[Tackle] Wales v All Blacks U20 - how is this not a red card?

[Arabcheif]

Ok, but the all-black lad slows his run down too. The body position of the tacklers are practically identical. The difference is the body position of the catchers. In your video, he's standing with his shoulder turned as his defence, the Welsh lad is both bent at the knees and leaning forward too. The tackler has timed his run and tackle impeccably.

Let's use your video to argue a hypothetical case. Let say the tackler lines up the catcher, at the last moment the catcher lowers his head to be in line with the incoming tackle. With the above arguments, your text book tackle has just become a RC offence. Bearing in mind the tackler is committed and can't withdraw from the tackle.

 

[Phil E]

If you tackle around the chest and the ball carrier dips or stumbles you are going to make contact with the head, and that's an offence. It doesn't really matter whether you agree with it or not, that's the law.

If you tackle high, you take the risk.

If you tackle at waist height you wont have a problem.

 

[Arabcheif]

Ok so let's lower the legal tackle height to the waist. For the record your not always going to make contact with the head if you aim for the chest. I regularly tackle (relying on my size than good technique) and make contact with the chest area. Not once have I made contact with the head.

I line up a waist high tackle and the BC dips forward and low or stumbles, there's still the potential for head contact. So this waist high tackle is a RC if the BC dips into the tackle head first too.

 

[thepercy]

Non sequitur. Your reply to my post is unrelated.

Can you not understand that a tackle may end up being dangerous even though it was not INITIATED in a dangerous manner?

Can you not understand that a tackle technique that is flawed may not necessarily result in a dangerous tackle?

If you and thePercy had actually read and thought about what I posted instead of firing off the first thing that came into your head, you might have stood a chance of understanding these things.

Some examples are

A tackle that starts low and rides up = technique OK, but high so ruled dangerous!
Hurdling a tackler = a flawed technique that isn't inherently dangerous play, until you end up kicking someone in the head!

I'll repeat what I said earlier; hopefully, you will actually read it this time, and understand what I'm getting at - "this lad does have a problem with his tackling technique that needs addressing. Nothing wrong with his positioning in the tackle; leading with the shoulder with arms out ready to wrap and hammering the opponent hard. Its his action of launching himself at the opponent that is the problem. It means he's out of control and there is no margin for error, and no way to pull out if the opponent does something unexpected."

A flawed tackling technique is not an infringement, but it increases the risk of something going wrong. didds gets it, a few others get it... I can't understand why you two don't.

I'm glad that you didn't feel like you needed to be condescending:biggrin:

For me he was reckless, because he went chest high and launched himself, now this doesn't mean he will necessarily be guilty of FP, but he is putting himself at risk of being liable to PK because he is out of control. I don't think it is safe, for the tackler, because he can't adjust if needed, risking leaving his team down a man, and as you stated might miss the tackle altogether, and it's not safe for his a opponent, because he can't adjust to the ball carriers actions. I still don't understand (and likely won't through any LMGTFY), how you think he can initiate a safe tackle that is at least marginally reckless, and out of control. Safe does not always mean legal, and vice versa.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ok, but the all-black lad slows his run down too. The body position of the tacklers are practically identical. The difference is the body position of the catchers. In your video, he's standing with his shoulder turned as his defence, the Welsh lad is both bent at the knees and leaning forward too. The tackler has timed his run and tackle impeccably.

Let's use your video to argue a hypothetical case. Let say the tackler lines up the catcher, at the last moment the catcher lowers his head to be in line with the incoming tackle. With the above arguments, your text book tackle has just become a RC offence. Bearing in mind the tackler is committed and can't withdraw from the tackle.

This where head up eyes on target comes into it. Compare the videos. Finau lowers his head early, he's already head down charging, arms out a metre away, while Kahui keeps his eye on AAC. He's almost on top of AAC, almost stationary and still looking at him, only putting his head down at the last possible moment before he has to in order to make the tackle.

The window of opportunity for the BC to do something unexpected is far narrower for Kahui.

 

[damo]

The chart says no mitigation can be considered if Aggravating factors exist. Aggravating factors = "if the tackler and BC are in open space and the tackler has clear line of sight and time before the contact".

That is clearly not the case here.