Force vs Sharks - 2011R03

[Bruce Ross]

Well I read up on the new law and in that definition how the he'll are you meant too tackle anybody. A players feet will always leave the ground. ... All an attacker has too do now is lift there feet when they are tackled and the tackler will get carded. It makes No sense.

I do not agree with your interpretation of 10.4(j), Shiggins. There is much more involved than just the tackler's feet leaving the ground:

Quoting Law 10.4(j)
Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

 

[PaarlBok]

"We're disappointed that the Force looked like they came out to give us a physical hard time," Plumtree said on Monday.

PaarlBok, Blue, just what is going on in South African rugby? One of your coaches "disappointed" that the opposition "came out to give us a physical hard time"? I always thought there was nothing you blokes enjoyed more than "a physical hard time". A chink in the armour, perhaps.

Take into account that Plumtree is probably more Kiwi then Saffer.

The Saffer physical game has always been there and part of our game. Being a WP or Stormers supporter and the Sharks/ Brutes opposition and we would had the same reaction of some of these Force lot after this match, they will tell us we are soft cocks, soft under bellies, exct.

 

[Shiggins]

I do not agree with your interpretation of 10.4(j), Shiggins. There is much more involved than just the tackler's feet leaving the ground:

You know what mate. That's fair enough. Upper body I can
Understand. Some attackers being tackled can keep there upper body up in the tackle. Some can't. it must all depend on how well someone can take a tackle then. Also a spear tackle is not mentioned in the rule that is quoted. So they are not calling it a spear tackle anymore which is good because sideys tackle was dangerous but not a spear.


Go the force!!!!

 

[Bullrush]

Well I read up on the new law and in that definition how the he'll are you meant too tackle anybody. A players feet will always leave the ground. That used to be a good tackle. Driving an attacker back. All an attacker has too do now is lift there feet when they are tackled and the tackler will get carded. It makes No sense.

But yes you are right mate.

Now is rugby turning into afl. It is getting way too soft.

And one more thing. They should not call it a spear tackle any more. Because by the new definitions it is not a spear tackle.

Go the force!!!!

Some attackers being tackled can keep there upper body up in the tackle. Some can't. it must all depend on how well someone can take a tackle then.

This is getting too funny....so Oddie was actually responsible for his own spear tackle?!?! Sidey's technique was what caused the problem - not Oddie not being able to 'take a tackle'.

Have you actually played any contact sport?? Do you know how hard it would be to lift your feet high enough to cause your head or upper body to eg.shoulders/neck etc to hit the ground first?? You would have to make a committed decision to actually jump in the air and throw your head/upper body in the opposite direction and hope like hell that the consequences didn't end up in you getting seriously injured or permanently paralysed. Only an idiot would do it. And for what?? On the possibility the opposition gets penalised or carded?? Wake up.

How are you meant to tackle anybody?? Watch every other tackle and every other big hit that didn't involve anyone getting stretchered off the park and you might start to get an idea.

 

[Scotty]

Really? Try again.

That section of law you posted doesn't say spear once. Just because it is dangerous doesn't mean it can also be described as a spear.

 

[Bullrush]

=Shiggins;215087how the he'll are you meant too tackle anybody.

Here's a clue for you...

[video=youtube;DF8ctts9LOk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF8ctts9LOk&feature=related[/video]

 

[cyclopath]

Lima the Chiropractor!
And his cousin, Nathan, the Recalibrator!
[video=youtube;Txn6cnB6MVo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txn6cnB6MVo&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

 

[Shiggins]

Well I used to do professional wrestling, played rugby don't play now because of time ( work nightshift and 2 year old daughter) played afl at the start of high school not proud of that lol.

In the tackle shown on you tube the attackers feet left the ground and he landed on his upper back. That's apparently a dangerous tackle the way I'm reading that law. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I've seen lots of guys keep there upper body up whilst being driven back trying to make an offload.

Odwa could not controll anything because of Fairbanks. Not because of Inman. I think you mean Sidey.

I think some people are taking what I'm saying wrong. Even on the rugby club they said it shouldn't of been a card. I actually thought a yellow would of been right.

You should know how to fall safely and maximize your chance of not getting injured and you see guys do if all the time unless it's like the one on YouTube. Very fast body tackle. Similar to what Cummins got carded for

Go the force!!!!

 

[centreman]

The last word on the Sidey tackle should come from someone whose rugby knowledge I admire greatly, Rod Kafer who said last night on the Rugby Club after descibing the tackle as a big hit gone slightly wrong mainly due to the involvement of a another player "a red card and 3 weeks for that ,unbelievable, unbelievable".

 

[Bullrush]

Even on the rugby club they said it shouldn't of been a card. I actually thought a yellow would of been right.

The last word on the Sidey tackle should come from someone whose rugby knowledge I admire greatly, Rod Kafer who said last night on the Rugby Club after descibing the tackle as a big hit gone slightly wrong mainly due to the involvement of a another player "a red card and 3 weeks for that ,unbelievable, unbelievable".

Now I'm stating to understand the problem.....you're taking the Rugby Club as gospel.....lol

Guys, Sidey was the one who lifted Oddie and made the motion to tip him over. It probably wouldn't have been that bad if Fairbanks hadn't joined in but it wouldn't have happened at all if Sidey hadn't done that. His action in the tackle was wrong and it resulted in Oddie being stretchered off the field so I really don't think he was simply trying to milk a penalty from it. I'm sure he would rather have kept playing.

Maybe 3 weeks was a bit harsh but Sidey has no-one to blame but himself.

 

[fatprop]

The last word on the Sidey tackle should come from someone whose rugby knowledge I admire greatly, Rod Kafer who said last night on the Rugby Club after descibing the tackle as a big hit gone slightly wrong mainly due to the involvement of a another player "a red card and 3 weeks for that ,unbelievable, unbelievable".

It went wrong because of Sidey's dumb decision to lift the leg. That was the cause, that is why it deserved the suspension.

 

[Baldric]

Sidey also had plenty to say to the TJ when he walked off.
Take it on the chin son and shut the feck up.

 

[Scotty]

Shiggins,

I see your point, but the difference is in the way 'lifting' is interpreted. The law and interpretation by the referees sees this as a vertical force applied by the tackler. The Lima tackle, whilst he did get the attacker off the ground, did not apply and vertical or 'lifting' force.

 

[Richard D. James]

So to sum up, the Sidey tackle was dangerous and he deserved to be cited. The Pocock incident was dangerous as well and Du Plessis also deserved to be cited. The main issue with the Pocock incident is that a choke hold was applied to a man trapped in a ruck. This sort of "grapple tackle" (to use a League term) should be punished as we do not want it to creep into the game.

At least, that's my summation.

 

[Bullrush]

So to sum up, the Sidey tackle was dangerous and he deserved to be cited. The Pocock incident was dangerous as well and Du Plessis also deserved to be cited. The main issue with the Pocock incident is that a choke hold was applied to a man trapped in a ruck. This sort of "grapple tackle" (to use a League term) should be punished as we do not want it to creep into the game.

At least, that's my summation.

I haven't seen the Pocock instance but I've read enough to believe it was ugly.

The only thing with the 'choke hold' is that I reckon I see it happen at least once or twice a game especially in rolling maul situations. Guys who are taken around the neck or head. The players don't seem to have had too much issue with it to date but I agree that it looks ugly and dangerous and maybe Pocock's injury might bring some action.

 

[Shiggins]

I haven't seen the Pocock instance but I've read enough to believe it was ugly.

The only thing with the 'choke hold' is that I reckon I see it happen at least once or twice a game especially in rolling maul situations. Guys who are taken around the neck or head. The players don't seem to have had too much issue with it to date but I agree that it looks ugly and dangerous and maybe Pocock's injury might bring some action.

That's true mate. I've heard refs say let " let go of his head" that many times in a rolling maul. They never listen and usually the ref doesn't follow through with it.

Scotty. I see your point as well and the tackle on YouTube in my opinion is just a great tackle. It's just that the rule stated in the arguments is worded completely wrong. Like Many irb laws. That's why interpretation Comes into it so much. I think refs just need too use common sense in these situations.




Go the force!!!!

 

[Baldric]

I find it hard to believe that Du Plessis would try and choke a player.
That is right reserved for his brothers in the Proteas.

 

[Ash]

Bleh, I use the term "spear tackle" all the time, and it's a good term, but the fact is it doesn't exist as rugby. I like to classify a spear tackle as when the tackled player goes past the horizontal as per the league definition, and that generally happens in one of two cases: 1) a player is lifted in a tackle from below the waste, or 2) a player is lifted by putting one hand between their legs. As soon as a tackler is in either position, they are in trouble, and if a second man joins (like Fairbanks did) then the tackle has a very high chance of turning nasty.

In summary, a player doesn't have to land on their head at all for it to be a spear tackle in my book, they just have to be lifted and go beyond the horizontal. Actually, in union, strictly speaking they only need to be lifted and not let down carefully.

Sidey's tackle was dangerous and he was always going to get rubbed for it, regardless if it was in league or union. It is valid to argue about whether it was a red card or yellow card offence I think, but not valid to say it wasn't dangerous and not deserving of a suspension.

 

[brokendown]

I see Ndungane is named on the wing for tonight's game against the Rebels
for a player who was supposedly knocked unconcious & spent the night in hospital,he has made a remarkable recovery
thought you had to have a three week spell if concussed?

 

[Bullrush]

I see Ndungane is named on the wing for tonight's game against the Rebels
for a player who was supposedly knocked unconcious & spent the night in hospital,he has made a remarkable recovery
thought you had to have a three week spell if concussed?

Yeah....he was just faking the whole thing. Didn't really want to play the game at all so got the stretcher to take him for a bit of RnR