Rugby Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Well, it’s up to the tackler to tackle safely, but Red is harsh. That said, I’ve never liked the wrap tackle… too many head collisions from it.


Why is it only the responsibility of the tackler though? this is the biggest issue with the law changes that they absolve the attacking player from any duty of care whilst making the defensive player completely hamstrung
 
That red is a joke. O'Driscoll went throught mitigation yesterday. Hip hinge - check. Arms wrapping - check. Opposing player change of direction - check.

Still red.

Yet a reckless charge at a player with none of those factors isn't red.

They are killing the game - even more than VAR is killing football. You cannot sanitise and make a contact sport risk-free.
 
Why is it only the responsibility of the tackler though? this is the biggest issue with the law changes that they absolve the attacking player from any duty of care whilst making the defensive player completely hamstrung

The tackler is the one initiating contact. Just tackle lower. In 25 years of playing rugby I never tackled any higher than shoulder into rib cage.
 
The tackler is the one initiating contact. Just tackle lower. In 25 years of playing rugby I never tackled any higher than shoulder into rib cage.


and attackers can duck their head lower and lower, meaning if youre not below knee level as the defender youre the one being penalised time after time. Actions of both players have to be taken into account otherwise you get the current state of the game. anyone for a 7 a side game of touch as thats all that will be left in 5 years time
 
and attackers can duck their head lower and lower, meaning if youre not below knee level as the defender youre the one being penalised time after time. Actions of both players have to be taken into account otherwise you get the current state of the game. anyone for a 7 a side game of touch as thats all that will be left in 5 years time

If the ball carrier lowers their head it is taken into account as a mitigating circumstance
 
so it mitigates the defender but why is the attacker not penalised for making the situation dangerous the same way a defender is?

Rewind a little. If the ball carrier lowers their head, and the tackler is going in at a ‘responsible height,’ it might not even be a penalty. But it could be deemed dangerous play by the ball carrier, like leading with the elbow. Red cards have been given to ball carriers if they initiate the head contact by leading with the head/elbow/shoulder to the head of the tackler.
 
No matter how the game finishes, I hope Borthwick see's the value of Ford at 10 and Mitchell at 9. Hopefully Marcus Smith will bring a little extra perzazz later on. Its good to see England finally play some intelligent rugby, the Curry tackle aside.
 
Rewind a little. If the ball carrier lowers their head, and the tackler is going in at a ‘responsible height,’ it might not even be a penalty. But it could be deemed dangerous play by the ball carrier, like leading with the elbow. Red cards have been given to ball carriers if they initiate the head contact by leading with the head/elbow/shoulder to the head of the tackler.

5+ years for the law makers ideally
 
Irrespective of all the above.....what a great first half performance by England to largely nullify Argentina and then keeping the scoreboard ticking over with some clinical kicking....a bit like inflicting death of a thousand cuts on your opponent.

Lets hope they can maintain this level of performance through the second half.
 
I’m just at a loss. Argentina are the stupidest set of idiots on a rugby field. This is a Darwin Award winning performance. Typical of a Cejka coached team really.

England have managed the game very well since they went down to 14.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top