Rugby tackle citings

Since the Sam Warburton affair, it seems that hardly a week has gone by without citing committees becoming involved.

The Warburton affair was well-defined by the laws and referee guidance - and pretty much everyone agrees that there is a consistent and workable framework for assessment of tip-tackling.

The other citings centre around high tackles. The latest being LI's Hala'ufia (yet again) on Racing full-back Gaetan Germain.

But the likes of Tigers and the Saints are no less culpable of dodgy 'PI hugs'.

High tackles to my mind are almost inevitable due player height differentials, the body alignment of the tacklee (dipping often) etc.

But to my mind it is the Law which is at fault. As it is, the tackle should be shoulder height (which inevitably in the heat of play and the dynamics of the personnel results in an apparent 'clothesline').

I have for some time (yes, another ) said that the height of the tackle should be reduced to armpit level. Women's rugby (on consultation with some non-rugby-playing females) may prefer it to be below breast level...

Hala'ufia is a bad example on this one Portnoy.

It was a shocker of a swinging arm and smacked of him seekign retribution for a late tackle on Dan Bowden that saw him have to go off injured.

The current climate of citings is not good for the game though, as there is such inconsistency, both in the process of who gets cited and for what, and then in the sentences handed down.

It is an area that the IRB really need to look at and address.

It would be very interesting if the TV companies hired good retired refs to comment on law interpretations.

As I recall Clive Norling used to comment on this stuff for the Beeb's Rugby Special and 5Ns in the nineties.

But no specialist law interpreter since.

Brian Moore?

Below the arm pits sounds like a v sensible approach to me, Portnoy I also agree with Pete that we despartely need consistency of application and punishment

This would transform the game as it would allow the tackled player to offload everytime in the tackle, if they has sufficient awareness and skill, by holding the ball above armpit level when tackled.

It would need to very carefully thought through.

geoff998rugby wrote:This would transform the game as it would allow the tackled player to offload everytime in the tackle, if they has sufficient awareness and skill, by holding the ball above armpit level when tackled.

It would need to very carefully thought through.

geoff,
So your perceived concern* would be that the game keeps going instead of breaking down at the expense of reducing the risk of serious injury?

*if I read you correctly.
Apologies in advance if I misread you.

[ed] Reading your post again geoff, I think that I did misinterpret your opinion. You are seeing the positive side of the law change (yes?).

I being neither positive or negative I just think it could lead to a bigger change than just reducing injury (which is clearly a good thing) and as such the full implication would need to be assessed.

It coud have very exciting consequence, it also could have some unintended consequences.

I do agree it is worth a look.

with many more rule changes, in a few years rugby will be a totally different sport to that which it was just 10 years ago.

I appreciate that change does happen, and happens in all sports.

But let's not forget that rugby is a physical sport.
No-one wants to see anyone get hurt / injured.
But similarly, we don't want to start playing touch rugby


I broke my leg in a maul.... Should we scrap mauls to stop that being a possibility?
I also broke my patella in a scrum... Should we stop all scrums too?


I agree that reducing injuries is important... but let's make sure we're not fundamentally changing the sport at the same time.

Ian Gough is the latest in line on the naughty step...

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/15753.php

"
ERC has received a Citing Complaint against
the Ospreys player, Ian Gough (No 4), following the Heineken Cup, Round
4 match against Saracens on Saturday, 16 December 2011.

Gough is alleged to have carried out a dangerous tackle on the Saracens
hooker, Schalk Brits (No 2), during the second half of the match at the
Liberty Stadium. The complaint was made by Citing Commissioner, Peter
Brown (Scotland).
The independent Judicial Officer appointed to hear the complaint is
Jeremy Summers (England), and the hearing will take place in Dublin on
Thursday, 22 December 2011."

Just to put it out there. Tackling a player at shoulder level or below is an awful lot of body available to tackle. The rule of shoulder high is essentially there to stop a tackle making contact with the neck or head. There has to be some pragmatism involved here. If a scrumhalf is running around a secondrow player, no matter whether it is shoulder level or armpit level for tackling it will look high. If a side-stepper or a jinker tries a move going into contact, it will look high no matter whether it is shoulder level or armpit level. I think the grey area has been where players have devised a way to launch themselves into an attackers throat/head by jumping up into the tackle to make it look like you started at the shoulders but really the intent is to target the neck/head.

On the tip/spear tackle, as it currently stands it is a well devised approach. If the tackler lifts an attacker off the ground, they assume responsibility for bringing the player back to ground safely. They take momentum into account where the collision takes a player off the ground but I have to say it is a simple enough principle to use as the basis of the rule, isn't it?

I mean why do you lift the attacker off the ground;
- to deliberately hurt them by driving them to the floor (not very nice)
- to disorientate them so they hold onto the ball and don't try to offload (commendable)
- to completely cease their momentum and drive them backwards (commendable).
The way the rules are at the minute, you can still achieve the two commendable aspects of lifting a player in the tackle but you are held accountable if you do anything which hurts (or could seriously hurt) what is in that tackle, a defenseless player.

[quote="thebandwagonsociety"] I think the grey area has been where players have devised a way to launch themselves into an attackers throat/head by jumping up into the tackle to make it look like you started at the shoulders but really the intent is to target the neck/head.
/quote]

Are you seriously suggesting that players leap into tackles like irresponsible kids playing chicken in front of double-deckers?

Much more likely is that the player dips. Which is exactly why I propose the armpit level - to provide a margin of safety.