This week's disciplinary.

[JohnM]

If the rumours are correct, the entertainment is going to be.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Saints Vs Leeds.

 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for those Dave it goes to confirm what I have said, if Atkins is upright the tackle would have been in his chest area, he puts his head into the contact area.

As we've seen though,  that isn't a defence.  There is no requirement for a ball carrier to keep his head at full height.  There is a requirement on the tackler not to hit the head. 

This debate has been had many,  many times this year,  and pretty much every time,  contact with the head has led to a ban.  

IMHO Welsby has a fe wthings in his favour that suggests he is attempting a legal tackle,  he bends his back slightly,  he wraps both arms,  moves his head to the side. On the flip side,  his tackling shoulder is raised,  contact does appear to be in the face,  and the pace of the tackle leads to a reckless tackle without control. I think the disciplinary could go either way on this one. 

By the way,  as much as I enjoy the Saints rivalry,  I would add that as an England fan I would have Knowles,  Welsby and also Bateman in my England squads and I'm not happy that they all face bans this week. 

 

[Dunbar]

On 19/09/2022 at 12:25, Tommygilf said:

If my aunt had ###### she'd be my uncle. But she hasn't so she isn't. *for anyone who gets the reference.

If you hit someone in the face you hit them in the face. It can be accidental.

Of course it can be accidental. 

It may still arrive on the doorstep of the disciplinary as careless but of course you can hit someone in the face and it be accidental  

Edited September 22, 2022 by Dunbar

[DavidM]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That isn't true. 

It's a bizarre statement. We should be looking hard for foul play. 

Players get banned all the time for high tackles.  Leeds are appealing week in week out about it. 

Well I’m strange and bizarre . To me I love tackles like that , I watch rugby for great play and big shots like that . It’s hard and it’s brutal , good . Microanalysing every tackle is just totally contrary to the nature of the game in my opinion , and you take out tackles like that  you change the whole nature of the game and for the worse . That’s my view , the game has become over sanitised as it is and when you watch it and see the rubbish that goes on it isn’t always for the better spectacle . That’s just my view as well . Blatant foul play yes , but somethings just happen as part of the game at that level 

Edited September 19, 2022 by DavidM

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Of course it can be accidental. 

It may still arrive on the doorstep of the disciplinary as careless but of course you can his someone in the face and it be accidental  

Exactly, reckless and careless is built into the rules. Intention is an aggravating factor but need not always be proved.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If my aunt had ###### she'd be my uncle. But she hasn't so she isn't. *for anyone who gets the reference.

If you hit someone in the face you hit them in the face. It can be accidental.

Yes that's true Tommy, but who has caused the accident if it is one, the tackler aiming a legal shot or a ball carrier putting his head into the contact area?

[FearTheVee]

OK - so we’re saying we don’t want players flying out of the line and putting on rib height tackles where they bend their back and wrap their arms. Just in case.

Because bending your back, wrapping your arms and hitting rib high is “reckless”. Because the player in possession may do something to put their head in a position that makes it reckless and causes accidental contact with the head rather than perfect technique.

Good sport we’re building here. 
 

By the way for the reasons above I’d be incredibly surprised if Welsby  got a ban.

All the tackles cited as reasons for a ban out of “consistency” are nothing like this tackle.  If there is one that is equivalent in terms of Welsby’s body position and not being late / off the ball I’d genuinely be interested to see it and change my mind.

Edited September 19, 2022 by FearTheVee

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Yes that's true Tommy, but who has caused the accident if it is one, the tackler aiming a legal shot or a ball carrier putting his head into the contact area?

The tackler hit the ball carrier. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, FearTheVee said:

OK - so we’re saying we don’t want players flying out of the line and putting on rib height tackles where they bend their back and wrap their arms. Just in case.

Good sport we’re building here. 

If you're not going to use your eyes and be adaptable then you arguably shouldn't be on a rugby pitch.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Well I’m strange and bizarre . To me I love tackles like that , I watch rugby for great play and big shots like that . It’s hard and it’s brutal , good . Microanalysing every tackle is just totally contrary to the nature of the game in my opinion , and you take out tackles like that  you change the whole nature of the game and for the worse . That’s my view , the game has become over sanitised as it is and when you watch it and see the rubbish that goes on it isn’t always for the better spectacle . That’s just my view as well . Blatant foul play yes , but somethings just happen as part of the game at that level 

Plenty loved shoulder charges,  plenty loved the biff,  but it doesn't make these things legal. 

I'm not sure things just happen. That tackle didn't just happen -  Welsby did it. 

But,  happy with my view here,  if it's high,  it's illegal,  that's the starting point. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

If you're not going to use your eyes and be adaptable then you arguably shouldn't be on a rugby pitch.

C'mon then and be honest

At what part of Atkins body was the tackle aimed at?

Done at the speed the tackle was done, could Welsby have "been adaptable"?

What actually was the cause of the tackle contacting the head?

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

OK - so we’re saying we don’t want players flying out of the line and putting on rib height tackles where they bend their back and wrap their arms. Just in case.

Because bending your back, wrapping your arms and hitting rib high is “reckless”. Because the player in possession may do something to put their head in a position that makes it reckless and causes accidental contact with the head rather than perfect technique.

Good sport we’re building here. 

This isn't new.  We have loads of examples of bans for this. 

[DavidM]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Plenty loved shoulder charges,  plenty loved the biff,  but it doesn't make these things legal. 

I'm not sure things just happen. That tackle didn't just happen -  Welsby did it. 

But,  happy with my view here,  if it's high,  it's illegal,  that's the starting point. 

We’ll see what happens . I’ve enjoyed this discussion though , it’s given me a distraction …

[FearTheVee]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If you're not going to use your eyes and be adaptable then you arguably shouldn't be on a rugby pitch.

Fair enough, I give up.

Using your logic there is no place for any type of flying out of the line tackle as a ball carrier might do something at the last second. If that’s what you think then I can’t argue that.

It seems a bit silly to me though.

Edited September 19, 2022 by FearTheVee

[FearTheVee]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This isn't new.  We have loads of examples of bans for this. 

Can you point me in the direction of the one you think is most comparable please? Genuine question, not being argumentative!

Edited September 19, 2022 by FearTheVee

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

C'mon then and be honest

At what part of Atkins body was the tackle aimed at?

Done at the speed the tackle was done, could Welsby have "been adaptable"?

What actually was the cause of the tackle contacting the head?

I'm not saying it was intentional, but it was potentially reckless. If welsby was travelling so fast he couldn't adapt, then he was out of control.

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

As we used to see players trying to duck under tackles 

Exactly, some small in height high profile player's used that tactic as a major tackle avoidance move.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Fair enough, I give up.

Usinrhg your logic there is no place for any type of flying out of the line tackle as a ball carrier might dip last second. If that’s what you think then I can’t argue that.

It seems a bit silly to me though.

There's no place for players being reckless and/or out of control.

[FearTheVee]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I'm not saying it was intentional, but it was potentially reckless. If welsby was travelling so fast he couldn't adapt, then he was out of control.

You could argue that with literally every single piece of accidental contact on a rugby pitch could you not?

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I'm not saying it was intentional, but it was potentially reckless. If welsby was travelling so fast he couldn't adapt, then he was out of control.

So a defender should amble into a tackle, just in case the ball carrier makes some unavoidable movement?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, FearTheVee said:

You could argue that with literally every single piece of accidental contact on a rugby pitch could you not?

Indeed. And if it needs to be punished it should be, this is why we have referees and MRPs apparently.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Can you point me in the direction of the one you think is most comparable please? Genuine question, not being argumentative!

All good debate mate. 

Specifically the point on tackling at rib height -  Fonua got binned and banned this year in round 3 IIRC.  

Hep Cahill 9 years ago was a very famous example on Brett Hodgson,  it can be found on YouTube. 

But there are numerous more -  I think it's Harry on this thread who has a real issue with this,  he doesn't like fouls being given where ball carriers are low,  and we see them a lot. Apologies @Harry Stottle if I've misrepresented your view. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

So a defender should amble into a tackle, just in case the ball carrier makes some unavoidable movement?

A defender should be in control of what they are doing as much as possible.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So a defender should amble into a tackle, just in case the ball carrier makes some unavoidable movement?

What Welsby did was out of the ordinary (and I understand why people love it).  Players don't do it because it is high risk. 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Dave T

[Damien]

The tackler has a duty of care and can't be reckless. Flying out of the line at speed and catching someone flush in the face with your shoulder is undoubtedly reckless. I have no doubt it is not what Welsby meant to do but the fact is that is what happened.