Wouldn't have expected such a generalised critique from such a punctilious and just forum member as you, Dixie, without specific reference and qualification . . . and he was giving a point of view as an experienced sports jornalist and distinguished player.:sad:
I personally thought the following was particularly interesting and a worthy consideration for the Union game.
I sat with Shaun Edwards during the second round of the Heineken Cup and we talked about spear tackles, how they were happening and what could be done to improve the game’s handling of the issue. I appreciate that he is also in the Wales camp and don’t want this to become a lament for the cruelty of that night in New Zealand. But if I could talk to one man about the intricacies of tackling then the Wales defence coach would have to be it.
We agreed that the system of ‘being put on report’ that is used in rugby league would go a long way to sorting out the issue. It is a very clever use of the rules and with it the ability to maintain control of the game.
A referee who sees what he believes to be an act of foul play but is not sure of its severity can highlight the incident immediately to independent reviewers. After the final whistle these adjudicators can then study each case closely to understand intent and any illegality.
Let us not fool ourselves that this is a soft measure, because the tackles in rugby league can be much more brutal than in union. At the same time, the players are under no illusion that if in post-match reviews they are found guilty of attempting to harm a player, they will serve a long ban. So the threat is there, the knowledge of punishment is there. Players know there can be no evading justice and modify their behaviour on the field.
And while it will not eradicate the bad tackle, it will at least give players and referees a chance to evaluate a situation coolly and calmly.
And that is surely in the interest of everyone in the game.
Regardless of any of your lengthy diatribe, Dixie is correct. Greenwood is ill-informed. He is another of these pundits who want to keep talking about intent when intent is not an issue.
Make no mistake here, the
medical evidence regarding spear tackles makes it abundantly clear that the
outcome is likely to be potentially catastrophic for the victim. That
outcome is wholly unaffected by the tackler's intent.... what he intended is irrelevent, what
happened is at hand, and is the only part of the whole issue that is of any significance. i.o.w. a dangerous tip-tackle is still dangerous, whether intended or not.
Chopper, have you read my article on the
Dynamics of a Tip Tackle? If so, do you understand that the
lifting of a player off the ground cannot be unintentional? It is a physical action that MUST be intentional by the very nature of what the tackler must do. What comes afterwards might not be done on purpose, but the FIRST action of the tackler of grasping the player below the hips and lifting him up cannot be an accident or a reactionary reflex.
PS: Does anyone know how to comment of Telegraph articles. I have registered and logged in, but there is no "Comment" link.