First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:36 am  

From next year onwards I think the sport should ban any form of tackling. It's clear to see this is what the RFL want with their recent disciplinary "decisions", and clearly the likes of Powell and Cunningham want this as well after their cry baby antics. Have a look at a Tinirau's tackle at the weekend, can anyone honestly see anything ban worthy in that tackle? If Swift, like Shenton earlier, wasn't injured no one would bat an eye.

Re: First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:06 pm  

Willzay wrote:

From next year onwards I think the sport should ban any form of tackling. It's clear to see this is what the RFL want with their recent disciplinary "decisions", and clearly the likes of Powell and Cunningham want this as well after their cry baby antics. Have a look at a Tinirau's tackle at the weekend, can anyone honestly see anything ban worthy in that tackle? If Swift, like Shenton earlier, wasn't injured no one would bat an eye.

I agree, we need more players with broken legs.

Are you for real?

Re: First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:16 pm  

It's something Cunningham has banged on about for a while, so he's consistent and not reacting to the one incident. Tinirau is lazy and his technique is poor. He goes to make a tackle, but Swift's footwork catches him out and he relies on his own bodyweight landing on Swift's legs as he runs to stop him. It's very dangerous, but in Tinirau's defense I don't think he's doing it deliberately there, it's just very poor technique. Tackles should be made on the upper body, so the bodies fall naturally, or on the lower half of the body from the front or side. What some players are doing is sliding down the back of the ball carrier and crushing the legs under their falling body weight. There was a horrific one in the NRL last weekend which wasn't even penalised but which was a potential career ender.

Re: First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:28 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I agree, we need more players with broken legs.

Are you for real?

Yes because I'm clearly wanting more players with broken legs - are you f**king stupid, blind or both?

Banning players for unfortunate injuries is just the first step towards banning tackling altogether.

Re: First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:00 pm  

Willzay wrote:

Yes because I'm clearly wanting more players with broken legs - are you f**king stupid, blind or both?

Banning players for unfortunate injuries is just the first step towards banning tackling altogether.

I'm definitely not blind, so must be stupid.

It's not punishment for the injury, it's the nature of how he has been injured. Had he broken his leg under normal circumstances it wouldn't be something the RFL would have punished. This punishment, along with the Boudebza one, is saying that the defender is responsible for using their body weight appropriately. It's a difficult concept to grasp, as surely that's what the defender is meant to do, use their body weight to stop the attacker? They are saying you must be in control of your body weight during the tackle. If you've played the game, you should be able to see where that might apply. The easiest way to imagine it is if a player is going past you, you grab his shirt and he's running just in front of your. If you just fall uncontrolled onto the back of his legs, it's an offense. If you grab those legs in a normal tackling style it's fine. It's controversial as it's incredibly difficult to interpret intent. I'm entirely sure Tinirau is not intending to do what he did, it's lazy/poor technique. It's difficult thing to judge and the RFL are leaving themselves open here. As you mention, the suspicion with the RFL is that if Swift gets up and plays the ball with no injury, it wouldn't even be picked up.

I'm sure Shaun Wane probably invented the technique, we should probably blame Wigan for it.

Re: First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:54 pm  

That's just a tackle. An unfortunate injury, to be sure. But it's just a tackle. The decision to penalise the tackler is so stupid as to put at risk the viability of rugby league as a contact sport.

It was a tackle. That's it. Someone needs to stop this nonsense fast. He's not trying to injure him, he's trying to tackle him. The collision and fall is awkward, but it is not in any way either unusual or against any law in the game.

We need someone with a brain at the RFL to get a grip on this rapidly. Is there anyone?

Re: First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:46 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

That's just a tackle. An unfortunate injury, to be sure. But it's just a tackle. The decision to penalise the tackler is so stupid as to put at risk the viability of rugby league as a contact sport.

It was a tackle. That's it. Someone needs to stop this nonsense fast. He's not trying to injure him, he's trying to tackle him. The collision and fall is awkward, but it is not in any way either unusual or against any law in the game.

We need someone with a brain at the RFL to get a grip on this rapidly. Is there anyone?

Common sense does exist.

Re: First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:19 pm  

A ban is spot on for that tackle. Deliberately uses the weight of his body on the back of the Saints players legs. It's the 5th or 6th time I've seen that kind of tackle this season and I remember an odd one from the end of last season so it's obviously something that's creeping in.

To anyone who thinks that's a normal tackle, it isn't. Look at what the tackler does with his body and where the tackler deliberately places his own legs to enable his body to fall on the attackers legs.

Re: First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:44 pm  

That's nonsense. It assumes that the tackler has much more control both mentally and physically over a high speed collision than any normal human could possibly have. This isn't a situation where there are several seconds of grapple to process thoughts in. It's not a predictable head-on collision where he can prepare in advance. He's reacting to a fast, elusive man. He's simply trying to bring him down. He has almost no time to think, let alone position his body in the cynical way bring alleged.

I've made that sort of tackle dozens of times, and have been tackled like that dozens of times. It's a tackle. That's all it is. We need to be able to distinguish between the outcome of a tackle and the intent behind a tackle, as they are absolutely not the same thing.

Just consider, for a moment, the implications of what you're saying and what this ludicrous decision implies: that the tackler is always in full control of the collision at all times, and can choose exactly where his body ends up when reacting in a split second to a high-speed collision. If that is the case, then why would a tackler -ever- miss a tackle? Why would a tackler -ever- get hurt themselves? Why would a tackler -ever- require assistance from a teammate? Because if they are always in full control, none of these things would -ever- happen.

We're through the looking glass here. Rugby League is an intense collision sport. The human body is breakable. There is no way we can avoid injuries like this without abolishing the tackle altogether. We need to accept risks if we play. That's rugby.

Re: First Utility Touch Rugby League : Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:43 pm  

I'd be far more inclined to accept it was an accident if we hadn't already seen several examples of this kind of tackle this season. At least 2 others ending in injury.

It isn't a regular tackle. I'll say it again. It isn't a regular tackle. The defender is trying to use his body weight and strength to twist the ball carrier so that he falls on his back and not on his front.
The fact the tackler attempts to do something like twist the ball carrier puts the onus on the defender to perform that action safely.

He could have just wrapped his arms around and slid down Swifts legs. That would be a regular tackle.

Using your body weight on the legs of Swift to try and turn him over in the tackle ISNT a regular tackle and nor should it be allowed.

I think you're being very naive in thinking that teams don't practice tackle technique to twist the ball carrier and that they can't be performed in a "quick" manner.
Do we really think that we got rid (partially) of the cannonball and chicken wing tackles and so teams just said "hey, we won't bother trying to hurt the opposition or turn them over anymore?"