RFU law variations approved to lower tackle height

[Phil E]

No idea how that works....but if you say so.

No, nor me, may just be semantics?
Thanks for the extra information.

 

[crossref]

No, nor me, may just be semantics?
Thanks for the extra information.

Perhaps WR have given permission to trial some law variations

 

[crossref]

this might amuse those outside England who haven't seen it yet

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698731025520636333

 

[didds]

I am aware of a specific set of circumstances [1] where that tackle above may be "OK" - but its very specific and Id say only with players who are very aware of those circumstances and can implement them. I wouldn't be coaching it at the levels I coached

didds
[1] basically a slide defence with a dominant tackle taking the BC backwards so the BC doesn't land "on top". I highlight my final point above.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I am aware of a specific set of circumstances [1] where that tackle above may be "OK" - but its very specific and Id say only with players who are very aware of those circumstances and can implement them. I wouldn't be coaching it at the levels I coached

didds
[1] basically a slide defence with a dominant tackle taking the BC backwards so the BC doesn't land "on top". I highlight my final point above.

That would be liable to be pinged here in Wales.

 

[buff]

That would be liable to be pinged here in Wales.

Would that be because of the position of the tacker's head?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Would that be because of the position of the tacker's head?

If you make contact above the sternum irrespective of where the head is you are liable to penalty. The point of the trial is to reduce tackle height. This will , in theory reduce head contact. If you start make exceptions then you will not change behaviours.

 

[didds]

maybe i wasnt clear.

the tackle would be below sternum. it would be AS in that pitcure. (thats if that red line is the sternum of course!)

 

[buff]

If you make contact above the sternum irrespective of where the head is you are liable to penalty. The point of the trial is to reduce tackle height. This will , in theory reduce head contact. If you start make exceptions then you will not change behaviours.

Does the trial in Wales require a lower tackle height than in RFU-land?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Does the trial in Wales require a lower tackle height than in RFU-land?

Below the sternum.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think the important point to note is:

Tackles that start in the green zone and finish in the red zone may be liable to sanction.


So referees (in Wales) have discression not to blow if there is a "non dangerous" slip up or even a fairly "low-impact" tackle over the line. BUT we should still manage the issue.
Cards only come into play where there are repeated offences. (under the trial) "good old fashioned" high tackle sanctions are unchanged.


The trial here is about changing attitudes and behaviours.

So far I have found it is going well. Time and more data may paint a different picture.

 

[Phil E]

That would be liable to be pinged here in Wales.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Would you like to clarify?

 

[Phil E]

Would you like to clarify?

The whole point of the image in post 43 was to show that the RFU are promoting an unsafe tackling technique (head on the wrong side). It was not about whether it was a legal tackle or not.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think the RFU (perhaps unwisely) are focusing on the point (that is tackle height) and not general tackle technique The Head at the front is legal, if stupid. But it does show where on the ball carrier is is OK or not ok to make contact so the point is made clearly.
In fact, it could be argued that, by using poor baisc technique the RFU have generated discussion around the picture that would have been quickly forgotten otherwise.

 

[didds]

In fact, it could be argued that, by using poor baisc technique the RFU have generated discussion around the picture that would have been quickly forgotten otherwise.

Yee....eee...sss... I do see your point entirely.
But The RFU ain't that smart...