Reds v Waratahs, round 19 2014

[Ash]

I agree with you up until the last paragraph.

There has been a very clear decision made with lifting tackles that the ultimate responsibility lies with the tackler.

The fact that Beale was slightly off the ground when he was tackled mitigated things slightly for Greene but that only meant that he received a yellow card for the tackle rather than a red.

Players, coaches and fans need to move on from questioning which player caused a player to be tipped above the horizontal in a lifting tackle. A clear decision has been made that the tackler will be held responsible so from that perspective they have to ensure that their tackling technique doesn't cause it to happen.

I guess I was saying there reaches a point where the tackler cannot be responsible in any way for the outcome of the tackle. Was that true of the Greene tackle? From memory I don't think it was, but I would need to see it again to confirm.

As to how the IRB citing commisioners handle it, who knows. As Greene hasn't been cited, either the tackle was overlooked or the fact the Beale jumped was taken into account, as otherwise he would've been suspended.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Wow. That's being a little precious. I was merely providing an example as to why Qlders make awful winners and losers in response to your claim that the Waratahs are "the worst club in the world" (because that is so not the kind of thing a blindly one eyed Qlder with a chip on their shoulder would say).

What do you call the courier mail carrying several pages of justification as to why Qlders are still winners after Origin if it's not "one-eyed chip on the shoulder" stuff?

I mean I know it's the News ltd trash like the Tele, but even by the standards of those dumbed down Tony lovers it was pretty telling.

To be fair though, the Telegraph still holds the award for most blatant political propaganda outside of North Korea for their 'Australia Needs Tony' headline before the election. That is some of the most vomit inducing trash I've ever seen and I honestly don't think it could have been more redolent of Kim Jong Un media release without claiming Tony was also in fact God.

Mate, I reckon I am a great winner and a awful loser. We love winning and fucking hate losing.

What's wrong with that !!!!!!

 

[Hawko]

I guess I was saying there reaches a point where the tackler cannot be responsible in any way for the outcome of the tackle. Was that true of the Greene tackle? From memory I don't think it was, but I would need to see it again to confirm.

As to how the IRB citing commisioners handle it, who knows. As Greene hasn't been cited, either the tackle was overlooked or the fact the Beale jumped was taken into account, as otherwise he would've been suspended.

The citing commissioner only cites red card worthy events. He must have decided the yellow card was sufficient penalty after reviewing all the relevant factors.

 

[Pfitzy]

If only someone had told us that a five year plan was only meant to last five years.

Yeah but the fish heads on the board thought it would be a good KPI if they could increase it to ten because bigger numbers are better, right?

 

[Ash]

The physics is a bit more complex. Consider a front on tackle where the runner is going flat out and the tackler from directly in front hits the runner between the knees and the waist; that is below the centre of gravity. This does not result in tip tackles in all but a few cases and yet is quite common in any game. Because there is only minimum or no contact with the ground when running at top speed, this is analogous to your pencil experiment.

Why? Several factors are at play:

• Often a tackler will twist his body so that although the player flips to about 90 degrees he comes to ground quickly on his side or shoulder.
• If the tackler uses his arms to hold the player and goes to ground this will drag the lower half of the body to ground.
• Even if the running player jumps to try and avoid the tackle, a common event when the tackler aims for the ankles, a tip tackle almost never eventuates.
• A running player has to jump quite high to ensure he finishes up beyond the horizontal, and even then the tackler can take action that ensures the player is not tipped (basically to wrap the arms around the player and drive or pull down). As the Law puts the onus on the tackler to do this, a player jumping up is not per se dangerous, though it may be depending on the situation. That is a judgement call for the referee and/or TMO.

In this case the "jumping" was merely trying to get the ball away to another player and was not that high (as the referee and TMO rightly adjudged). What caused the player, Beale, to cartwheel was that Greene drove him up while grasping him.
I'm not that critical of Greene, a young player trying to put a dominant hit on a key opponent, but being a halfback and not very big his direction of drive got messed up and instead of dragging him down to the turf, he forced him up and cartwheeled him. It was very dangerous and Greene was correctly carded.
Two things a tackler can do to never be responsible for a tip tackle:

1. Always tackle using the arms.
2. Drive forward and down, so the legs hit the ground first

I don't agree with your physics obviously, but won't labour the point beyond this post. Suffice to say that a running motion, even though you are completely off the ground at times when running, is very different from being completely airborne and heading upwards, even if you are a little off the ground.

Secondly, I disagree on your idea of good tackling practice. Never, ever, are you taught to drive forward and down. A good tackle has been, and always will be, shoulder in and drive forward.

Thirdly, a player jumping into a tackle situation when not catching a kick is dangerous and is illegal for that very matter. I have seen it penalised at test level (Elsom a few years ago) and even at Subbies when I played. It has been illegal for a long time. Additionally, a running player does not have to jump high at all to flip. Hell, I have seen people embarassingly misjudge jumping small objects and go A over T.

From memory, I thought that Greene didn't mention to grasp Beale at all, and thought at the time that the failure to get his arms around and control, along with Beale's jump, was what mainly went wrong with the tackle.

 

[cyclopath]

Yeah but the fish heads on the board thought it would be a good KPI if they could increase it to ten because bigger numbers are better, right?

They could even go to 11, 'cos, you know, 11 is more than 10.

 

[Scrubber2050]

11 = 2

 

[Ash]

I think you will find that 11 = 3!

There are 10 types of people in the world - those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

[Scoey]

11 = 2

Doesn't 11 = 3?

EDIT: Too slow @Ash You even used the gag I was going to throw in!

 

[BPC]

If only someone had told us that a five year plan was only meant to last five years.

Or that the five years had to be consecutive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BPC]

Meanwhile, the grass is always greener on the other side.

That's only because I mowed my lawn too low just before the cold snap.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BPC]

I watched some of the match again over lunch.

On the Beale tackle, Beale did jump (more of a skip) upward going into contact but there wasn't a lot of upward momentum. He did contribute a bit to the outcome but, as BH81 notes, the powers that be have decided to make it the responsibility of the tackler to put a player down safely once the hips rise above the shoulders so the yellow card wasn't unreasonable. It's a bit tough but given the potential for injury, understandable.

Beau Robinson had lined up Kepu, who was over the ball, and was already committed when the referee blew the whistle. I wouldn't call it a penalty. Beau didn't use his arms but lots of players shoulder charge into rucks so singly him out for that would have been a bit cheap. Kepu's reaction was over the top, and warranted a yellow card. The gutless bell-end who grabbed at Beau's hair from behind during the melee probably warranted a yellow card as well.

In principle I agree with Fatprop's suggestion of binning both the offender and retaliator to stop stupid shit, but here Beau wasn't an offender so it was the right outcome that only Kepu went to the naughty corner.

That said, the amount of time wasted by the referee and TMO there and at other points in the match was ordinary. It must have been dire putting up with the delays at the ground.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

The gutless bell-end who grabbed at Beau's hair from behind during the melee probably warranted a yellow card as well.

That was Palu but I think there was some sort of private joke because it seems very unlike Palu and the two of them hung out together and were chatting happily together after the game.

I agree it both looked and was ridiculous and if it was a private joke, it should be left for somewhere private because to everyone else watching it just reflected badly on Palu.

 

[Pfitzy]

The gutless bell-end who grabbed at Beau's hair from behind during the melee probably warranted a yellow card as well.

Or the scruffy bastard could get a haircut

 

[Pass it to Dunning!]

One day there's going to be a scuffle during a Reds game that Beau Robinson isn't in the middle of. But that'll probably be after he retires.

 

[Highlander35]

I think you will find that 11 = 3!

There are 10 types of people in the world - those that understand binary and those that don't.

But 3! = 6?

 

[Sully]

One day there's going to be a scuffle during a Reds game that Beau Robinson isn't in the middle of. But that'll probably be after he retires.

There was that time steve moore punched Eddie quirk and got away with it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

But 3! = 6?

Holy fucking shitballs its getting all factorially nerdtastic up in here.

 

[Scotty]

I think these two posts give a good indication of why the top ups need to be independent of the Super Rugby teams. They have entirely different aims.

A couple of years ago the Waratahs had a lot of Wallabies but they were a very average team. In the key positions of 7, 9, 10 we had Chris Alcock, Brendan McKibbin/Sarel Pretorius and Daniel Halangahu/Berrick Barnes who are all either run of the mill players or were severely out of form (Pretorius) or injured (Barnes). Of course that team should have done better but it was severely limited because it was weak in the most important positions.

If all the money is focused on Super Rugby, we end up like the NRL where all the money is spent on the key positions because they make the most difference to a side. It would be hugely detrimental to the Wallabies and some of the highest paid players in Australian rugby wouldn't even make the Wallaby squad.

Using the NRL as an example completely ignores the difference between the two codes and in particular the need to have a decent set piece. And in any case if the 2, 7, 9, 10 and 15 end up being the highest paid players for most teams - is that a bad thing? We may be able to retain more of these critical players and have stronger competition for spots.

Imagine the following system:

- some additional money given to super teams for Aus eligible players only
- higher match and squad payments for wallabies
- yearly or even as hoc marketing contracts for marquee players (or ones that are valuable in a marketing sense not just playing)

Why can't this work? How is this unfair?

Don't be constricted in your thoughts by what has come before!

 

[Scotty]

I agree with you up until the last paragraph.

There has been a very clear decision made with lifting tackles that the ultimate responsibility lies with the tackler.

The fact that Beale was slightly off the ground when he was tackled mitigated things slightly for Greene but that only meant that he received a yellow card for the tackle rather than a red.

Players, coaches and fans need to move on from questioning which player caused a player to be tipped above the horizontal in a lifting tackle. A clear decision has been made that the tackler will be held responsible so from that perspective they have to ensure that their tackling technique doesn't cause it to happen.

You just keep trotting out the same line. We all know that the authorities have this view, but we don't agree with it!

Surely that is obvious in these posts.

You and the authorities can't ignore simple physics and castigate a player for something he can't control!