Former Wales Captain Gwyn Jones view on "Tip-Tackling"

If this year’s competitions are like the last I suspect we will have many controversies. The current talking point is, of course, the tip-tackle.

Currently this type of tackle remains fairly rare. This is probably because of the significant punishment that can accompany it.

If the practice of picking up an opponent and returning him to the ground head/neck first were not against the laws, I suspect that we would see not just one such tackle every five games but five tackles per game, or even more.

And what about double tackles where one player can pin the arms as the other upends the ball carrier, thus preventing him from using his arms to break his fall?

Is that sort of tackle to be permitted? I suspect that would be fairly good for turnovers since the ball carrier’s attention is less on keeping possession and more on landing on his head.

It may then become an aim of the defence to practice and execute such effective tackles. How can a referee decide that one tip-tackle was intentional where another was not?

Finally, consider this. We are seeing this tackle at the professional end of the game where, despite the size and power difference between players of different positions, we are still discussing professional, highly-tuned athletes.

What of the game at lower levels? What of the 18-year-old scrum-half, 10 stone soaking wet from the youth team, who steps into the first team for the first time to play a derby match in mid-January on a pitch that barely takes stud?

He plays against the local hardman on the blindside who likes to dish it out in these sorts of matches. Do you think that it’s OK for him to be picked up and turned in the air so he lands on his head?

The authorities cannot legitimise these tackles. What they need to be is consistent to ensure no controversy.

Then we would each know where we stand.


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynation/rugby-news/2011/11/10/gwyn-jones-welsh-regional-coaches-must-build-on-wales-world-cup-success-91466-29750185/#ixzz1dIucFp7u

I agree completely with what he has to say. When it comes to foul play that can cause such serious injuries there should be zero tolerance.

Jones knows from personal experience how easy it can be to suffer a catastrophic injury when playing the game legally and fairly. While this may make him sensitive to the issue of possible spinal injuries it does not invalidate his views. This would be wrong. He is not calling for a ban on contact or tackling, just that we do not permit a specific sort of tackle.

The most fervent point Gwyn Jones makes is the one regarding the stringent refereeing of dangerous tackles impact at the lower echelons of Rugby.


"Finally, consider this. We are seeing this tackle at the professional end of the game where, despite the size and power difference between players of different positions, we are still discussing professional, highly-tuned athletes.

What of the game at lower levels? What of the 18-year-old scrum-half, 10 stone soaking wet from the youth team, who steps into the first team for the first time to play a derby match in mid-January on a pitch that barely takes stud?"


It is important that the new interpretation and the new penalisation of illegal tackling is consistent throughout the game, and that it is especially consistently in forced in the lime light games at International and top club/regional rugby.

I have considered whether I thought of this as a softening up of the sport, there is a serious point to be made that rugby is a contact sport and should be treated as such, aggressive actions are part of the game, a fundamental part of the game.

I would also like the refereeing body of the IRB to consider that if they are to become so tough on certain tackles, where they deem a player may suffer serious injury, then they should also seriously consider other areas of the game which contribute to similar results as dangerous tackles and penalise accordingly.

A spear tackle is likely less dangerous than toppling a jumper trying to catch a high up-and-under ball or pulling a jumper down out of the line out. In both situations a player toppled could land on their head, neck or back from a much greater height than it is possible to tackle someone. If what has recently been ruled as a dangerous tackle worthy of a red card and a ban is to be so, then a player knocking an opponent out of the line out or aggressively challenging a player jumping high to catch the ball have to have the same penalty.

This is where I am not sure the stringency or the application of this change and its implications are correct or consistent.

I agree with Gwyn Jones, but there must be a better ruling or a more defined ruling on what is and is not a dangerous tackle.

For example, I DO NOT think that Sam Warburtons tackle on Vincent Clerc was a dangerous tackle. Where as something like Morgan Stoddards tackle on Leigh Halfpenny in the Scarlets Blues match last year, ( http://www.rugbydump.com/2010/10/1676/morgan-stoddarts-slam-tackle-on-leigh-halfpenny ) or the most infamous of spear tackles on Brian O'Driscoll in the 2005 Lions tour where he was DRIVEN head first into the ground.( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTVhckB3juk&feature=related ).

The difference being the action of driving, or dumping with force at the ground as opposed to a player landing due to the constant factor of gravity.

If this were the law, then Sam Warburtons tackle would still be illegal, but it would be illegal because it was technically a shoulder barge as his arms were not in contact with Clerc through the tackle. I think, I am sure our resident ref should he be reading this will correct me if i am wrong, but a shoulder charge is illegal and can warrant a yellow card.

Maybe to avoid making a large amount of the game illegal and worthy of a player being banned for any amount of time large or small, the IRB should just define what is and is not considered dangerous within reason. The current ruling is far too vague to be implemented with any form of consistency.

maestegmafia wrote:The difference being the action of driving, or dumping with force at the ground as opposed to a player landing due to the constant factor of gravity.

You're underestimating the constant acceleration force of gravity, overestimating the acceleration that a tackling player can generate on a large body (particularly when the tackle involves changes in the direction of force and the downward component is produced from a heavily compromised physical position), and underestimating the dynamic effect on a body of an unsupported impact with the ground.

There was a reason that the IRB directive specifically included a dropped clause.