Re: coincidence or what ? : Tue May 30, 2017 11:50 am  

secondstanza wrote:

Not at all.

Yes at all; there were pictures doing the rounds under the Maguire tenure, of their tackle technique - it had the somewhat sinister title "Snap the Pole," and was a guide on how to attack the standing leg. Not to mention Wane's ill-considered comments during the WCC documentary: “knock people out” and “Create &^%$£*@ mayhem, be reckless, because that’s what’s going to get us a &^%$£*@ win.”

They play a needlessly thuggish brand of RL, and have done for a number of years.

Re: coincidence or what ? : Tue May 30, 2017 1:13 pm  

All coaches are now coaching third man in to hit the legs, in theory a responsible player will hit high on the legs and take care , what happens in reality is that some players are not responsible and cannot control their aggression or are simply trying to do damage. For me it is the area of the game that the requires urgent immediate action. No idea what a workable rule would be : second man must tackle round the legs if first man goes high perhaps. How many players have to suffer career threatening knee injuries before , players, coaches clubs demand action.
On the Wigan question, I am a big fan of Wane, I love his passion for his club, his team I love his toughness , that said I have heard from players who are no longer at Wigan that training at Wigan is full on, contact at Wigan means full contact, a bit like the Derek Turner approach, perhaps that is why they have so many injuries

Re: coincidence or what ? : Tue May 30, 2017 1:30 pm  

bellycouldtackle wrote:

No idea what a workable rule would be

I believe in NRL their rule is third man in cannot tackle below thighs (initial contact) or it's an immediate penalty, however watching NRL recently I've not seen evidence of this being consistently enforced, so who knows? Just make a cannonball tackle a mandatory 10mins and put on report for further sanctions, just like shoulder barge

Re: coincidence or what ? : Tue May 30, 2017 1:37 pm  

Somehow I think the game needs to come up with a better option, if for example a team playing Wigan decide that first time Williams gets held by two the third man cannonballs him and smashes his knee , a ten minute sin bin seems inadequate, how about a 12 month ban for any cannonball ie about the same time it takes to potentially recover from knee reconstruction surgery .

Re: coincidence or what ? : Tue May 30, 2017 2:08 pm  

I don't know any coaches that coach to aim at the knee or anywhere near it.
The third man in is coached to aim at the upper thigh or hip then to wrap the knees to kill any leg drive before the player is taken to ground.

Players are expressly instructed that attacking any joint in a manner which puts pressure against the natural range of movement is unacceptable and apart from being illegal it's something Players won't tolerate amongst themselves.

No doubt some players get it wrong, some are reckless and some are just out to purposely do damage but it was ever thus! Today it's the cannonball, before that it was chicken wing and 30 years ago it was the Les Boyd elbow to the jaw. The tackle technique changes but it's irresponsible players who commit the fouls and unfortunately they're a part of the game.

Re: coincidence or what ? : Tue May 30, 2017 2:12 pm  

bellycouldtackle wrote:

Somehow I think the game needs to come up with a better option, if for example a team playing Wigan decide that first time Williams gets held by two the third man cannonballs him and smashes his knee , a ten minute sin bin seems inadequate, how about a 12 month ban for any cannonball ie about the same time it takes to potentially recover from knee reconstruction surgery .

Having the punishment fitting the crime but, these things are not (always) deliberate and I dont know if you would get universal support for that type of thing.
Although, for any deliberate and reckless challenge that injures a player, it seems like a fair deal.

Mind you, on past form, clubs like Wigan, would always be "innocent" (SOL head shot last season springs to mind) and clubs like ours would have half of our squad banned.

Re: coincidence or what ? : Wed May 31, 2017 8:58 am  

The Avenger wrote:

No doubt some players get it wrong, some are reckless and some are just out to purposely do damage but it was ever thus! Today it's the cannonball, before that it was chicken wing and 30 years ago it was the Les Boyd elbow to the jaw. The tackle technique changes but it's irresponsible players who commit the fouls and unfortunately they're a part of the game.

I would question that hurting or taking out an opposition player is never coached - I'm sure that sometimes it is.

But your quote above is the real issue - some players can't, or won't, control their aggression; so they should be dealt with harshly until the message is so loud and clear for players and coaches, that they deal with it themselves. Liam Watts is a good example - a great player, but he is repeatedly before the beak for dangerous, reckless tackles that have the potential to end a career. For me, a history of on-field misconduct should ramp up the potential sanctions for any new infringement.

With regard to tackle technique - I don't know what the answer is - but the current iteration of the tackle is ugly and dangerous; holding a man up while your mates run in and smash his ribs, torso and legs - then ending up in a massive, tangled dog-pile, in which you can pull on the ball and rub your elbows in his face, is almost certainly not what the rules intended. It could be sorted - if there was a will.

[Bullseye]

Re: coincidence or what ? : Wed May 31, 2017 9:24 am  

bren2k wrote:

With regard to tackle technique - I don't know what the answer is - but the current iteration of the tackle is ugly and dangerous; holding a man up while your mates run in and smash his ribs, torso and legs - then ending up in a massive, tangled dog-pile, in which you can pull on the ball and rub your elbows in his face, is almost certainly not what the rules intended. It could be sorted - if there was a will.

What do you suggest is done to sort it out? I agree with you btw. It's like the game has reached a crossroads where ruck speed has become the be all and end all. It never used to be like that and it used to be a better spectacle with more variation in play. I may sound like a dinosaur but I prefer the more open and entertaining style than the grind the game has become in many cases.

I would say the way the game has evolved has brought this about. The 10m rule means that the ball carrier has to be controlled to allow defences back onside and to slow the PTB. In the old days of the 5m rule play the balls were quicker because people could get back onside.

Or if you keep the 10m maybe allow far less time for tackles to be completed or not allow more than 2 tacklers in at any one time.

Possibly again reduce the number of subs so that more gaps appear and players have less strength for all the wrestling garbage?

Then again do we really need wholesale rule changes? Cas have shown they can play entertaining rugby without the cynical stuff. Perhaps we're seeing the beginnings of a change of ethos in RL from the Maguire/Wane style to something better? If Cas win things playing like this it will force others to follow. People eagerly followed the cynical Wigan style because it was effective. It's not in the NRL and we're perhaps seeing the same here now.

Re: coincidence or what ? : Wed May 31, 2017 9:42 am  

Bullseye wrote:

What do you suggest is done to sort it out? I agree with you btw. It's like the game has reached a crossroads where ruck speed has become the be all and end all. It never used to be like that and it used to be a better spectacle with more variation in play. I may sound like a dinosaur but I prefer the more open and entertaining style than the grind the game has become in many cases.

I would say the way the game has evolved has brought this about. The 10m rule means that the ball carrier has to be controlled to allow defences back onside and to slow the PTB. In the old days of the 5m rule play the balls were quicker because people could get back onside.

Or if you keep the 10m maybe allow far less time for tackles to be completed or not allow more than 2 tacklers in at any one time.

Possibly again reduce the number of subs so that more gaps appear and players have less strength for all the wrestling garbage?

Then again do we really need wholesale rule changes? Cas have shown they can play entertaining rugby without the cynical stuff. Perhaps we're seeing the beginnings of a change of ethos in RL from the Maguire/Wane style to something better? If Cas win things playing like this it will force others to follow. People eagerly followed the cynical Wigan style because it was effective. It's not in the NRL and we're perhaps seeing the same here now.

The answer is with the referees to shout 'held' sooner than at present. The third man comes in low when one or possibly two players are struggling up top with the tackled player and referees allow this to go on for seconds, giving time for the third man to go below - legally most times! Silverwood (when he was around) was the worst offender.

[Bullseye]

Re: coincidence or what ? : Wed May 31, 2017 10:24 am  

Good point. Often the "held" call comes just as they pull the ball carrier down and then that leads to another 3 or 4 seconds while they all peel off.