Tigers vs Wasps - 15th Feb

[Mark62]

It may be a one eyed view but imo Healey and Kay go out of their way to be harsh on Leicester when summarising.
Dayglo and Ugo Bloodman are both as bad as each other in their biased comments, and Goode certainly on twitter is as bad as Lol.
Best 2 summarisers for me at present are Flats and Grayson

[Noggs]

LI like Flats but for me the man who gives the best insight into the game is Ben Kay and I enjoy the forwards v backs interplay between him and Healey.

In terms of international games I also like Brian Moore who for me is not one eyed and who is also one of the few pundits who puts his hands up when he gets it wrong. You would never get Lol doing that.

Brian's books are also a good read

[Offside]

From laws perspective the line of the shoulder is a line along the top of the shoulder so a hand on the shoulder is over that line and high on this context. The similar tackle a couple of weeks ago was high by this law too but the ref clearly decided that it was not dangerous in both cases. it may be that the refs have been given a directive to only apply it if it is near the neck. The tackle certainly was not dangerous to player health and in the days of wearing baggier shirts a tug on the shirt would have dislodged the ball. Good effort by White for being in the position. I hope he does not risk the yellow card in a similar situation in the future but this time it paid off.

[Offside]

Worth comparing to Coby’s Reinach here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/btsportrugby ... 16?lang=en

More obviously a pull back and down over the shoulder, but not dangerous either.

Looking at White his tackle actually starts below and Kibirigie falls below his hands so his hand does not ride up bit Kibirigie falls down. If it Whites right hand that makes the ball get released.

The laws do not seem to be being applied so should be changed or applied. The variation is the problem.

[JP14]

I like Topsy Ojo too as a commentator.

[JP14]

It may be a one eyed view but imo Healey and Kay go out of their way to be harsh on Leicester when summarising.
Dayglo and Ugo Bloodman are both as bad as each other in their biased comments, and Goode certainly on twitter is as bad as Lol.
Best 2 summarisers for me at present are Flats and Grayson

Healey yes, Kay no. The former exaggerates to get his point across that there needs to be above-board change at Leicester. For me Kay is a good alright analyst, can fall victim to just saying things for the sake of it for example in my view he bangs on and on about height and the need for players to sink when it is too late.

[LE18]

Has anyone tried complaining to BT, maybe a concerted campaign might cause a stir? Just a thought for those who really don't like him!

[northerntiger]

From laws perspective the line of the shoulder is a line along the top of the shoulder so a hand on the shoulder is over that line and high on this context.

Where does it say this in the laws? It clearly says above the shoulder, not on the shoulder. I wouldn't say on is above

[tigerssteve]

For those carping about Tom Youngs's line-out throwing, yes, there were 5 consecutive linouts that went awry, but he ended up with 12 from 17, so successful the rest of the time, often the precursor in the second half to a decent maul. Not perfect, but not , especially in those conditions. Wasps really struggled in the second half while we struggled in the first. Might the conditions have had a hand in both teams struggles when playing in the same direction?

The wind was varying and was blowing across the pitch, as opposed to end to end, so difficult for both hookers.

It’s been difficult for hookers across the premiership all weekend

My point about the lineout was simply why go long in those conditions? Obviously it needs mixing up somewhat but five consecutive is just dumb.

[daktari]

From laws perspective the line of the shoulder is a line along the top of the shoulder so a hand on the shoulder is over that line and high on this context.

Where does it say this in the laws? It clearly says above the shoulder, not on the shoulder. I wouldn't say on is above

The frame work for a card makes it clear that a high tackle is contact with the head or neck.

[tigerssteve]

LI like Flats but for me the man who gives the best insight into the game is Ben Kay and I enjoy the forwards v backs interplay between him and Healey.

In terms of international games I also like Brian Moore who for me is not one eyed and who is also one of the few pundits who puts his hands up when he gets it wrong. You would never get Lol doing that.

Brian's books are also a good read

Kay v Healey is comedy gold but perhaps not rugby gold! Flats is the man and agree about Brian Moore.

[DingDong]

From laws perspective the line of the shoulder is a line along the top of the shoulder so a hand on the shoulder is over that line and high on this context.

Where does it say this in the laws? It clearly says above the shoulder, not on the shoulder. I wouldn't say on is above

The frame work for a card makes it clear that a high tackle is contact with the head or neck.

Above the 'line of the shoulders' includes on top of the shoulder, ask any community or elite ref, no contact needs to be made with the head or neck to be a high tackle. The World Rugby Framework is misleading so understandable there's confusion, the law book is now so ridiculously stripped down it omits key facts of law.

[Chobbsy]

Where does it say this in the laws? It clearly says above the shoulder, not on the shoulder. I wouldn't say on is above

The frame work for a card makes it clear that a high tackle is contact with the head or neck.

Above the 'line of the shoulders' includes on top of the shoulder, ask any community or elite ref, no contact needs to be made with the head or neck to be a high tackle. The World Rugby Framework is misleading so understandable there's confusion, the law book is now so ridiculously stripped down it omits key facts of law.

The elite ref who was reffing and the one who was TMO disagreed, infact the only one who agrees with you was funnily enough Dayglo

[DingDong]

The frame work for a card makes it clear that a high tackle is contact with the head or neck.

Above the 'line of the shoulders' includes on top of the shoulder, ask any community or elite ref, no contact needs to be made with the head or neck to be a high tackle. The World Rugby Framework is misleading so understandable there's confusion, the law book is now so ridiculously stripped down it omits key facts of law.

The elite ref who was reffing and the one who was TMO disagreed, infact the only one who agrees with you was funnily enough Dayglo

Even funnier Chobbsy is how this forum views debatable decisions going their way, the refs always right eh?

[BFG]

The frame work for a card makes it clear that a high tackle is contact with the head or neck.

Above the 'line of the shoulders' includes on top of the shoulder, ask any community or elite ref, no contact needs to be made with the head or neck to be a high tackle. The World Rugby Framework is misleading so understandable there's confusion, the law book is now so ridiculously stripped down it omits key facts of law.

The elite ref who was reffing and the one who was TMO disagreed, infact the only one who agrees with you was funnily enough Dayglo

Isn't everyone a bit right in this over the shoulder debate.
If I recall last season players were being penalised and on the shoulder was being judged as over the shoulder and high.
I recall Ford in particular being penalised on a couple of occasions making tackles last season when scrambling back.
Cobus Reinach was allowed to do the same without penalty in a match this season.
There does seem to be a softening of approach this season and rightly so in my opinion.
It's the change in the application that is causing a bit of confusion.
I'm wondering if the tackle lowering trial led to more injuries in making a tackle and they've gone back to allowing players to choose their own technique for each occasion!
Trying to read between the lines I think the amount of force is the big question that refs are asking presently.