What impact will new tackle law/interpretation have?

[wixfjord]

New tackle law/interpretation fully came into effect on Jan 3rd, designed to clamp down on high, dangerous “hits”. Can't find exact wording, but essentially a tackle will be ruled reckless if the tackler knew, or should have known, there was a chance of making contact with the head.

Likely to be refereed very harshly for next two rounds of Europe certainly.
It may suit us somewhat in that in Ringrose, ROL, Isa, Reid, VDF etc we have plenty of speedy guys with good footwork and low centres of gravity who may draw cards.
Might also stop any pre-meditated attacks on Sexton.

Interesting piece here from Rob Kitson (which is something I say very rarely!) who thinks it might increase the propensity of offloads.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... are_btn_tw

What impact do people think it will have?

[neiliog93]

Could incentivise players leading with the head into contact, looking for penalties or an unsure tackler. I'm gonna be a bit controversial here but many rugby concussions are either no one's fault or the fault of the ball carrier who carries low and leads with the head.

[johng]

Has to result in lower tackling and therefore more offloads. Could be good for fans of free flowing rugby. (Without reading that article)

Negative side might be players dipping into contact.

[Oldschool]

The end of the "choke" tackle - which NZ and OZ hated (That's what I read somewhere or other BTW).

[simonokeeffe]

The end of the "choke" tackle - which NZ and OZ hated (That's what I read somewhere or other BTW).

I dont think so as its more chest on chest and if the guy (tackled) stays upright its ok
more likely to annoy the antipodeans with more yellows for swinging arms and high to higher angle hits

[Ruckedtobits]

The end of the "choke" tackle - which NZ and OZ hated (That's what I read somewhere or other BTW).

Unlikely. Much more likely to lead to increased coaching of tackling with either shoulder and targeted below the waist,particularly outside the "Red Zone". All Coaches will confirm that there is nothing more frustrating that being whistled for a lazy high tackle in a mid-field area where no real threat exists and ending up defending a line-out maul deep in Red Zone.

It is for real situations like this that Coaches will really focus on this Law Change immediately. They recognise that only one or two referees in the world will continue to make discretionary decisions re what might be an 'accidental' high tackle. From this week on, refs will blow everything for Penalties and / or Yellow Cards, in the certain knowledge that they will be applauded by Assessors, Media, World Rugby and the majority of (opposing / non-infringing team) fans.

It could mean a couple of months with a lot of random penalties where sloppy tackles and neck-roll clearouts get blown willy nilly and Yellow Cards multiply until players realise totally that this isn't a "fad" like putting the ball in straight to the scrum. This is here to stay and for the majority of NH players, tackling technique will have to improve to facilitate the new rulings

Administrators are scared sh#*less that unless high hits and head hits are excluded from play, the game will face concussion related litigation on a worldwide scale. Unlike NFL, rugby doesn't generate the money to afford the potential payouts.

[ribs]

It could mean a couple of months with a lot of random penalties where sloppy tackles and neck-roll clearouts get blown willy nilly and Yellow Cards multiply until players realise totally that this isn't a "fad" like putting the ball in straight to the scrum. This is here to stay and for the majority of NH players, tackling technique will have to improve to facilitate the new rulings

why do I feel that we (Leinster and Ireland) will end up on the wrong side of some questionable cards in the next months? We always have in the past when law changes have happened, though hopefully Leo and Joe smarts will prevent it.

Is diving an offense (like that infamous Stringer roll)? Defending a rolling maul and facing the stooped over opposition pack waiting for a head contact? collapsed scrums? Hacking at a ball on the ground?

You are correct that it will settle down and become a good and necessary law in a few months, but I don't want to miss out on a Grand Slam or trip to Edinburgh in the meantime.

[wixfjord]

Piece from Darce on the new rules here, in which he drags up that horrible memory of the miss on Rougerie: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/g ... -1.2924806

Interesting to hear him single out Leavy's tackling, must say I hadn't noticed this too much.

[Oldschool]

Piece from Darce on the new rules here, in which he drags up that horrible memory of the miss on Rougerie: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/g ... -1.2924806

Interesting to hear him single out Leavy's tackling, must say I hadn't noticed this too much.

D'Arcy just gave a very good example of why the "choke" tackle will be under pressure.

[simonokeeffe]

Barry O'Driscoll did an interetsing interview on off the ball and said only 25% of the head knocks from tackles are to the tackled player. We dont need to dig up the concussion issue but the interview is worht a listen

Upward angle tackles are going to be a no no as are trying to hit the ball/that area when its held chest high
Accidental high tackles (eg carrier slipping) will be a penalty

[jezzer]

Players will be wary about front-facing, chest-high wrap-up tackles without their technique being spot on. Not in every situation, but in those high-speed ones or where either tackler or carrier are coming in at an angle. And we'll definitely see carriers ducking into contact more. It's a really cheap advantage to buy your team and you don't have to get your head ripped off doing it. Leinster/Ireland have been milking the "taking the player out in the air" law for a few years - this law will get milked also.

I'd love to think that it's going to give rise to this new open-flowing BaaBaas rugby as Kitson thinks, but that's a load of bollix. Coaches hate tackles from the side where the carrier gets over the gainline. They want collisions. They want the player sent backwards. POC has a bit on this in his (mostly dreary) book. That insistence on front-up tackles might weaken a bit, but it isn't going to change the sport or any such cr@p.

As for stopping offloads, the wrap-up tackle isn't the only way. Anyone still having nightmares over Wales beating us in the RWC will remember how effective a chop tackle is at ending a phase stone dead.

So, it'll have a minor effect on tackling technique which might become major if a lot of ballcarriers duck to buy cards. There might be a little improvement in offloading until players switch to chop tackles.

But here's the interesting "law of unintended consequences" bit. You try going low on Basteraud in full gallop and you're going to get a mouthful of high-velocity knees. We're going to see an uptick in head injuries on tacklers trying to take these really big beasts down without the chest-high gang-tackle. Talk about "proper technique" all you want, but there will be blood. Jonny Wilkinson had some of the best tackle technique ever seen in the game, but he got minced over time from hitting these big carriers low.

SO, basically, unless there's a switch in defensive systems where the chop tackle becomes the staple (which I doubt will happen), there'll be no big overhaul by the tackling side. And regardless of that, the idea that it'll be an offloading free-for-all for the carrying side is a joke.

The things I'll be watching out for are carriers ducking on purpose and head injuries when tacklers go low on the monster carriers.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I'm sure it's different now but when I started playing the ONLY way we were taught to tackle was from the side and I think World Rugby have a very innocent/misguided/deluded view that that's the way things are supposed to be and that's what this new law will ensure becomes the norm.

I really think World Rugby have overreacted to the poor optics of all the concussion incidents over the last few years and focused entirely on the impact itself rather than the root cause. For example, I reckon (and I might be wrong but I think they need to look at this kind of thing regardless) that being stricter on the offside line would help enormously. Defences would be more passive and therefore tackles would generally be lower. Think about it, how many big/high collisions do we see once an attacking team gets over the gain line and the defence is on the back foot?

Essentially they've brought in unnecessary and complicated amendments that could just have fallen under the umbrella of foul play IMO. Enforcing previous laws was more the issue in my book. Whatever about amateur rugby, all the pro leagues and international tournaments should have officials capable of ruling correctly on incidents such as Reidy's tackle on Friday night. We all know it wasn't bad, but the rules say it was. Nonsense.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

And we'll definitely see carriers ducking into contact more.

I think that's exactly what we saw with Rhys on Friday. Apparently there were 5 concussions in the Gloucester game on Saturday, and while watching the Wasps Leicester game yesterday I saw Haskell knocked out, Gopperth and Daly clashing heads when they both went low to tackle someone (and clearly both needing a HIA although think they both stayed on), and a Leicester player had to go off for a HIA late on too. It's a shambles.

I was full sure that there'd be some shocking calls made as a result of the new amendments, but that would actually be okay if it meant that the number of incidents of concussion decreased, but they won't. They have made a half assed/reactive attempt to solve concussion by looking at it in a bubble (the bubble being the impact itself).

[fourthirtythree]

I wonder what evidence they were working off to come to the conclusion that high tackles were the guilty party for concussions? It wouldn't have occurred to me as being top of the list to clamp down on to be honest. Big front up tackles and knees seem more problematic in normal play.

Sure we see no arms clearouts and swings like Hartley's on O'Brien leading to HIAs but they are so clearly illegal there was no real need to do anything.

It does seem more like PR than MD advice.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Is this new law not an obvious answer to the likes of what we saw Sam Cane do to our Robbie in the Aviva, and other such skullduggery where the tackle "slides up" from just below head level to almost knocking someone's head off.

For a long time, these big intimidating hits have been used to make a statement by teams willing to go that "extra mile" when it comes to physicality.

From looking at rugby my feeling is that more concussions are caused to the tackling player than to the tackled player, but this does not mean that a law shouldn't made or changed or reinterpreted or enforced to discourage tackles "sliding up"



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jezzer]

Is this new law not an obvious answer to the likes of what we saw Sam Cane do to our Robbie in the Aviva, and other such skullduggery where the tackle "slides up" from just below head level to almost knocking someone's head off.

For a long time, these big intimidating hits have been used to make a statement by teams willing to go that "extra mile" when it comes to physicality.

From looking at rugby my feeling is that more concussions are caused to the tackling player than to the tackled player, but this does not mean that a law shouldn't made or changed or reinterpreted or enforced to discourage tackles "sliding up"



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally agree on the theory of what you're saying but if the new interpretation inevitably causes more low tackles which in turn causes more concussion for tackling players, then it was a failure in protecting players.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Is this new law not an obvious answer to the likes of what we saw Sam Cane do to our Robbie in the Aviva, and other such skullduggery where the tackle "slides up" from just below head level to almost knocking someone's head off.

For a long time, these big intimidating hits have been used to make a statement by teams willing to go that "extra mile" when it comes to physicality.

From looking at rugby my feeling is that more concussions are caused to the tackling player than to the tackled player, but this does not mean that a law shouldn't made or changed or reinterpreted or enforced to discourage tackles "sliding up"



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally agree on the theory of what you're saying but if the new interpretation inevitably causes more low tackles which in turn causes more concussion for tackling players, then it was a failure in protecting players.

I'm not sure that tackling low with good technique will lead to an increase in head injuries, just look at Dan Leavy's low tackle technique. Also, was a player not cited and banned earlier this season for bringing his knees up in the tackle (can't remember off hand who it was), so there are tools in place already to govern reckless behaviour by the player to be tackled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jezzer]

All the technique in the world and guys like Basteraud, Nadolo and all the other oversized athletes will still be very hard to bring down.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

That's the problem, you're looking at it in isolation and imagining that everyone is acting correctly. What if two players tackle low? What if the ball carrier dips down? What if they brace for impact with their forearm/elbow? What if there's a massive size difference like Nadolo on someone like Luke McGrath this week?

There seems to no emphasis on the ball carrier making the tackle situation better and to me that's just totally wrong. I can also see this leading to players (like McGrath on Nadolo) getting their head on the wrong side because they'll just have to launch themselves at the ball carrier, and to me that's one of the most dangerous tackles of all.

[johng]

All the technique in the world and guys like Basteraud, Nadolo and all the other oversized athletes will still be very hard to bring down.

No matter how big they are if you can pin their ankles together they are going down. The bigger they are and the faster they are traveling, the harder and quicker they fall.

You do have to be a brave player with good technique of course.

As an oversized schoolboy there was always a little spindly full back who could take advantage of this physics. Having said that. Basteraud and Nandolo have a lot more experience at getting past said full backs.