[Tackle] Dangerous tackle... or not

[oldman]

Perhaps as safer option would be to change the law so, after a kick in open play, or after a penalty, free-kick , drop out or restart the catcher must have one foot on the ground when he catches the ball. No jumping for the ball, no mid air clashes or falls from great heights.

 

[didds]

Perhaps as safer option would be to change the law so, after a kick in open play, or after a penalty, free-kick , drop out or restart the catcher must have one foot on the ground when he catches the ball. No jumping for the ball, no mid air clashes or falls from great heights.

As OB usefully opines ... the issue there is that if that ball is instead caught on the full, running at pace, there is a good chance the catcher - in the act of running - may have both feet off the ground at the moment of catching the ball. Two feet off the ground... isnt that a jump?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Perhaps as safer option would be to change the law so, after a kick in open play, or after a penalty, free-kick , drop out or restart the catcher must have one foot on the ground when he catches the ball. No jumping for the ball, no mid air clashes or falls from great heights.

The real answer is a mark can be called anywhere on field, one foot on ground.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The real answer is a mark can be called anywhere on field, one foot on ground.

Doesn't stop players from doing a Dan Biggar. i.e. sprinting towards where the ball is coming down, recklessly leaping into the air from 15ft away, feet first at full speed, and pole-axing Finn Russell on the ground, for which the Russell gets the YC, a citing and a three week ban.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x694w0i

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Doesn't stop players from doing a Dan Biggar. i.e. sprinting towards where the ball is coming down, recklessly leaping into the air from 15ft away, feet first at full speed, and pole-axing Finn Russell on the ground, for which the Russell gets the YC, a citing and a three week ban.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x694w0i

it deters the amount of kicking by awarding fk anywhere on field. a drop at goal from a mark would deter also

the rugby lords are reactionary with law changes and treat symptoms not the cause

 

[Ian_Cook]

it deters the amount of kicking by awarding fk anywhere on field. a drop at goal from a mark would deter also

the rugby lords are reactionary with law changes and treat symptoms not the cause

The Spear Tackle memorandum was published on 8 June 2009. Two years later, Sam Warburton was RC for a spear tackle at the RWC, and to this day, eleven years after the original memorandum came out, we still have players doing it.....players (and coaches) can be really slow to learn!

If players continue to think they can prevent your mark being taken by jumping into the air and catching the ball, and having the Law protect them if they clatter the potential mark-taker, then you haven't solved the problem. What needs to happen is to take away the protection for the jumper if he jumps into an opponent who is already in his landing zone - a stationary player should be entitled to stand his ground - the onus should be on the moving player to avoid the collision.

 

[Dickie E]

it deters the amount of kicking by awarding fk anywhere on field. a drop at goal from a mark would deter also

the rugby lords are reactionary with law changes and treat symptoms not the cause

we are actually going the opposite way. A kick inside the opposition 22 can now only be marked if the ball is caught in-goal.