Baxter on red cards

All things Rugby
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Baxter on red cards

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

Always comes across as a decent bloke and his comments on Ducuing's red should be compulsory reading for the law makers. Especially with the latest tampering involving head contact about to be unleashed:
As a rugby person, if I am being 100 per cent honest, I genuinely don’t like it. Don’t get me wrong, the referee made the correct decision and he interpreted the directives and laws exactly right, but should it be a red card when two players are both committed to the ball? The Bordeaux player wasn’t intentionally trying to tackle Olly in the air. He was looking at the ball, a collision happens and it ends up a red card.

I think everyone understands all of the positive reasons for these directives, to try and protect players, but it does feel that you can be red-carded for quite an innocent act, and it is something we are all going to have to work hard at in rugby to make sure we give the players all the best coaching and direction we can to try and protect them from those kind of circumstances.
Gwenno
Posts: 7857
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Gwenno »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:Always comes across as a decent bloke and his comments on Ducuing's red should be compulsory reading for the law makers. Especially with the latest tampering involving head contact about to be unleashed:
As a rugby person, if I am being 100 per cent honest, I genuinely don’t like it. Don’t get me wrong, the referee made the correct decision and he interpreted the directives and laws exactly right, but should it be a red card when two players are both committed to the ball? The Bordeaux player wasn’t intentionally trying to tackle Olly in the air. He was looking at the ball, a collision happens and it ends up a red card.

I think everyone understands all of the positive reasons for these directives, to try and protect players, but it does feel that you can be red-carded for quite an innocent act, and it is something we are all going to have to work hard at in rugby to make sure we give the players all the best coaching and direction we can to try and protect them from those kind of circumstances.
Agreed. Sometimes the law is an ass.
User avatar
zt1903
Posts: 9530
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by zt1903 »

Hate to sound like a broken record but yet again it's a player from the attacking team, that has kicked the ball away, that has taken to the air and collided with a defending player with his eyes on the ball. Just like Russell/Biggar and Thompstone/North it's not the player creating the danger that's been penalised.
piquant
Posts: 9283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by piquant »

If that's a red card the players should be told they can't jump
User avatar
Insane_Homer
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafy Surrey, UK

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Insane_Homer »

law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
User avatar
redderneck
Posts: 15355
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: We'll Never Forget You Geordan D'Arcy

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by redderneck »

piquant wrote:If that's a red card the players should be told they can't jump
I honestly think we;re not a million miles away from seeing this. A vertical jump from a standing position is ok, but banning the running jump.
User avatar
Catman
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Catman »

piquant wrote:If that's a red card the players should be told they can't jump
The game is getting too much like Aussie rules. I would support only allowing the defending player to jump for the ball. That would reduce the propensity for kick and chase (sorry Bokke ;) ) and make kickers look for space rather than rely on a tall fella (sorry Israel) which is a good thing imo. If the attacking player decides to jump and ends up in a heap, tough titties. If he upends the defender in the process, then yellow/red is fair enough. This would all but eliminate the serious aerial mishaps.

Refs at the moment are basing decisions on (perceived) severity of the injury, which is encouraging diving as well (not saying that happened in this instance)

Edit... it would also allow room in the game again for short, nippy, stepping wings like Breyten Paulse and Brent Russell, who would never be selected to a modern test side as they are too short to compete for the high ball, but add more in terms of attacking flair than lighthouses like Folau. (IMHO)
Last edited by Catman on Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

Insane_Homer wrote:law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
I'd go with that if only because it would deter some of the kicking we see and encourage the ball to be kept in hand.

{EDIT} A la Catman above.
User avatar
Catman
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Catman »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
I'd go with that if only because it would deter some of the kicking we see and encourage the ball to be kept in hand.

{EDIT} A la Catman above.
IH has pretty much said exactly the same thing. simultaneous posts
Last edited by Catman on Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zt1903
Posts: 9530
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by zt1903 »

Insane_Homer wrote:law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
I would agree.

I would potentially also look to end the practice of lifting at restarts.
User avatar
Catman
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Catman »

zt1903 wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
I would agree.

I would potentially also look to end the practice of lifting at restarts.
Yes- you could apply exactly the same law as above.
piquant
Posts: 9283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by piquant »

redderneck wrote:
piquant wrote:If that's a red card the players should be told they can't jump
I honestly think we;re not a million miles away from seeing this. A vertical jump from a standing position is ok, but banning the running jump.
It'd be a shame to lose the running jump, it's one of the outstanding skills of the game to see done at pace. But it's got to be in the discussion for do we get rid.
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

zt1903 wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
I would agree.

I would potentially also look to end the practice of lifting at restarts.
I'd remove it at lineouts.
TB63
Posts: 2536
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Middle of nowhere, just off the A420. .

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by TB63 »

Catman wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
I would agree.

I would potentially also look to end the practice of lifting at restarts.
Yes- you could apply exactly the same law as above.
Why not go the whole hog and ban lifting full stop.. Make lineouts a lot more interesting, instead of oppo just standing around waiting for the catcher to be lowered to the ground before they can do anything..
Magpie26
Posts: 2350
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Magpie26 »

Jeez you guys are pretty heartless.....the Boks are already in a mess and you want to take away their whole gameplan :((
User avatar
zt1903
Posts: 9530
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by zt1903 »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
I would agree.

I would potentially also look to end the practice of lifting at restarts.
I'd remove it at lineouts.
Would certainly make them more of a contest.
Nolanator
Posts: 38873
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Nolanator »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
I'd go with that if only because it would deter some of the kicking we see and encourage the ball to be kept in hand.
Kicking out of your 22 having just turned over the other team counts as a defensive exit play to me.
bimboman
Posts: 67677
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by bimboman »

Great ban line out lifting, string more players out in the defensive line. Along with mucking around with the break down the journey to league continues.
User avatar
Wendigo7
Posts: 12454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Wendigo7 »

bimboman wrote:Great ban line out lifting, string more players out in the defensive line. Along with mucking around with the break down the journey to league continues.
Yup, I still maintain whilst there is hard hitting between 2 blokes, concussion is a side effect which can never be eradicated, or reduced to managable levels either.
LemonDrop
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by LemonDrop »

In the wider context, having watched rugby since the early 70s, it's pretty clear that coaching has a lot to do with the greater frequency and impact, literally, of head injuries in tackling. Poor coaching, at that.

When rugby union went 'open' 20 years ago, Rugby League coaches were recruited to improve defensive skills (not so much attacking skills, sadly). They brought in tackling techniques from their own game and embedded them in Rugby Union - swinging arms to the head (the Wigan coat hanger), no-arms tackles, 'shoulder to head' hits and double tackles, often involving 'croc rolls'.

With RU players tending to be bigger than RL - and hugely bulked up since the game went pro - the effect is very damaging. Lawmakers realise it cannot be allowed to carry on in this way. Players will have to learn the hard way. If you want to stay on the field, you have to tackle lower. And you can't dive at players in the ruck. There'll be a rash of red and yellow cards - but they'll learn. The game will be better for it in the long run, not least because arms will be freed for off-loads.
User avatar
Brewster
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Brewster »

I really like that idea of the defender being the only person who can jump for it. x(
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

Wendigo7 wrote:
bimboman wrote:Great ban line out lifting, string more players out in the defensive line. Along with mucking around with the break down the journey to league continues.
Yup, I still maintain whilst there is hard hitting between 2 blokes, concussion is a side effect which can never be eradicated, or reduced to managable levels either.
This had nothing to do with concussion or danger but the removal of rewarding athleticism and substituting with a nonsense introduced to try and get cleaner ball at lineouts. Errr..... hello regulators. Have you ever watched a breakdown? :?
piquant
Posts: 9283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by piquant »

I wouldn't be too hard on kicking, the easier we make it to cover the backfield the less space there'll be in the line.
bimboman
Posts: 67677
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by bimboman »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
bimboman wrote:Great ban line out lifting, string more players out in the defensive line. Along with mucking around with the break down the journey to league continues.
Yup, I still maintain whilst there is hard hitting between 2 blokes, concussion is a side effect which can never be eradicated, or reduced to managable levels either.
This had nothing to do with concussion or danger but the removal of rewarding athleticism and substituting with a nonsense introduced to try and get cleaner ball at lineouts. Errr..... hello regulators. Have you ever watched a breakdown? :?

Yeah old line outs were great.... How he f uck isn't athletiscm being rewarded with lifting ?
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

bimboman wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
bimboman wrote:Great ban line out lifting, string more players out in the defensive line. Along with mucking around with the break down the journey to league continues.
Yup, I still maintain whilst there is hard hitting between 2 blokes, concussion is a side effect which can never be eradicated, or reduced to managable levels either.
This had nothing to do with concussion or danger but the removal of rewarding athleticism and substituting with a nonsense introduced to try and get cleaner ball at lineouts. Errr..... hello regulators. Have you ever watched a breakdown? :?

Yeah old line outs were great.... How he f uck isn't athletiscm being rewarded with lifting ?
Why not bring out a step ladder? :roll:
Nolanator
Posts: 38873
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Nolanator »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
bimboman wrote:Great ban line out lifting, string more players out in the defensive line. Along with mucking around with the break down the journey to league continues.
Yup, I still maintain whilst there is hard hitting between 2 blokes, concussion is a side effect which can never be eradicated, or reduced to managable levels either.
This had nothing to do with concussion or danger but the removal of rewarding athleticism and substituting with a nonsense introduced to try and get cleaner ball at lineouts. Errr..... hello regulators. Have you ever watched a breakdown? :?

Yeah old line outs were great.... How he f uck isn't athletiscm being rewarded with lifting ?
Why not bring out a step ladder? :roll:
Have you ever taken part in a lineout with lifting involved?
User avatar
theo
Posts: 13023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by theo »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Insane_Homer wrote:law change required.

2 people jumping for a ball is a arguable the most dangerous situation currently in the game. tackles, rucks, mauls, line-outs and scrums have had a ton of new legislation to make them safer.

The defender should be only person allowed to jump to field a kick.

If the attacker jumps and makes contact with the defending jumper then it's a pen + yellow.
If the attacker makes contact with the defender while the defender has both feet off the group = pen + yellow.
If the defender falls dangerously as a result of any contact then the card should be red.

It make these scenarios so much safer and stop this type of mindless kicking.
I'd go with that if only because it would deter some of the kicking we see and encourage the ball to be kept in hand.

{EDIT} A la Catman above.
Agreed. Never really liked up and unders anyway,
User avatar
happyhooker
Posts: 23124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by happyhooker »

Torquemada 1420 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
bimboman wrote:Great ban line out lifting, string more players out in the defensive line. Along with mucking around with the break down the journey to league continues.
Yup, I still maintain whilst there is hard hitting between 2 blokes, concussion is a side effect which can never be eradicated, or reduced to managable levels either.
This had nothing to do with concussion or danger but the removal of rewarding athleticism and substituting with a nonsense introduced to try and get cleaner ball at lineouts. Errr..... hello regulators. Have you ever watched a breakdown? :?

Yeah old line outs were great.... How he f uck isn't athletiscm being rewarded with lifting ?
Why not bring out a step ladder? :roll:
He's called Mr Toner to you.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11299
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by A5D5E5 »

Going back to no lifting in the lineout would be a retrograde move. Pre lifting lineouts were a shambles and frequently illegal. And in any case, it is an entirely different issue to that of having somebody jump at a defender's head safe in the knowledge that the defender will be penalised.
fisgard792
Posts: 4515
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by fisgard792 »

A5D5E5 wrote:Going back to no lifting in the lineout would be a retrograde move. Pre lifting lineouts were a shambles and frequently illegal. And in any case, it is an entirely different issue to that of having somebody jump at a defender's head safe in the knowledge that the defender will be penalised.
dont agree with that

imo, i don't agree, i think it would be a positive step

but like a lot of laws, if the officials cant watch a ball going in straight what chance have they with the more difficult stuff

the game should be biased in that if you kick ball away, you have the disadvantage, again, imo
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11299
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by A5D5E5 »

fisgard792 wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:Going back to no lifting in the lineout would be a retrograde move. Pre lifting lineouts were a shambles and frequently illegal. And in any case, it is an entirely different issue to that of having somebody jump at a defender's head safe in the knowledge that the defender will be penalised.
dont agree with that

imo, i don't agree, i think it would be a positive step

but like a lot of laws, if the officials cant watch a ball going in straight what chance have they with the more difficult stuff

the game should be biased in that if you kick ball away, you have the disadvantage, again, imo
I agree with the general point about kicking the ball away, but wouldn't going back to pre lifting lineouts would remove much of the advantage from the team that didn't kick the ball out? They were little more than a chaotic lottery.
User avatar
Nieghorn
Posts: 19133
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Centre of the Universe

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Nieghorn »

LemonDrop wrote:In the wider context, having watched rugby since the early 70s, it's pretty clear that coaching has a lot to do with the greater frequency and impact, literally, of head injuries in tackling. Poor coaching, at that.

When rugby union went 'open' 20 years ago, Rugby League coaches were recruited to improve defensive skills (not so much attacking skills, sadly). They brought in tackling techniques from their own game and embedded them in Rugby Union - swinging arms to the head (the Wigan coat hanger), no-arms tackles, 'shoulder to head' hits and double tackles, often involving 'croc rolls'.

With RU players tending to be bigger than RL - and hugely bulked up since the game went pro - the effect is very damaging. Lawmakers realise it cannot be allowed to carry on in this way. Players will have to learn the hard way. If you want to stay on the field, you have to tackle lower. And you can't dive at players in the ruck. There'll be a rash of red and yellow cards - but they'll learn. The game will be better for it in the long run, not least because arms will be freed for off-loads.

Great post! :thumbup:

I've been saying the same to all the nay-sayers claiming that it's "not rugby" and that things are "going soft". The sport won't survive an NFL-sized lawsuit. Only a few have come out, but now that we know what we know about concussions, if WR don't make changes to protect players and force safer practices, they leave themselves open for one.

On the subject of defenders only jumping for kicks, that'd kill a key element in sevens: the re-start.
User avatar
theo
Posts: 13023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by theo »

LemonDrop wrote:In the wider context, having watched rugby since the early 70s, it's pretty clear that coaching has a lot to do with the greater frequency and impact, literally, of head injuries in tackling. Poor coaching, at that.

When rugby union went 'open' 20 years ago, Rugby League coaches were recruited to improve defensive skills (not so much attacking skills, sadly). They brought in tackling techniques from their own game and embedded them in Rugby Union - swinging arms to the head (the Wigan coat hanger), no-arms tackles, 'shoulder to head' hits and double tackles, often involving 'croc rolls'.

With RU players tending to be bigger than RL - and hugely bulked up since the game went pro - the effect is very damaging. Lawmakers realise it cannot be allowed to carry on in this way. Players will have to learn the hard way. If you want to stay on the field, you have to tackle lower. And you can't dive at players in the ruck. There'll be a rash of red and yellow cards - but they'll learn. The game will be better for it in the long run, not least because arms will be freed for off-loads.
I agree.
User avatar
Flametop
Posts: 17689
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Flametop »

A5D5E5 wrote:
fisgard792 wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:Going back to no lifting in the lineout would be a retrograde move. Pre lifting lineouts were a shambles and frequently illegal. And in any case, it is an entirely different issue to that of having somebody jump at a defender's head safe in the knowledge that the defender will be penalised.
dont agree with that

imo, i don't agree, i think it would be a positive step

but like a lot of laws, if the officials cant watch a ball going in straight what chance have they with the more difficult stuff

the game should be biased in that if you kick ball away, you have the disadvantage, again, imo
I agree with the general point about kicking the ball away, but wouldn't going back to pre lifting lineouts would remove much of the advantage from the team that didn't kick the ball out? They were little more than a chaotic lottery.
Otherwise known as a contest.
More unpredictability of possession makes the game far more exciting.
Getting the ball against a defence set to attack was always one of the highlights of any back's match.
piquant
Posts: 9283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by piquant »

LemonDrop wrote:In the wider context, having watched rugby since the early 70s, it's pretty clear that coaching has a lot to do with the greater frequency and impact, literally, of head injuries in tackling. Poor coaching, at that.

When rugby union went 'open' 20 years ago, Rugby League coaches were recruited to improve defensive skills (not so much attacking skills, sadly). They brought in tackling techniques from their own game and embedded them in Rugby Union - swinging arms to the head (the Wigan coat hanger), no-arms tackles, 'shoulder to head' hits and double tackles, often involving 'croc rolls'.

With RU players tending to be bigger than RL - and hugely bulked up since the game went pro - the effect is very damaging. Lawmakers realise it cannot be allowed to carry on in this way. Players will have to learn the hard way. If you want to stay on the field, you have to tackle lower. And you can't dive at players in the ruck. There'll be a rash of red and yellow cards - but they'll learn. The game will be better for it in the long run, not least because arms will be freed for off-loads.
Attacking skills are miles up on what we saw in the past too, it's just much harder Vs a modern defence. If one looks back to rugby of the 1970s/80s and even much of the 90s the time and space that was afforded to the 9, 10 and 12 just isn't comparable to what we see now. If you gave even what would be considered some of the clunkier halves around the space that the stars of the game got in the 70s they'd rip a defence to bits. I'd not contest that defence has improved more in relative terms, but attack is way forward on where it was. (we'd expect attack to have improved mind given the time to train and analyse that simply wasn't available and/or done in the past)

I'm certainly with you on tackling lower, they should drop the target area to below the armpit to make it much harder to ride up by accident, and the charging into rucks should be stopped with players actually having to bind onto a ruck (as so often the laws are there, as with straight feeds, they're just for whatever reason ignored). I don't think I'd want to rid the game of tackling fairly high though, the hold up tackle is a good defence for a small midfield looking to survive Vs some big brutes simply looking to run over them, and I'd rather have coaches encouraged not to simply pick boshers
User avatar
theo
Posts: 13023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by theo »

It would help if they changed the maul law about the turnover if you hold the tackler up. That promoted higher tackling so you can target the ball.
piquant
Posts: 9283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by piquant »

theo wrote:It would help if they changed the maul law about the turnover if you hold the tackler up. That promoted higher tackling so you can target the ball.
I don't have a problem with this tbh. And if the attack doesn't want to lose the ball in this fashion don't perhaps be so keen to run into contact.
User avatar
Lenny
Posts: 6484
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Darkest deepest northwest

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Lenny »

LemonDrop wrote:In the wider context, having watched rugby since the early 70s, it's pretty clear that coaching has a lot to do with the greater frequency and impact, literally, of head injuries in tackling. Poor coaching, at that.

When rugby union went 'open' 20 years ago, Rugby League coaches were recruited to improve defensive skills (not so much attacking skills, sadly). They brought in tackling techniques from their own game and embedded them in Rugby Union - swinging arms to the head (the Wigan coat hanger), no-arms tackles, 'shoulder to head' hits and double tackles, often involving 'croc rolls'.

With RU players tending to be bigger than RL - and hugely bulked up since the game went pro - the effect is very damaging. Lawmakers realise it cannot be allowed to carry on in this way. Players will have to learn the hard way. If you want to stay on the field, you have to tackle lower. And you can't dive at players in the ruck. There'll be a rash of red and yellow cards - but they'll learn. The game will be better for it in the long run, not least because arms will be freed for off-loads.

I was heavily involved in underage rugby in the mid 90s/early noughties and we were sending our better players down to summer camps with Connacht, and they came back with the new chest high tackling technique that was far more violent and dangerous that the "traditional" tackling skills that we'd been teaching them. I remember in an early season game one of our guys (who subsequently played pro rugby with both Munster and Connacht), nearly obliterating an oppo player who had taken a quick tap penalty, and having to explain to the ref, who was on the verge of sending him off, that this was the way they were being coached by Connacht. It was the first time I'd seen it at underage level (u16 in this case) and it frightened the crap out of me.
User avatar
Nieghorn
Posts: 19133
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Centre of the Universe

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Nieghorn »

Lenny wrote:
LemonDrop wrote:In the wider context, having watched rugby since the early 70s, it's pretty clear that coaching has a lot to do with the greater frequency and impact, literally, of head injuries in tackling. Poor coaching, at that.

When rugby union went 'open' 20 years ago, Rugby League coaches were recruited to improve defensive skills (not so much attacking skills, sadly). They brought in tackling techniques from their own game and embedded them in Rugby Union - swinging arms to the head (the Wigan coat hanger), no-arms tackles, 'shoulder to head' hits and double tackles, often involving 'croc rolls'.

With RU players tending to be bigger than RL - and hugely bulked up since the game went pro - the effect is very damaging. Lawmakers realise it cannot be allowed to carry on in this way. Players will have to learn the hard way. If you want to stay on the field, you have to tackle lower. And you can't dive at players in the ruck. There'll be a rash of red and yellow cards - but they'll learn. The game will be better for it in the long run, not least because arms will be freed for off-loads.

I was heavily involved in underage rugby in the mid 90s/early noughties and we were sending our better players down to summer camps with Connacht, and they came back with the new chest high tackling technique that was far more violent and dangerous that the "traditional" tackling skills that we'd been teaching them. I remember in an early season game one of our guys (who subsequently played pro rugby with both Munster and Connacht), nearly obliterating an oppo player who had taken a quick tap penalty, and having to explain to the ref, who was on the verge of sending him off, that this was the way they were being coached by Connacht. It was the first time I'd seen it at underage level (u16 in this case) and it frightened the crap out of me.
Unfortunately, that sort of stuff still goes on. I saw a regional representative coach teach teenagers how to do croc rolls by saying they should drive a shoulder into the opponent's back, bind on below armpits and then aggressively roll. I was pleased to hear one athlete say "I'm not doing the shoulder thing" pointing out how painful/dangerous it looked.

I wish I could share a direct link, but The Rugby Site is a subscription-based coaching service that gets big names to run demos. There's one with Gatland talking about cleanouts where he has teens doing this sort of thing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KE7a0j5cT0 They weren't even doing it well, and not only is it potentially dangerous, it's illegal to go shoulders below hips and to not bind on (though it's not properly policed). I left a comment saying as much below, and let my free trial run out.
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Re: Baxter on red cards

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

Nolanator wrote:Have you ever taken part in a lineout with lifting involved?
You've never met me. The answer is no. Something about law changes and age.

Mind you I've never run over a pedestrian but I know it's wrong.
Post Reply