[Tackle] What's wrong with this?

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The number of people I've seen on American rugby fora/Facebook pages saying that the tackle had "great form"...

And we wonder why concussion can be such an issue

Nothing could be more true about tackling, especially in US

At one point in video and actually at freeze pt. from Rushforth video, the top of the head is heading toward the BC chest. Gridiron players at one time not so long ago were coached to put head on ball. This was in hopes of creating a fumble. There have been articles recently that youth football is promoting a tackle similar to rugby with head behind. My guess is that it is just articles and coaches go to the old standard and how they were taught.

I still see gridiron style tackles, I can't find anything illegal as far as rugby law. But these players don't seem to stick around very long with head dings that take place.

Perhaps you may have noticed Nate Ebner in the Olympics. I could see his gridiron style tackle. Obviously that is his profession and adapting for the short term would require an almost entire makeover

 

[Paule23]

....but again I heard no complaints.

Nor should you, ever. Unfortunately that is not the current state of the game (but well done to your players in this case).

 

[L'irlandais]

It wasn't for any repeat offense; although he didn't use the term "shoulder charge" I think this is what he gave the card for. Even if that is not what he saw in the replay, it is what he gave the card for.

[LAWS]Law 10.4 (a)
A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).[/LAWS]Sanction PK

I feel the deciding factor for him was that "il y a de la vitesse". (Don't think this translates simply as "speed"), searching for a suitable word in English to cover it. Almost as if he's confusing it with the reckless tackle guidelines of September 2016

The laws of physics tell us that the force of a tackle, or hit, depends on three factors: body weight, speed and how quickly the players stop moving.

...players are taught to get low, keep their head behind the ball carrier, hit with their shoulders, and then grasp the ball carrier’s legs and bring them to the ground.

Telegraph article

perhaps considerable force is the word.

 

[pombok]

Jack Nowell does this on purpose too. If tackling an opposition winger he will come in at 90 degrees to the winger and tackle with his head on the winger's thigh. When the winger goes down Jack can be up in a flash and in the correct position to steal the ball. It's quite effective although not without risk. Perhaps that awful blue scrumcap does serve a purpose!

 

[crossref]

http://rugbyonslaught.com/warning-incomprehensible-yellow-card-will-100-make-shout-off-off/

 

[beckett50]

Absolutely ridiculous decision.

 

[didds]

Jack Nowell does this on purpose too. If tackling an opposition winger he will come in at 90 degrees to the winger and tackle with his head on the winger's thigh. When the winger goes down Jack can be up in a flash and in the correct position to steal the ball. It's quite effective although not without risk. Perhaps that awful blue scrumcap does serve a purpose!

something else must be happening if JN's head isn't stuck underneath the fallen player though.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

It wasn't for any repeat offense; although he didn't use the term "shoulder charge" I think this is what he gave the card for. Even if that is not what he saw in the replay, it is what he gave the card for.

You show me a player who tackles ferociously with only his arms (NO shoulder contact), and I'll show you a player who, at some point in time very soon, is certainly going to break an arm.

Tacking in rugby requires the use of the top of the shoulder with the arms out in a position to wrap, and where the point of the shoulder is not presented to the opponent. This differs from the shoulder charge (SBW style) where the point of the shoulder impacts the opponent. The latter is dangerous the former is not.

 

[VM75]

You show me a player who tackles ferociously with only his arms (NO shoulder contact), and I'll show you a player who, at some point in time very soon, is certainly going to break an arm.

Tacking in rugby requires the use of the top of the shoulder with the arms out in a position to wrap, and where the point of the shoulder is not presented to the opponent. This differs from the shoulder charge (SBW style) where the point of the shoulder impacts the opponent. The latter is dangerous the former is not.

I Agree

However WR [in an effort to reduce concussions] said via their Chairman that they wanted to see tackling approach changes ..... they actually said the new Reckless classification would "lead to changes in playing or training practices."

I'm not seeing much change to the way that tackles are being approached in Pro-rugby, over here recently a Gloucester#11 drove his head into Exeter#15 [Stenson] who went off for a HIA & yet G#11 was cleared at citing despite it being head on face contact & meeting all WR definition of reckless in their Law change & press release.

If you arrive high up on the chest & lead with your head towards the head of your opponent then you are still tackling dangerously [IMHO], we see heads being used as a tackling 'weapon' far to often.

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree with VM75. This time last year the following video announced fundamental changes
Rugby Dump WR video

Yet practically all Unions/Elite squads have paid little more than lip-service to those proposed changes. A good example is the pitchside concussion check. Medically this is a benchmark for the patient/player's progress back to play over the coming weeks. However coaching staff are using it to say the player is clear to return to the field of play, despite independent doctors saying this is a complete misunderstanding/misuse of the benchmark. Assuming (I know, it is wrong to do so) coaching staff are reasonably intelligent, then it can only mean winning is more important to them than player welfare. Which in turn means they are the wrong people for the job. The head injury assessment and decision to return to the fray needs to be taken out of their hands altogether.

Even this WR video is incorrect in its content.
The HIA i, HIA II and HIA III are relevant only if the player has not been clearly seen to be disorientated on the pitch. Taking off a player who has clearly had a possible concussion is definitive, then it is no longer possible to return that player to the game. Just because two minutes later he can stand/hop on one leg or remember the date, is hardly being very scientific. Yet all year team doctors have being doing just that. Saying he passed his HIA 1 he is clear to return is wrong, if the player had any signs or symptoms of a concussion. Given that the player was sidelined for the very reason we suspect he may have suffered a concussion, this makes a nonsense of the protocol.

 

[crossref]

irandais - you are insufficiently cynical ! The whole point of the pitchside HIA is to enable players with suspected/mild concussion to keep playing.

In any game without HIA, ie all the games that we on this forum ref - all these players would be automatically taken off the pitch and no one would even complain.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Coming to this a little late. It looked perfectly legal to me from all angles and speeds. Ridiculous decision compounded by the fact that not one player reacted during the phase of play. As for the leading with the shoulder debate, surely the shoulder is the first thing that makes contact in a "correct" tackle.
The Leigh Halfpenny head on the wrong side is interesting. Usually caused when you are trying to protect the weaker/injured shoulder, trust me I tackled like that for the last 15 years of my playing career after buggering up my left shoulder. never really tackled on that side agin and when you see players like halfpenny doing that I'm convinced that is why.
.

 

[oddshapedball]

I don't think the referee thought it was reckless initially as he was quite happy to play on and only stopped on the TMO recommendation.

Had a similar situation in a local game I was playing in. Gold 10 put high kick in and Red 14 jumped to catch the ball. Gold 8 slowed his run slightly and nailed Red 14 as soon as he landed. Looked a perfectly valid tackle but referee penalised Gold 8 and said it was potentially dangerous because Red 14 had no time to set himself for the hit. (I was not Gold 8!).

 

[didds]

referee penalised Gold 8 and said it was potentially dangerous because Red 14 had no time to set himself for the hit. (I was not Gold 8!).

bloody ridiculous.

didds

 

[Pedro]

A good friend is the fitness and conditioning coach at Pau - Apparently the management team at Pau were as surprised as anyone at the YC - as they coach their players to tackle in exactly the same way.

 

[liversedge]

I don't agree with the decision but can see the tackler leads with his head.

Its curious, because this would lead to a sanction in NFL as it is made more dangerous as they wear helmets.

Perhaps the ref fancies a job in the US

Mark

 

[Richard smith]

very little from my viewing of the clip
Its not laws definition of high due to the fact the contact is into the chest area of the ball carrier.
The tackler has made every effort to use his arms in the tackle
so in my opinion there is nothing wrong with the hit made in the clip shown