debate about high tackling

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

wellstiger
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:56 am

debate about high tackling

Post by wellstiger » Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:50 am

I understand the need for player welfare regarding this issue.

Saw the pundits on ITV debating this issue - they were stating that NO TACKLE SHOULD BE ATTEMPTED ABOVE THE WAIST LINE.
This is to protect from Head /neck injuries.
I have seen players with the ball now anticipating the hard hit and dropping into the tackle.

Secondly if we do rid above waist tackling from the game what happens when tackler hits head on knee or boot.
Do we then rid tackling altogether and have touch rugby.

I feel at present we need to protect players within the physical aspects of the game.
Sirs and TMO are struggling with this and some high hits are being missed ,some overly punished and at present I feel you have a better chance of winning the Lottery.

Tiglon
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2099
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by Tiglon » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:41 pm

I think the logic is this:

Use the laws to stop players going near other players' heads, let the players' own sense of self-preservation stop them from putting their own heads in danger.

Might work, might not.

Scott1
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:03 pm

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by Scott1 » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:49 pm

Nipple line down simples ,waist down is asking for more trouble

JP14
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5787
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:37 am
Location: Neverland

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by JP14 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:12 am

Underhill has had constant concussions tackling at the waist, also when a Rory Arnold has to tackle Cheslin Kolbe do you really expect him to be able to bend down and tackle him at the waist?
"Our Greatest Glory Is Not In Never Failing, But In Rising Every Time We Fall" Confucius

BengalTiger
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:16 am

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by BengalTiger » Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:38 am

For me this is not about tackling it is about hits, which to me, have been confused.

Tackling is getting the ball carrier down to ground using the arms, hits are knocking the player backward using anything available, more of the former and less of the second will return the game to normal players not just the heavily muscled beasts that are now dominating the game!

A bit more flare and a bit less grunt would make it a safer game and better to watch.

IMHO!!

jgriffin
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7112
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: On the edge of oblivion

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by jgriffin » Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:07 pm

BengalTiger wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:38 am
For me this is not about tackling it is about hits, which to me, have been confused.

Tackling is getting the ball carrier down to ground using the arms, hits are knocking the player backward using anything available, more of the former and less of the second will return the game to normal players not just the heavily muscled beasts that are now dominating the game!

A bit more flare and a bit less grunt would make it a safer game and better to watch.

IMHO!!
Just had this debate at school about the pro game being about contact, the amateur about eluding; the former begats big lumps, the latter more aerobic types. Still miss the speed of the old tackle-down- clear out - ball gone tempo, just not the stamping. And as far as tackles - match shirts with a luminescent band at boob height might help judgement.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.

strawclearer
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3958
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:13 am

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by strawclearer » Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:21 pm

BengalTiger wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:38 am
For me this is not about tackling it is about hits, which to me, have been confused.

Tackling is getting the ball carrier down to ground using the arms, hits are knocking the player backward using anything available, more of the former and less of the second will return the game to normal players not just the heavily muscled beasts that are now dominating the game!

A bit more flare and a bit less grunt would make it a safer game and better to watch.

IMHO!!
Yes, Yes and thrice YES! :smt023
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Stay Home>Protect The NHS>Save Lives

Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by Mark62 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:32 pm

BengalTiger wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:38 am
For me this is not about tackling it is about hits, which to me, have been confused.

Tackling is getting the ball carrier down to ground using the arms, hits are knocking the player backward using anything available, more of the former and less of the second will return the game to normal players not just the heavily muscled beasts that are now dominating the game!

A bit more flare and a bit less grunt would make it a safer game and better to watch.

IMHO!!
Totally agree with this and not just the force but the speed too.
I was thinking about when I was taught to tackle many moons ago. From the side it was shoulder to the top of the thigh, side of the face to the buttock, and squeeze arms around legs squeezing and sliding down till he falls over.
Head on, head to the side contact with him shoulder around the belly button and drive up and through so the bloke falls backwards.
IMO tackles, and the technique of hitting and wrapping has come about as the off load has become more prevalent in the game, and the need to stop this, I certainly think is what happened to the Irish player.
We don’t want to stop off loads, so tackle height and technique needs looking at, before a neck is badly broken or worse.

The skill level in the Japan v Scotland game was huge but I don’t remember any dangerous tackles, just the odd so called seat belt

JP14
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5787
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:37 am
Location: Neverland

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by JP14 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:57 pm

Ahh the cheek-to-cheek!
"Our Greatest Glory Is Not In Never Failing, But In Rising Every Time We Fall" Confucius

Tiglon
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2099
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by Tiglon » Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:58 am

Mark62 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:32 pm
BengalTiger wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:38 am
For me this is not about tackling it is about hits, which to me, have been confused.

Tackling is getting the ball carrier down to ground using the arms, hits are knocking the player backward using anything available, more of the former and less of the second will return the game to normal players not just the heavily muscled beasts that are now dominating the game!

A bit more flare and a bit less grunt would make it a safer game and better to watch.

IMHO!!
Totally agree with this and not just the force but the speed too.
I was thinking about when I was taught to tackle many moons ago. From the side it was shoulder to the top of the thigh, side of the face to the buttock, and squeeze arms around legs squeezing and sliding down till he falls over.
Head on, head to the side contact with him shoulder around the belly button and drive up and through so the bloke falls backwards.
IMO tackles, and the technique of hitting and wrapping has come about as the off load has become more prevalent in the game, and the need to stop this, I certainly think is what happened to the Irish player.
We don’t want to stop off loads, so tackle height and technique needs looking at, before a neck is badly broken or worse.

The skill level in the Japan v Scotland game was huge but I don’t remember any dangerous tackles, just the odd so called seat belt
You didn't see the head on head tackle? Surely more dangerous than any shoulder on head tackle yet bizarrely completely legal according to the ref.

Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by Mark62 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:11 am

Now you say it yes I remember but maybe more of a clash of heads ??

loretta
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:31 pm
Location: With the PFJ

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by loretta » Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:39 am

Mark62 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:11 am
Now you say it yes I remember but maybe more of a clash of heads ??
Frankly, in the current climate, I was expecting a red. The tackler has the duty of care to make sure an impact with the head doesn’t happen. If he fails, especially with force, a red now seems to be the standard response. Spencer tackle on Taylor, for example. Gray wasn’t swinging around the player or blindsided, it was straight head on head. He was lucky not to get an early bath.
I find your lack of faith......disturbing.

Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by Mark62 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:03 am

loretta wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:39 am
Mark62 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:11 am
Now you say it yes I remember but maybe more of a clash of heads ??
Frankly, in the current climate, I was expecting a red. The tackler has the duty of care to make sure an impact with the head doesn’t happen. If he fails, especially with force, a red now seems to be the standard response. Spencer tackle on Taylor, for example. Gray wasn’t swinging around the player or blindsided, it was straight head on head. He was lucky not to get an early bath.
Agree with what you say, but Mr Berry, who I thought had an excellent game, thought differently, and not aware of any citing.

Nic Berry unlucky not to get one of the quarter finals imho

wellstiger
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:56 am

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by wellstiger » Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:29 pm

This is the fiasco around what is legal/illegal,

What is acceptable challenge/unacceptable challenge.
Some Sirs/TMO letting it go - others penalising no yellow, some yellow and others red.

If they are having a time singing from the same hymn sheet - how can players adapt their game - Lottery

Quoting the rule book after the event in chat forums and by Tv pundits doesn't equate to what we see on pitch.

All this confusion---(-must go to an insurance site )

Yes all players have been coached regarding tackling - and as quoted, from juniors upwards, but heat of battle and all that !!!!!!

Jimmy Skitz
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2059
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: Thurnby Lodge

Re: debate about high tackling

Post by Jimmy Skitz » Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:33 pm

they need to also write into Rugby law that lowering and leading with your head as the ball carrier is a penalty and yellow card if there is contact head to head, if you are asking tacklers to get lower, rightly, then ball carriers cannot be allowed to effectively cheat by putting their head at the height of the tackle

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Crofty, johnthegriff, JP14, Leicestertinytiger and 2 guests