for the hit, and so are at heavily increased risk of injury.[/QUOTE]

But is that not like saying you shouldn't tackle a player who has just received a head-high pass because his ribs are exposed? That player wouldn't have the opportunity to brace themselves for the hit either and is going to get smashed in the ribs. Is that dangerous? Yes it is. Should that be then banned?

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

when was a tackle ever a competition for the ball???
i think youre wrong there.

I dont like it, its nasty, dangerous and skirts the edges of legality...... BUT its not illegal in the context of the current laws

Always? It's why you're not allowed tackle players without the ball for instance. You tackle a player in possession of the ball with a view to turning over possession.

The player does not have possession of the ball when Lawes 'hits' him. He's got no intention of competing for a ball. A cynic might easily argue that given the previous instances of this 'hit', Lawes is actively looking to time his connection to occur after the ball has been released.

Agreed about the legality issues, that's what I'd said a few times already. It's not illegal, but it's not on imo.

aimee1

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed about the legality issues, that's what I'd said a few times already. It's not illegal, but it's not on imo.

Lawes was never going to make the tackle while Plisson had the ball which makes it borderline.

molloyjh

So, Ireland eh......

nipps

http://www.statslife.org.uk/sports/2151-how-exceptional-a-rugby-player-was-brian-o-driscoll

interesting piece on o'driscoll

Tox56

nipps wrote: »

http://www.statslife.org.uk/sports/2151-how-exceptional-a-rugby-player-was-brian-o-driscoll

interesting piece on o'driscoll

That is interesting but it's a bit of a weird tone.

Yet, on this occasion, the perception that Brian O’Driscoll stood out as a truly exceptional rugby international appears to be warranted.

Was that ever really in doubt? It suggests irish fans were the only ones to really go mad about him but I'm pretty sure he was incredibly highly rated elsewhere, Will Carling put him 10th in his list of the 50 best rugby players ever SEVEN YEARS before BOD retired

irishbucsfan

aimee1 wrote: »

Lawes was never going to make the tackle while Plisson had the ball which makes it borderline.

He could well have had the ball if he was throwing a dummy. That is why you're allowed to continue the tackle if you are committed when the opponent throws the pass. Also it's far safer for him to complete a legal tackle (maybe it wasn't if he landed on his head, but withstanding that) than a collision caused by him being unable to pull away unsuccessfully, which would be a more likely source of injury.

shuffol

It seems like the issue isn't with the action of the tackle which was 100% legal but more so because it was Lawes and the intensity with which he tackles, I'm not sure how you could legislate against that type of thing without it being a case of one rule for Courtney Lawes and another for everyone else. Perhaps if he ends up seriously injuring somebody it will be looked at but I think right now the onus needs to be on players when they're playing against him to be conscious of putting themselves into a position where they will be clobbered.

BoardsMember

The issue is the tackled player lands and his head with feet in the air, and Lawes on top of him. That's a dangerous tackle. It's not that complicated. It's not about it being late, or who the tackler is, or the intensity of the tackle.

.ak

Okay people, Ireland thread, please move it to the Law(e)s thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520903

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

Always? It's why you're not allowed tackle players without the ball for instance. You tackle a player in possession of the ball with a view to turning over possession.

The player does not have possession of the ball when Lawes 'hits' him. He's got no intention of competing for a ball. A cynic might easily argue that given the previous instances of this 'hit', Lawes is actively looking to time his connection to occur after the ball has been released.

Agreed about the legality issues, that's what I'd said a few times already. It's not illegal, but it's not on imo.

just going to extend this over on the laws thread.

padser

nipps wrote: »

http://www.statslife.org.uk/sports/2151-how-exceptional-a-rugby-player-was-brian-o-driscoll

interesting piece on o'driscoll

Interesting piece. I'd seen similar stuff before, albeit less comprehensive.

I personally think think the sample size is a little small for tho analysis (particularly once you go team by team).

Nonetheless, 7 points per test match is amazing if true, the spread in most games we play against top teams is 1-3 points.,,

Flipper22

randomname2005 wrote: »

The issue I have with the tackle is that the player lands on his head. Possibly slightly late too, but have seen relatively later tackles go unpunished. I thought the rules were that you must ensure the safety of a player you take into the air. The tackled player was lifted into the air, brought over the horizontal and lands on his head. I don't necessarily think that Lawes planned to do that, but we have seen cases before where the intent to tip a player beyond horizontal is not relevant, and I believe this to be one of them.

You won't see a tip tackle given unless there's a clear lift by the tackler.

[Deleted User]

nipps wrote: »

http://www.statslife.org.uk/sports/2151-how-exceptional-a-rugby-player-was-brian-o-driscoll

interesting piece on o'driscoll

I'd like to see how much points Joe Schmidt is worth

.ak

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd like to see how much points Joe Schmidt is worth

That's what the LHC is currently working on...

awec

I think this deserves a mention in this thread too for World Cup implications, but Chris Henry is in the Ulster team to play Cardiff tonight.

Some recovery!

Quint2010

Paul O'Connell wins 6N Player of the Tournament. Superb and well deserved.

wp_rathead

Quint2010 wrote: »

Paul O'Connell wins 6N Player of the Tournament. Superb and well deserved.