Cockers watch - he's not happy

[ourla]

So what about the current players who all disagreed with a red card? You know, the ones that make and take the hits?

It's clear from interviews from past and present players that they are not the best ones to judge what is safe for them and what isn't. I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed an opinion just that you have to take it in the context they are given. In their physical prime playing the game with passion and pride you could cut their leg off and they would still hobble back into position and look to carry on.

[JP14]

Speaking as a tall lad, it’s very difficult to bend down to hit other opponents. BFG’s argument is that players should be trained to bend lower, that’s easier said then done. There’s a ton you have to consider now when playing a rugby game, and now you suggest let’s topple that with drilling tall people into ducking lower into tackles. When you’re already at a point of heavy exertion the last thing you want to do is to bend your back even more. It will cause back issues later on in life when locks are having to do it every game for on average 8-10 years. Not sure Spencer had enough time to react to Taylor’s height either.

I agree about ruck clearouts etc however.

[kend]

Speaking as a tall lad, it’s very difficult to bend down to hit other opponents. BFG’s argument is that players should be trained to bend lower, that’s easier said then done. There’s a ton you have to consider now when playing a rugby game, and now you suggest let’s topple that with drilling tall people into ducking lower into tackles. When you’re already at a point of heavy exertion the last thing you want to do is to bend your back even more. It will cause back issues later on in life when locks are having to do it every game for on average 8-10 years. Not sure Spencer had enough time to react to Taylor’s height either.

I agree about ruck clearouts etc however.

Good point. The entire incident took place in (literally) a fraction of a second, Spencer had no time to adjust to Taylor's offload and body position. Taylor also crouches into the contact which makes it look a lot worse.

The current protocol doesn't prevent correctly executed "dominant tackles" (if Taylor had carried the ball Spencer would have caught him at chest/shoulder height, which, provided he doesn't slide upward to the head, is fine).

[BFG]

Speaking as a tall lad, it’s very difficult to bend down to hit other opponents. BFG’s argument is that players should be trained to bend lower, that’s easier said then done. There’s a ton you have to consider now when playing a rugby game, and now you suggest let’s topple that with drilling tall people into ducking lower into tackles. When you’re already at a point of heavy exertion the last thing you want to do is to bend your back even more. It will cause back issues later on in life when locks are having to do it every game for on average 8-10 years. Not sure Spencer had enough time to react to Taylor’s height either.

I agree about ruck clearouts etc however.

Good point. The entire incident took place in (literally) a fraction of a second, Spencer had no time to adjust to Taylor's offload and body position. Taylor also crouches into the contact which makes it look a lot worse.

The current protocol doesn't prevent correctly executed "dominant tackles" (if Taylor had carried the ball Spencer would have caught him at chest/shoulder height, which, provided he doesn't slide upward to the head, is fine).

Its not a good point.
It's not even an issue done correctly.
If you are going to try to snap a player in half with a tackle then do it right or don't do it at all.
The front on hit from the rushing defender has always run the risk of getting caught out by the changing angles of the attacker, it's nothing new really but the thing that has changed is the force of the impact on players, that's why the big clamp down on head contact.
It'd be good to get away from so much force, and players who can spend more time out on the grass doing rugby skills training rather than so much gym training.

[JP14]

Pratting around doing rugby skills doesn’t equal fitness I’m afraid, there should be the correct balance of gym time and field time.

[JP14]

Speaking as a tall lad, it’s very difficult to bend down to hit other opponents. BFG’s argument is that players should be trained to bend lower, that’s easier said then done. There’s a ton you have to consider now when playing a rugby game, and now you suggest let’s topple that with drilling tall people into ducking lower into tackles. When you’re already at a point of heavy exertion the last thing you want to do is to bend your back even more. It will cause back issues later on in life when locks are having to do it every game for on average 8-10 years. Not sure Spencer had enough time to react to Taylor’s height either.

I agree about ruck clearouts etc however.

Good point. The entire incident took place in (literally) a fraction of a second, Spencer had no time to adjust to Taylor's offload and body position. Taylor also crouches into the contact which makes it look a lot worse.

The current protocol doesn't prevent correctly executed "dominant tackles" (if Taylor had carried the ball Spencer would have caught him at chest/shoulder height, which, provided he doesn't slide upward to the head, is fine).

Its not a good point, in my opinion.
It's not even an issue done correctly.
If you are going to try to snap a player in half with a tackle then do it right or don't do it at all.
The front on hit from the rushing defender has always run the risk of getting caught out by the changing angles of the attacker, it's nothing new really but the thing that has changed is the force of the impact on players, that's why the big clamp down on head contact.
It'd be good to get away from so much force, and players who can spend more time out on the grass doing rugby skills training rather than so much gym training.

[TigerCam]

Our Richard is not happy with the officiating in the Pro14.

Sounds like he has a point to be fair.

Since when was Cockers ever happy?

[kend]

Speaking as a tall lad, it’s very difficult to bend down to hit other opponents. BFG’s argument is that players should be trained to bend lower, that’s easier said then done. There’s a ton you have to consider now when playing a rugby game, and now you suggest let’s topple that with drilling tall people into ducking lower into tackles. When you’re already at a point of heavy exertion the last thing you want to do is to bend your back even more. It will cause back issues later on in life when locks are having to do it every game for on average 8-10 years. Not sure Spencer had enough time to react to Taylor’s height either.

I agree about ruck clearouts etc however.

Good point. The entire incident took place in (literally) a fraction of a second, Spencer had no time to adjust to Taylor's offload and body position. Taylor also crouches into the contact which makes it look a lot worse.

The current protocol doesn't prevent correctly executed "dominant tackles" (if Taylor had carried the ball Spencer would have caught him at chest/shoulder height, which, provided he doesn't slide upward to the head, is fine).

Its not a good point.
It's not even an issue done correctly.
If you are going to try to snap a player in half with a tackle then do it right or don't do it at all.
The front on hit from the rushing defender has always run the risk of getting caught out by the changing angles of the attacker, it's nothing new really but the thing that has changed is the force of the impact on players, that's why the big clamp down on head contact.
It'd be good to get away from so much force, and players who can spend more time out on the grass doing rugby skills training rather than so much gym training.

I think you need to look at it again. Spencer doesn't try to snap the player in half, he steps in to make a tackle on the ball carrier heading in to space on his right. Taylor ships the ball and actually jumps into a crouch before Spencer hits him. If Taylor holds on to the ball Spencer makes a solid tackle around the chest/shoulder level. He has less than 1/3 of a second to make the call he does. What would you coach him to do? Stand off? Or step away and leave the tackle to the full back?

There have always been big units in rugby - Simon Shaw springs to mind - he was never a fellow to spend time in the gym! It will be interesting to see if the protocols make any difference. I agree with Jim Hamilton - the majority of concussions are a result of head on bone collisions (head, knee, hip) rather than the upright or 'seat belt' tackle.

[ellis9]

BFG I’ve been reading your posts over the past day or so and you seem to have a lot to say. I would be really interested to know your qualifications to offer such, how can I put this politely, advice.

I presume your are at least an ex national leagues player as well as being a level 4 coach

I'd gauge that you have posted more than me over this past week so I think it's a bit pompous of you to suggest that I have a lot to say which in turn could be misinterpreted as someone who has too much to say.
It's hypocritical of you to be honest.
I've never seen any proof of your qualifications.
If you read JP14's last response and addition to my last post on here I think you'll find that he/she is correct, it's not advice, it's an opinion.
I think it's pretty clear that some basic mistakes have been made over the weekend match, call it learning or whatever you like but I'm pretty angry given how many top coaches have already been sacked.
I don't really understand the opinion that it's unacceptable to lose away to Exeter and sack the coach after one match but it is acceptable to lose a match to Wasps that really should've been won were if not for questionable coaching decisions, no qualifications required, it just makes very little sense at present.
I personally don't believe the right man is in place but would be happy to be proved wrong!

MOC wasn't sacked just because of one match though. Not making the playoffs was the start of it and then after the season he came up with his own ideas of what to implement to make things better. He didn't go through with them and that was evident in the Exeter match. That's why he was sacked. In two weeks we have picked up 7 from 10 points. If MOC has still been at the club, we'd be lucky to have got 4.

[BFG]

Good point. The entire incident took place in (literally) a fraction of a second, Spencer had no time to adjust to Taylor's offload and body position. Taylor also crouches into the contact which makes it look a lot worse.

The current protocol doesn't prevent correctly executed "dominant tackles" (if Taylor had carried the ball Spencer would have caught him at chest/shoulder height, which, provided he doesn't slide upward to the head, is fine).

Its not a good point.
It's not even an issue done correctly.
If you are going to try to snap a player in half with a tackle then do it right or don't do it at all.
The front on hit from the rushing defender has always run the risk of getting caught out by the changing angles of the attacker, it's nothing new really but the thing that has changed is the force of the impact on players, that's why the big clamp down on head contact.
It'd be good to get away from so much force, and players who can spend more time out on the grass doing rugby skills training rather than so much gym training.

I think you need to look at it again. Spencer doesn't try to snap the player in half, he steps in to make a tackle on the ball carrier heading in to space on his right. Taylor ships the ball and actually jumps into a crouch before Spencer hits him. If Taylor holds on to the ball Spencer makes a solid tackle around the chest/shoulder level. He has less than 1/3 of a second to make the call he does. What would you coach him to do? Stand off? Or step away and leave the tackle to the full back?

There have always been big units in rugby - Simon Shaw springs to mind - he was never a fellow to spend time in the gym! It will be interesting to see if the protocols make any difference. I agree with Jim Hamilton - the majority of concussions are a result of head on bone collisions (head, knee, hip) rather than the upright or 'seat belt' tackle.

Yes I agree Spencer isn't trying to snap the player in half, I was more generalising about how players often approach that front on tackle with force.
It's unfortunate for Spencer but I don't really think being a big man is an acceptable excuse, it's certainly a contributing factor but for me rugby is about all shapes and sizes or it should be.
I don't think it's right to accept foul play based on the size factor, I'd prefer the game to be for all shapes and sizes and played within the laws.
We often see big men get caught out, Courtney Lawes is no stranger to a late looking hit, it's a fine line, its just my own opinion that big men like small men should be made to use any physical advantages properly.
Rugby union has gone a little bit off script regarding enforcing the laws to the fullest in my opinion but for the head contact issue I think it's a must that it is enforced.
Players will make mistakes but it was happening without punishment too often to the point that high tackling became the norm in my opinion.
I also think the authorities are very concerned about that potential one instance that doesn't end well and they want it dealt with, it's the right approach.

[BFG]

BFG I’ve been reading your posts over the past day or so and you seem to have a lot to say. I would be really interested to know your qualifications to offer such, how can I put this politely, advice.

I presume your are at least an ex national leagues player as well as being a level 4 coach

I'd gauge that you have posted more than me over this past week so I think it's a bit pompous of you to suggest that I have a lot to say which in turn could be misinterpreted as someone who has too much to say.
It's hypocritical of you to be honest.
I've never seen any proof of your qualifications.
If you read JP14's last response and addition to my last post on here I think you'll find that he/she is correct, it's not advice, it's an opinion.
I think it's pretty clear that some basic mistakes have been made over the weekend match, call it learning or whatever you like but I'm pretty angry given how many top coaches have already been sacked.
I don't really understand the opinion that it's unacceptable to lose away to Exeter and sack the coach after one match but it is acceptable to lose a match to Wasps that really should've been won were if not for questionable coaching decisions, no qualifications required, it just makes very little sense at present.
I personally don't believe the right man is in place but would be happy to be proved wrong!

MOC wasn't sacked just because of one match though. Not making the playoffs was the start of it and then after the season he came up with his own ideas of what to implement to make things better. He didn't go through with them and that was evident in the Exeter match. That's why he was sacked. In two weeks we have picked up 7 from 10 points. If MOC has still been at the club, we'd be lucky to have got 4.

Whoever was in place was going to find it difficult to make the play offs in my opinion.
Given the forward recruitment over the summer I thought it very unfair to sack MOC after one match.
I thought that recruitment looked to be paying off on Sunday, after a win against Falcons the Tigers were looking strong against Wasps even with a couple of injuries up front, but the opportunity was blown in my opinion.
I thought the players did all they could which has not always been the case.
As said I'd be happy to be proved wrong and the win/ loss ratio improved but after Sunday I am less confident for this season.

[kend]

I don't think it's right to accept foul play based on the size factor

Not suggesting for a second it is, but was Spencer intending to commit an act of foul play by hitting Taylor high? IMHO the answer to that is no. His intention was to make a dominant tackle and 'own the contact zone' or some such phrase. The circumstances changed too quickly for him to adjust. Was it a penalty? Certainly. Red card? Under the current guidelines, probably. But 8 times out of 10 Taylor carries the ball and Spencer makes a legal tackle at chest/shoulder height.

So what do you do as a coach? Do you tell players like Spencer to pull back from those type of contacts? Or live with the risk/benefit model of dominant tackling? Genuine question.

I bet there are coaches working out how to get their ball carriers lower in contact (let's call it 'compact in the contact zone'!) because there is a good chance the oppo go to 14!

Whether it is the right approach remains to be seen. If concussion rates fall in a statistically significant way then it is entirely justifiable. However it is possible that pushing players lower causes other issues (contact with knees/hips) which keeps the stats level. I suspect the refereeing approach will moderate through the season because these things generally do. Either through practice or someone high profile (Sam Whitelock perhaps) gets caught by it and people with more influence than Murphy get upset.

[BFG]

I don't think it's right to accept foul play based on the size factor

Not suggesting for a second it is, but was Spencer intending to commit an act of foul play by hitting Taylor high? IMHO the answer to that is no. His intention was to make a dominant tackle and 'own the contact zone' or some such phrase. The circumstances changed too quickly for him to adjust. Was it a penalty? Certainly. Red card? Under the current guidelines, probably. But 8 times out of 10 Taylor carries the ball and Spencer makes a legal tackle at chest/shoulder height.

So what do you do as a coach? Do you tell players like Spencer to pull back from those type of contacts? Or live with the risk/benefit model of dominant tackling? Genuine question.

I bet there are coaches working out how to get their ball carriers lower in contact (let's call it 'compact in the contact zone'!) because there is a good chance the oppo go to 14!

Whether it is the right approach remains to be seen. If concussion rates fall in a statistically significant way then it is entirely justifiable. However it is possible that pushing players lower causes other issues (contact with knees/hips) which keeps the stats level. I suspect the refereeing approach will moderate through the season because these things generally do. Either through practice or someone high profile (Sam Whitelock perhaps) gets caught by it and people with more influence than Murphy get upset.

It doesn't have to be intentional to be an offence, this is what many people aren't realising.
The fact is he made contact with the head with force and it's the law that contact with the head with force is a red card.
Take the force out and it's not a red card.
It's designed to reduce impacts on the brain, that can only be a good thing in my opinion.
Regarding coaching I suppose you set up how you wish and stand or fall by it but I think if it brings more of a drift defence back instead of the rush defence then that is a good thing to also to reduce impacts, it'd be good to be able to do both right at the right time.

[Scuttle]

Just to lighten the mood a bit.....I know what the authorities should do...given most chest high tackles will be to take man and ball and prevent the offload they should ban the offload in the tackle. That way tacklers only need to tackle round the legs or waist and if the tackled player stays standing it is a maul and if they go to ground it is a ruck. Simple.
Oh and if the judgement of whether an offload occurs becomes too subjective the TMO can always ask the ref to TAKE ANOTHER LOOK!

[Mark62]

There are ways of going about arguing, just had two examples of not doing it well. My only concern is that this forum goes the way it did a few years ago with a few posters trading nasty insults, as did the UnOffy.

BFG questioned Hayes ability as a player and Murphy and Stanko decisions as coaches. I simply asked what qualifications he had to make the statements he did against a professional player and 2 professional coaches.
Unfortunately rather than simply answering the questions he chose to throw his toys out of the pram.
Actions speak louder than words