New Tackle Laws

First topic message reminder :

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/new-laws-to-clamp-down-on-high-tackles-could-prove-revolutionary-in-rugby-1.2924256

A lot of people concerned about the new tackle laws. My biggest concern is that it gives referees too much power to decide on intent.

I fear that his will just be another excuse for Wayne Barnes to penalise Ireland unfairly and potentially issue us more yellow cards when we play Wales. I don't trust him to apply the rules consistently or fairly.

Guns, On the ref 'integrity' thing. Where would that leave an English ref with a Scottish mother who went to school in Wales and university in Ireland? I went to uni in Wales and lived there for 15 years before moving back to England. Watching rugby I received a lot of (mostly) good natured banter which was fun but now means that I probably favour most over Wales rather than the other way around What about Rolland and JP Doyle? You run the risk of not having any available refs due to your stringent technicalities.

Cyril wrote:Guns, On the ref 'integrity' thing. Where would that leave an English ref with a Scottish mother who went to school in Wales and university in Ireland? I went to uni in Wales and lived there for 15 years before moving back to England. Watching rugby I received a lot of (mostly) good natured banter which was fun but now means that I probably favour most over Wales rather than the other way around What about Rolland and JP Doyle? You run the risk of not having any available refs due to your stringent technicalities.

No wonder you love Wayne Barnes. Rolland never lived in France. He is about as French as Wayne Rooney or Owen Farrell are Irish.

JP Doyle probably shouldn't be able to ref England games nor Ireland ones IMO. Same way I thought it would be wrong for Steve Walsh when he moved to Australia to ref NZ games or Aussie games.

There's no hope for you.

I honestly struggle to understand how anyone can see referee's as being biased. They are professionals and this is their livelihood. If there was any assumption that biased decisions were being made then they would be investigated for corruption, stood down immediately and lose their livelihood.

Just don't see it myself, maybe I am too trusting.

So the new laws...

marty2086 wrote:So the new laws...

Ever thought about becoming a mod Marty?

Cyril wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So the new laws...

Ever thought about becoming a mod Marty?

Probably best I don't there may not be any Welsh posters left then

marty2086 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So the new laws...

Ever thought about becoming a mod Marty?

Probably best I don't there may not be any Welsh posters left then

Fair play, it's going to be an interesting 6 Nations. By the way, I might post a bit edgy (act the maggot) sometimes but, like Guns, I don't want to fall out with anyone

eirebilly wrote:

Players know that the head area is off limits but in a physical game like rugby, collisions are going to occur. If the referee's are going to be empowered to card players for every incident then rugby will become a mess.

Seems that the Scarlet's Ulster game was the first to be ruined by this new rule.

Falcons-Bath was fine. Seems with a sensible interpretation the new rule shouldn't ruin games.

Well that's good to hear Scottrf. Am really worried it will mess the game up.

eirebilly wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Players know that the head area is off limits but in a physical game like rugby, collisions are going to occur. If the referee's are going to be empowered to card players for every incident then rugby will become a mess.

Seems that the Scarlet's Ulster game was the first to be ruined by this new rule.

Was it because an Irish province lost? Thought so.

When will Irish (and Ireland) fans accept losing to a better side?

If you don't like the sport choose something else.

Cyril wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Players know that the head area is off limits but in a physical game like rugby, collisions are going to occur. If the referee's are going to be empowered to card players for every incident then rugby will become a mess.

Seems that the Scarlet's Ulster game was the first to be ruined by this new rule.

Was it because an Irish province lost? Thought so.

When will Irish (and Ireland) fans accept losing to a better side?

If you don't like the sport choose something else.

Not a supporter of Ulster...

Not sure why you are trolling me but hey ho, each to their own.

Such a reasonable response Cyril...

Eh?

eirebilly wrote:I honestly struggle to understand how anyone can see referee's as being biased. They are professionals and this is their livelihood. If there was any assumption that biased  decisions were being made then they would be investigated for corruption, stood down immediately and lose their livelihood.

Just don't see it myself, maybe I am too trusting.

OTOH evidence needs to be looked at.

If a specific referee penalises one team twice as much as any other team or indeed twice as much on average as any other referee over a period of several years, should they be investigated? The evidence is enlightening for anyone who cares to look at it.

Highlights are on the BBC website and have to say the decision was abysmal, never a yellow and never a penalty try, the new laws are going to be absolute chaos.

Scottrf wrote:Falcons-Bath was fine. Seems with a sensible interpretation the new rule shouldn't ruin games.

Well that's the hope I'm clinging to. I'm not complaining about the loss, Scarlets were the better side in the 2nd half, but watching Matrea's interpretation of the law sent shivers down my spine. I can't blame Matrea either as there is probably a lot of confusion as to how to apply this new law.

Just seen it. I can definitely understand the referees decision and if you decide upon a penalty the other consequences inevitably follow. It was high, the player knew there was a chance of contact with the head and it probably stopped a try. It really does leave you wondering what the defenders are supposed to do though short of letting the attacker dive at the line. Was there a trial of the law at a lower level?

Falcons-Bath had similar dives for the line with (inevitable) contact with the head without anything as blatant as this though.

From a gameplay perspective I'd want to side with the defender who made a fairly safe challenge, but I don't think the decision was wrong.

It's a shame to see a player leave the field for that though and I'd suggest more leniency around the try line with accidental contacts because of the nature of players changing vertical position so quickly and with a leading head.

I did not see the incident in the Scarlet's Ulster match Scottrf, was only going by what was being said from both sets of fans.

I am just a traditional old player that likes the physical side of the game and am concerned that this new rule will spoil the game. I do like that you said that it was handled correctly in the match you watched which does give me some hope.

The Great Aukster wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I honestly struggle to understand how anyone can see referee's as being biased. They are professionals and this is their livelihood. If there was any assumption that biased  decisions were being made then they would be investigated for corruption, stood down immediately and lose their livelihood.

Just don't see it myself, maybe I am too trusting.

OTOH evidence needs to be looked at.

If a specific referee penalises one team twice as much as any other team or indeed twice as much on average as any other referee over a period of several years, should they be investigated? The evidence is enlightening for anyone who cares to look at it.

Without a doubt but in this day and age where corruption (match fixing, betting irregularities etc) is high, I would expect that the powers that be are right on top of such things and perform their own investigations. If, for example Barnes, was so irregular in his refereeing then surely formal complaints would have been made. I am unaware of any formal complaints made against Barnes (or any other ref) that would suggest to me that anyone is so biased.

I'm a bit behind on this new tackle rule law business. what actually is the new law?

aucklandlaurie wrote:I'm a bit behind on this new tackle rule law business. what actually is the new law?

It's all about head contact. If a tackler makes any contact with the head, whether he means to or not, then he's in trouble. As a rule of thumb, punishments have gone up a level. Just penalties are now yellows too, while old yellows are now reds. We've been heading that way in the North anyway but World Rugby has put their seal on new directives from the start of the calendar year.

It's a pain to deal with it mid-season because no-one has had proper time to prepare. If the opposition have a ruck on your line, how do you tackle a player who picks and charges head-first only inches from the ground?

The seriousness of a punishment has nothing to do with a player's intent but a lot to do with what he could reasonably expect to happen.

Scottrf wrote:Just seen it. I can definitely understand the referees decision and if you decide upon a penalty the other consequences inevitably follow. It was high, the player knew there was a chance of contact with the head and it probably stopped a try. It really does leave you wondering what the defenders are supposed to do though short of letting the attacker dive at the line. Was there a trial of the law at a lower level?

Falcons-Bath had similar dives for the line with (inevitable) contact with the head without anything as blatant as this though.

From a gameplay perspective I'd want to side with the defender who made a fairly safe challenge, but I don't think the decision was wrong.

It's a shame to see a player leave the field for that though and I'd suggest more leniency around the try line with accidental contacts because of the nature of players changing vertical position so quickly and with a leading head.

Reidy didnt make contact with the head though, Trimble did, Reidy was over the shoulder and across the chest

The new laws are either telling defenders you have to go behind an attackers and hope you can almost suplex them away from the try line and hope they dont reach out or stand right in front of them which is even more dangerous

New rule coming in next season: players must cross the try line completely erect (ooh er!) with bodies at a perfectly straight 90 degree angle to the pitch. No diving. No stooping. No reaching out. Perfectly straight. Like they used to run in the black and white days. Any deviation from straight will result in a penalty against. Players must therefore bend at the knees while keeping a straight back to place the ball over the line to score the try. This, it is hoped, will remove the need for a try saving high tackle

Red card for Saracens in the first few minutes against Exeter.

Well in the current Saracens v Exeter match you have 1 red card for a high tackle as RF said above - could have possibly been two or a yellow for barritt.

You also have two players knocked out because they went to tackle crazy low and their heads had contact with knees!

So do the rules really stop head injuries or are they just making players tackle too low so that the risk of head injury is just shifted....

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well in the current Saracens v Exeter match you have 1 red card for a high tackle as RF said above - could have possibly been two or a yellow for barritt.

You also have two players knocked out because they went to tackle crazy low and their heads had contact with knees!

So do the rules really stop head injuries or are they just making players tackle too low so that the risk of head injury is just shifted....

The Sarries red was laughable, Parling was tackled high by Barrit and Parling essentially fell into Barrington and Barrit stayed on and Barrington went off

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I'm a bit behind on this new tackle rule law business. what actually is the new law?

It's all about head contact. If a tackler makes any contact with the head, whether he means to or not, then he's in trouble. As a rule of thumb, punishments have gone up a level. Just penalties are now yellows too, while old yellows are now reds. We've been heading that way in the North anyway but World Rugby has put their seal on new directives from the start of the calendar year.

It's a pain to deal with it mid-season because no-one has had proper time to prepare. If the opposition have a ruck on your line, how do you tackle a player who picks and charges head-first only inches from the ground?

The seriousness of a punishment has nothing to do with a player's intent but a lot to do with what he could reasonably expect to happen.

 So would I be correct to say RF that the law is no different to last year the only thing different is the increase in sanctions?

The other problem we have of course is now every remotely contentious tackle is going to have five mins video analysis (as per the current game Saracens v Exeter). The games going to last hours like an American Football game!

Pretty much Laurie. The recent Cane shoulder to head accident or not would be a red now.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Pretty much Laurie.  The recent Cane shoulder to head accident or not would be a red now.

It was a red then too

Just watched Racing v Munster. Racing made two early high tackles that, by the new law, should have both seen Yellow. Ref only penalised one as he deemed neither to be intentional. There is hope for our game if we have referee's that use their common sense

You should have a listen to a recent On the Ball podcast with Dr. Barry O'Driscoll regarding these news rules.

A study was carries out looking at 1500 HIAs over 4 years 2012-2016 when showed:

76% of concussions happen in the tackle

72% of those concussions were the defender/tackler


World rugby are trialling a rule in NZ where the tackle has to be below the nipple line.

But if the tackler (who is 2.5 times more likely to be concussed than the ball carrier) has to tackle significantly lower (below the nipple) - will they not be at a higher risk of concussion due to the higher chance of contact with elbows/knees etc

In another interview a few days ago Eddie O'Sullivan questioned whether there would be plenty of unfair cardings due to ball carriers going very low into contact and questioned whether there should be some onus put on the ball carrier to be responsible in the manner they enter the contact. Everyone will be going into the tackle at thigh height otherwise


Another point regarding these tackle laws appears to be that the sanctione is determined by the degree of risk in the action, whereas when someone is tackled in the air the sanction is determine by the outcome of the action. What is the reason for this inconsistency?

There was actually an incident in the Munster game, when I think it may have been Blyendaal stood on Masoes head, given that theres a risk of concussion in these incidents and damage to the eye why isnt that penalised?

It seems WR are scrambling to find solutions to problems without thinking logically about it and its essentially a sticking plaster to the real problem rather than a proper solution

marty2086 wrote:There was actually an incident in the Munster game, when I think it may have been Blyendaal stood on Masoes head, given that theres a risk of concussion in these incidents and damage to the eye why isnt that penalised?

I did not see that one, if this happened, then he could be on the wrong end of a citing they way the rugby world is going at the minute.

marty2086 wrote:There was actually an incident in the Munster game, when I think it may have been Blyendaal stood on Masoes head, given that theres a risk of concussion in these incidents and damage to the eye why isnt that penalised?

It seems WR are scrambling to find solutions to problems without thinking logically about it and its essentially a sticking plaster to the real problem rather than a proper solution

The only incident I can think of was TOD and that was purely accidental?

If you find the link with Tyler, please post it because I missed it.

eirebilly wrote:The only incident I can think of was TOD and that was purely accidental?

Unfortunately I do not think accidental cuts it anymore, reckless is deemed reckless, if it is picked up by the citing commissioner then he is going to do time for it.

LordDowlais wrote:

eirebilly wrote:The only incident I can think of was TOD and that was purely accidental?

Unfortunately I do not think accidental cuts it anymore, reckless is deemed reckless, if it is picked up by the citing commissioner then he is going to do time for it.

The incident I remember was when TOD had half broken the tackle, was falling and his boot made contact to the face. Not even close to reckless, just an unfortunate incident. TOD had no control over his feet as he was being tackled.

Wasn't deemed to be marty.

Sorry I am going to sound like an old fart but I played the game for 25 years and never managed to knock myself out making a tackle - dislocated a shoulder but never tackled with my head. I do think a lot of modern players have very poor tackle technique which leads to head injuries. They are always looking to make big tackles without being in the right position/having the right technique. If you are in the right place then fine you can put in the big tackle, but if not you just have to concentrate on slowing down, stopping or taking down the player and not trying to knock them backwards.
Leigh Halfpenny is a great example - heart as big as a lion but poor technique. Other players like Hartley and Barritt swinging with the arm asking for a red card.

aucklandlaurie wrote:I'm a bit behind on this new tackle rule law business. what actually is the new law?

Don't worry NZ have been given a special exemption from the new laws, so ye are grand

nlpnlp wrote:Sorry I am going to sound like an old fart but I played the game for 25 years and never managed to knock myself out making a tackle - dislocated a shoulder but never tackled with my head.  I do think a lot of modern players have very poor tackle technique which leads to head injuries.  They are always looking to make big tackles without being in the right position/having the right technique.  If you are in the right place then fine you can put in the big tackle, but if not you just have to concentrate on slowing down, stopping or taking down the player and not trying to knock them backwards.
Leigh Halfpenny is a great example - heart as big as a lion but poor technique.  Other players like Hartley and Barritt swinging with the arm asking for a red card.

So, why would modern players learn "poor" technique? Because I agree, its definitely different style tackling from when I played and it often seems poor, but is it, if its on purpose? In a modern game where every aspect of play is calculated and tested, tackling would be strange to have been left off the training paddock? My guess is at the top levels they have run the numbers, done the analysis and the current style of tackling is the most efficient for the defence. Not the safest, not the one most of us learned, but the style that means teams are more likely to win games. Hence pretty radical tackle rules changes are needed to rebalance the game where (perhaps) safer tackling occurs/

wolfball wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I'm a bit behind on this new tackle rule law business. what actually is the new law?

Don't worry NZ have been given a special exemption from the new laws, so ye are grand

 We were told that they had to rush these new laws in after the EOYT games, so that the Lions players could get used to them before the June tests as they couldnt see the Lions beating an AB side with 15 players on the field.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

wolfball wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I'm a bit behind on this new tackle rule law business. what actually is the new law?

Don't worry NZ have been given a special exemption from the new laws, so ye are grand

 We were told that they had to rush these new laws in after the EOYT games, so that the Lions players could get used to them before the June tests as they couldnt see the Lions beating an AB side with 15 players on the field.

In all seriousness, Laurie, it seems like World Rugby felt that had to be seen to take action now because they are worried about future lawsuits. There are already a couple potentially in the pipeline. There's a degree of legal protection if the governing body gives a directive based on best available information, but they couldn't hang around.

Just yesterday, there was a tackle where two Saracens players could easily have been sent off in the first ten minutes of play. It's quite possible the citing officer will rule that a second one should indeed have been shown. Wouldn't be surprised if the referee just didn't want to be the first official to hand out joint reds and ruin a game.

Ben Kay commentating said when opponents get a harsh red, teams will need to be squeaky clean, because refs might start looking for incidents which will let them even up the numbers again.

If we do get a flurry of sendings-off disrupting games, I wouldn't be surprised if World Rugby considers letting teams replace red-carded players to keep the competition even (notwithstanding the fact that 14-man teams can often hold their own or more, these days).

I  dont think the lawsuit thing is an issue down here as you cant be sued or sue in New Zealand for personal injury, however an Employer can be prosecuted for not exercising full duty of care to his employees safety in the workplace.


 A bigger problem will come in time if a non ball carrier gets concussed and  tries to litigate against a Rugby Union/World rugby for personal injury, it will look worse from the point of view that they(World rugby) have only taken steps to prevent injury to ball carriers.  and by not taking steps to minimise injury to that injured party the claim becomes a lot easier to prosecute. This appears to be something that noone has considered that Ive seen.

 Youre suggestion of replacements for red carded players is probably not too far off the mark, perhaps with the replacement not being allowed to come on to the field until after 10 minutes of the offender being dismissed from the field.

 Ben Kay makes a very good point as I'm sure we've all seen instances where the ledger gets evened up, but up to now thats only with regards to the penalty count, but it now becomes a much bigger issue when it relates to the number of players on the field.

Tackling at professional level has for years been of a very poor technical standard, and I think this has been as much to the focus on side (you can smash them if you are big enough) as well as the need to stop them on the gain line (rather than the traditional tackle around the legs and they fall over you)

Haskell goes in low and gets knocked out: Poor-Tackle-Haskell

Expect to see an increase of this type of injury.

Munchkin wrote:Haskell goes in low and gets knocked out: Poor-Tackle-Haskell

Expect to see an increase of this type of injury.

Goes in low? His head hit Burns rib cage, wouldn't say it was that low just bad technique

nathan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Haskell goes in low and gets knocked out: Poor-Tackle-Haskell

Expect to see an increase of this type of injury.

Goes in low? His head hit Burns rib cage, wouldn't say it was that low just bad technique

 Very similar technique to when he tackled Pocock, its a game of inches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pKirApgd3Y