Are England the kings of legal cheap shots?

First topic message reminder :

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?

profitius wrote:Its a gray area. It might have been legal by its not in the spirit of the game.


The one area where there is a strong case against Lawes can be summed up in one word - control. He wasn't in control of himself and wasn't in control of the tackle which saw Plisson land on his neck.


In that tackle Lawes was like an F1 car with no breaks. He launched himself at Plisson with the intention of nailing Plisson and it didn't matter if the ball was gone or not because Lawes was continuing to accelerate into the tackle even after Plisson was in the act of passing. 99% of players would slow down as they realised they wouldn't make it but Lawes was either too stupid or he didn't care.


In my opinion he deserves a ban. If in doubt just have a look at his history of late tackles. Plisson could have been seriously injured and lets no forget that it was a late hit.

Thankfully F1 cars don't have any breaks otherwise it could be dangerous for the crowd and other drivers.

Lawes doesn't deserve a ban. Ifs, buts and maybes, Plisson wasn't seriously injured and what a load of garbage, it wasn't a late hit.

Absolutely nothing wrong with this tackle, and Lawes' intent is fairly irrelevant if potential distasteful. Think the OP has no argument that realistically allows rugby to remain a contact sport and the risk of getting hurt (but not injured) is part of the thrill of the game and always has been. As for whether it's fair to say this kind of tackle will drive parents away from letting their kids play, now THAT is a valid and interesting argument. The original one. To me at least, is fairly tedious and without point

The point that seems to be missing is not the danger to the man, this is a contact sport injuries will happen (intentional or un-intentional), but more the danger to his team.

Lawes could go for one of these hits and get it wrong and get red carded at a crucial time. The referees all interpret the game differently there is no consistency.

"Are England the kings of cheap shots?"

Well there are a good number of England players who are susceptible to behaviour that at the wrong time could get them a card.

Hartley, Attwood, Farrell, Brown, Tuilagi as well as Lawes have all been carded for banned for bad behaviour on the field. Most teams in contention for the RWC do not have so many players as susceptible to getting into trouble that might cost the team.

maes,

Lets be honest Hibbard is our own version of Lawes, he often goes for the 'big' hit but by doing so he rushes out of the line. If it comes off likes Lawes' did then it look great but as you say if its mis timed or missed altogether then that creates other issues.

As for king of cheap shots, I don't think any team is whiter than white or above reproach.

I can't remember any remotely recent incidents of Attwood, Farrell, Brown or Tuilagi being carded for anything like that. Any in mind maestegmafia?

Is Guns the 606 King of cheap WUM shots at England.?

bedfordwelsh wrote:maes,

Lets be honest Hibbard is our own version of Lawes, he often goes for the 'big' hit but by doing so he rushes out of the line.  If it comes off likes Lawes' did then it look great but as you say if its mis timed or missed altogether then that creates other issues.

As for king of cheap shots, I don't think any team is whiter than white or above reproach.

My point being that it is rather more important that players consider the level of scrutinisation and the consequences before they make decisions that may put them in a position where they could seriously cripple their teams ability in a crucial game by getting a red or yellow card.

Lawes hit was late, the ball had gone, too late? No he was committed, good decision by a good referee.

As for your reply to the king of cheap shots, it would be interesting to see which top ten international teams have had the highest amount of time where their players have been banned from the game.

All teams suffer from players lapses in concentration, a players over enthusiasm, occasionally. Though some Collectively appear to suffer far more occasionally than others.

Lawes received a two game ban at the last RWC didn't he?

I imagine France, Argentina and SA would be around the top5 Maes

yappysnap wrote:I imagine France, Argentina and SA would be around the top5 Maes

Yes you are probably right but I think the OP is correct in that England would probably top the list. They have most likely cumulatively had the most players missing from rugby bans of all the nations. Dylan Hartley alone has spent more time out of rugby than most national teams.

How far back are you going, Maes? Injury kept Bradley Davies from playing more of a role in the Welsh squad but a disciplinary panel decided this should have seen red, and banned him for seven weeks. That's the same tournament Hartley picked up his ban for biting Ferris.



I don't think Wales are a dirty, or cheap shot, team. They mostly seem focused on executing the game plan with speed and efficiency. However, like most international sides, they have players quite capable of brain fart moments.

maestegmafia wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I imagine France, Argentina and SA would be around the top5 Maes

Yes you are probably right but I think the OP is correct in that England would probably top the list. They have most likely cumulatively had the most players missing from rugby bans of all the nations. Dylan Hartley alone has spent more time out of rugby than most national teams.

I can't recall Hartley picking up too many bans when playing for England. I imagine Canafa would be right up there, Cudmore likes a ban or two.

maestegmafia wrote:The point that seems to be missing is not the danger to the man, this is a contact sport injuries will happen (intentional or un-intentional), but more the danger to his team.

Lawes could go for one of these hits and get it wrong and get red carded at a crucial time. The referees all interpret the game differently there is no consistency.

"Are England the kings of cheap shots?"

Well there are a good number of England players who are susceptible to behaviour that at the wrong time could get them a card.

Hartley, Attwood, Farrell, Brown, Tuilagi as well as Lawes have all been carded for banned for bad behaviour on the field. Most teams in contention for the RWC do not have so many players as susceptible to getting into trouble that might cost the team.

When has Brown been carded? I mean this might be true, but I don't think it is, he has very few cards in the last few years for Quins and I think none for England? I think the same can be said of Manu too. Most of what brorown does that is unsavoury is talking, which he should temper but he's not a card risk

Also amazed Haskell wasn't on the list, maesteg!

GunsGerms is asking if England are the kings of LEGAL cheap shots, meaning that they are a dirty side that get away with cheap shots so any bans from England players should not come into the equation...

Personally, I don't think England are as bad as any other side when it comes to (in)discipline. No country is whiter than white and many teams get away with the odd piece of naughty play.

I just don't see how Lawes' tackle was late, a blindside hit or a cheap shot. Proper backrow hunting halfbacks hit

Looking again at the tackle I do have a problem with where Plisson ended up i.e. basically on his neck. That is my issue. I think hitting people very hard is fine and good but there needs to be recognition of tackles requiring players to be responsible for where the tackled player ends up.

I do wonder when I see that sort of tackle whether the tackler ever thinks he's going to get to the player before the ball has been passed. So i guess there's a question mark for me there. But I think it was the right side in terms of timing, just. Maybe you could look at players penalised for tackling any player without the ball, so the onus is on timing those tackles only when certain, but I think it's unrealistic.

As for Guns - king of the legal cheap dig? :-) I have to say, the central question is complete BS. Lawes can be a bit of a thug I think. But how this reflects on the rest of the team I don't know.

How can you determine where the tackler will end up or how he will land though, he hit him in the centre mass so to speak it wasnt high, his legs weren't taken etc etc.

Lawes didn't lift the player so I don't know how you can say he has to put him down safely.

I think its really interesting debate. If our english friends can ignore the wummy part(annoying im sure, but theres lots of other guys defending you aswell so dont worry).
Shouldnt have been a pen or get cited imo, it was 'fine'. I love hits like this like most of us and im always shouting at the tv saying things shouldnt be pens.
BUT we cant ignore issues around our game. This was in the Daily Mail, so as much as its a pap paper, lots of mother of potential rugby player read it. Telling them that top flight players are freaks of nature and at lower levels these kinds of impacts are much smaller will prob fall on deaf ears. Also all you guys saying hits like this have always been in the game, its not the same game anymore, players are MUCH more powerful and dynamic.
So what can be done? This tackle is "fine", like I said I loved it. It was not however perfectly timed like some seem to think. Its late, the player didnt have the ball but allowed(just) due to him being committed. It could be made clear that if a tackle like this deemed to be late then the player will be severely punished with lengthy ban. Maybe that would put a bit of doubt in tacklers head? The thing im thinking is wanting to address the issue without changing a major part of the game.
As a side note to the dangers of collisions, I did like (Austin Healeys?) idea of not allowing subs unless for injury, thus creating slightly smaller "fitter" players on the pitch. Think it was more to do with having more space on the field for attacking rugby but would also help with this. Not sure how viable it is, or how much it would affect a player like Lawes as he seems very athletic(but I dont watch prem so dont really know).

kingjohn7 wrote:I think its really interesting debate. If our english friends can ignore the wummy part(annoying im sure, but theres lots of other guys defending you aswell so dont worry).
Shouldnt have been a pen or get cited imo, it was 'fine'. I love hits like this like most of us and im always shouting at the tv saying things shouldnt be pens.
BUT we cant ignore issues around our game. This was in the Daily Mail, so as much as its a pap paper, lots of mother of potential rugby player read it. Telling them that top flight players are freaks of nature and at lower levels these kinds of impacts are much smaller will prob fall on deaf ears. Also all you guys saying hits like this have always been in the game, its not the same game anymore, players are MUCH more powerful and dynamic.
So what can be done? This tackle is "fine", like I said I loved it. It was not however perfectly timed like some seem to think. Its late, the player didnt have the ball but allowed(just) due to him being committed. It could be made clear that if a tackle like this deemed to be late then the player will be severely punished with lengthy ban. Maybe that would put a bit of doubt in tacklers head? The thing im thinking is wanting to address the issue without changing a major part of the game.
As a side note to the dangers of collisions, I did like (Austin Healeys?) idea of not allowing subs unless for injury, thus creating slightly smaller "fitter" players on the pitch. Think it was more to do with having more space on the field for attacking rugby but would also help with this. Not sure how viable it is, or how much it would affect a player like Lawes as he seems very athletic(but I dont watch prem so dont really know).

Good post, kingjohn.


Regarding Healy's comments about reducing subs. I think the best solution would have 8 on the bench but you can only use 6. I think that would have a massive impact on body types because teams couldn't unload benches as freely (eg the French front row) and therefore would need smaller, fitter players.

The problem with the smaller fitter argument is that Billy Vunipola played every minute of England's five nations games. I know he has taken a while to get to his current level of fitness, but he is one of the biggest guys about.

Honestly, you should be thanking us English on bended knee. If it weren't for us, Munster, Leinster Connaught and Ulster would be beating the Poopie out of eachother with NO overriding priority of beating us.

bedfordwelsh wrote:How can you determine where the tackler will end up or how he will land though, he hit him in the centre mass so to speak it wasnt high, his legs weren't taken etc etc.

Yeah i think that is the tricky part. No idea, but I guess if you de-powered the hit a little you'd have a greater certainty of putting him down safely. Or if you focused on wrapping your arms. Not sure, i'd just like to see options considered I think.

Isn't the most dangerous tackle one that you go into half hearted? So a de-powered hit could be just as bad

lostinwales wrote:The problem with the smaller fitter argument is that Billy Vunipola played every minute of England's five nations games. I know he has taken a while to get to his current level of fitness, but he is one of the biggest guys about.

He was good going forward but it doesn't mean he was good in defence. Its a no brainer that the heavier you are the less running you can do.

Keith Wood mentioned a few weeks back that he was normal between 16 - 17st but for the Lions tour to South Africa he went up to 18st. He said he had the same burst of speed but it took a lot more out of him.

profitius wrote:

lostinwales wrote:The problem with the smaller fitter argument is that Billy Vunipola played every minute of England's five nations games. I know he has taken a while to get to his current level of fitness, but he is one of the biggest guys about.

He was good going forward but it doesn't mean he was good in defence. Its a no brainer that the heavier you are the less running you can do.

Keith Wood mentioned a few weeks back that he was normal between 16 - 17st but for the Lions tour to South Africa he went up to 18st. He said he had the same burst of speed but it took a lot more out of him.

I'm pretty sure Billy V had one of the best tackle stats in the England side during the 6 Nations. His work-rate in attack and defence is now very impressive. I think losing his place was a real kick up the backside for him.

Hood83 wrote:Looking again at the tackle I do have a problem with where Plisson ended up i.e. basically on his neck. That is my issue. I think hitting people very hard is fine and good but there needs to be recognition of tackles requiring players to be responsible for where the tackled player ends up.

I do wonder when I see that sort of tackle whether the tackler ever thinks he's going to get to the player before the ball has been passed. So i guess there's a question mark for me there. But I think it was the right side in terms of timing, just. Maybe you could look at players penalised for tackling any player without the ball, so the onus is on timing those tackles only when certain, but I think it's unrealistic.

As for Guns - king of the legal cheap dig? :-) I have to say, the central question is complete BS. Lawes can be a bit of a thug I think. But how this reflects on the rest of the team I don't know.

If you want to see a cheap shot, then have a look at nick Williams hit on Rhys Patchell on Friday night.

great legal tackle by Lawes. almost late but not quite.

if plisson chooses to be looking the other way how does that make a tackle a cheap shot?

wum OP obviously.

http://blog.rugbyunited.info/2015/03/jeff-powells-mail-article/

Sums up my thoughts on it.

quinsforever wrote:almost late but not quite.

If a player hasn't the ball, the tackle is late. There is no measure of quite or not, he either has the ball or doesn't.

Ozzy3213 wrote:http://blog.rugbyunited.info/2015/03/jeff-powells-mail-article/

Sums up my thoughts on it.

That did make me laugh

You have to love the "If it had happened in a street outside the stadium police may well have been called to investigate if there were grounds for an assault charge" line from the Daily Fail...

maestegmafia wrote:

quinsforever wrote:almost late but not quite.

If a player hasn't the ball, the tackle is late. There is no measure of quite or not, he either has the ball or doesn't.

That's pretty simplistic. Are you a rugby fan?

If a player is committed to the tackle and the other player ships the ball after that point, how can that possibly be a foul? It would be ridiculously easy to buy penalties if you could win one by merely chucking the ball away before contact. Think about it.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:http://blog.rugbyunited.info/2015/03/jeff-powells-mail-article/

Sums up my thoughts on it.

That did make me laugh

You have to love the "If it had happened in a street outside the stadium police may well have been called to investigate if there were grounds for an assault charge" line from the Daily Fail...

Just read it - its brilliant. I especially like the response from Lawes himself

maestegmafia wrote:
If a player hasn't the ball, the tackle is late. There is no measure of quite or not, he either has the ball or doesn't.

Oh dear, you really don't have a clue

Steve_rugby wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
If a player hasn't the ball, the tackle is late. There is no measure of quite or not, he either has the ball or doesn't.

Oh dear, you really don't have a clue

He probably does, but because it's an English player the laws are slightly different for us

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:http://blog.rugbyunited.info/2015/03/jeff-powells-mail-article/

Sums up my thoughts on it.

That did make me laugh

You have to love the "If it had happened in a street outside the stadium police may well have been called to investigate if there were grounds for an assault charge" line from the Daily Fail...

That was simply a proper idiot comment but the one that got me was him suggesting that Lawes was a coward and suggested that he takes on men his own size... Well I have seen enough of Lawes over the years to see that he does not shy away from anyone. This tackle only looks bad because Plisson shows little awareness of his surroundings and turns his back (no blindside hit intended from Lawes). I have seen bigger hits from Lawes on bigger men.

I didn't see much wrong with Lawes tackle bar a slightly grey area on the landing. Referee didn't give it nor was it cited afterwards. Given that I'm reasonably happy with its type.

You see those types of tackles every week in super rugby. Lawes tackling does tend to come out of the brian lima school. Its not cheap shots but rather ferocious intensity which sits on the margins. Lawes has gone a different route than most. He's very fast and agile for a 18st, 6'7 chap and usually players can sidestep such a lump.

maestegmafia wrote:

quinsforever wrote:almost late but not quite.

If a player hasn't the ball, the tackle is late. There is no measure of quite or not, he either has the ball or doesn't.

actually you are 100% wrong. it's where the ball was when the tackler commits to the tackle.

To quote Turkish "it's not a tickling contest". Lawes was committed to the tackle.
I don't think the intent is to injure. I think the intent is to make the recipient more wary and therefore less effective.

If it were anybody else making that tackle we would not be having this debate on here, it's just that Lawes has given himself a bit of a naughty reputation, being the cynic I am, I am going to say that Lawes wanted to hurt him/shake him up, in slow motion it looks bad, but you can understand why nothing has come of it, because when I replace Lawes in my imagination with another player you think ah well, it's a mans game, as soon as you see Lawes doing it, you immediately think it's dirty. He only has himself to blame for people taking that mind set though.

So what you're saying is the tackle is fine but you're prejudiced against Lawes.

The only time I can recall Lawes doing something you could consider 'dirty' (for England) anyway was against Argentina in the last World Cup when he slid in with his knees.

Other than that he just tends to put in hard tackles (that not many players of his size could do as they wouldn't be quick enough).

I'm not sure why (or if) he's got a bad reputation.

I'm sure somebody will now dig out a whole load of past 'incidents'!

How many bans has Lawes had? How many cards? From a quick net search I have only ever found 1 instance which was a 2 game ban during the RWC. I don't think he's ever been sent off.

In comparison I see Sam Warburton has been banned for 3 weeks and sent off in his career.

Why has courtney lawes got a naughty reputation?

Similar retort Cyril. I couldn't find anything on Lawes and never saw him as a dirty player.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So what you're saying is the tackle is fine but you're prejudiced against Lawes.

Yes, because I think he looks to hurt people, he has got previous for it.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So what you're saying is the tackle is fine but you're prejudiced against Lawes.

Yes, because I think he looks to hurt people, he has got previous for it.

If he looked to hurt people he would have had more than a sole ban given he's been a pro rugby player for 8 years.

Maybe you dislike him but his record is near as clean as anyone's.

For 8 years, close to 200 games for club and country and only 2 weeks being banned given he's a lock is vying on "Saint" territory.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So what you're saying is the tackle is fine but you're prejudiced against Lawes.

Yes, because I think he looks to hurt people, he has got previous for it.

Previous for hurting people or trying to hurt people?

There is a difference.

Why do you think he looks to hurt people more than, say, the average player?

Don't forget, guys, this is all about 'legal' cheap shots. So even if a player rarely gets penalised or banned it doesn't mean they're not 'dirty'. Just lucky or yet to get their comeuppance!

Cleverly titled OP

fa0019 wrote:How many bans has Lawes had? How many cards? From a quick net search I have only ever found 1 instance which was a 2 game ban during the RWC. I don't think he's ever been sent off.

In comparison I see Sam Warburton has been banned for 3 weeks and sent off in his career.

Why has courtney lawes got a naughty reputation?

You sure it was 3 weeks?

Cyril wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So what you're saying is the tackle is fine but you're prejudiced against Lawes.

Yes, because I think he looks to hurt people, he has got previous for it.

Previous for hurting people or trying to hurt people?

There is a difference.

Why do you think he looks to hurt people more than, say, the average player?

Because I think, that HE thinks he has to, due to outside influences like the "media and fans" making him out to be some kind of an enforcer. Thats not his fault, but I think he tries to live up to it.