: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:44 am  

lurchio wrote:

i still dont see what difference it is when people are launcing into the tackle?

ok,lets just say not burrows feet...

i dont think its part of the game protecting your own head when getting tackled, everywhere else yes, but if someone strikes your head with anypart of the body it should be a fowl.

there would be 90 penalties a game if that was the case

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:50 am  

AJC wrote:

I am firmly of the belief that a shoulder charge is well within the rules of the game, so long as both feet are on the ground at point of impact (ie not jumping into the tackle to give extra momentum). Emphasis has to be on the attacker to protect themselves, if you lead with your head & duck into a challenge you have to accept you may get clobbered.

Much more sensible to acknowledege the defender is gonna try to plant a shoulder on you and side step - leaving them looking a tad foolish. However given the players involved it was more a clash of egos & neither was gonna back down - this is what makes the game great!

i agree 100 percent, it keeps them honest

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:12 am  

nezumi kozo wrote: opinions on the top two pictures? And how they might differ from the Bailey incident? http://leeds.rlfans.com/readarticle.php?article_id=1154 From my experience getting a smack in the head or face was part and parcel of playing the game. If it came from a fist, boot, elbow, forearm or another head and I was lucky I might win a penalty. Then again RL players could all start to wear the same sort of protective clothing their counterparts in American Football wear. I suspect from what I've read here recently that most Saints supporters would be in favour of this? I always find photos of tackles misleading. From thoses I'd say Senior is committing a grapple tackle and Cayless is commiting a head-butt. Truth is they probably aren't but that's the problem with having a split second in isolation.

nezumi kozo wrote: opinions on the top two pictures? And how they might differ from the Bailey incident? http://leeds.rlfans.com/readarticle.php?article_id=1154 From my experience getting a smack in the head or face was part and parcel of playing the game. If it came from a fist, boot, elbow, forearm or another head and I was lucky I might win a penalty. Then again RL players could all start to wear the same sort of protective clothing their counterparts in American Football wear. I suspect from what I've read here recently that most Saints supporters would be in favour of this? I always find photos of tackles misleading. From thoses I'd say Senior is committing a grapple tackle and Cayless is commiting a head-butt. Truth is they probably aren't but that's the problem with having a split second in isolation.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:16 am  

Lawrie L wrote:

Really?


SBW at Elland Road ring any bells?!

Marcus heard a few - definately.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:17 am  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

Marcus heard a few - definately.

and saw a few pigeons round his head

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:18 am  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

However, I don't see anything wrong with tackling without arms, it's the location of the tackle that probably needs clearing up. The best technique usually is to use the arms after shoulder impact simply to stop the tackled player bouncing off, but in Union if the arms aren't wrapped around it's a penalty. I find it difficult to see how you can coach kids to make the shoulder the first point of contact then penalise them if they knock a guy over before you can wrap your arms around him. There is so much scope for interpretation that it's unworkable and we have an already available example of it in action. It's a terrible law that just adds to the already apocalyptic penalty count in an average game. League is an impact sport, as long as the impact is away from the head area and with the shoulder or arms then that's fine with me.

I fully accept your argument here as the most effective tackles are driven through the shoulder first with the arms wrapping around. Even if League followed Union's example I don't think the arms would absolutely need to wrap around for the tackle to be deemed legal as long as the arms are in motion to do so. If the ball carrier bounced away before the arms got there it would still be an OK tackle although open to the referee's interpretation but isn't every tackle anyway.

I think the sport has a potential problem in this area when so many people within the game are defending a deliberate tackling technique that resulted in a player being injured and a disciplinary process putting the responsibility of the point of impact onto the ball carrier.

Fa'asavalu's run was crouched a couple of steps before the impact but as Bailey had probably already fixed his target and closed his eyes anticipating the impact of the hit by that stage it ended up in the attacker's mush.

Tackling technique aside, it was just one of those things. Neither were (nor particularly should) back down in that situation and it's a run where someone was likely to come off second best and there's nothing wrong with that.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:24 am  

tvoc wrote:

I fully accept your argument here as the most effective tackles are driven through the shoulder first with the arms wrapping around. Even if League followed Union's example I don't think the arms would absolutely need to wrap around for the tackle to be deemed legal as long as the arms are in motion to do so. If the ball carrier bounced away before the arms got there it would still be an OK tackle although open to the referee's interpretation but isn't every tackle anyway.

I think the sport has a potential problem in this area when so many people within the game are defending a deliberate tackling technique that resulted in a player being injured and a disciplinary process putting the responsibility of the point of impact on the ball carrier's shoulders.

Fa'asavalu's run was crouched a couple of steps before the impact but as Bailey had probably already fixed his target and closed his eyes anticipating the impact of the hit by that stage it ended up in the attacker's mush.

Tackling technique aside, it was just one of those things. Neither were (nor particularly should) back down in that situation and it's a run where someone was likely to come off second best and there's nothing wrong with that.

but turning it around i cant see there being an issue had maurie turned side on and knocked bailey on his booty

and if maurie wants to run like that because it helps him bust tackles thats fine but he will come off second best from time to time

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:41 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

but turning it around i cant see there being an issue had maurie turned side on and knocked bailey on his booty

and if maurie wants to run like that because it helps him bust tackles thats fine but he will come off second best from time to time

When that happens we'll have a look at that as well.

We already have the cases where the ball carrier gets the bumper up and when they get that wrong it results in penalties and sometimes worse.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:18 am  

tvoc wrote:

When that happens we'll have a look at that as well.

We already have the cases where the ball carrier gets the bumper up and when they get that wrong it results in penalties and sometimes worse.

thats when they get it wrong though

had bailey got it by lifting his elbow then he should be punished

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:27 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

thats when they get it wrong though

had bailey got it by lifting his elbow then he should be punished

A shoulder into the head is (for me) another example of getting it wrong even if the game at large has a problem agreeing with my viewpoint.