Are England the kings of legal cheap shots?

Courtney Lawes tackle on Jules Plisson was a disgrace in my opinion because Lawes' sole intention was to blindside France's outhalf and injure him.

I cannot believe that you can take a guy out in the air completely by accident and get a red card ala Payne v Sarries and yet smashing a guy with such unnecessary force that he gets whiplash and lands on his head is deemed ok.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3013551/If-Courtney-Lawes-tackle-Jules-Plisson-legal-explains-parents-discouraging-children-play-rugby.html

Hard tackles are fine but what Lawes did to Plisson was a cheap shot and I see no reason to blindside a player like that.

Similarly I believe that Cole intentionally headbutted Healy when Healy put in a poor tackle on him in the Ireland game.

Are legal cheapshots ok?

Are England the reigning cheap shot champions?

The first rule of posting a decent article is not to use the Daily Mail as your source material.

It would appear (some) Irish perform their cheap shots from behind a keyboard.

Daily mail is my guilty pleasure though. Who doesnt want to see what Michelle Keegan is up to etc?

Have you ever posted a decent article Cyril?

GunsGerms wrote:Daily mail is my guilty pleasure though.

You do strike me as a bigot so no surprise there.

It was a fantastic tackle. I am glad to see someone putting in some bone crunching legal tackles for the fans to enjoy.

Cole was fine as was Lawes. England are playing within the rules. You can describe Lawes as a cheap shot but it's always been fine and he should continue to do it until it is illegal. Healy just had a really really poor technique. Too much time in the gym?

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Daily mail is my guilty pleasure though.

You do strike me as a bigot so no surprise there.

A bigot? Really Cyril, any particular reason? You seem to be uncharacteristically upset.

No I do not think they are the kings of cheap shots, it's just the two players you have mentioned can tend to be tools of the highest order, every team has them, are Ireland the kings of spoiling and slowing the game down ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cole was fine as was Lawes. England are playing within the rules. You can describe Lawes as a cheap shot but it's always been fine and he should continue to do it until it is illegal. Healy just had a really really poor technique. Too much time in the gym?

Why are the rule makers legislating against dangerous accidents when what Lawes did was intentional and strikes me as possibly one of the most dangerous things that could happen to a player on the field. What he did had no purpose other than to injure. Whiplash is no joke nor is landing on your head.

LordDowlais wrote:No I do not think they are the kings of cheap shots, it's just the two players you have mentioned can tend to be tools of the highest order, every team has them, are Ireland the kings of spoiling and slowing the game down ?

I think Wales are just as good at spoiling to be honest. I dont think Cole is a tool. He is an incredibly smart player IMO. One of England's smartest.

Lawes' tackle was fine nothing wrong with it.

Any self respecting backrow/2nd row would be pleased to have a hit like that in his locker. It wasn't late he was already committed, it was high, he hit him around the chest, it wasn't a shoulder charge he had his arms around to make the hit.

Its a contact sport after all.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cole was fine as was Lawes. England are playing within the rules. You can describe Lawes as a cheap shot but it's always been fine and he should continue to do it until it is illegal. Healy just had a really really poor technique. Too much time in the gym?

Why are the rule makers legislating against dangerous accidents when what Lawes did strikes me as possibly one of the most dangerous thinks that could happen to a player on the field. Whiplash is no joke nor is landing on your head.

You could end up with the same injury still holding the ball could you not? Would you then be calling for the end of tackling?

Why aren't we talking about all the tackles like this on Ford by the way? Why focus on England. we know why of course...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cole was fine as was Lawes. England are playing within the rules. You can describe Lawes as a cheap shot but it's always been fine and he should continue to do it until it is illegal. Healy just had a really really poor technique. Too much time in the gym?

Why are the rule makers legislating against dangerous accidents when what Lawes did strikes me as possibly one of the most dangerous thinks that could happen to a player on the field. Whiplash is no joke nor is landing on your head.

You could end up with the same injury still holding the ball could you not? Would you then be calling for the end of tackling?

No not at all. I think if World Rugby could legislate against Lawes' tackle they would but the problem is I dont think they can. I find it sublimely hypocritical when rugby fans rejoice in "hits" like Lawes put in and whinge and moan when a player is accidently taken out in the air.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why aren't we talking about all the tackles like this on Ford by the way? Why focus on England. we know why of course...

We can if you want. Any in particular? Surely the tackle by Lawes was the most dangerous tackle in the championship though, no?

Give me a link and Ill reference it in the article.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Lawes' tackle was fine nothing wrong with it.

Any self respecting backrow/2nd row would be pleased to have a hit like that in his locker.  It wasn't late he was already committed, it was high, he hit him around the chest, it wasn't a shoulder charge he had his arms around to make the hit.

Its a contact sport after all.

Nothing wrong with it in the eyes of rugby law. However, there is everything wrong with it re sportsmanship.

in what way?

bedfordwelsh wrote: in what way?

Why blindside a player with such force if you dont want to hurt him? Surely it is clear that Lawes just wanted to injure Plisson?

Why would the French players react the way they did if they didnt think it was dirty?

I think the law about taking players out in the air needs to be reviewed to start with so no problem with people whinging about the rule or consistency in general. I don't think Lawes was the most dangerous no. Countless examples. Just go watch any of the matches people are doing it every game. None in particular for Ford just any you want to pick out. They're the same sort of tackles, no problem with them whatsoever.

No reason to pick out Lawes only and ignoring the rest. You just come across, again, as a wum.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think the law about taking players out in the air needs to be reviewed to start with so no problem with people whinging about the rule or consistency in general. I don't think Lawes was the most dangerous no. Countless examples. Just go watch any of the matches people are doing it every game. None in particular for Ford just any you want to pick out. They're the same sort of tackles, no problem with them whatsoever.

No reason to pick out Lawes only and ignoring the rest. You just come across, again, as a wum.

Sorry mate if are claiming that there were worse tackle then give an example otherwise you are just making stuff up again.

GunsGerms wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote: in what way?

Why blindside a player with such force if you dont want to hurt him? Surely it is clear that Lawes just wanted to injure Plisson?

Why would the French players react the way they did if they didnt think it was dirty?

Plisson had the ball Lawes tackled him, if Plisson wasn't aware then thats his fault not Lawes, every backrow/2nd row dreams of the chance to smash a fly half like that and for then its part of the game.

If Plisson doesn't want to get hit then don't put himself in the position or even play the game.

When have I ever made stuff up? You want to back that up. Countless examples of these tackles throughout the tournament, if you want to ignore them to wum go ahead. You do come across badly though.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote: in what way?

Why blindside a player with such force if you dont want to hurt him? Surely it is clear that Lawes just wanted to injure Plisson?

Why would the French players react the way they did if they didnt think it was dirty?

Plisson had the ball Lawes tackled him, if Plisson wasn't aware then thats his fault not Lawes, every backrow/2nd row dreams of the chance to smash a fly half like that and for then its part of the game.

If Plisson doesn't want to get hit then don't put himself in the position or even play the game.

They wouldn't have reacted like that if lets say Dussatoir had put in a hit like that on Ford.

No 7&1/2 wrote:When have I ever made stuff up? You want to back that up. Countless examples of these tackles throughout the tournament, if you want to ignore them to wum go ahead. You do come across badly though.

I know you secretly like my posts 7.5. Otherwise you wouldnt reply to me all the time.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

They wouldn't have reacted like that if lets say Dussatoir had put in a hit like that on Ford.

Dusattoir has never been a dirty player at all.

I reply to all sorts Guns. You come across as a wum that's all. If you were truely concerned you'd bring balance.

I'd like to see examples of similar tackles during this 6N. I didnt see all games but dont recall watching similar efforts.
the bottom line is that :
- the tacke was legal - 0.5 second later it could have been a red but the timing on this one was just about fine
- nonetheless hitting someone who already passed the ball (so basically relaxed) is more dangerous than if that person had the ball and was looking at was coming at him.

Plisson (who had a sore neck the night after) is saying the same thing :
http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3559_39041,00.html

also I think I have read somewhere (not the daily mail!) that PSA wanted to have Lawes cited? not sure what happened.

Really? I see absolutely nothing wrong with the tackle Lawes made. Back in the day, it was considered a backrowers obligation to target the 9 and 10 with legal hits like that. It wasn't late, it was perfectly timed. Had Plisson not have passed, would it then still be considered bad?
The reason you don't see it happening so much any more is because 9's and 10's are more wise to it and get themselves out of the position to be hit like that.

As for Coles on Healy... Healy simply got himself into a horrible position to make the tackle. It was more a lesson how not to tackle, nothing wrong with that either.

To ask a question like 'Are England the kings of legal cheap shots?' is really not very good as all teams have their failings with foul play.

Yes France did request that Lawes was cited. He is right too as he has a duty to protect his players.

You cant think of any examples because there werent any.

The hypocracy of some rugby fans is absolutely bonkers.

GunsGerms wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

They wouldn't have reacted like that if lets say Dussatoir had put in a hit like that on Ford.

Dusattoir has never been a dirty player at all.

And there was nothing dirty in the Lawes tackle, it was a big guy putting in a hit on a small guy. Nature of the game.

I have made it clear I am no fan of Lawes' gamesmanship but he hasn't been banned because his tackle was not late. It looks brutal and malicious but is not illegal.

Lawes flirted with the line but he's just about stayed on the right side of it.

Difference between this and Payne's reckless challenge is that Payne catapaulted the man in the air - also the player in question went off injured.

Both were dangerous but one player timed the tackle, the other got the collision wrong. Payne's challenge was more reckless. Lawes' was more calculating but at least he got his man in a legal manner. Regardless whether you agree with Lawes' morality

If Lawes had put in a late tackle then I would agree with you but he got his timing spot on.

As I said I am no fan of Lawes' behaviour. Personally I want someone to sort him out on the pitch legally of course.

As for England being kings of legal cheap shots - I think England are no worse than other teams. Some teams are better at legal cheating than others. Personally I think Ireland are more proficient at legal cheating than England. Probably the best in Europe actually

Beshocked no one is questioning the legality of the tackle. The question is was it a cheap shot?

The biggest difference between Lawes tackle and the Payne incident is Lawes intended to hurt Plisson Payne did not intend to hurt Goode as he didnt even know he was there. Put whatever spin you want on it that is the reality of the situation.

I would rather much lawes be sanctioned in this case but this wont happen and there lies a big slice of hypocracy in the game IMO.

No one is questioning it's legal why should it be sanctioned? What you mean is you want the law reviewed?

No 7&1/2 wrote:No one is questioning it's legal why should it be sanctioned? What you mean is you want the law reviewed?

I never said it should be sanctioned did I? I said it was a cheap shot because I believe it was.

I said PSA should request Lawes is cited because he has a duty to protect his players and because I believe it was a cheap shot. They would never win such a case but it would draw attention to how dangerous it was.

Is it as bad as when a back takes a catch in the air, lands on his feet and is smashed instantly by a backrower coming in at full pelt with perfect timing?

Seriously, if legal hit like that are going to be cited then the game is seriously going down hill. It was not a cheap shot, it was a perfectly timed hit.

NO!!!!

How do you know he intended to hurt him? Anytime a big man tackles a little man there is a chance in the smaller player being hurt, is it intentional know its part of the game.

If he had got his timing wrong fair enough but it was spot on and what a hit it was, great to see.

Yes it is a cheap shot in my opinion. Lawes quite clearly targetted Plisson with the intent to hurt him.

Doesn't mitigate what Payne did though. Payne might not have intended to hurt Goode but he did. He injured him and he was out for a couple of weeks. What Payne did was very reckless.

Payne's was more dangerous than what Lawes did.

The impact of what Payne did was more telling. The consequences were more grave.

I guess it depends whether you think intent to harm is worse than actually how much harm you do.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Is it as bad as when a back takes a catch in the air, lands on his feet and is smashed instantly by a backrower coming in at full pelt with perfect timing?

Seriously, if legal hit like that are going to be cited then the game is seriously going down hill. It was not a cheap shot, it was a perfectly timed hit.

Spot on Nachos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZHDFliS6vo

beshocked wrote:Yes it is a cheap shot in my opinion. Lawes quite clearly targetted Plisson with the intent to hurt him.

Doesn't mitigate what Payne did though. Payne might not have intended to hurt Goode but he did. He injured him and he was out for a couple of weeks. What Payne did was very reckless.

Payne's was more dangerous than what Lawes did.

The impact of what Payne did was more telling. The consequences were more grave.

I guess it depends whether you think intent to harm is worse than actually how much harm you do.

Both players were injured, yes Goode was more injured but I could see a scenario when a player in both cases could come out with bad injuries yet I dont understand why "fans" applaud one scenario and show their disgust at the other. Seems quite hypocritical to me.

beshocked wrote:Yes it is a cheap shot in my opinion. Lawes quite clearly targetted Plisson with the intent to hurt him.

Doesn't mitigate what Payne did though. Payne might not have intended to hurt Goode but he did. He injured him and he was out for a couple of weeks. What Payne did was very reckless.

Payne's was more dangerous than what Lawes did.

The impact of what Payne did was more telling. The consequences were more grave.

I guess it depends whether you think intent to harm is worse than actually how much harm you do.

If you get it right surely that's the purpose of every tackle, that way you put the element of doubt into the player with the hope it un nerves him/rattles him and puts him off his game.

Before the Wales Ireland, I questioned whether Sexton was fully fit and the one way to test it was to send North, Roberts, Warburton AWJ and the like at full pelt down his challenge to see if you could rattle him, hurt him, aggravate his injury etc. Is that really any different, its not un sportsman like its part of the game as are hits like Lawes'

Ok, Im off to Turkey, Munsterfans rejoice. Ill miss you Cyril and 7.5.

Slan!

I thought it was a great tackle, and Plisson's performance wasn't quite the same thereafter.

Nothing cheap about it. If we're going to condone rugby players for being too physical then the game is gone. The rules are the rules, and everything is fair game within them.

This whole "intent to hurt" business is a red herring. Brian Lima, Jason White, AJ Venter, Jerry Collins et al clearly intended to hurt, or at the very least were reckless as to whether or not they "hurt" opposition players, each and every time they took the field. That's what makes these overly physical players so good. The difference is that Lawes was within the rules in performing a perfectly legal tackle, whereas Payne was adjudged not to have been. Whilst it's fine to debate the rules, or whether they were interpreted correctly, this whole nonsense about "intent" completely misses the point.

beshocked wrote:Yes it is a cheap shot in my opinion. Lawes quite clearly targetted Plisson with the intent to hurt him.

Doesn't mitigate what Payne did though. Payne might not have intended to hurt Goode but he did. He injured him and he was out for a couple of weeks. What Payne did was very reckless.

Payne's was more dangerous than what Lawes did.

The impact of what Payne did was more telling. The consequences were more grave.

I guess it depends whether you think intent to harm is worse than actually how much harm you do.

100% agree, of course he did and he does the same every game. I have to say I don't particularly like it, I would much prefer he did some 'enforcing' in the pack to generate quick ball or made some big carries rather than boosting his ego and youtube following. This is an interesting discussion though, as it does seem that there is a real inconsistency in the game between a tackle like this and a dump tackle or a challenge in the air when all 3 could have a similar outcome and only the legal one is premeditated.

Don't even know where the "blindsiding" bit comes from, when Plisson received the ball he could clearly see Lawes coming at him, if he wants to turn his back to he can't see how close Lawes is, that is his business.

How can someone be cited for something that happened when the ref and the TMO both looked at it closely and frequently and decided it was fine.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Don't even know where the "blindsiding" bit comes from, when Plisson received the ball he could clearly see Lawes coming at him, if he wants to turn his back to he can't see how close Lawes is, that is his business.

How can someone be cited  for something that happened when the ref and the TMO both looked at it closely and frequently and decided it was fine.

Also how can someone be cited for a legal challenge?

It's a poor Daily Mail article and a naive OP. (You really think that Cole tried to headbutt Healy's pathetic technique?) Rather silly to claim to "know" people's intentions. Owens reviewed the tackle and both he and the TMO agreed it was legal. It was a very hard hit, a fraction after the ball and was not high. Tell me any back row that doesn't want to hit his opposite 10 with a similarly hard tackle.

There will be no game of rugby if legitimate tackles start getting sanctioned. This is a full contact sport and can be dangerous. Every player accepts this risk every time they take the field.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Don't even know where the "blindsiding" bit comes from, when Plisson received the ball he could clearly see Lawes coming at him, if he wants to turn his back to he can't see how close Lawes is, that is his business.

How can someone be cited  for something that happened when the ref and the TMO both looked at it closely and frequently and decided it was fine.

Agree this is a bit silly. Lawes commits to the player, as he should. Pilsson decided to make a pass in a situation in which he probably should have held the ball. Pilsson attempts his pass a half second later and Lawes hits a player with the ball and disrupts the pass. Was good physical play, nothing more.

There are players out there I wouldn't like to play against.  Yes, the game is hard.  Yes it is tough.  Yes it is very dangerous.  But there are still a few players I wouldn't like to play against.  

I always go back to Stephen Ferris.  A hard hard player.  But I remember as he was back for his final attempt at keeping his career going.  He was playing for Ulster.  I think it was against an English side?  But anyway, I remember him hitting a player and almost running backwards with the player in his arms.  It did what it was designed to do - stop the opponent.  It made a statement - he went metres with the poor guy.  But all the while I was admiring the control he used to keep the opponent safe.  He was making a power statement but you just knew his intention wasn't to hurt.

You can do both.  Both make the statement of power and dominance without the suspicion that you'd also like to put the player on a stretcher.