Could of been far different with 15 v 15, but then again if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle! Right result in the end. Our lads kept trying but ultimately Ewells cost us the test. Hopefully the last time we will see him in a England shirt again. He got a red for Bath for doing the same thing, and clearly cannot learn and thus cannot be trusted.
Yeah, his was the first I'd seen for that - at the time I said something along the lines of "if that's just the first of a new interpretation, then fine, I'll adapt, but as it is, how can you card someone for a perfectly legal tackle" - I'm happy to say that it was just the first of a new interpretation, and I've adapted.
I wish the players would.
But it's far from just Ewels who still tackles upright (and TBF these guys have had 15-20 years tackling upright, and 1.5 having to lower it. They're also professionals, who have no excuses.
Given all that, I'm convinced that it's not unintelligence, but a deliberate play.
Far more likely is that the advantages of tackling upright (stopping the offload, ability to push the ball carrier backwards, eyes up and less chance of being stepped) are considered to outweigh the advantages of bending at the waist (not being sent off).
The reward is worth the risk, given the sanction and the frequency of getting away with it (either through lack of actual head contact, or through not being noticed).
So the risk : reward balance needs to be changed. Which can only be done by increasing sanctions.
The suggestion that "the current sanction isn't changing behaviour, so we need to... reduce the sanction for the sake of the spectacle" doesn't seem quite right, somehow (the usual orange card type suggestions).
