6 nations 22

Stuff from around the world.

Moderator: Moderators

WestDr
Novice
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:39 pm

Re: 6 nations 22

Post by WestDr »

solidarity wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:51 pm It seems pretty clear to me that you can hold the ball AND use the same arm to 'attack' the defender. So, 'he was holding the ball' is no defence at all. Running at speed and deliberately raising your arm to the defender's throat/chin is potentially catastrophic. However, if that's what the law states and, legally, the ref has no choice, then the law is an ass.
Indeed. This does however bring us back to
  • the 'it's solely up to the tackler to ensure a safe tackle' statement seen on this topic before. Clearly it isn't as this example demonstrates
and
  • the 'deliberately raising your arm to a defenders throat' point, which leads one into the area of 'intent' (since 'deliberately' assumes intent).
Rum's suggestion that the laws be changed so that "the ball carrier CANNOT STRIKE a would be tackler WITH a FIST FOREARM HEAD OR SHOULDER" sounds reasonable, as it would deal with the player who dips their shoulder into the tackler's throat (cf Chris Farrell v Bulls 12th March). The issue with that is (a) how is 'strike' defined and (b) how then do you ref James Ryan & Charlie Ewels ? Who was doing the 'striking' in that situation ? You come back to decisions around 'intent'.

Frankly, I'd maintain that
  • a lot of players running with the ball have pretty poor tackle preparation technique (cf JVj's well-made point about Stockdale). A lot of it appears to be the crouching to minimise area that anyone naturally does when faced with a phyiscal threat, whether a punch or a shell. Even then, in the Gilroy & the Scarlets player situation neither player had much time to prepare for the collision.
  • possession of the ball does not remove all, or indeed much, of a player's responsibility for the safety of all other players. That's where I'd say Schoeman was sorely lacking (irrespective of whether 'deliberate' and/or whether he was holding the ball in two arms). Again, when you're being tackled however, it's challenging to manage that responsibility properly - cf Gilroy & Scarlets.


As for those bagging Barnes, he worked within both the Laws and the process as required and should not be faulted for that. As others have noted, if Hendo had gone down like a sack of Goode Sarries Spuds, then there may well have been a different outcome. Whether Barnes' decision was the 'right' and 'safe' one is something for World Rugby to look at. What I would like to see gone is the ball-carrier leading with the shoulder into the tackler (cf Chris Farrell, to an extent Aki). But as the lawyers say 'hard cases make bad law'.
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 18579
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: 6 nations 22

Post by BR »

rumncoke wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:31 am If those who make the laws wish to make the game safer then all that is required is the recognition that the only allowable defence against a tackle is a HANDOFF -- the ball carrier CANNOT STRIKE a would be tackler WITH a FIST FOREARM HEAD OR SHOULDER

How is lawful for a ball carrier to protect the ball if the laws require him to release it when tackled ?
He clearly wasn't tackled - both players were still upright.


On initial viewing I was thinking Red, but on review and better angle, I agreed with Barnsey-mate - at contact the arm was naturally around the ball.
Can I come out from behind the sofa yet?
www.stoutboys.co.uk
allezlesverres
Initiate
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 12:58 pm

Re: 6 nations 22

Post by allezlesverres »

Part of the problem was Henderson's tackle height which Barnes referred to in his reasoning on the pitch. The implication was that Henderson's head shouldn't have been there and if he'd tackled at an appropriate height wouldn't have been hit. To put it another way, if Shoeman hadn't put his arm up and there had been a head clash, or Shoeman's head had hit Hendy's shoulder (as may well have happened), Henderson would probably have been the one to see red.

I have to say, like the TMO, my initial thought was there was separation of the arm from the body but it was marginal so I wouldn't argue with Barnes' view that it was just "bracing for impact, arms around the ball".
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: 6 nations 22

Post by rumncoke »

Sorry the only contact a ball carrier is permitted to use against a would be tackler is a hand off

The ball carrier used his forearm against the tackler's neck and head -- not even his body-- neck and head the forearm was not holding the ball.( the ball is meant to be held in the hands or in the arm if using a hand off )

The mitigation was Henderson's height standing up right to tackle -- thus a penalty and yellow card not red ( if Henderson had had to retire from the field it would have been red regardless in my book) like Ryan the week before except the roles were reversed-- the player guilty of dangerous play being the one guilty of foul contact in this case the ball carrier.
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
Post Reply