New High Tackle Directive for the New Year

[RuggerNut]

The new High Tackle Directive as analysed by a ref:

http://lastwordonrugby.com/2016/12/31/new-high-tackle-directive-takes-effect/

 

[Blindside]

Players will have to adapt, it may open the game up a bit as player and ball hits may be a little risky. Rucking changed and the game continued to evolve, the game will just continue to evolve with this change. The quest for safety will never be reversed though, rucking will never come back and tackles will get lower.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't know why WR doesn't just stop pussyfooting around this issue, and simply change the the Law regarding height of tackles


Currently it states

[TEXTAREA]Law 10.4 (e)

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

they should simply change the Law to read

[TEXTAREA]Law 10.4 (e)

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the armpits even if the tackle starts below the line of the armpits. A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

This would lower the top of the "target zone", including the orange area as high instead legal it is now

 

[SelimNiai]

One thing that will need the biggest adapting is the "oh but in my day" attitude of the pundits every time that a card gets shown under the new rules.

This isn't their day anymore, its the rules of the game now.

 

[Which Tyler]

SC, agreed entirely on armpits, been saying it for years

 

[The Jones Boy]

One thing that will need the biggest adapting is the "oh but in my day" attitude of the pundits every time that a card gets shown under the new rules.

This isn't their day anymore, its the rules of the game now.

Back in my day, it was bootlaces that we were taught to aim for, my first coach told us, "They can't run without their ankles, chop them down at the bootlaces."

Head hunting is a much more modern phenomena

 

[Blindside]

Back in my day, it was bootlaces that we were taught to aim for, my first coach told us, "They can't run without their ankles, chop them down at the bootlaces."

Head hunting is a much more modern phenomena

Difference was back then, when you actually went for the head, it would be a forearm smash.

The preventing of the offload and the "big hit" is a huge part of the game, they can't run without their legs but they can keep the ball alive. Not a fan of Dan LYdiate myself, but one of the best defensive back row forwards,who tackles very low and the player comes down very fast, which also prevents the offload. Very few do it as effectively as him. It's a difficult one to get right, without players skipping out of the tackle. Totally agree with the poster above though, below armpits should be the obvious move. The "gut and up" hit would still be totally legal. If they ever go below that, then the game will become a joke.

 

[ratsapprentice]

SC, agreed entirely on armpits, been saying it for years

What are players supposed to do when defending pick and go's, particularly on their own try-line?

 

[Which Tyler]

Get lower than the ball carrier, accept that they're beaten and can do the same 100 yards away, or risk getting sent off

 

[ratsapprentice]

So a pick and go becomes, in practical reality, impossible to effectively defend.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

There is a thread about this already. Maybe merge threads?
http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/38533-WR-s-changes-in-tackle-laws-(Video)


I like SC's idea, but i don't think that solves the entire problem. Blaming the tackler for a ball carrier slipping into his arms sounds ridiculous to me.

Speaking of rugby laws et al, have you guys seen the latest hand off episode in the TOP 14? Unbelievable stuff.

 

[Lancashire Nick]

So a pick and go becomes, in practical reality, impossible to effectively defend.

No ........... A tackle at armpit height would still wrap up the ball as well. You just have to get under the ball carrier.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Ho can you gut under a ball carrier when they are leant over so their chest is about a foot from the ground; if they aren't, in fact, actually diving towards the ground?

 

[Every Time Ref]

It's a good point rats. Suspect making exceptions would make it unworkably complicated. On the other hand, rule changes often lead to new tactics we hadn't previously thought of, maybe ingenious coaches will come up with something?

 

[smartcooky]

Ho can you gut under a ball carrier when they are leant over so their chest is about a foot from the ground; if they aren't, in fact, actually diving towards the ground?

Well in theory, you can't do that now anyway with the top of the tackle zone being the line of the shoulders. When a defender tackles a player who is picking and driving in the way you describe, they invariably tackle the player at the top of the shoulders, which is technically illegal under current law anyway, so I can't see that lowering it makes any difference at all. Referees will still do what they do now with such tackles; apply materiality, recognizing that such a tackle is a low risk for injury to the tackled player.

The rationale here is to cut down on the number running, upright or standing ball carriers who cop one under the throat or in the head. By lowering the top if the target zone to the line of the armpits, you make those tacklers aim lower, which means they are less likely to strike the head and neck,. Also, a lower target zone would result in less chance of a tackle "riding up" to the head/neck area.

 

[Mike Rolls]

Well in theory, you can't do that now anyway with the top of the tackle zone being the line of the shoulders. When a defender tackles a player who is picking and driving in the way you describe, they invariably tackle the player at the top of the shoulders, which is technically illegal under current law anyway, so I can't see that lowering it makes any difference at all. Referees will still do what they do now with such tackles; apply materiality, recognizing that such a tackle is a low risk for injury to the tackled player.

The rationale here is to cut down on the number running, upright or standing ball carriers who cop one under the throat or in the head. By lowering the top if the target zone to the line of the armpits, you make those tacklers aim lower, which means they are less likely to strike the head and neck,. Also, a lower target zone would result in less chance of a tackle "riding up" to the head/neck area.

Very true. Out of idle curiosity, I've just watched the highlights of Wales v the All Blacks in 2006. Had this new law been in force then, I think that both sides would have ended up playing sevens!
Mike

 

[smartcooky]

Very true. Out of idle curiosity, I've just watched the highlights of Wales v the All Blacks in 2006. Had this new law been in force then, I think that both sides would have ended up playing sevens!
Mike

Was that the test where Steven Jones kicked Brendon Leonard in the head as he (Leonard) tries to pick up the ball?

That would likely be a red card under the new directives.

 

[Gavin]

Was that the test where Steven Jones kicked Brendon Leonard in the head as he (Leonard) tries to pick up the ball?

That would likely be a red card under the new directives.

Stephen Jones tried to kick the ball as it was on the ground but Brendon Leonard went down to collect the ball at the same time.

https://youtu.be/_uGwb_-iDNw

 

[ratsapprentice]

The rationale here is to cut down on the number running, upright or standing ball carriers who cop one under the throat or in the head. By lowering the top if the target zone to the line of the armpits, you make those tacklers aim lower, which means they are less likely to strike the head and neck,. Also, a lower target zone would result in less chance of a tackle "riding up" to the head/neck area.

All it does is shift the danger from the ball carrier to the tackler, who now has to put his own head and neck in far more danger.

 

[ALJ]

I think Rats has a good point here - my view is that if you run with the ball and you are deliberately low to the ground (e.g. trying to bust over the line) then the risk falls back to the man with the ball.

SCs point about materiality is logical but is that part of the laws?


What I think is interesting is that despite the more direct nature of Rugby League, it does not generally have a problem with high tackles (in UK at least). Any thoughts on why RU is different in this respect?