Laws Question? Ask here!

look at that still above of quade copper being tackled, hes off his feet but hes in control because he can guide himself to ground by his arm.... so his actions are implicit in the resultant of the tackle.

Dave_The_Sheep

Which is all well and good in the cases where someone is able to use their arms to stop them landing on their head or neck.

In the case of this particular tackle, the player wasn't.

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Which is all well and good in the cases where someone is able to use their arms to stop them landing on their head or neck.

In the case of this particular tackle, the player wasn't.

why wasnt he? his arms were free.....

syd - maybe he chose to hit the ground head first with Lawes on top of him, or chose to do nothing to avoid himself being polaxed. Is that what you want to hear?

Dave_The_Sheep

I'm not unsympathetic to the case for it to be a fair tackle (and I can see the obvious next question about players being able to get others sent off by not bringing themselves to ground). I just don't think it overshadows the fact the player landed on his head.

Looking at it, a combination of a) the speed at which he went over, b) the fact it was a forearm height hit and c) the act of wrapping the arms in the tackle.

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

I'm not unsympathetic to the case for it to be a fair tackle (and I can see the obvious next question about players being able to get others sent off by not bringing themselves to ground). I just don't think it overshadows the fact the player landed on his head.

Looking at it, a combination of a) the speed at which he went over, b) the fact it was a forearm height hit and c) the act of wrapping the arms in the tackle.

I'd agree wit this, it seems to me to be a fair and reasonable summary.

BoardsMember wrote: »

syd - maybe he chose to hit the ground head first with Lawes on top of him, or chose to do nothing to avoid himself being polaxed. Is that what you want to hear?

i said im just playing devils advocate here, im already in record for saying it was nasty and dangerous....

im just making the point that it was a big guy hitting a smaller guy and that physics was the main factor in how it resulted. Rugby is a game about hit, but we cannot start legislating for smaller guys being hit by bigger guys in a disproportionate way. SOB showed above how to deal with a hit, but SOB is a much stronger player than Plisson.

Again ill say, its a harsh lesson for plission but one that will stand to him in the future

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Just watched that clip. Yes some very illegal tackles but also a lot of legal ones there that were very similar to Lawes' tackle. One that jumped out at me was the Bismark tackle on Dan Carter. Does anyone think that was illegal? Did it deserve a yellow?

The one at 3:17? I don't agree that's the same at all. Carters right foot never leaves the ground and he doesn't go head first into the deck. In fact he lands on his right shoulder.

Like I said there are a lot of big, big hits in that clip. Some legal and some illegal. Some very dangerous and some not dangerous at all. I don't think any of them have a situation where the tackled player is flipped beyond 90 degrees and goes head first into the ground. Which, given why I posted it, to me shows that isn't something that happens in most tackles. It doesn't even happen in most big tackles, let alone most tackles in general.

sydthebeat wrote: »

i said im just playing devils advocate here, im already in record for saying it was nasty and dangerous....

im just making the point that it was a big guy hitting a smaller guy and that physics was the main factor in how it resulted. Rugby is a game about hit, but we cannot start legislating for smaller guys being hit by bigger guys in a disproportionate way. SOB showed above how to deal with a hit, but SOB is a much stronger player than Plisson.

Again ill say, its a harsh lesson for plission but one that will stand to him in the future

Fair enough. I just dont see how Plisson could have done much, but we differ on that.

Regarding legislation, they need to do everything possible to legislate for the safety of the players. If that extends what the tackler is responsible for then so be it. I'd rather a few harsh pens or cards than wheelchairs. I understand that, die to physics, it might mean a big guy hitting a smaller guy means he maybe needs to hit less aggressively or whatever.

Podge_irl

Lawes didn't hit him high, but he hit him high enough and with enough force to pivot his body around, off his feet and make him land on his head. That Lawes was unable to bring him to ground safely because he too was flying off his feet is completely irrelevant and Lawes' own fault.

molloyjh wrote: »

The one at 3:17? I don't agree that's the same at all. Carters right foot never leaves the ground and he doesn't go head first into the deck. In fact he lands on his right shoulder.

Yeah thats the one. The reason I asked was because Bismark got a yellow card for it which was ridiculous. I remeber it did ring Carter's bell and he left the field because of it.

Some of the tackles (legal ones) in that clip were just like the Lawes' tackle however the player being tackled manages to get an arm out to stop their head hitting the ground. Plisson failed to do that.

[Deleted User]

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Yeah thats the one. The reason I asked was because Bismark got a yellow card for it which was ridiculous. I remeber it did ring Carter's bell and he left the field because of it.

Some of the tackles (legal ones) in that clip were just like the Lawes' tackle however the player being tackled manages to get an arm out to stop their head hitting the ground. Plisson failed to do that.

I didn't see any?

Podge_irl

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Some of the tackles (legal ones) in that clip were just like the Lawes' tackle however the player being tackled manages to get an arm out to stop their head hitting the ground. Plisson failed to do that.

Whether a player tackled in the air lands on their head or their back has essentially nothing to do with them but makes a difference to the sanction for the tackle. Plisson failed to put his hand out cause he was spinning rather wildly through the air.

sydthebeat wrote: »

i said im just playing devils advocate here, im already in record for saying it was nasty and dangerous....

im just making the point that it was a big guy hitting a smaller guy and that physics was the main factor in how it resulted. Rugby is a game about hit, but we cannot start legislating for smaller guys being hit by bigger guys in a disproportionate way. SOB showed above how to deal with a hit, but SOB is a much stronger player than Plisson.

Again ill say, its a harsh lesson for plission but one that will stand to him in the future

I get what you're saying here but I have to say the onus, regardless of anything else, is on the tackler. As soon as you make the tackled player some way responsible the whole thing turns to farce. Should a player jump for a high ball if an opponent is coming onto it as well? Surely if he does he's putting himself into a dangerous position more than Plisson was there?

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Yeah thats the one. The reason I asked was because Bismark got a yellow card for it which was ridiculous. I remeber it did ring Carter's bell and he left the field because of it.

Some of the tackles (legal ones) in that clip were just like the Lawes' tackle however the player being tackled manages to get an arm out to stop their head hitting the ground. Plisson failed to do that.

What was the card for in that case? You could argue maybe that there was no wrap in the tackle. It's a very quick clip with no repay so it is hard to tell, but at a guess I'd say that's what it was for.....

As for the Plisson incident there was no way that he could have gotten a hand out to stop himself. Look at it in real time and it's obvious that it happened so fast that Plisson never stood a chance of reacting to it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't see any?

North on AAC, Rene Ranger on the Brumbies 9, the women's game, Folau vs the Chiefs, the Scotland v SA hit. And others. All very similar to the Lawes' tackle.

molloyjh wrote: »

I get what you're saying here but I have to say the onus, regardless of anything else, is on the tackler. As soon as you make the tackled player some way responsible the whole thing turns to farce. Should a player jump for a high ball if an opponent is coming onto it as well? Surely if he does he's putting himself into a dangerous position more than Plisson was there?

of course the tackled player has a responsibility to take actions to lessen the risk of injury.

we are all taught at a young age the proper way to fall, the proper way to turn after a pass, the proper way to catch a high ball, how to present the ball properly, what to do at the bottom of a ruck etc.... all with the focus on doing the right things to reduce risk of injury to ourselves.

Its completely different to being tackled in the air catching a high ball because theres very little you can do if someone takes your legs from under you, youre bound to pivot.

again, im not condoning lawes here, because he has form for this... but im arguing that this kind of heavy hit shouldnt automatically be sanctioned with a yellow or red card. If he had done this tackle straight into a players back then fine, but plisson wasnt blind sided as much as others will argue, they were face on until plisson turned to pass.

sydthebeat wrote: »

of course the tackled player has a responsibility to take actions to lessen the risk of injury.

we are all taught at a young age the proper way to fall, the proper way to turn after a pass, the proper way to catch a high ball, how to present the ball properly, what to do at the bottom of a ruck etc.... all with the focus on doing the right things to reduce risk of injury to ourselves.

Its completely different to being tackled in the air catching a high ball because theres very little you can do if someone takes your legs from under you, youre bound to pivot.

again, im not condoning lawes here, because he has form for this... but im arguing that this kind of heavy hit shouldnt automatically be sanctioned with a yellow or red card. If he had done this tackle straight into a players back then fine, but plisson wasnt blind sided as much as others will argue, they were face on until plisson turned to pass.

I don't think a heavy hit should automatically be a sanction either. But in this case Plisson could have done very little to prevent what happened to him given the force and the speed at which it happened.

I think it more beneficial for the game all-round to ensure that if Lawes is going to throw himself at smaller guys like that then he is told he is responsible for the welfare of the tackled player. I don't think that takes away from the game. It might lessen the impact, but that doesn't mean the tackle should not be made or would be less effective. If ball carriers are to be told that they need to be careful in case someone comes at them like a train as Lawes did there we're going to see even less attacking rugby as fly-halves decide the don't want to risk opening themselves up to dangerous tackles while defenders reckon it's totally ok to go at the 10s like that.

molloyjh wrote: »

If ball carriers are to be told that they need to be careful in case someone comes at them like a train as Lawes did there we're going to see even less attacking rugby as fly-halves decide the don't want to risk opening themselves up to dangerous tackles while defenders reckon it's totally ok to go at the 10s like that.

i agree completely in principle with what your saying, i dont agree with the practicality.

10's are already warned to be careful of rampaging back rows, thats part of the game... ever flanker foams at the mouth to get a big hit into a 10, thats one core facet of their duty.

should 10's be somewhat more protected than other players? definitely not.
I believe the current laws afford them sufficient protection currently against cheap shots

molloyjh wrote: »

What was the card for in that case? You could argue maybe that there was no wrap in the tackle. It's a very quick clip with no repay so it is hard to tell, but at a guess I'd say that's what it was for.....

I can't remember whether the ref said high or no arms. Pretty sure it was Poite or Garces. Either way it was BS. Perfectly good hard tackle.
What made it worse was later in the match Du Plesis fended Messam with an elbow to the throat, second yellow = red.

Clearlier

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I can't remember whether the ref said high or no arms. Pretty sure it was Poite or Garces. Either way it was BS. Perfectly good hard tackle.
What made it worse was later in the match Du Plesis fended Messam with an elbow to the throat, second yellow = red.

This one (also on Carter) although no yellow is at least as bad a decision:

sydthebeat wrote: »

i agree completely in principle with what your saying, i dont agree with the practicality.

10's are already warned to be careful of rampaging back rows, thats part of the game... ever flanker foams at the mouth to get a big hit into a 10, thats one core facet of their duty.

should 10's be somewhat more protected than other players? definitely not.
I believe the current laws afford them sufficient protection currently against cheap shots

Well it wouldn't be limited to just the 10s. I just think that Lawes could put in a big hit without it leading to that.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I can't remember whether the ref said high or no arms. Pretty sure it was Poite or Garces. Either way it was BS. Perfectly good hard tackle.
What made it worse was later in the match Du Plesis fended Messam with an elbow to the throat, second yellow = red.

I'd need to see a longer clip of it as that one is just too short, but it did look (when I started looking for an offence) like it could well have been a no arm tackle.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I can't remember whether the ref said high or no arms. Pretty sure it was Poite or Garces. Either way it was BS. Perfectly good hard tackle.
What made it worse was later in the match Du Plesis fended Messam with an elbow to the throat, second yellow = red.

from what i recall, bismark was yellow carded for no arms wrapping... which wouldnt have been the common view on that tackle

molloyjh wrote: »

I just think that Lawes could put in a big hit without it leading to that.

i dont think Lawes could (note i didnt say should

) change the way he tackles based on the player and position hes tackling

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd need to see a longer clip of it as that one is just too short, but it did look (when I started looking for an offence) like it could well have been a no arm tackle.

It was Eden Park 2013 and Poite was the ref. Have a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IxIQ2JxiX0

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It was Eden Park 2013 and Poite was the ref. Have a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IxIQ2JxiX0

Ah holy Jesus, the reverse angle makes it perfectly clear he wrapped his arms there. Nothing wrong with that. Crazy decision.

Clearlier wrote: »

This one (also on Carter) although no yellow is at least as bad a decision:

It was a shoulder charge not a tackle, it's a penalty alright.

dregin

After 3:30 in Leinster V Glasgow on Saturday, Jordi was pinged for going in from the side even though the ball was well behind the hindmost foot. Does that not count, if the carrier still has his hand on the ball?