PDA

View Full Version : Forearm Striking - a trend needing reversing ?



Browner
30-03-15, 19:03
Here is a C&O strike, but YC only ????

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/03/theres-legit-boshes-and-then-theres.html

Is there a way to worsen this to qualify for RC? Its a trend that needs tough officiating IMO otherwise we'll see Grass Roots and Juniors copying.

Wedgie
30-03-15, 19:03
Its a trend that needs tough officiating IMO otherwise we'll see Grass Roots and Juniors copying.

We already are seeing it....: Green/Blue 15 on Green/White 11 at ~48secs into this clip....

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/colchester-pickett-powers-samsung-try-the-month/ (http://www.englandrugby.com/news/colchester-pickett-powers-samsung-try-the-month/)

Na Madrai
30-03-15, 20:03
I recall back in days gone by, doing a coaching course at a senior club. My objective was by so doing, to try to get a coaches' view on the game and so improve my refereeing - I was very green at the time!!!

The course was given by the coach of this club and he stated that if a ball carrier, a player must always lead with his forearm. If it connects with the tackler, it is because the latter is attempting to tackle too high and it should be classed as self-defence not an offence.

This coach was also of the opinion that every rugby match should be refereed to the same standard - they are all played to the same LOTG so why not!

NM

OB..
30-03-15, 21:03
This coach was also of the opinion that every rugby match should be refereed to the same standard - they are all played to the same LOTG so why not!

NM"It is like the thirteenth stroke of a crazy clock, which not only is itself discredited but casts a shade of doubt over all previous assertions." (AP Herbert)

Not Kurt Weaver
30-03-15, 22:03
Here is a C&O strike, but YC only ????



Ball carrier is just pushing tackler. we all know this from a previous thread. Nothing to see here.

matty1194
30-03-15, 22:03
Ball carrier is just pushing tackler. we all know this from a previous thread. Nothing to see here.

I do hope you have forgotten to put a sarc symbol in there :wtf: !!!

For me this is clearly a forearm strike directed at the head/neck/throat area of an opposition player and if I was the referee and saw this in my game then it would be a RC.

Anything else would be a cop out.

matty1194
30-03-15, 22:03
We already are seeing it....: Green/Blue 15 on Green/White 11 at ~48secs into this clip....

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/colchester-pickett-powers-samsung-try-the-month/ (http://www.englandrugby.com/news/colchester-pickett-powers-samsung-try-the-month/)

Saw it in the Ulster v Cardiff match at the weekend also when Nick Williams caught Patchell on the head when he charged in at the side of a maul, YC there as well.

Ian_Cook
30-03-15, 23:03
Browner's OP looks like RC to me, a deliberate forearm to the face.

I have no problem with the ball carrier using a "passive" forearm fend, that is when the forearm, usually of the ball carrying arm, is held against the players own body and after contact is made with the tackler, the ball carrier pushes the opponent off. What I object to is the "active" forearm fend where the ball carrier extends his forearm into his opponent, usually the head... IMO, this is striking you opponent.

Of course, if you are good enough, big enough and strong enough, you don't even need to use your forearm to put the would be tackler on his arse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6OJsPrIC0&t=50m42s

Browner
02-04-15, 06:04
Saw it in the Ulster v Cardiff match at the weekend also when Nick Williams caught Patchell on the head when he charged in at the side of a maul, YC there as well.

Williams cited and given a Top End Sanction .... https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/pro12/2015/0401/691447-ulsters-nick-williams-hit-with-8-week-ban/

didds
02-04-15, 12:04
The course was given by the coach of this club and he stated that if a ball carrier, a player must always lead with his forearm. If it connects with the tackler, it is because the latter is attempting to tackle too high and it should be classed as self-defence not an offence.



The dangers of "in house" coaching courses... you get the coaches' view of what should happen, not necessarily what SHOULD happen.

I lead and deliver CPD courses for the RFU as a Coach Developer and I can categorically state that this concept is not coached/shown in any CPDs.




This coach was also of the opinion that every rugby match should be refereed to the same standard - they are all played to the same LOTG so why not!


seems eminently reasonable. Why should one game not be reffed to the same laws as others? This is the crux of many elite game issues we debate here.

didds

OB..
02-04-15, 15:04
Why should one game not be reffed to the same laws as others? This is the crux of many elite game issues we debate here.

diddsBecause the players are different? You can realistically expect quite different actions and reactions from international players than from an Extra B pub team. The game is not played to the same standard so it is difficult to say refereeing judgements should all be at international level.

There is, of course, plenty of scope for discussing just how far they should differ....

Dixie
02-04-15, 20:04
This coach was also of the opinion that every rugby match should be refereed to the same standard - they are all played to the same LOTG so why not!


seems eminently reasonable. Why should one game not be reffed to the same laws as others? This is the crux of many elite game issues we debate here.

Didds, the controversial bit was not that they should all be reffed to the same laws, but that they should all be reffed to the same standard. If I were capable of reffing at international standard, why would I waste my Saturdays mixing it with his poxy team, when I could have so much more fulfilment doing Wasps v Northampton, Sarries v Bath or Ireland v England?

One might equally ask why the coach's team somehow falls short of Premiership standards? After all, they are playing the same game.

Browner
09-04-15, 16:04
Another.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/james-thomas-tkod-by-josh-navidis.html

legitimate fend ...OR ... citeable strike ..etc?

RobLev
10-04-15, 08:04
Another.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/james-thomas-tkod-by-josh-navidis.html

legitimate fend ...OR ... citeable strike ..etc?

Citeable strike.

Accylad
10-04-15, 08:04
Citeable strike.

Not for me. Slightly unbalanced by the first tackle attempt BC pushes out a hand but no6 closer than an arm length away and gets caught with forearm. One of those things in my view....

Ian_Cook
10-04-15, 09:04
Not for me. Slightly unbalanced by the first tackle attempt BC pushes out a hand but no6 closer than an arm length away and gets caught with forearm. One of those things in my view....


The red tackler has got him around the legs and he's falling forwards... 100% accidental IMO

OB..
10-04-15, 12:04
The red tackler has got him around the legs and he's falling forwards... 100% accidental IMOMoreover he initially puts his hand on the player's shoulder, but the forces involved cause him to bend his arm,which is why the forearm strikes.

Treadmore
10-04-15, 15:04
Moreover he initially puts his hand on the player's shoulder, but the forces involved cause him to bend his arm,which is why the forearm strikes.
I think at 1:09 -ish it does show the side-on view and the forearm strikes the chin first and the head goes back and damge is done at that point, then the hand reaches the shoulder. That said, I think accidental also.

Browner
10-04-15, 15:04
I
Moreover he initially puts his hand on the player's shoulder, but the forces involved cause him to bend his arm,which is why the forearm strikes.

But hold on a cotton picking minute,............, if he thrusts his forearm towards an opponents face then he must be liable for that opponents injury , even if he had good reason for his forearm being in the vicinity, after all he could have pulled it away a split second before the impact, which must make the strike reckless - surely ???!!???? .............

Which I believe are the arguments being offered up in the Nathan Hughes ' accidental' collision with George North ?

Which is why I posted this clip .....

OB..
10-04-15, 16:04
I think at 1:09 -ish it does show the side-on view and the forearm strikes the chin first and the head goes back and damge is done at that point, then the hand reaches the shoulder. That said, I think accidental also.I think at 1:07 it is clear he is reaching out with his hand, and definitely not aiming to lead with his forearm.

OB..
10-04-15, 16:04
But hold on a cotton picking minute,............, if he thrusts his forearm towards an opponents faceHe didn't. He stuck his hand out first.

I see no useful comparison with the George North incident.

Treadmore
10-04-15, 16:04
I think at 1:07 it is clear he is reaching out with his hand, and definitely not aiming to lead with his forearm.
I agree, which is why "accidental".

Browner
10-04-15, 20:04
He didn't. He stuck his hand out first.

I see no useful comparison with the George North incident.

IMO Hughes put out a braking stride first, and the collision was as much caused by North's head repositioning, & there is the comparison .....unintended & a undeliberate bump.

OB..
11-04-15, 11:04
IMO Hughes put out a braking stride first, and the collision was as much caused by North's head repositioning, & there is the comparison .....unintended & a undeliberate bump.You are citing what you see as similarities, and ignoring highly significant differences. Hughes had a free choice of where to run. Navidi was being tackled as Thomas came in to join the tackle. He put out his arm hand first - classic hand-off attempt. The combined effect of two opponents resulted in the unintended impact.

RobLev
11-04-15, 13:04
Not for me. Slightly unbalanced by the first tackle attempt BC pushes out a hand but no6 closer than an arm length away and gets caught with forearm. One of those things in my view....

On first viewing I thought it was a deliberate strike. Having looked again (and again...) I accept it was probably accidental - it looked worse than it was.

RobLev
11-04-15, 13:04
You are citing what you see as similarities, and ignoring highly significant differences. Hughes had a free choice of where to run.

...and has been cleared on appeal.


Navidi was being tackled as Thomas came in to join the tackle. He put out his arm hand first - classic hand-off attempt. The combined effect of two opponents resulted in the unintended impact.

Which I now agree is probably what happened - accidental, not deliberate.

Browner
11-04-15, 13:04
Exactly roblev, my point being that once you tread down the path of finding blame to accidental rugby collisions then you can find a case to pursue most collisions that inadvertently injure someone.

Browner
13-04-15, 05:04
Ouch .......
http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/enornmous-collision-results-in.html

Im aware how 'the internet sites spread viewings , quicker than ever, but I'm trying to second guess how Laws will be amended to reduce these type of concussions, & how many more need to go sparko before the idea that something needs to change gets progressed. After RWC 2015, 2019 or 2023 ???other?