[Chris71]

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:16 pm  

In short no, if the sport goes down that road then we may as well just ban it as a contact sport.

What next no more fending off a player incase you touch the head, no more tackling a players legs incase they fall and bang their head on the pitch?

It’s a physical contact sport and you can’t make it totally risk free.

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:19 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

He definitely does. What were you watching? The Warrington fans all out defending him blindly because he plays for Warrington. The minute someone does it to a Warrington player your reaction would change instantly. You see it so rarely in the game because other players just don't do it.

Ridiculous comment. Absolute terrible tackle technique caused the injury not the attacking player.

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Sun Jun 27, 2021 7:15 pm  

RagingBull wrote:

Ridiculous comment. Absolute terrible tackle technique caused the injury not the attacking player.

Exactly this !!

There's only 1 single person trying to make out sita deliberately targeted his head with his shoulder only one person is trying to make that a fact !! Thankfully the majority have some common sense and reasoning about them to see that's not just the case. But what can you expect from fans who boo injured players who are down in pain because it's inconvenient for them yet harp on about player welfare the next minute !!

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:56 pm  

I can kind of see why some would call for this to be looked at but IMO there’s nowt wrong with the run. Poor tackling technique is the issue here.

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:56 am  

No.

But also, how the hell would it be enforced? Loads of ball carriers go into a tackle slightly side-on, just not many with the ferocity* of Akauola.

*for one carry per game.

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:39 am  

The only thing I would want clearing up from a ball carriers POV is the leading with the forearms/elbows and the lowering of the head into the tackle. When the 'bumpers' get put up and the ball carrier squats down to avoid getting tackled this does put the would be tackler at greater risk of head contact, a Cumberland throw is likely the best/most effective way to bring the ball carrier down and stop the contact to the tacklers head
Getting flat handed to the face with force isn't pleasant, but that's what you should expect when you decide to go for an up top tackle, handing off for me was one of the things I loved, it penalised what I considered to be lazy tackling and was/is a great mode of avoiding getting tackled.

That said, two of the other issues I see that's occured in RL and union for that matter, is the penalising of tacklers for direct contact to the head when the initial movement and tackle point was clearly in a legitimate area height wise and the ball carrier has slipped, tripped or ducked a split second before contact, sometimes the head/upper body has lowered by over a foot.

What is the tackler supposed to do, magically overcome the laws of physics and stop that kinetic energy in its tracks and redirect it, even IF they had the time for that change to register quick enough to begin the biomechanic action of changing your arm or shoulder position to a point that isn't near the head/neck even though that is still changing right up until the point of contact?
Using slow motion replay is a frankly unscrupulous way to make out that a player can simply avoid this contact and has been careless or reckless.

You'd need to remove full contact rugby to eradicate this type of head contact!

[Bullseye]

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:34 pm  

BumpyMcbump wrote:

The only thing I would want clearing up from a ball carriers POV is the leading with the forearms/elbows and the lowering of the head into the tackle. When the 'bumpers' get put up and the ball carrier squats down to avoid getting tackled this does put the would be tackler at greater risk of head contact, a Cumberland throw is likely the best/most effective way to bring the ball carrier down and stop the contact to the tacklers head
Getting flat handed to the face with force isn't pleasant, but that's what you should expect when you decide to go for an up top tackle, handing off for me was one of the things I loved, it penalised what I considered to be lazy tackling and was/is a great mode of avoiding getting tackled.

That said, two of the other issues I see that's occured in RL and union for that matter, is the penalising of tacklers for direct contact to the head when the initial movement and tackle point was clearly in a legitimate area height wise and the ball carrier has slipped, tripped or ducked a split second before contact, sometimes the head/upper body has lowered by over a foot.

What is the tackler supposed to do, magically overcome the laws of physics and stop that kinetic energy in its tracks and redirect it, even IF they had the time for that change to register quick enough to begin the biomechanic action of changing your arm or shoulder position to a point that isn't near the head/neck even though that is still changing right up until the point of contact?
Using slow motion replay is a frankly unscrupulous way to make out that a player can simply avoid this contact and has been careless or reckless.

You'd need to remove full contact rugby to eradicate this type of head contact!

I agree with all that. I thought McCarthy was guilty of awful technique and that's what caused the problem in this case.

Tackle lower and this doesn't happen. That said I think referees should allow more time for defenders to roll off if they've executed a legs tackle.

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:45 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

:CLAP:

I agree with all that. I thought McCarthy was guilty of awful technique and that's what caused the problem in this case.

Tackle lower and this doesn't happen. That said I think referees should allow more time for defenders to roll off if they've executed a legs tackle.

Yes, you'd like to think refs do that but it's such a lottery, I lso hate players having to be told when to get off, human psychology tells us that putting onus on the person doing the act to judge under the threat of penalty is significantly more effective. If they don't comply/play within the rules then just keep pinging them until they do, at first its messy but you soon get better outcomes that are better flowing and safer, because players and coaches will get penalised out of games for not playing within the laws, far better than the micromanaging nonsense we have posing as officiating these days.

The up top grab and pull down does have a bit of merit the way the laws of the game are enforced (or rather not enforced) but it allows players to make yards after contact and indeed it's easier to offload from an upright position as we've seen since the uptop tackle has been favoured.
The notion that wrapping up with multiple players enables defences to get set as being the most efective way to defend is IMO false. If you've committed 3 or 4 tacklers grabbing and dragging an attacker to the ground then you're wasting effort and asking those additional tacklers to get back the 10m (well mostly 8m in reality). If you had effected a legs/lower down tackle you're more likely to half forward progress than an up top tackle and this destablises the ability to offload in the tackle in a controlled manner.

Passing out the tackle whilst falling is high risk, compare that to passing out the tackle whilst stood and you get an arm loose or just let go of the ball and claim the ball was stripped because there was a hand on the ball, which wouldn't happen in a legs/waist tackle.
I don't see there is an increased chance of a head clash from a 'legs' tackle unless you got it wrong, we've seen many a smaller player in either code demolish some very big individuals, and these tackles are far more efficient and effective at stopping the opposition, they can also bolster a team.

Oh, neck tackling, that's another thing that needs stopping as this does damage to the brain as well as neck, and lastly the levering up of tacklers using a tackled players head, I hate that with a passion and it should get a yellow every single time until players stop doing it!

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Tue Jun 29, 2021 3:53 pm  

Dezzies_right_hook wrote:

Exactly this !!

There's only 1 single person trying to make out sita deliberately targeted his head with his shoulder only one person is trying to make that a fact !! Thankfully the majority have some common sense and reasoning about them to see that's not just the case. But what can you expect from fans who boo injured players who are down in pain because it's inconvenient for them yet harp on about player welfare the next minute !!

You're just blindly defending it because it's your player. It was totally deliberate and there is only that one player that does it. The game would have a huge problem if more players did it. The question everyone is answering is whether players should be banned from running with their shoulder, which I don't think anyone wants banning. Deliberately attacking the head is what should be banned, but as he plays for Warrington you just won't see that. If he sticks the shoulder either side of the head he still sits him down, but there's far less chance of seriously injuring him. It's poor technique from McCarthy, granted, but that doesn't legitimise the head contact, it wasn't necessary.

[Wanderer]

Re: Should attacker leasing with shoulder be penalised : Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:01 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

You're just blindly defending it because it's your player. It was totally deliberate and there is only that one player that does it. The game would have a huge problem if more players did it. The question everyone is answering is whether players should be banned from running with their shoulder, which I don't think anyone wants banning. Deliberately attacking the head is what should be banned, but as he plays for Warrington you just won't see that. If he sticks the shoulder either side of the head he still sits him down, but there's far less chance of seriously injuring him. It's poor technique from McCarthy, granted, but that doesn't legitimise the head contact, it wasn't necessary.

Are you sure you're not blindly attacking it because it's a Warrington player? It really was completely down to poor tackling technique.