[Tackle] Hands on the shoulders, High Tackle?

[breako]

We see this a lot when the attack has broken through and the defense is trailing. Tackle puts hands on the shoulders and then then lowers them and brings player to ground. No contact anywhere near neck.

IS this a high tackle?

 

[Taff]

... Tackle puts hands on the shoulders and then lowers them and brings player to ground. No contact anywhere near neck. IS this a high tackle?

High tackle for me anyway.

I don't know about you, but my neck is connected to my shoulders - so it must be close. :biggrin:

 

[breako]

Leinster V Wasps today - there was a hand on shoulder tackle. Owens said "it's just a hand on the shoulder, not high"

 

[Pegleg]

I've not seen the tackle but here is the law

(e) ...A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even
if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or
head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[Skids]

...above the line of the shoulders...

So ON the shoulders should be ok?

I've often wondered at the seeming inconsistency when watching elite rugby.

 

[Nigib]

So ON the shoulders should be ok?

I've often wondered at the seeming inconsistency when watching elite rugby.

ON surely implies ABOVE?! Elite rugby is totally different from us at community level - a combination of money, ability and fitness...

 

[leaguerefaus]

High tackle for me anyway.

I don't know about you, but my neck is connected to my shoulders - so it must be close. :biggrin:

My torso is connected to my neck but I wouldn't expect anyone to be penalised if they tackled me around my chest.

 

[Dickie E]

So ON the shoulders should be ok?

I've often wondered at the seeming inconsistency when watching elite rugby.

Our rule of thumb is anything above armpits is high. For example, what we would call a "seatbelt" tackle.

 

[Taff]

My torso is connected to my neck but I wouldn't expect anyone to be penalised if they tackled me around my chest.

But your torso is BELOW your shoulders.

 

[Phil E]

For me.

I am happy with over the shoulder provided it isn't around the neck as well.

I don't see a hand on the shoulder, or what Dickie calls the seatbelt tackle (good description) as dangerous.
If the arm then goes around the neck it is dangerous.

NB: this is for adult rugby.

 

[Camquin]

In age group rugby I will err on the side of caution, so I would penalise a hand on the shoulder if I spotted it.
But as with everything it is marginal and context is everything.

 

[ChuckieB]

My torso is connected to my neck but I wouldn't expect anyone to be penalised if they tackled me around my chest.

On this one I think one needs to highlight the difference in the codes, which has effectively resulted in an evolution of very different tackle techniques due to the nature of the game and the different definitions of a tackle.

A RL tool from what I see, is to tackle in pods of 2 or 3, one aiming around the chest at least, and one aiming low to be sure to bring the man to ground. Tackling around the chest is a part an parcel of the game.

Living in a town, in the south I might add, where the Union code has traditional dominance, yet we actually have a tier 1 RL side, we are starting to see instances where a couple of kids that have been attracted to both codes are not quite getting things right. For those have stuck with union they tend to be less likely to attempt higher in the first place.

I'm not saying its an issue but it is a challenge for the youth coaches in union code.

 

[ChuckieB]

In line with NO I don't immediately see a hand on a shoulder as a tackle. In isolation it doesn't match the definition

It's what then goes with it that I then have to consider.

 

[Dickie E]

the seatbelt tackle is more where a tackler tackles from behind and drapes an arm over the shoulder with the hand trying to tie up the ball and the other arm wraps around the waist also with hand on ball.

We treat it as illegal.

 

[ChuckieB]

the seatbelt tackle is more where a tackler tackles from behind and drapes an arm over the shoulder with the hand trying to tie up the ball and the other arm wraps around the waist also with hand on ball.

We treat it as illegal.

I agree. As I would always treat over the shoulder as above and the law supports that.

My rule of thumb is, on the shoulder is not above, at least from an initial contact point of view (a hand creeping over starts to raise alarm bells) , but then by consideration of what might follow and any additional evidence of how the tackle is completed, it becomes much clearer.

Per the law example, how it starts and how it ends up must be taken in consideration together.

 

[Skids]

So, for some, a HAND on the shoulder is different from an ARM on the shoulder?

I agree that what happens next is clearly material but unsure myself the difference between a hand and an arm on the shoulder in terms of law or safety. I also appreciate that different Ref Associations may have differing interpretations but would still be interested in views.

 

[Rich_NL]

The consensus here is that over or on top of the shoulder is a high tackle. Hand on the deltoid is fine, over the collarbone or trapezius is not.

 

[VM75]

For me, contacting the neck is the key issue, avoid that & chances are we play on, start / hit / or finish on the neck or above = Reckless & YC minimum [unless I'm persuaded it was accidental - via the TP slipping/ducking]

The key wording of the bolstered law is "...[FONT=fs_blakeregular]knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway."

[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]PRO rugby [& elite refs] have virtually stuck two fingers up to WR on an issue that was intended to see a change in the way that [/FONT]tacklers approach[FONT=fs_blakeregular] contact. This Law was change was designed to see less concussions, but the recent 6N saw little change on that count in each match. [anyone got the concussion totals for this 6N season?]

I expect that the next time WR analyse post Nov2106 concussion numbers they'll see little change from pre Nov2016, but the politics of this subject mean they'll be able to point back to their mostly ignored 'bolstered' law.

For anyone unclear about WR intentions, see here [/FONT]http://www.worldrugby.org/news/213339?lang=en
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
Key phases included;
[/FONT]* zero-tolerance approach
* to deter high tackles
* effectively lowering the acceptable height of the tackle
* aims to change culture in the sport to ensure that the head is a no-go area.
* lead to changes in playing or training practices
* Reinforcing the zero-tolerance culture
* Educating that "bent at the waist” while tackling and entering into contact is the optimal position for injury prevention
* the incidence of injury for the tackler is more than two and a half times greater than the ball-carrier and that tackle height is a contributing factor.

Applying Law correctly this is IMO a RED CARD for Blue 20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy37qQG8Vus&t=3117

it's exactly what WR state they wish to remove from the game, but did we see any card? - no, clearly the tacklers recklessness was excused because of his concussion.

two more concussions, zero sanctions rather than zero tolerance.:shrug:
I say B20 s[FONT=fs_blakeregular]hould have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway.[/FONT]

 

[Hillbob]

VM, absolutely right. It is what, i think, Phil always writes: Elite is a completely different game.
Should have been a card and it was vaery poor technique.

 

[VM75]

For me, contacting the neck is the key issue, avoid that & chances are we play on, start / hit / or finish on the neck or above = Reckless & YC minimum [unless I'm persuaded it was accidental - via the TP slipping/ducking]

The key wording of the bolstered law is "...[FONT=fs_blakeregular]knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway."

[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]PRO rugby [& elite refs] have virtually stuck two fingers up to WR on an issue that was intended to see a change in the way that [/FONT]tacklers approach[FONT=fs_blakeregular] contact. This Law was change was designed to see less concussions, but the recent 6N saw little change on that count in each match. [anyone got the concussion totals for this 6N season?]

I expect that the next time WR analyse post Nov2106 concussion numbers they'll see little change from pre Nov2016, but the politics of this subject mean they'll be able to point back to their mostly ignored 'bolstered' law.

For anyone unclear about WR intentions, see here [/FONT]http://www.worldrugby.org/news/213339?lang=en
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
Key phases included;
[/FONT]* zero-tolerance approach
* to deter high tackles
* effectively lowering the acceptable height of the tackle
* aims to change culture in the sport to ensure that the head is a no-go area.
* lead to changes in playing or training practices
* Reinforcing the zero-tolerance culture
* Educating that "bent at the waist” while tackling and entering into contact is the optimal position for injury prevention
* the incidence of injury for the tackler is more than two and a half times greater than the ball-carrier and that tackle height is a contributing factor.

Applying Law correctly this is IMO a RED CARD for Blue 20 https://youtu.be/oy37qQG8Vus?t=3117 it's exactly what WR state they wish to remove from the game, but did we see any card? - no, clearly the tacklers recklessness was excused because of his concussion.

two more concussions, zero sanctions rather than zero tolerance.:shrug:
I say B20 s[FONT=fs_blakeregular]hould have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway.[/FONT]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39630540

Virtually mirroring what I said above !