Change to tackle height laws
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Re: Change to tackle height laws
I'm in favour of the tackle area being delineated as all parts of the tackler contacting below the armpits of the tackled, this applying only to an upright runner .
To me both parts are crucial, with the manifest dangers of below the waist enforced with no prescription of the stance of the tackled person. Dipping to me negates the penalty against the tackler, who may indeed risk more serious injury than the tackled. The Ruck should be engagement with the arms over the ball, not simply contact, so will must join as per old rules, and play the ball with the feet. The 'choke' tackle should've been ruled out by rulings at once BTW.
To me both parts are crucial, with the manifest dangers of below the waist enforced with no prescription of the stance of the tackled person. Dipping to me negates the penalty against the tackler, who may indeed risk more serious injury than the tackled. The Ruck should be engagement with the arms over the ball, not simply contact, so will must join as per old rules, and play the ball with the feet. The 'choke' tackle should've been ruled out by rulings at once BTW.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:18 pm
- Location: Market Harborough
Re: Change to tackle height laws
For those that really don't agree with the RFU on this one, there is a petition;
https://www.change.org/p/get-the-rfu-to ... ons_browse
https://www.change.org/p/get-the-rfu-to ... ons_browse
Soggypitch
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7515
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am
Re: Change to tackle height laws
This is another petition on change.org, but had a load more signatures...Soggypitch wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:53 pm For those that really don't agree with the RFU on this one, there is a petition;
https://www.change.org/p/get-the-rfu-to ... ons_browse
https://www.change.org/p/2023-24-tackli ... 7489-en-GB
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
Re: Change to tackle height laws
Skivs not a fan.
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:39 pm
Re: Change to tackle height laws
A pointless gesture from the inept establishment to avoid future lawsuits. Nothing more.
Re: Change to tackle height laws
The assumption being that it’s the ball carrier who gets concussed! These changes ignore the safety of the tackler who will be expected to go at pumping knees!
For this change to work, runners must be obliged to stay upright unless trying to ground the ball for a try or are falling in a tackle. Unlikely to be practical to enforce.
For this change to work, runners must be obliged to stay upright unless trying to ground the ball for a try or are falling in a tackle. Unlikely to be practical to enforce.
Re: Change to tackle height laws
Exactly my point. TBH at least the armpit line allows for driving ball carriers back in the old fashioned lifting the legs way. that would be illegal under these ludicrous changes, yet is a relatively safe tackle for both involved, if a little ignominious for the ball carrier. Imagine trying to stop an 18 stone player running flat out with knees pumping, and avoiding serious injury to yourself - hitting them amidships from the side would be illegal.mol2 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:40 pm The assumption being that it’s the ball carrier who gets concussed! These changes ignore the safety of the tackler who will be expected to go at pumping knees!
For this change to work, runners must be obliged to stay upright unless trying to ground the ball for a try or are falling in a tackle. Unlikely to be practical to enforce.
PS Mrs G was looking at 1980s and 90s games again, commenting on how fast they were. We only see this occasionally now, when broken field play occurs.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
-
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:42 pm
Re: Change to tackle height laws
George gets injured and yellow for high tackle head/head. Seen red for less.
Clear example of injuries can occur to defenders as well as carriers.
Clear example of injuries can occur to defenders as well as carriers.
Re: Change to tackle height laws
Seems a Sarries problem.
2 yellows today!
Perhaps, if you are stationary rather than going forward to the tackle then perhaps the onus has to also be on the runner to keep his head from being out in front of the body. Run upright.
2 yellows today!
Perhaps, if you are stationary rather than going forward to the tackle then perhaps the onus has to also be on the runner to keep his head from being out in front of the body. Run upright.
Re: Change to tackle height laws
I thought in both instances the Edinburgh players head was in front of the ball and leading so the point of contact is more likely to be on the head. The Sarries players were stationary and the force came from the attacking player. Yellow card the right call.
If it carries on like this, players are going to attack like this and try to buy penalty / cards when they are tackled.
The second yellow, the Edinburgh player appeared to drive his head upwards into the contact.
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk
www.matthampson.co.uk
Re: Change to tackle height laws
The really tall 6' 8 boys are going to have a problem against a side of 5'2 players, aren't they? But seriously, I don't like it, below the armpit makes much more sense to me. What is wrong with the good old rib-tickler? Players have been dipping into contact for years and "encourage players not to dip" is King Canute territory. Clearouts at rucks will be almost impossible - it will not be the same game but something has to happen to prevent these head injuries and below the armpit. seems to be the sensible way to go
Hehehehehehehehe
-
- Super User
- Posts: 3619
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Re: Change to tackle height laws
It is true we have all been taught to tackle around thighs and slide down to knees etc but all this is mainly about backs tackling in open play. Most forward exchanges are within one or 2 metres. In these collisions you grab an opponent how and where you can and manhandle him backwards or downwards.. in these instances.. where is there time(fractions of seconds) to consider that you must lower your head by two or even 3 feet? Because that’s what you’re asking a player to do .. I don’t think it’s physically possible.. and in the attempt to get lower people will be getting him in all sorts of awkward positions… or they’ll try and ridiculously pull out of tackles which will be not only farcical but equally dangerous. We’ve had this nonsense for years already by allowing people to fly through the air with studs raised and expecting players on the ground to dematerialise as if by magic. I foresee this being even more bizarre and even more dangerous.
I cannot recognise this as the game I started playing in 1968 and continued to play well into my 40s with great enjoyment. Sadly if they go ahead with law changes such as this I cannot see me paying to see it for much longer.
I have said many times before on here there are very few laws that have come into the game since 1970 that have improved it and several have made it a lot worse both to play and watch. I think some one would make a fortune out of just selling reruns of matches from the past because this is becoming absolute rubbish.
I cannot recognise this as the game I started playing in 1968 and continued to play well into my 40s with great enjoyment. Sadly if they go ahead with law changes such as this I cannot see me paying to see it for much longer.
I have said many times before on here there are very few laws that have come into the game since 1970 that have improved it and several have made it a lot worse both to play and watch. I think some one would make a fortune out of just selling reruns of matches from the past because this is becoming absolute rubbish.
Re: Change to tackle height laws
I completely agree. The only time I have been concussed in rugby was when I was the tackler getting kneed in the head. I was never concussed carrying the ball. This is not to say that the ball carrier cannot get concussed through a high tackle, but it goes both ways. These changes are idiotic.
I also completely agree with Mightymouse. These changes could even make things worse.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7515
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am
Re: Change to tackle height laws
https://www.change.org/p/2023-24-tackli ... 7489-en-GB
This petition has passed 70,000 which given IIRC means that's equivalent to half of the people who play recreational rugby.
This petition has passed 70,000 which given IIRC means that's equivalent to half of the people who play recreational rugby.
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
Re: Change to tackle height laws
When i was a young lad in the late 70s i was taught to tackle round the waist head on the correct side, and then slide down.
too much upright tackling. yes i guess it would mean more offloads but doesnt that create more running rugby.
too much upright tackling. yes i guess it would mean more offloads but doesnt that create more running rugby.