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.

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

It was still low, as opposed to high. And yes, it was bad technique. I said as much.

Great. Now hometown broadcasters will have even more opportunity to skew a game to their team's advantage. Any hint of head contact by the opposition will be shown over and over and over for the crowd until the TMO or referee bites. Some away teams will go down to 10 men. If WR are going to pander to all the mums and mummies boys out there then they must look at implementing replay rules at grounds.

ebop wrote:Great. Now hometown broadcasters will have even more opportunity to skew a game to their team's advantage. Any hint of head contact by the opposition will be shown over and over and over for the crowd until the TMO or referee bites.  Some away teams will go down to 10 men. If WR are going to pander to all the mums and mummies boys out there then they must look at implementing replay rules at grounds.

Dont worry the rules will not apply to New Zealand.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Great. Now hometown broadcasters will have even more opportunity to skew a game to their team's advantage. Any hint of head contact by the opposition will be shown over and over and over for the crowd until the TMO or referee bites.  Some away teams will go down to 10 men. If WR are going to pander to all the mums and mummies boys out there then they must look at implementing replay rules at grounds.

Dont worry the rules will not apply to New Zealand.

Wouldn't bother me if they did

It's the desperadoes elsewhere where it'd need strict policing

Like Ireland for example

NZ will be one of the qst teams to adapt to different tackling. They like to push the rules but don't like getting pinged for breaking them too much.

Desperados? What does that mean?

Portuguese for desperate

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

because over the years there have been many instances where referees could have given the ABs a red card based on precedent, the rules, consistency etc. but haven't. Just because they are the biggest brand in rugby doesn't mean that they should be subject to more lenient rulings. However, they are.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

because over the years there have been many instances where referees could have given the ABs a red card based on precedent, the rules, consistency etc. but haven't. Just because they are the biggest brand in rugby doesn't mean that they should be subject to more lenient rulings. However, they are.

That's just sour grapes guns

Could list an equally long list of unpenalised offences against the ABs

Elbows to heads, head high tackles, eye gouges etc etc

All unpenalised

Probably won't go unpenalised any longer. So all good.

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

because over the years there have been many instances where referees could have given the ABs a red card based on precedent, the rules, consistency etc. but haven't. Just because they are the biggest brand in rugby doesn't mean that they should be subject to more lenient rulings. However, they are.

That's just sour grapes guns

Could list an equally long list of unpenalised offences against the ABs

Elbows to heads, head high tackles, eye gouges etc etc

All unpenalised

Considering Sam Cane was cleared and WR then released a statement saying ANY contact with head is foul play it seems there is double standards

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

because over the years there have been many instances where referees could have given the ABs a red card based on precedent, the rules, consistency etc. but haven't. Just because they are the biggest brand in rugby doesn't mean that they should be subject to more lenient rulings. However, they are.

That's just sour grapes guns

Could list an equally long list of unpenalised offences against the ABs

Elbows to heads, head high tackles, eye gouges etc etc

All unpenalised

Considering Sam Cane was cleared and WR then released a statement saying ANY contact with head is foul play it seems there is double standards

And yet Sexton can attempt a try saving head high tackle and......nothing

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

because over the years there have been many instances where referees could have given the ABs a red card based on precedent, the rules, consistency etc. but haven't. Just because they are the biggest brand in rugby doesn't mean that they should be subject to more lenient rulings. However, they are.

That's just sour grapes guns

Could list an equally long list of unpenalised offences against the ABs

Elbows to heads, head high tackles, eye gouges etc etc

All unpenalised

Considering Sam Cane was cleared and WR then released a statement saying ANY contact with head is foul play it seems there is double standards

And yet Sexton can attempt a try saving head high tackle and......nothing

The shoulder is below the head so maybe they just have a grasp of anatomy unlike you

Sextons tackle didnt make contact with Barret's head initially and wasn't particularly dangerous.  There was literally no head movement from Barrett in the tackle as Sexton hit the shoulder as he tried to knock the ball out of Barrett's hands.

Any contact with Barrett's head was about as significant as a head massage. Yes, it was potentially a penalty as you cant tackle that high however, not sure how kiwis can whinge about this on one hand and ignore how much real (not imaginary) impact there was to Henshaw's head in the tackle by Cane, intentional or not.

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

because over the years there have been many instances where referees could have given the ABs a red card based on precedent, the rules, consistency etc. but haven't. Just because they are the biggest brand in rugby doesn't mean that they should be subject to more lenient rulings. However, they are.

That's just sour grapes guns

Could list an equally long list of unpenalised offences against the ABs

Elbows to heads, head high tackles, eye gouges etc etc

All unpenalised

Considering Sam Cane was cleared and WR then released a statement saying ANY contact with head is foul play it seems there is double standards

And yet Sexton can attempt a try saving head high tackle and......nothing

The shoulder is below the head so maybe they just have a grasp of anatomy unlike you

And maybe you can't read

"contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders"

Guns, you're the one whinging about ABs being above the law

I'm whinging about biased host broadcasters affecting the outcome of games and this new rule providing them with a new tool to exploit

And they will

Any teeny weeny little head tap will be blown out of All proportions

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

because over the years there have been many instances where referees could have given the ABs a red card based on precedent, the rules, consistency etc. but haven't. Just because they are the biggest brand in rugby doesn't mean that they should be subject to more lenient rulings. However, they are.

That's just sour grapes guns

Could list an equally long list of unpenalised offences against the ABs

Elbows to heads, head high tackles, eye gouges etc etc

All unpenalised

Considering Sam Cane was cleared and WR then released a statement saying ANY contact with head is foul play it seems there is double standards

And yet Sexton can attempt a try saving head high tackle and......nothing

The shoulder is below the head so maybe they just have a grasp of anatomy unlike you

And maybe you can't read

"contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders"

Then whats your problem? Barrett was neither twisted or rolled or are you going to try to redefine that too?

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

because over the years there have been many instances where referees could have given the ABs a red card based on precedent, the rules, consistency etc. but haven't. Just because they are the biggest brand in rugby doesn't mean that they should be subject to more lenient rulings. However, they are.

That's just sour grapes guns

Could list an equally long list of unpenalised offences against the ABs

Elbows to heads, head high tackles, eye gouges etc etc

All unpenalised

Considering Sam Cane was cleared and WR then released a statement saying ANY contact with head is foul play it seems there is double standards

And yet Sexton can attempt a try saving head high tackle and......nothing

The shoulder is below the head so maybe they just have a grasp of anatomy unlike you

And maybe you can't read

"contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders"

Then whats your problem? Barrett was neither twisted or rolled or are you going to try to redefine that too?

It's official

You can't read

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Portuguese for desperate

Haha, how are Ireland desperate?

Why won't rules apply to New Zealand?

because over the years there have been many instances where referees could have given the ABs a red card based on precedent, the rules, consistency etc. but haven't. Just because they are the biggest brand in rugby doesn't mean that they should be subject to more lenient rulings. However, they are.

That's just sour grapes guns

Could list an equally long list of unpenalised offences against the ABs

Elbows to heads, head high tackles, eye gouges etc etc

All unpenalised

Considering Sam Cane was cleared and WR then released a statement saying ANY contact with head is foul play it seems there is double standards

And yet Sexton can attempt a try saving head high tackle and......nothing

The shoulder is below the head so maybe they just have a grasp of anatomy unlike you

And maybe you can't read

"contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders"

Then whats your problem? Barrett was neither twisted or rolled or are you going to try to redefine that too?

It's official

You can't read

No I think youll find you can't

For it to be a penalty grabbing the neck alone isn't a penalty you you have to grab AND(that's the key word) twist or roll

Get it now?

The Sexton thing was a try anyway.

marty2086 wrote:No I think youll find you can't

For it to be a penalty grabbing the neck alone isn't a penalty you you have to grab AND(that's the key word) twist or roll

Get it now?

My humblest of apologies

It turns out I was barking up the wrong tree

Sexton didn't grab Barrett's neck/head

He 'clobbered' his head with his forearm

He grabbed his neck which you have pointed isn't foul play

So now you go and just make sh*t up?

Seems AB fans turn into 4 year olds if you say anything against their team

No

What I actually did was I popped over to YouTube and reacquainted myself with the incident and saw with my own eyes Sexton clobbering Barrett across the head with his forearm

And low and behold

No card???

No penalty???

Did they replay it over and over and over on the big screen?

Clobbered. Dear god. Likely be the same outcome now given the try was scored. If it wasn't scored it would be the same outcome before and after, yellow and penalty try. Cane would now be red carded while before its a yellow.

ebop wrote:No

What I actually did was I popped over to YouTube and reacquainted myself with the incident and saw with my own eyes Sexton clobbering Barrett across the head with his forearm

Like I said turning into a 4 year old

O <Head
l <Neck

Get it right!

I'd also suggest popping over to dictionary.com and acquainting yourself with the meaning of the word clobber

Come on marty

No need to get all wound up and name call

Go have a look at the tackle, he 'clobbers' Barrett

And it makes no difference before the new rules or after.

ebop wrote:Come on marty

No need to get all wound up and name call

Go have a look at the tackle, he 'clobbers' Barrett

Well theres no need to make stuff up but if you get on like a child Ill call you out for being one, pretty simple

The contact was with the neck not the head and to clobber requires force which there wasn't so maybe you just need to grow up

I see marty is making friends again

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:Come on marty

No need to get all wound up and name call

Go have a look at the tackle, he 'clobbers' Barrett

Well theres no need to make stuff up but if you get on like a child Ill call you out for being one, pretty simple

The contact was with the neck not the head and to clobber requires force which there wasn't so maybe you just need to grow up

Lol

You're an amateur mate

Ebop is just wumming again cyril.

No 7.5, I think this new law will be exploited and I have reservations about it even though the intention is good. Marty on the other hand is whipping himself up into a lather on his own accord.

seems hes rewriting the dictionary and redefining body parts in an attempt to weakly defend the the holier than thou ABs

ebop wrote:No 7.5, I think this new law will be exploited and I have reservations about it even though the intention is good. Marty on the other hand is whipping himself up into a lather on his own accord.

Excuse me, when pointed out Cane was let of despite the laws you made stuff up

Now you are making sick insinuations?

How very classy of a pathetic individual

Don't think Canes was red and on review wasn't would be now marty.

The way round that ebop is not to tackle high.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't think Canes was red and on review wasn't would be now marty.  

The way round that ebop is not to tackle high.

Under the directives at the time it was a penalty and yellow card at least and WR released a statement saying as much the day after Canes hearing

Yup. Sure red now.

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:No 7.5, I think this new law will be exploited and I have reservations about it even though the intention is good. Marty on the other hand is whipping himself up into a lather on his own accord.

Excuse me, when pointed out Cane was let of despite the laws you made stuff up

Now you are making sick insinuations?

How very classy of a pathetic individual

Meltdown

Not helpful ebop.

Fair enough 7.5

Lucky I'm a mature 4 year old

No 7&1/2 wrote:The way round that ebop is not to tackle high.

You're absolutely right. Rugby evolves and this is just another step. If there is a loop hole I just need to have faith that it'll get plugged. Hopefully not after a high stakes occasion.

The way it has been reffed so far is that refs ask the two to review in play or look themselves at a break.

ebop wrote:No

What I actually did was I popped over to YouTube and reacquainted myself with the incident and saw with my own eyes Sexton clobbering Barrett across the head with his forearm

And low and behold

No card???

No penalty???

Did they replay it over and over and over on the big screen?

He hardly clobbered Barrett in the head. Barret's head doesn't move an inch in contact. You can also see from other angles that Sexton's hand/arm was on Barrett's shoulder and not neck/head.

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:No 7.5, I think this new law will be exploited and I have reservations about it even though the intention is good. Marty on the other hand is whipping himself up into a lather on his own accord.

Excuse me, when pointed out Cane was let of despite the laws you made stuff up

Now you are making sick insinuations?

How very classy of a pathetic individual

Meltdown

Meltdown?

OK then Cane should have been banned because he took a crowbar to Henshaws head, it was shocking

Watching the Parling incident...I don't see how Barritt's swinging arm to the head is any different to the one that got Hartley some time on the sidelines.

Does beg the question how in the hell you tackle someone that's going into contact headfirst with a near horizontal upper body position under the new laws.

mid_gen wrote:Watching the Parling incident...I don't see how Barritt's swinging arm to the head is any different to the one that got Hartley some time on the sidelines.

Does beg the question how in the hell you tackle someone that's going into contact headfirst with a near horizontal upper body position under the new laws.

The biggest difference is Sexton didnt hit Barrett in the head. He hit his shoulder and tried to knock the ball out of Barrett's hands. As they slid forward Sexton gave Barrett the rugby equivalent of a head massage and that was to only point there was any contact with the head.

By contrast Hartley clattered SOB with full force in the back of the head. big difference.

Barritt not Barrett.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Watching the Parling incident...I don't see how Barritt's swinging arm to the head is any different to the one that got Hartley some time on the sidelines.

Does beg the question how in the hell you tackle someone that's going into contact headfirst with a near horizontal upper body position under the new laws.

 

The biggest difference is Sexton didnt hit Barrett in the head. He hit his shoulder and tried to knock the ball out of Barrett's hands. As they slid forward Sexton gave Barrett the rugby equivalent of a head massage and that was to only point there was any contact with the head.

By contrast Hartley clattered SOB with full force in the back of the head. big difference.

Hes talking about a different Barrit, ie Brad