Law question - TPN's tackling technique

[USARugger]

The head is at least as hard as the shoulder.

If this tackle was likely to injure frequently then some of his tackles where he knocked himself out would be very likely to injure the opposition player as well.

He is using the arms, his first impact has been no lower than the knee based on the two tackles in question against the Rebels. This is a complete storm in a teacup at the moment.

He usually knocks himself out because he fucking misses and slams into their hip with his head, he's a fucking shit tackler to be honest. Nobody should ever hurt themselves that often in their own tackle, regardless of style.

Everything in modern is a storm in a teacup until somebody has their career ended. The NFL and the national media here largely ignored the obvious-as-daylight issue of helmet on helmet tackling and general concussions in American Football until things like this started to happen: https://www.google.com/search?q=nfl player dementia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Someone is either going to have their tibia/fibula smashed or a knee popped out of place, or maybe be lucky enough to be flipped over in the air and land directly on their neck by this shitty, cowardly, and wholly unnecessary style of tackling. Then it will become an issue worth addressing.

 

[Richo]

There is clearly a different between CTE impacting generations of players across an entire sport and the tackling technique of an individual player. This is why concussion tests and so on have become a bigger deal in rugby, while this apparently deadly (for the ball-carrier) tackle technique has not received the same attention.

Quade Cooper and Tim Horsn blew out their knees trying to step their man. Should we outlaw side-stepping? Of course not.

If TPN or S Fainga'a execute a tackle like this without using their arms, they can and should be penalized or even cited, depending in severity. Has that even happened?

 

[USARugger]

There is clearly a different between CTE impacting generations of players across an entire sport and the tackling technique of an individual player. This is why concussion tests and so on have become a bigger deal in rugby, while this apparently deadly (for the ball-carrier) tackle technique has not received the same attention.

Quade Cooper and Tim Horsn blew out their knees trying to step their man. Should we outlaw side-stepping? Of course not.

If TPN or S Fainga'a execute a tackle like this without using their arms, they can and should be penalized or even cited, depending in severity. Has that even happened?

It was a pretty fantastic example of something going unmentioned for ages until people actually started getting hurt as a result (this just took time because of the nature of dementia and long term brain trauma). If anything it's a perfect example because it was as obvious as fucking daylight to everyone watching that there was something wrong with head-to-head tackling yet nothing was done about it until it was far too late, this isn't something which occurs with nearly the same level of prevalence so it is even less likely to be talked about until somebody has a career ending injury as a result.

Your comment about stepping is pretty poor form, hyperbole will never make your point stronger. We're talking about contact here - stay on topic please.

Finger has been penalized for it before. The tackle from TPN on Robinson should have been a penalty for more than one reason, A) he was off his feet to begin with, B) his shoulder charge took the other man off his feet and nearly caused him to land on his neck (if TPN was holding onto him when this happened this could have been an instant red card, to put things into perspective). On top of all of this, there's absolutely no reason to tackle this way. If you want to get low as the post defender then get in a fuckin' 3-point stance and drive upwards like everyone else. There's no need to be cutting grass with your shoulders and risking injury unnecessarily and also taking the chance you may cantilever the opposing man onto his shoulders/neck because you can't fucking tackle for shit. If the IRB told the referees in Super Rugby to start looking for this, the cards would start flowing.

Also, refer back to my other post about sample size and level of incidence. With only two players doing it, of course it isn't a big deal. Only two players are doing it. If other front-rowers start getting cheeky and doing this too, then it will become an issue. Just because something does not occur commonly does not mean it isn't something worth addressing before it impacts the career of a player.

I really wonder how quickly the tone of a lot of you would change if Finger does this to JOC (James O'Connor) this weekend and dislocates his knee before the Lions tour.

 

[Braveheart81]

Finger has been penalized for it before. The tackle from TPN on Robinson should have been a penalty for more than one reason, A) he was off his feet to begin with, B) his shoulder charge took the other man off his feet and nearly caused him to land on his neck (if TPN was holding onto him when this happened this could have been an instant red card, to put things into perspective). On top of all of this, there's absolutely no reason to tackle this way. If you want to get low as the post defender then get in a fuckin' 3-point stance and drive upwards like everyone else. There's no need to be cutting grass with your shoulders and risking injury unnecessarily and also taking the chance you may cantilever the opposing man onto his shoulders/neck because you can't fucking tackle for shit. If the IRB told the referees in Super Rugby to start looking for this, the cards would start flowing.

No, it shouldn't have been a penalty. One of his knees momentarily touching the ground prior to the tackle is never going to be picked up and penalised and is really not in the spirit of that law. You could really only say he was off his feet on an entirely technical level because having one knee on the ground counts as being off your feet. The fact that he was still running and moving kind of negates being off his feet. He would only be penalised for being off his feet if that was the technique he was using to pilfer a ball in a ruck. No one is ever going to be penalised for being off their feet by making a tackle after one knee has momentarily touched the ground in general play.

He used arms in the tackle. Using arms in the tackle doesn't have to equate to having a firm grip on a player. That has never been the rule and never will be.

 

[Richo]

The concussion issue is totally different. It involves a range of on-field, off-field, rule and cultural factors and is far, far more complex than the tackle technique of a couple of players in certain instances. But let's just let that one go, hey? You're not going to change my mind, because I think you're fundamentally wrong in your comparison--and vice-versa. No need to get tetchy about a discussion on the internet.

As for my apparent poor-form hyperbole, my point is this: rugby is a contact sport, injuries occur all the time through a range of different actions -- from simple side-stepping to impeding runners to normal tackles to dangerous tackles. It will never be a risk-free activity. So the question becomes, what do you need to regulate and to what purpose. A number of laws already govern dangerous tackles -- if anything TPN, S Fainga'a or anyone else violates them, they should be penalized. No serious injuries have resulted from these tackles, very few players use the techique, it's also not particularly effective. So what sort of risk would be regulated against here, exactly? What would a new law state that a) isn't covered by existing laws, b) doesn't make goal-line defense impossible, or c) doesn't eliminate legitimate below-the-knees tackles such as the ankle-tap?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

One of his knees momentarily touching the ground prior to the tackle

No.
It goes down and stays down

 

[Braveheart81]

We're talking about a fraction of a second here. I would call that momentarily.

 

[Groucho]

Someone is either going to have their tibia/fibula smashed or a knee popped out of place, or maybe be lucky enough to be flipped over in the air and land directly on their neck by this shitty, cowardly, and wholly unnecessary style of tackling.

hyperbole will never make your point stronger.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

We're talking about a fraction of a second here. I would call that momentarily.

It the context "momentarily" implied, to me at least, that he was back on his feet, or not off them, by time of making contact.
Logically: a technique that involves leaving your feet prior to contact is an approach that makes you, technically, unable to participate in the game.
I know that such a state of affairs is overlooked in other circumstances but where, as here, i am looking for a way to find the tackle illegal the strict letter of the law can be applied without detriment to the game and with improvement in it.

 

[Braveheart81]

I know that such a state of affairs is overlooked in other circumstances but where, as here, i am looking for a way to find the tackle illegal the strict letter of the law can be applied without detriment to the game and with improvement in it.

Are we going to resort to frame by frame replays for tackles to see if a player touches a knee on the ground prior to making initial contact?

Do you then do the same for goal line defence and ankle taps and award a penalty try if the players knee brushes the ground prior to the tackle being made?

After the tackle starts, both players are off their feet and clearly out of the game.

I just think so much effort is being made to deem something against the laws of the game which really isn't.

There has been massive hyperbole in this thread about how low TPN was supposedly going.

 

[Scoey]

There has been massive hyperbole in this thread about how low TPN was supposedly going.

Just because I have been impressed with the big words used in this thread and it seems to be reaching it's withered end, would the bold tautology also be a slight hyperbole? Do hyperbole have degrees of magnitude? These are the serious questions.

NB. A mate of mine bet I couldn't slip the word 'tautology' into conversation today. This is a form of conversation surely. Winner winner, chicken dinner.

 

[Sully]

If you say the same things over and over again it's not an argument it's an echo.

 

[cyclopath]

I always thought the Hyperbole was the mythical competition above the Superbole.
In any event, this thread is rapidly going down the toiletbole, pinging repeatedly off the porcelain as it goes.

 

[Richo]

I always thought the Hyperbole was the mythical competition above the Superbole.
In any event, this thread is rapidly going down the toiletbole, pinging repeatedly off the porcelain as it goes.

Repeatedly, but only momentarily, surely.

 

[Groucho]

Just because I have been impressed with the big words used in this thread and it seems to be reaching it's withered end, would the bold tautology also be a slight hyperbole? Do hyperbole have degrees of magnitude? These are the serious questions.

NB. A mate of mine bet I couldn't slip the word 'tautology' into conversation today. This is a form of conversation surely. Winner winner, chicken dinner.

I believe the order of precedence is bole -> megabole -> hyperbole -> ultrabole.

 

[boyo]

I believe the order of precedence is bole -> megabole -> hyperbole -> ultrabole.

I hope that these aren't pronounced the way that Julia Gillard pronounces hyperbole.

 

[USARugger]

I'm not going to get into the force required to break a fibula/tibia or dislocate a knee but that cantilever action still bothers me hugely. TPN's lower back was about the only thing keeping Robinson from going headfirst into the playing surface, which I don't think anyone will argue against being dangerous.

The concussion issue is totally different. It involves a range of on-field, off-field, rule and cultural factors and is far, far more complex than the tackle technique of a couple of players in certain instances. But let's just let that one go, hey? You're not going to change my mind, because I think you're fundamentally wrong in your comparison--and vice-versa. No need to get tetchy about a discussion on the internet.

As for my apparent poor-form hyperbole, my point is this: rugby is a contact sport, injuries occur all the time through a range of different actions -- from simple side-stepping to impeding runners to normal tackles to dangerous tackles. It will never be a risk-free activity. So the question becomes, what do you need to regulate and to what purpose. A number of laws already govern dangerous tackles -- if anything TPN, S Fainga'a or anyone else violates them, they should be penalized. No serious injuries have resulted from these tackles, very few players use the techique, it's also not particularly effective. So what sort of risk would be regulated against here, exactly? What would a new law state that a) isn't covered by existing laws, b) doesn't make goal-line defense impossible, or c) doesn't eliminate legitimate below-the-knees tackles such as the ankle-tap?

I'm not here to petition for new laws or amendments to the current ones, just a slightly broader interpretation of what constitutes a dangerous and uncontrolled tackle. Personally, I think this style of tackling has an inherent level of danger if because of the fact that it causes the man with the ball to get cantilevered forward towards his shoulders and neck if not anything else while the tackler has absolutely no control even if he "wraps" with his arms. I also think it's wholly unnecessary as a method of tackling. So coupling that with the inherent danger involved in flipping a man over leads me to desire that it be policed a little more stiffly.

The entire point of the concussions in football bit was to highlight something that wasn't a public secret in any way but still had nothing done in regards to preventing it until multiple class-action suits were being filed and players had their lives ruined. My entire point was that because only a small handful of players do this the chances of it ever getting publicly recognized before a player is hurt are astronomically low. The only reason we're even discussing it now is because of Robinson staying on the ground after that hit by TPN.

I understand that accidents happen and people get hurt all the time playing this sport, but injuries which could have been reasonably prevented without innately changing the game which may severely impact the career of even a single player are absolutely unacceptable. Getting hurt by stepping a man and getting hurt because one idiot can't tackle and no referees are currently whistling him on it are two entirely different things, that is why I called your post hyperbole.

 

[terry j]

For a while now, I have been 'aware' of TPN's tackling technique, but always from 'man, that guy is every day and in every way knocking himself out'. Which, in my book, does not really make him a good team member (you want to rely on people in so many different ways..one of which is you usually expect them to be able to stay on the field. He went off way too regularly for my liking)

BUT, for whatever reason, this last game the same very question as raised in this thread also occurred to me. He can cause serious damage to the other guy's legs/joints.

Maybe the OP has been worried about this aspect for a while, yet the fact is it was after last weeks game that the thread finally emerged. OR, to the op as well, there was suddenly 'something' which prompted this thread.

Maybe that something is/was just a flash in the pan and will disappear again.

I just find it intriguing that all of a sudden after the game when it suddenly hit me how much harm he could cause to others someone started a thread on the exact same topic. In that case, I reckon any reference to 'it has all been fine in the past, no harm done' should not have too much weight put upon it. The reasoning is that 'something has changed', enough that 'independently' a few people had/raised the question of his technique.

In other words, Ok no harm no foul in the past, but can we be so sure that with 'something' changed there is an equal likelihood of no harm in the future?

It should be clear also that what that 'something' is I don't really have any idea! Maybe there is no something, maybe it is nothing but a coincidence that this thread was started at the same time I had my new view on his technique. We always tend to put more emphasis than deserved on coincidences!

 

[Groucho]

I hope that these aren't pronounced the way that Julia Gillard pronounces hyperbole.

I cringe every time I hear "Superbowl" for the same reason.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I cringe every time I hear "Superbowl" for the same reason.

wait until they play the super bowl in the high dungeon