Unnecessary forceful contact

[Dunbar]

Interested to get people's thoughts on this one.

James Fisher-Harris placed on report in the Panthers Broncos game for 'unnecessary forceful contact'.

The tackle in question is at about 40 seconds in this video https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/that-will-do-me-fatty-vautin-exposes-nrl-disgrace/news-story/b827791273adc36380ceda5334090e09

Not late (the tackle was not called held).

Not high.

Not a cannonball as it was a dig into the ribs.

So, as far as I can see, unnecessary forceful contact just means he tackled him too hard.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Interested to get people's thoughts on this one.

James Fisher-Harris placed on report in the Panthers Broncos game for 'unnecessary forceful contact'.

The tackle in question is at about 40 seconds in this video https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/that-will-do-me-fatty-vautin-exposes-nrl-disgrace/news-story/b827791273adc36380ceda5334090e09

Not late (the tackle was not called held).

Not high.

Not a cannonball as it was a dig into the ribs.

So, as far as I can see, unnecessary forceful contact just means he tackled him too hard.

Definitely an odd one in the sense that he doesn't do anything illegal as far as I can see. Overall however, I think this could be a precursor to third man tackles, when the player becomes stationary, being outlawed. There's been a lot made about severe injuries resulting from a third man 'finishing off' tackles and this seems to be an example of that. I'd have no complaints if it was introduced, but JFH will probably feel hard done by if he cops a ban for that. 

[Damien]

He makes no attempt to wrap his arm and its like a shoulder charge. I can only presume that has something to do with it. I'll admit its all a new one on me but I can't particularly recall a tackle like that either. Its not something I'd like to see creeping in either.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Damien

[Dunbar]

I'm with Paul Vautin.  For as long as Rugby League has been played, if you see someone's ribs and you can give them a dig with the shoulder then you do it.  The sport is physical and part of winning games is to be physically tougher than your opposition. 

I'm all for getting rid of head shots and cannonballs and hip drops but not a shot to someone's ribs with the shoulder. 

The NRL has reached a point now where a kicker cannot be tackled as he kicks... even if it not late or high or dangerous. 

Removing legal play because it is unnecessarily forceful is not a direction I want Rugby League to take.

[DavidM]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Interested to get people's thoughts on this one.

James Fisher-Harris placed on report in the Panthers Broncos game for 'unnecessary forceful contact'.

The tackle in question is at about 40 seconds in this video https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/that-will-do-me-fatty-vautin-exposes-nrl-disgrace/news-story/b827791273adc36380ceda5334090e09

Not late (the tackle was not called held).

Not high.

Not a cannonball as it was a dig into the ribs.

So, as far as I can see, unnecessary forceful contact just means he tackled him too hard.

Glad you posted this , I saw it and have been thinking about it since then . I was bemused by it , what is unnecessary forceful contact exactly . I’ve heard it two or three times lately . We just seem to be making things up now . Ridiculous . The ref hasn’t called held and he smashed him .  We get the VR analysing every tackle now , we’re disappearing down a bit of a rabbit hole however worthy the intentions 

Edited May 19, 2023 by DavidM

[ELBOWSEYE]

Cheap shot, these days teams regularly hold up attackers with the tackle going no where to allow third man free hits, low level and high level are outlawed maybe we need to look at the third man coming into stationary tackle situations.As for referees they need to call held quicker.

[Dunbar]

33 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Cheap shot, these days teams regularly hold up attackers with the tackle going no where to allow third man free hits, low level and high level are outlawed maybe we need to look at the third man coming into stationary tackle situations.As for referees they need to call held quicker.

It was a tough game with a massive attritional forward (and outside back!) battle won by Penrith who went on to win the game.

I was OK with the tackle, thought it was one of loads of big tackles.  It may have been a cheap shot but it was legal and in Rugby League you spot the number and get one back for your team as soon as you can.

[ELBOWSEYE]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It was a tough game with a massive attritional forward (and outside back!) battle won by Penrith who went on to win the game.

I was OK with the tackle, thought it was one of loads of big tackles.  It may have been a cheap shot but it was legal and in Rugby League you spot the number and get one back for your team as soon as you can.

All tackles are legal till the authorities get sick of serious injuries (shoulder charge,chick wing, cannonball,high contact)all where legal until people got sick of serious injuries.

Maybe it's the practice of holding up a player who is the helpless to avoid a 3rd man smashing his ribs. If you time you tackle to hit a player's ribs whilst he is in the process of offloading the ball it's good timing ,it's not when player's are being manoeuvred so they are sitting ducks.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

All tackles are legal till the authorities get sick of serious injuries (shoulder charge,chick wing, cannonball,high contact)all where legal until people got sick of serious injuries.

Maybe it's the practice of holding up a player who is the helpless to avoid a 3rd man smashing his ribs. If you time you tackle to hit a player's ribs whilst he is in the process of offloading the ball it's good timing ,it's not when player's are being manoeuvred so they are sitting ducks.

Has there been a lot of serious injuries from this type of tackle?

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

All tackles are legal till the authorities get sick of serious injuries (shoulder charge,chick wing, cannonball,high contact)all where legal until people got sick of serious injuries.

This is correct. Again I think if the player wrapped his arm I don't think there would be an issue. He didn't and it was a reckless technique more akin to a shoulder charge.

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

This is correct. Again I think if the player wrapped his arm I don't think there would be an issue. He didn't and it was a reckless technique more akin to a shoulder charge.

I just can't agree with this.  For as long as I remember Rugby League players have been driving their shoulders intpo players front on.  That is not what a shoulder charge looks like and I don't think we should be looking at that type of contact and trying to make it illegal.

[Barley Mow]

35 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

All tackles are legal till the authorities get sick of serious injuries (shoulder charge,chick wing, cannonball,high contact)all where legal until people got sick of serious injuries.

Maybe it's the practice of holding up a player who is the helpless to avoid a 3rd man smashing his ribs. If you time you tackle to hit a player's ribs whilst he is in the process of offloading the ball it's good timing ,it's not when player's are being manoeuvred so they are sitting ducks.

If a tackle has reached the point where nobody else should go in, the ref just needs to call 'held'.

Anyone joining the tackle after that will be penalised.

Isn't it that simple?

[Damien]

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I just can't agree with this.  For as long as I remember Rugby League players have been driving their shoulders intpo players front on.  That is not what a shoulder charge looks like and I don't think we should be looking at that type of contact and trying to make it illegal.

That was quite different to what we commonly see and I dont recall seeing similar before. This was not someone making a tackle driving his shoulder into someone front on and he made zero attempt to wrap his arm. That is what differentiates between a shoulder charge and not. I never said this was a shoulder charge but akin to one, as he is diving head first with his shoulder with zero attempt to wrap.

If you don't think the wrapping motion matters its fine but I do as it makes it wreckless for me. I also presume that is why this is being treated differently.

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Cheap shot, these days teams regularly hold up attackers with the tackle going no where to allow third man free hits, low level and high level are outlawed maybe we need to look at the third man coming into stationary tackle situations.As for referees they need to call held quicker.

I think refs have a say in this - if the tackle is stationary they should be shouting held, then any third man coming in after the shout would naturally be illegal

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Has there been a lot of serious injuries from this type of tackle?

Most recent one I can remember was Matty Lees in 2019. He was held up and Fatty Ferres came in with the shoulder, broke his ribs and perforated his bowel. Lees had to go straight to hospital for emergency surgery which ended his season (and could have ended his career).

There was talk then of the RFL camping down on these sort of 3rd man tackles but in the end they did nothing.

[Dave T]

I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I actually think he does attempt to wrap the arm, albeit slightly delayed, but I think that's ok.

I can understand why they want to cut out what they see as cheap shots on prone players, but I'm not sure I can see anything that should be penalised under current rules.

So I have no issues with adapting rules to make things illegal, I do have a bit of an issue with refs just making a penalty up.

[Human Punk]

I'm all for a ban here. What purpose was there to the tackle, other than to take a whack at and possibly injure a motionless player? Absolutely no need for that in the game. 

The other way to prevent that sort of thing would be for the ref to shout 'held' almost immediately, and that would have the effect of stopping lots of offloads. I'd rather see offloads than players putting in nasty cheap shots.

[Dunbar]

When did dominating a team physically become not a thing in Rugby League.

It is not foul play so why are ref's punishing it.

If the authorities want that tackle to be banned then let them (I wouldn't) but let's not punish it on the field or issue bans when it was a legal tackle.

[DavidM]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

When did dominating a team physically become not a thing in Rugby League.

It is not foul play so why are ref's punishing it.

If the authorities want that tackle to be banned then let them (I wouldn't) but let's not punish it on the field or issue bans when it was a legal tackle.

A ballcarrier decides to lie on the floor and a defender smashes him , not high but really gives him it . Is that unnecessary forceful contact ? I mean where do you go with something  so general , amorphous and open to interpretation .

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

That was quite different to what we commonly see and I dont recall seeing similar before.

Really, I think we see this type of tackle every game.  This one was just harder.

[Tippytoe]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

He makes no attempt to wrap his arm and its like a shoulder charge. I can only presume that has something to do with it. I'll admit its all a new one on me but I can't particularly recall a tackle like that either. Its not something I'd like to see creeping in either.

No problem with the tackle but the Broncos 13 picking Crichton up off the floor using his head gear I thought might warrant a penalty but didn't get a mention?

[Tonka]

You can’t have this in the game because taken to its logical conclusion that means the referee assessing every point of contact and determining whether precisely the right amount of force as was necessary to tackle the player (or less, but not more) was used by the tacklers in aggregate, rather like self-defence laws in real life.

Which is (1) completely against the physical nature of the sport and (2) impossible to police.

Its just a bad decision, I’d be more curious to know whether the referee thinks he still made the right call and the referees’ body agrees (and why).

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, Tonka said:

You can’t have this in the game because taken to its logical conclusion that means the referee assessing every point of contact and determining whether precisely the right amount of force as was necessary to tackle the player (or less, but not more) was used by the tacklers in aggregate, rather like self-defence laws in real life.

Which is (1) completely against the physical nature of the sport and (2) impossible to police.

Its just a bad decision, I’d be more curious to know whether the referee thinks he still made the right call and the referees’ body agrees (and why).

The NRL are usually quite transparent about this kind of stuff in their post round summary of on field calls.  I am sure we will find out.

[RP London]

First try is a fantastic finish!

Can’t see much wrong with the tackle to be fair, the arm is lazy but it’s there.. maybe a shoulder charge but it’s only a maybe.. tackle was very active player wasn’t stationary imho, not sure it needs a third man to go in really but don’t have an issue with it. If i was a panthers fan I’d be very disappointed in the ref. 

[redjonn]

I thought he was put on report, which is reasonably if ref thought their was more than just tackling but intent against a player unable to protect.  Often see players put on report when ref is unsure about a challenge.

The disciplinary panel will decide.