Law question - TPN's tackling technique

[Dumbledore]

Is it always legal? Was just watching the Rebels - Tahs game again and noticed a couple of times he goes in for one of those grasscutting tackles he slides in on his knees. Is that legit, or is it if you're off your feet you're out of the game?

Could be applied to anyone I guess, just noticed it with TPN in this particular instance.

 

[Scoey]

Hadn't thought of the being off the feet argument - that's an interesting one. I think attacking below the knees is dangerous and if there isn't a rule against it, I am tipping there will be one in the near future. Saia often tackles with a similar technique.

 

[stoff]

I think the couple on the weekend stood out because the players he got (Beale and Robinson I think) both stayed down for a while afterwards. I did a quick check of the laws and couldn't link it to being illegal play, either under the laws surrounding the tackle, or foul play. It seems that the laws only contemplate the situation once the tackle has been made, so the player just needs to release the tackled player like any other situation. Happy to stand corrected on this.

 

[Dumbledore]

Yeah I only really got thinking about it just before. Was the tackle where Robinson hurt his knee. TPN slid in a fair way and then chopped him down. The commentators did their usual 'nothing wrong with that' thing - but they only focussed on the shoulder charge aspect.

I've got no problem with tackling below the knees in and of itself, but I do worry that TPN (or Saia as you mention) is going to badly hurt someone, or himself, sooner rather than later.

 

[Scott Allen]

Is it always legal? Was just watching the Rebels - Tahs game again and noticed a couple of times he goes in for one of those grasscutting tackles he slides in on his knees. Is that legit, or is it if you're off your feet you're out of the game?

Could be applied to anyone I guess, just noticed it with TPN in this particular instance.

That's a very interesting point - 14.1(d) says "A player on the ground must not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent." One knee on the ground constitutes being on the ground when in a tackle or ruck situation.

How often does he slide in on his knees though? Think most of the time he just dives aiming for below the knee.

The first grasscutter he went for on Friday against Beale (at 15:54) his knees were just off the ground when he made contact. The second against Robinson (at 17:12) he definitely had one knee on the ground before making the tackle.

Regardless of the law, it's really poor technique leading with your head and whilst he created the injury for Robinson that eventually saw him replaced on Friday, it's usually TPN who gets knocked out.

 

[Scoey]

The problem I have with attacking the area below the knees (aside from the danger to the tackler) is that generally one of two things happen:
1) the tacklee's boots slip and they are generally flipped. Often landing horizontally but on occasion when the forces are great enough they can go past horizontal. The tackler has no way of ensuring they return to the ground safely as in TPN's case he's usually already unconscious; OR
2) The tacklee's boots maintain grip with the playing surface and they potentially suffer trauma to their knees.

As with the shoulder charge, I think it's a low percentage tackle defensively and has a high probability of injury to one or more players.

 

[qwerty51]

If you're game to attack someone's legs with your head, go for it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If you're game to attack someone's legs with your head, go for it.

That's a ridiculous statement from every perspective I have been able to think of.

Is it always legal? Was just watching the Rebels - Tahs game again and noticed a couple of times he goes in for one of those grasscutting tackles he slides in on his knees. Is that legit, or is it if you're off your feet you're out of the game?

Could be applied to anyone I guess, just noticed it with TPN in this particular instance.

I like your thinking very much. They look awful. Anything to nip them in the bud - if that is what he has been attempting when leading with the head all these years then there's the basis for outlawing them immediately.

I reckon if there is one knee on the ground giving him a yellow and see how that fixes his wagon.

Law 10.4 says:

(e)
Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

(m)​

Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.

All it would take is an IRB edict that its dangerous and its gone - I reckon it is dangerous but evidently others do not so let the IRB issue a papal bull!

I cant see that it serves any purpose that could not be achieved more gracefully and at least as efficiently by a more routine tackle. Its only purpose would appear to be to cause injury. That sounds to me like an act that is contrary to good sportsmanship.

We should take pride in the fact that our game does not need to outlaw the chicken wing tackle by specific reference to chickens, wings and tackles - that type of regulation is only required in the realm of the barbarians.

 

[lex]

It is not uncommon for a desperate tackler to stop or slow a player by just hanging on to a boot or by an ankle-tap. Is it suggested that should be outlawed? Invoking 14.1(d) where the tackler is already on the ground before making the tackle seems more straightforward to implement than limiting tackles to above the knee.

 

[Dumbledore]

It is not uncommon for a desperate tackler to stop or slow a player by just hanging on to a boot or by an ankle-tap. Is it suggested that should be outlawed? Invoking 14.1(d) where the tackler is already on the ground before making the tackle seems more straightforward to implement than limiting tackles to above the knee.

No, because when they started the tackle they had both feet on the ground. What I'm talking about is the tackle being made with either one or two knees grounded. Scott and the lawbook are saying that's illegal. I'm wondering whether that law might be what it takes to stop TPN killing other people and himself. One day he's going to break a leg or destroy a knee and there's going to be a pretty ugly fallout.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It is not uncommon for a desperate tackler to stop or slow a player by just hanging on to a boot or by an ankle-tap. Is it suggested that should be outlawed? Invoking 14.1(d) where the tackler is already on the ground before making the tackle seems more straightforward to implement than limiting tackles to above the knee.

That doesnt eliminate both of TPN's tackles and i think the aim should be to get rid of them both.
It may be that its a question of the angle of approach.
When i saw it, and this is the first time I have seen it, I instantly thought of the banned NFL "chop block"

 

[Scoey]

It is not uncommon for a desperate tackler to stop or slow a player by just hanging on to a boot or by an ankle-tap. Is it suggested that should be outlawed? Invoking 14.1(d) where the tackler is already on the ground before making the tackle seems more straightforward to implement than limiting tackles to above the knee.

Obviously the rule wouldn't be that tackles must be above the knee. It would need some serious thought but as a starting point perhaps it could be worded that the first point of contact for a tackle must be above the knee?

 

[Braveheart81]

Obviously the rule wouldn't be that tackles must be above the knee. It would need some serious thought but as a starting point perhaps it could be worded that the first point of contact for a tackle must be above the knee?

Which other AFL laws shall we bring in at the same time?

This all seems a little storm in a teacup to me.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk 2

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Obviously the rule wouldn't be that tackles must be above the knee. It would need some serious thought but as a starting point perhaps it could be worded that the first point of contact for a tackle must be above the knee?

I think you have to define it by reference to the angle at which the tackler approaches the tacklee - i dont think you can require all tackles to begin above the knee because many of of the best tackels you'll ever see dont - or at least dont really appear to.
i wonder how much notice the IRB/Sanzar takes of this - 2 tackles which did no immediately apparent serious damage: would they even be on the radar?

Which other AFL laws shall we bring in at the same time?

This all seems a little storm in a teacup to me.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk 2

Someone will break a leg or get a serious knee injury - the rebels hooker (?) would have strained a medial ligament.
I reckon its a bullshit technique.
Injuries should be the accidental side effect not the aim.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think you have to define it by reference to the angle at which the tackler approaches the tacklee - i dont think you can require all tackles to begin above the knee because many of of the best tackels you'll ever see dont - or at least dont really appear to.
i wonder how much notice the IRB/Sanzar takes of this - 2 tackles which did no immediately apparent serious damage: would they even be on the radar?






Someone will break a leg or get a serious knee injury - the rebels hooker (?) would have strained a medial ligament.
I reckon its a bullshit technique.
Injuries should be the accidental side effect not the aim.

I don't like the technique either. I just don't see the risk as being particularly high.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk 2

 

[KevinO]

I don't mind a tackle being below the knee when it's the good old ankle tap, but when leading with the shoulder and hitting below the knee the first point of contact should have to be with the arms to avoid damage to players knees. His arms although were used never really played any part in the tackle.

One day the attacking player might see it coming and leap and stomp on the tackler which would cause all kinds of damage.

 

[boyo]

What about tackling around the ankles? It's certainly effective at stopping a player from running.

This reminds me of an old maxim: They can't run without legs.

 

[kronic]

Isn't this the only time TPN has come off better? Usually he collects himself on the runner's knee and is out cold.

 

[JSRF10]

The problem for TPN is when he goes for knees, then gets some upward momentum and it turns into an accidental spear tackle for which he could land himself in some bother.

I'm not sure how likely the above is but must be something worth considering.

 

[The Rant]

I have zero probs with this. I can see nothing above that says it's remotely illegal and as far as 'dangerous play' goes - well every bloody tackle is dangerous so lt's not put more cottonwool on them. No tipping and no attacking above the shoulder works for me.

This style of tackling that TPN and S-Fainga have is dead effective around the rucks - particulary in trying to stop pick and drive momentum near the tryline. But it's also pretty easy to step as they are low and committed and your hands will be free for an offload if you brace for it.

When they work - they're just great tackles! Mostly it's the line speed that makes TPN's hits so devastating.

Anyone else notice Kane Douglas has developed a taste for running out of the line ot make a big hit in the first receiver channel? Excellent when it works but high risk and have seen a fair few times when he's missed and created problems for the tahs defence.