Rebels 2021

[Braveheart81]

I think they need to be more realistic on mitigating circumstances for this sort of stuff though, Swinton one fair Ofa's one, the wallaby clearly dipped into the tackle, not a tremendous amount but enough for it to go from being a safe and reasonable tackle to make to one that saw him sent from the field. At normal pace there's essentially zero he can do to alter his tackle

A small dip has to be assumed. Players lower body height into contact. A tackler can't assume that a ball carrier isn't going to get a little lower when they brace for contact vs running freely.

The mitigating circumstance of a sudden drop before contact is really around a player slipping so that they are way lower in contact than they otherwise might have been.

 

[sendit]

Bringing in assumptions is a slippery slope, and what's the determining factor/criteria of a player doing a "small dip"?

I just rewatched it, Wright was bent at the knees in a fairly upright position before contact, thats not a dip, that's him falling

 

[Dctarget]

Bringing in assumptions is a slippery slope, and what's the determining factor/criteria of a player doing a "small dip"?

I just rewatched it, Wright was bent at the knees in a fairly upright position before contact, thats not a dip, that's him falling

But realistically we can't have those tackles in the game, so how do we get them to get lower?

 

[sendit]

But realistically we can't have those tackles in the game, so how do we get them to get lower?

It's a contact sport, it's always going to be there regardless of what you do. You penalize the ones which are deliberate and reckless extremely harshly and the ones like Ofa's which again are pretty unavoidable, you give a penalty and get on with the game

In every game of pro rugby there's at least another 10-15 tackles that go unpenalized that are similar to Ofa's, that's besides at least half the pick and drives where there's direct contact to the head with shoulder

 

[Braveheart81]

Bringing in assumptions is a slippery slope, and what's the determining factor/criteria of a player doing a "small dip"?

The mitigating factor is the "ball carrier suddenly drops in height (e.g. from earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)."

My point is that if the tackler lines up a ball carrier to hit them high on the chest as long as they don't get any lower as they go into contact then they are frequently going to hit someone in the head and get red carded.

The mitigating circumstances is very clearly not focused around a slight reduction in the ball carrier's height but a sudden one which turns what would be a legal tackle into a high tackle.

The onus is on the tackler. They can argue until they're blue in the face that they shouldn't have to assume that a ball carrier is going to get slightly lower as they brace for contact but they're also going to get red carded.

There's not a substantial difference in body height between these two images. Wright is at most a few inches lower before the tackle than he is at the point of contact.

 

[sendit]

The mitigating factor is the "ball carrier suddenly drops in height (e.g. from earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)."

My point is that if the tackler lines up a ball carrier to hit them high on the chest as long as they don't get any lower as they go into contact then they are frequently going to hit someone in the head and get red carded.

The mitigating circumstances is very clearly not focused around a slight reduction in the ball carrier's height but a sudden one which turns what would be a legal tackle into a high tackle.

The onus is on the tackler. They can argue until they're blue in the face that they shouldn't have to assume that a ball carrier is going to get slightly lower as they brace for contact but they're also going to get red carded.

There's not a substantial difference in body height between these two images. Wright is at most a few inches lower before the tackle than he is at the point of contact.

View attachment 11924

View attachment 11925

Well id argue he does fall, he's bent at the knees and pretty upright going into a tackle, in pic one he is slightly bent over at the waist with legs fully extended and in the second his legs are well and truly bent while still being fairly upright that's a very notable difference. But lets be honest we actually cant tell shit from those two pics either in favour of my argument or yours

So we should essentially ban chest tackles then? If we really wanted to be serious about safety? Where's the line?

And how do you propose we stop players using these stringent rules to their advantage?

 

[Braveheart81]

So we should essentially ban chest tackles then? If we really wanted to be serious about safety? Where's the line?

And how do you propose we stop players using these stringent rules to their advantage?

No, players can still aim to tackle someone chest high. They're lowering their margin for error though.

We've had this framework in place for over a year now and there hasn't been a dramatic increase in red cards. It has made the process more consistent.

I think we're very unlikely to see players intentionally falling over as they go into heavy contact in the hope they get smashed in the head. It's just not going to happen.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well id argue he does fall, he's bent at the knees and pretty upright going into a tackle, in pic one he is slightly bent over at the waist with legs fully extended and in the second his legs are well and truly bent while still being fairly upright that's a very notable difference. But lets be honest we actually cant tell shit from those two pics either in favour of my argument or yours

If you use James Slipper as your reference, Wright has decreased his height by a maximum of a few inches. That's never going to be considered a sudden drop in height of the ball carrier.

 

[Adam84]

Ofa also drives up in the tackle, if he didn't drive up and instead drove forward into the player, he probably would have put on just as big of a hit without contacting his head. Its a tackling technique issue which can be coached out IMO, the hits can still be as big, just reducing the impact on the head and even risk of tip tackles.

 

[The Nomad]

After watching Origin last night , I’m happy that rugby has taken the position of player safety being paramount.

I’d rather be arguing about whether we’ve gone too far than how ridiculous how little is done to protect player welfare.

It didn’t take long , at the 2 minute mark Munster gets played in the air , head slams into the ground , obvious concussion and a failed HIA, no action taken on the field and Qld loses an important player for the night .

Happy that rugby is doing what it is doing . The players know the ramifications of getting it wrong , it’s not them blowing up, it’s the supporters .

 

[Brumby Runner]

Well id argue he does fall, he's bent at the knees and pretty upright going into a tackle, in pic one he is slightly bent over at the waist with legs fully extended and in the second his legs are well and truly bent while still being fairly upright that's a very notable difference. But lets be honest we actually cant tell shit from those two pics either in favour of my argument or yours

So we should essentially ban chest tackles then? If we really wanted to be serious about safety? Where's the line?

And how do you propose we stop players using these stringent rules to their advantage?

In my view the first photo shows Ofa in a crouch getting ready to make the tackle while the second one seems to show that he has driven upward causing the collision with Wright's chin. It looks to me that Ofa could have kept his tackle around the chest area but didn't. I would say it throws more doubt on the tackle rather than lessening his contribution.

 

[KevinO]

Well id argue he does fall, he's bent at the knees and pretty upright going into a tackle,

Never seen a person run without bending the knees, BS argument there.

It's a red all day under the current laws, player lined up the tackle to be high and impactful. If he went for the waist he would have stayed on the field.

 

[sendit]

Never seen a person run without bending the knees, BS argument there.
.

Lol fuck off, you know what I’m saying

 

[Mr Wobbly]

So anyway, how 'bout them Rebels?

 

[Dctarget]

So anyway, how 'bout them Rebels?

How about some rugby!

 

[Dctarget]

Here's our 2021 fixtures. Minimum 13 games, maximum 16.

1. Bye
2. Away Reds
3. Home Brumbies
4. Away Force
5. Waratahs Home
6. Bye
7. Reds Home
8. Force Home
9. Away Brumbies
10. Away Waratahs
11. Qualifying Final
12. Grand Final

No break!

13. Home Blues
14. Away Hurricanes
15. Mystery round Highlanders
16. Away Chiefs
17. Home Crusaders
18. GF: Rebels v Reds @ AAMI

 

[KevinO]

Here's our 2021 fixtures. Minimum 13 games, maximum 16.


15. Mystery round Highlanders

So Highlanders have listed this game as away, Rebels have listed this game as away.

 

[Dctarget]

So Highlanders have listed this game as away, Rebels have listed this game as away.

Yeah all games that round are being played at one location, not sure why. So every team has equal H/A fixtures?

They're yet to announce where it'll be played.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

*snip
18. GF: Rebels v Reds @ AAMI

I think a Rebels v Crusaders GF is more likely but yeah, you'd have to think the Reds would be some kind of chance to get there

 

[RugbyReg]

Yeah all games that round are being played at one location, not sure why. So every team has equal H/A fixtures?

They're yet to announce where it'll be played.

they'll sell it off to a host city. So one team will have a home game at least.