[CLUB RUGBY] Mat Luamanu dangerous tackle

[winchesterref]

Harlequins' post with Luamanu tackle video

Quins' Twitter feed has this post/video on with commentary
Thoughts on this?

He's got a bit of a big hit back catalogue, some legal, some not

Luamanu tackle on Josh Beaumont - RC

 

[crossref]

is there a link not via Twitter?

 

[Phil E]

It was high, the fact that the ball carrier ducked (and only a little bit) doesn't remove the responsibility of the tackler.
It was also in with the shoulder first and a hint of a swinging right arm. It's one of those where the wrap is an afterthought to try and make it look legal.

Comments from Quins supporters are to be taken with a pinch of salt surely?

Having said that I thought 5 weeks was a bit harsh, but haven't read the judgement. I have seen less weeks for far worse.

 

[Phil E]

is there a link not via Twitter?

Rugby Dump

 

[The Fat]

It's high , leading with shoulder and arm wrap an afterthought with point of contact square on the side of the melon.
Definitely worth a ban

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I was taught to tackle with my shoulder first. Is not that what you are supposed to do?

 

[The Fat]

I was taught to tackle with my shoulder first. Is not that what you are supposed to do?

What I am saying is that the tackle in the OP is essentially a shoulder charge with the wrapping action an afterthought in this case.
That being said, even if had had used arms "in the tackle" it was still high and dangerous and would have earned him a YC

 

[Dickie E]

yes, 5 weeks seems harsh on what I can see. But might be priors, etc

 

[winchesterref]

Waited for a few opinions before offering mine. I think either you give nothing/penalty only, or a RC.

If you give a RC then 5 weeks seems disproportionate with the events (especially considering Feasting Fabiani only took home 9 weeks?) - I read somewhere else that the final metre between them was closed in 0.2 seconds - and I think the tackle would have been legal and below shoulder line if Hooley hadn't ducked down, so what's a player to do? Just aim to tackle low assuming everyone will duck?

If you give nothing/penalty then you're effectively describing it as a "rugby incident" and saying there's contribution both ways - which is effectively what NO did in that other game there's a post on.

I don't think you can justify a YC either - if you believe the contact is worthy of higher sanction then there's surely no halfway house - that contact must be a RC.

The To3 all agreed that the player ducked and therefore that caused it, and should be a mitigating factor, then gave a YC anyway. That doesn't seem right to me, we're back to attacking players being given free reign to buy decisions and the onus on defenders to play tag.

I don't know the right answer, but I don't think this is a good precedent to set. There are also both arms used, so shoulder charge is off the table - there's no leading shoulder here.

 

[FlipFlop]

He leads with the shoulder. With the arm way back. The "duck" into it is minimal. The result was a shoulder charge to the head. That is red. And the ducking into it is irrelevant - it was always going to be high, even if the initial contact was on the chest, the style and the force means he was going to end up on the head/neck area.

It seems this is his tackling style - the lead with the shoulder, with arm back. He needs to change it.

 

[winchesterref]

Ok, so that's the 10 standing upright vs the moment of contact. Minimal duck?

He's 6 foot 1. Average femur length 19 or 20 inches in an average male. That's a huge difference! As you can see, there is 1 second difference.

 

[Phil E]

When I played you tackled low around the hips or thighs. So ducking into tackles made no real difference.

If players now choose to tackle around the chest area then they take the risk that if the ball carrier lowers his stance* the tackle could end up high. It is their choice to start the tackle higher up so the onus is on them to make sure it doesn't end up too high.

I disagree about the arms being used in this case, especially the right arm, it's not in a half cocked position ready to close the loop, its out wide and almost straight, it tries to close in as an afterthought.


* if your about to get hit its perfectly natural to curl your body up in anticipation of the collision, this means lowering your neck into your shoulders and crouching slightly to take the impact. Ducking into the tackle is many times an instinctive survival reaction. The onus is on the tackler to keep his tackle legal. Start low, stay low. Start high, risk a penalty.

 

[winchesterref]

When I played you tackled low around the hips or thighs. So ducking into tackles made no real difference.

If players now choose to tackle around the chest area then they take the risk that if the ball carrier lowers his stance* the tackle could end up high. It is their choice to start the tackle higher up so the onus is on them to make sure it doesn't end up too high.

I disagree about the arms being used in this case, especially the right arm, it's not in a half cocked position ready to close the loop, its out wide and almost straight, it tries to close in as an afterthought.


* if your about to get hit its perfectly natural to curl your body up in anticipation of the collision, this means lowering your neck into your shoulders and crouching slightly to take the impact. Ducking into the tackle is many times an instinctive survival reaction. The onus is on the tackler to keep his tackle legal. Start low, stay low. Start high, risk a penalty.

Very quick review of the first 5 minutes of that game - 19 initial defensive contacts above the waist, 8 below - I'd suggest rugby now is very different to how it used to be?

The height he came in was to attack the ball/get into the sternum, which was where he'd have hit if the 10 hadn't shrunk by over a foot. I play now and the coaching messages we receive at 1st team level is to dominate and direct the contact, we stay strong and drive into the midriff and chest to prevent those offloads and because going low generally gives the BC more options.

I've underlined slightly - that duck isn't slight. It's correct to brace of course, but he took a "hospital pass", got lined up, and I contend he's given the green light to buying a penalty by dropping down so far.

 

[FlipFlop]

Ok, so that's the 10 standing upright vs the moment of contact. Minimal duck?

He's 6 foot 1. Average femur length 19 or 20 inches in an average male. That's a huge difference! As you can see, there is 1 second difference.

Firstly - he is full extended in the first photo (almost in the air). The running motion, and the push off, mean he needs to bend his legs. This is normal, and should be expected. This natural motion lowers the upper body. The second shot is AFTER the contact. He is already folding up at this point. And the "ducking" motion most people refer to - is actually the white player instinctively curling up to protect themselves. (It is not the "ducking" you see when a player is about to go into contact, to try and drive through for example). The player here is not "ducking" into contact in my opinion, he is curling up for protection.

You go high, you lead with the shoulder, you take 100% responsibility for the outcome.

However you look at it - the "tackle" resulted in a shoulder charge to the head. That is red everytime.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, so that's the 10 standing upright vs the moment of contact. Minimal duck?

He's 6 foot 1. Average femur length 19 or 20 inches in an average male. That's a huge difference! As you can see, there is 1 second difference.

Firstly - he is full extended in the first photo (almost in the air). The running motion, and the push off, mean he needs to bend his legs. This is normal, and should be expected. This natural motion lowers the upper body. The second shot is AFTER the contact. He is already folding up at this point. And the "ducking" motion most people refer to - is actually the white player instinctively curling up to protect themselves. (It is not the "ducking" you see when a player is about to go into contact, to try and drive through for example). The player here is not "ducking" into contact in my opinion, he is curling up for protection.

You go high, you lead with the shoulder, you take 100% responsibility for the outcome.

However you look at it - the "tackle" resulted in a shoulder charge to the head. That is red everytime.

 

[Phil E]

Here are two screen shots of my own.

In the first one the player is in a normal running style (slightly crouched). The tacklers right arm is not in an open spring position, it is down by his side. This is less than a second before he makes the tackle, so why is his arm down there?

In the second photo the arm is still more or less straight and swinging forward to make contact with the head. If the player had stayed the height he is in photo 1 the tackle would have taken him round the neck instead of the face. Look how upright the tackler is at the moment of contact.

It's all the tacklers responsibility, as would seem to be born out by the fact that he was banned for 5 weeks.

 

[winchesterref]

Firstly - he is full extended in the first photo (almost in the air). The running motion, and the push off, mean he needs to bend his legs. This is normal, and should be expected. This natural motion lowers the upper body. The second shot is AFTER the contact. He is already folding up at this point. And the "ducking" motion most people refer to - is actually the white player instinctively curling up to protect themselves. (It is not the "ducking" you see when a player is about to go into contact, to try and drive through for example). The player here is not "ducking" into contact in my opinion, he is curling up for protection.

You go high, you lead with the shoulder, you take 100% responsibility for the outcome.

However you look at it - the "tackle" resulted in a shoulder charge to the head. That is red everytime.

No, the second shot is point of impact, I was very careful to do that. The frame before is before contact.

Ok, and that's a fair view if you hold it - which is what I said in my post on page 1 - how have they got to the YC? There's no halfway house here. What the officials said was "ok so the ball carrier has ducked, which is mitigation, but it's a YC anyway" - which is fundamentally incorrect.

You either see it as a straight red, or you see it as at absolute worst a penalty.

 

[winchesterref]

Here are two screen shots of my own.

In the first one the player is in a normal running style (slightly crouched). The tacklers right arm is not in an open spring position, it is down by his side. This is less than a second before he makes the tackle, so why is his arm down there?

If you make contact with "weak arms" you'll get shrugged off (admittedly he might not have... but generally speaking). The technique is shoulder - wrap - lock. Your second photo shows a bent arm very close to wrapping around the player. You don't lead into tackles with your arms out, analyse the game on Saturday or whatever is on TV tonight. Nearly every single contact is shoulder, then arms.

 

[winchesterref]

Anyway, my point is less about the tackle itself, more about the decision making. We're polar opposites on how the game is now so let's not go down that route - how have they come up with a YC?

 

[DocY]

Waited for a few opinions before offering mine. I think either you give nothing/penalty only, or a RC.

If you give a RC then 5 weeks seems disproportionate with the events (especially considering Feasting Fabiani only took home 9 weeks?) - I read somewhere else that the final metre between them was closed in 0.2 seconds - and I think the tackle would have been legal and below shoulder line if Hooley hadn't ducked down, so what's a player to do? Just aim to tackle low assuming everyone will duck?

If you give nothing/penalty then you're effectively describing it as a "rugby incident" and saying there's contribution both ways - which is effectively what NO did in that other game there's a post on.

I don't think you can justify a YC either - if you believe the contact is worthy of higher sanction then there's surely no halfway house - that contact must be a RC.

The To3 all agreed that the player ducked and therefore that caused it, and should be a mitigating factor, then gave a YC anyway. That doesn't seem right to me, we're back to attacking players being given free reign to buy decisions and the onus on defenders to play tag.

I don't know the right answer, but I don't think this is a good precedent to set. There are also both arms used, so shoulder charge is off the table - there's no leading shoulder here.

The video isn't working for me at the moment, so can't comment on how relevant the duck was, but do agree (unless I've misunderstood what you're saying) that holding the tackler 100% responsible for every high tackle is a bad precedent.

It's so common now, particularly at the top level, to tackle around the chest that if you can milk penalties by ducking at the last second players will do so.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have no issue with the five-week ban.

This was essentially a shoulder charge (so in my book, that's a minimum YC right there). It made first contact with the opponent's head, so that makes in RC IMO. I might not have called it as referee in real time, but I certainly would have had I been TMO.

I don't buy the "but the player ducked" defence. If you are aiming to impact high on the shoulders, that's the risk you take. If you don't want to take the risk, aim lower.

There are beginning to be issues with tacklers making, sometimes serious, incidental contact with opponents' heads. Given the specific focus on reducing head injuries and concussions, most of which happen during tackles, I wonder whether WR ought to consider lowering the high tackle threshold from "above the line of the shoulders" to "above the line of the armpits"?