Who'd ping this?

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Thanks for the help. You're in the staus quo.

I like it

I like it

I like it

I like it

I la la like it la la like......

 

[ChrisR]

NKW, BC and tackler are not considered in an identical manner because they don't perform identical roles. Within those roles each is considered equitably.

Yes, the BC can engage the tackler with his shoulder but for the most part he evades contact or deflects the force.

The tackler engages the BC with his shoulder, with the added requirement of grasping, but he never evades and his purpose is to deliver force to take the BC off his feet.

Different but equitable.

 

[Pegleg]

Thanks Guys interesting. I felt is to be ok but thought I might be out on a limb but no. Nice to receive confirmation.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

NKW, BC and tackler are not considered in an identical manner because they don't perform identical roles. Within those roles each is considered equitably.

Yes, the BC can engage the tackler with his shoulder but for the most part he evades contact or deflects the force.

The tackler engages the BC with his shoulder, with the added requirement of grasping, but he never evades and his purpose is to deliver force to take the BC off his feet.

Different but equitable.

Good agrument, (I have to write that so you do not check out) Tis odd isn't it that 2 restricitions are placed on tackler but not on ball carrier, 1. he must grasp, 2. he must not knock him down in the similar tactic that can be used against him. the ball carrier obviously can't grasp so he can knock him down

Safety is granted to ball carrier, presumably so they do not have to play with protective equip, by enforcing the grasp and not allowing a shoulder charge. Yet similar safety is not given to tackler. A BC second row could certainly knock a SH over and down. But that tackling SH cannot do the same. Priority is given to BC

Thanks Guys interesting. I felt is to be ok but thought I might be out on a limb but no. Nice to receive confirmation.

Thanks Pegleg, I'm glad your satisfied. Hell. Philly won't respond to me. Somehow the game has morphed to archaic laws that need not be enforced. Blow the whistle one way, not the other. Just do what 'everyone does", follow the crowd, blow the whistle cause rugbyrefs do,
based on my experience, blah, b;ah,blah

 

[RobLev]

Good agrument, (I have to write that so you do not check out) Tis odd isn't it that 2 restricitions are placed on tackler but not on ball carrier, 1. he must grasp, 2. he must not knock him down in the similar tactic that can be used against him. the ball carrier obviously can't grasp so he can knock him down

Safety is granted to ball carrier, presumably so they do not have to play with protective equip, by enforcing the grasp and not allowing a shoulder charge. Yet similar safety is not given to tackler. A BC second row could certainly knock a SH over and down. But that tackling SH cannot do the same. Priority is given to BC

...

I don't understand why you think the BC should be expected to grasp a tackler; for what purpose? The BC isn't tackling, he's being tackled. He doesn't want to stop and wrap up the tackler - he wants to get past him on his way to scoring a try. Where is the issue here?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I don't understand why you think the BC should be expected to grasp a tackler; for what purpose? The BC isn't tackling, he's being tackled. He doesn't want to stop and wrap up the tackler - he wants to get past him on his way to scoring a try. Where is the issue here?

The BC can knock over the tackler with a shoulder charge or a forearm ready to shove position, the tackler cannot presumably for the safety
of BC. Tackler, of course, must grasp. I can only assume to prevent gridiron style tackles gone awry or too frequent.

The BC can knock over a tackler, Tackler cannot do the same, peculiar

 

[OB..]

The BC can knock over a tackler, Tackler cannot do the same, peculiar

Not peculiar. As others have said the two players are looking to achieve different outcomes, so why expect them to be treated identically?

You are focussing narrowly on one aspect. Do you have a solution?

 

[Phil E]

Tackler, of course, must grasp.

ONLY if he is attempting a tackle.

He can push over the ball carrier, this is specifically allowed in the law. I have pointed this out to you a couple of times (including quoting the law), but you have chosen to ignore it completely and concentrate on your own POV.

 

[Pegleg]

The BC can knock over the tackler with a shoulder charge or a forearm ready to shove position, the tackler cannot presumably for the safety
of BC. Tackler, of course, must grasp. I can only assume to prevent gridiron style tackles gone awry or too frequent.

The BC can knock over a tackler, Tackler cannot do the same, peculiar

To make a tackle you must hold and take to ground. If you wish not to make a tackle there are other alternatives, as others have posted. See Phil's post. If you don't want to make tackle chose from the alternatives.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Not peculiar. As others have said the two players are looking to achieve different outcomes, so why expect them to be treated identically?

Both are competing for the ball, opportunity and tactics should be available to both

Not similar to a tackle that place near goal line, requires a release from tackler and yet allows tackled to reach out to goal line

You are focussing narrowly on one aspect. Do you have a solution?

No, Hmm, what if the "grasp" was removed from tackle , what is its intent anyway? I assume safety

We remember a time before the bold was added. Was there a time when ball carriers were expected to avoid contact and their charge was an offense? Beats me. Or did rugby add the bold words because the charge of B/C became commonplace and accepted?

(f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.

ONLY if he is attempting a tackle.

He can push over the ball carrier, this is specifically allowed in the law. I have pointed this out to you a couple of times (including quoting the law), but you have chosen to ignore it completely and concentrate on your own POV.

Good and thanks for pointing out that I'm a dumbshat.

What you are telling or what I'm understanding is a push is a legal defense

Now why would a defender attempt a tackle? Could he not shoulder charge (similar to grid iron tackle open field) extend his arms as if pushing or raise his forearm as if pushing? "Hey ref I was just pushing"

The tacklee would not have to release (no tackle), but he would be subject to releasing when shoulder charger straddles him and grasps the ball. Even better there would be no gate. Even better yet, let him get up, teammates could also join in the pushing from all angles, just like the bullies on the playground.
Original B/C teammates would be helpless as they cannot play the man without the ball.

I do not believe this, but the push (like the bandage in the video) is not permitted to defender. You are f'ing with me. I do not know why. It may be SW is welsh. It may be you are a grump set in his way, but you know the only reason IAW law or not for that bandage on this forearm is for contact just like he delivered. at this point in the thread;' if I were you I wouldn't admit it either

To make a tackle you must hold and take to ground. If you wish not to make a tackle there are other alternatives, as others have posted. See Phil's post. If you don't want to make tackle chose from the alternatives.

You had your doubts also, that is why you posted video. I answered your question with an alternate view. Allow a similar action by defenders will increase injuries and would be an accepted way to eliminate a good player for the day. In time it may become accepted as no one speaks up for fear of being outcast, just like the law change listed above when no one wanted to blow the whistle for a fend off.

 

[Pegleg]

You had your doubts also, that is why you posted video. I answered your question with an alternate view. Allow a similar action by defenders will increase injuries and would be an accepted way to eliminate a good player for the day. In time it may become accepted as no one speaks up for fear of being outcast, just like the law change listed above when no one wanted to blow the whistle for a fend off.

I think you'd do best not to make assumptions.

The Leinster player is not a tackler. The Cardiff player is. I'm asking to see if others agree that the Leinster player is legal. He certainly does not have to grasp (since a ball carrier wants to evade any tackle it would be a bit odd to expect him to hold the none tackler). - See further the hand off option!

The view expressed to me was that he was leading with the arm in a dangerous manner. I really fail to see your point.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I think you'd do best not to make assumptions.

Yep, I made 2. 1. that you read post #10 2. my writing skills could convey my thoughts


The Leinster player is not a tackler. The Cardiff player is. I'm asking to see if others agree that the Leinster player is legal. He certainly does not have to grasp (since a ball carrier wants to evade any tackle it would be a bit odd to expect him to hold the none tackler). - See further the hand off option! First to be a smart ass, there was never a tackle

.

I'm doing role reversal, not the intent of your thread I realize.

Would SW be allowed to deliver a similar push to B/C and not be liable to penalty. I said no and found this an inequality. My friend Phil said yes that as it was a push. I would find a similar blow by a defender as a charge. I also think that defender, given this ability to deliver similar contact should never attempt a tackle and physically defeat the opposition with collision type contact i.e. attempt to knock them out of the game.

The view expressed to me was that he was leading with the arm in a dangerous manner. I really fail to see your point.

I think it is legal under law, I do not think it would be legal for a defender. I think the B/C intentionally wears that padding specifically for just hat contact to get an edge.

 

[RobLev]

Both are competing for the ball, opportunity and tactics should be available to both

...

No, they're not. The ball carrier has the ball, and the tackler is trying to stop him and take the ball from him. It's not a symmetrical position.

 

[ChrisR]

NKW, have you recently traveled to Colorado?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

No, they're not. The ball carrier has the ball, and the tackler is trying to stop him and take the ball from him. It's not a symmetrical position.

OK. both want the ball

NKW, have you recently traveled to Colorado?

I stay clear of perceived norms and challenge them. My beliefs are irrelevant. I'm outside and wonder why the rest are inside.

I'm Kobe, I stay away from Colorado and its dumbshat voters

Marauder, I'm a WASP, past military, middle age, Sunday school teacher. I'm not using.

 

[ChrisR]

Maybe you should. I've heard that it helps befuddled persons gain extraordinary insights.

 

[RobLev]

OK. both want the ball


...

Yes; but only one actually has it.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

u go first

 

[Pegleg]

Sorry Kort But I'm struggling to understand your "logic". I think I'm not alone in this feeling. I'm out of this discussion. Good luck.

 

[OB..]

Both are competing for the ball

No.

The ball carrier already has it.
The tackler's primary aim is to stop him making ground, and only secondarily hoping that a successful tackle will enable his side to win the ball.

The roles are fundamentally distinct, but unless you agree to the starting point, we are never going to get to an agreed conclusion.