PDA

View Full Version : Reducing the tackle height. Discuss.



ChuckieB
29-03-18, 20:03
https://www.worldrugby.org/news/323165?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Aviva Premiership statistic at odds with other tournament data?

Ian_Cook
30-03-18, 05:03
I posted this illustration once before, but I guess this would be a good time to do so again.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2l19v93bndgx2gl/HighTackleZones.png?raw=1

The red line is the current high tackle line (above the line of the shoulders). I would like to see a Law change trialled to make it the green line (above the line of the armpits). There are however, a couple of consequences of this.

1. I can see players and coaches taking advantage of such a law by getting the ball carrier to carry the ball high on their body. This would make it almost impossible to execute a "ball-and-all" tackle, making it difficult if not impossible to prevent the ball carrier from offloading in the tackle.

2. It would make a ball carrier diving to score difficult or impossible to successfully stop.

One way around these might to specifically state that the first point of contact in the tackle must not be above the armpits, and that no contact must be made with the ball carrier's head at any time. This would mean that a tackler could go for the ball, and provided first contact is with the ball, the player can slip off above the line of the armpits provided that no contact is made with the ball carrier's head.

Thoughts?

Marc Wakeham
30-03-18, 10:03
Interesting.

ChrisR
30-03-18, 11:03
Penalty sanctions for high tackles were increased by 64 per cent worldwide in 2017 compared to 2016. High tackle yellow cards increased by an average of 41 per cent globally after the directive, but with noted variation between tournaments, including a 36 percent decrease in yellow cards issued for high tackles in the Aviva Premiership.

The real teat is the correlation between sanctions and reduction in offences and then the reduction in HIAs. This has to be a multi-year study if we are to learn much more than getting whacked in the head can make you dizzy.

What can change tackling methods generally is for coaches to learn that 'ball 'n all' tackling is ineffective. Give me a study that correlates turnover rates and meters lost to tackle height and I'll have a tool that can change tackle practices.

Ian_Cook
30-03-18, 20:03
What can change tackling methods generally is for coaches to learn that 'ball 'n all' tackling is ineffective. Give me a study that correlates turnover rates, offloads in the tackle and meters lost to tackle height and I'll have a tool that can change tackle practices.

FTFY

You would have to include offloads in the tackle as part of your study. The main reason why coaches want ball 'n' all tackles is to prevent offloads in the tackle (this applies in both RL and RU by the way). There is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that a ball carrier tackled below the ball carry height (and therefore has both arms free) is more likely to be able to get the ball away than one who is wrapped up by the tackler tackling around the ball and the body of the player.

menace
30-03-18, 23:03
Obviously the fact that in rugby a tackled player can pop up the ball when on the ground (unlike league) provides greater incentive for ball'n'all high tackles. So we have a 'law' that effectively promotes high tackles.
I wonder if you removed the ability for passing from the ground would reduce high tackles (apart from the obvious that it would change the game too much to be like league!!)??
Im not advocating that change...just find the contradiction with the laws quite amusing they apply laws hoping for a fix when maybe they have not looked at th cause and affect factors.

Ian_Cook
31-03-18, 03:03
Obviously the fact that in rugby a tackled player can pop up the ball when on the ground (unlike league) provides greater incentive for ball'n'all high tackles. So we have a 'law' that effectively promotes high tackles.
I wonder if you removed the ability for passing from the ground would reduce high tackles (apart from the obvious that it would change the game too much to be like league!!)??
Im not advocating that change...just find the contradiction with the laws quite amusing they apply laws hoping for a fix when maybe they have not looked at th cause and affect factors.

I'm sure that your suggestion was actually the Law at one time... passing off the ground was a penalty infringement (OB.. will probably have an idea when that changed but I'm guessing some time in the late 1970's or 1980's). A tackled player had but one option, let go of the ball.

crossref
31-03-18, 07:03
Obviously the fact that in rugby a tackled player can pop up the ball when on the ground (unlike league) provides greater incentive for ball'n'all high tackles. So we have a 'law' that effectively promotes high tackles.
I wonder if you removed the ability for passing from the ground would reduce high tackles (apart from the obvious that it would change the game too much to be like league!!)??
Im not advocating that change...just find the contradiction with the laws quite amusing they apply laws hoping for a fix when maybe they have not looked at th cause and affect factors.

That's an interesting post
But when I watch league (admittedly I watch about ten minutes of it per season) I don't see them tackling low...

ChrisR
31-03-18, 14:03
FTFY

You would have to include offloads in the tackle as part of your study. The main reason why coaches want ball 'n' all tackles is to prevent offloads in the tackle (this applies in both RL and RU by the way). There is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that a ball carrier tackled below the ball carry height (and therefore has both arms free) is more likely to be able to get the ball away than one who is wrapped up by the tackler tackling around the ball and the body of the player.

Yes, agree totally with it's intent and that low tackling allows for off-loads. The question that a study may answer is one of cost/benefit.

TigerCraig
19-04-18, 02:04
That's an interesting post
But when I watch league (admittedly I watch about ten minutes of it per season) I don't see them tackling low...

In league they want to do 2 main things - stop offloads and get the ball carrier to ground, preferably on their back with the tacklers lying on top of them to slow them down.

didds
19-04-18, 08:04
... and because of the inherent wide field trench defense within league they can safely double tackle each time so one player can target the ball (stop offloads) and the other can target the legs (bring him down) without compromising the overall defense in wider areas. That's a generalisation obviously.

ChrisR
19-04-18, 10:04
... and because of the inherent wide field trench defense within league they can safely double tackle each time so one player can target the ball (stop offloads) and the other can target the legs (bring him down) without compromising the overall defense in wider areas. That's a generalisation obviously.

It's true for union too. As teams pick and chose when and where they're going to challenge at the ruck, and the team in possession still putting 2 - 4 players over the ball, the defenders have a numerical edge.

It's a different game from the days when all the forwards were expected to gallop over to the ruck leaving backs to defend backs and the ball went wide.

Flish
19-04-18, 11:04
Appreciate am comparing apples with oranges, but I'm a U11s coach too so ref a lot of minis games where below the armpit is the tackle zone, and it makes it very easy to spot a 'high' tackle, almost anything over the arm is high, whereas in the adult game we have these horrid grey areas where a seatbelt tackle is technically high, but it all depends on the proximity to the neck, angle of approach, mood of the ref etc as to whether it's given.

It's worth looking at for me, there would be uproar like, but I could imagine it would be easier to draw the line between high and not

Zebra1922
19-04-18, 22:04
The more referees crack down on high tackles, including the use of cards where appropriate, the more the problem will go away. Although caused by coaching, it is a problem easily solved by referees. Like the abuse in football, if there was a general will at the top to stop football referee abuse through RCs, it would stop in a few weeks.

I don't want to go to those extremes, but as players tackle high more and more to prevent offloads, we as referees have responsibility to be brave a penalise more and more, even if that means multiple cards per game. Eventually the message gets through and tackle height lowers. Requires the support of Societies and senior leaders to support referees, but this is within our power to stamp out.

crossref
19-04-18, 22:04
Do you think there is still a problem ? I think that was yesterday's battle, these days players completely expect a PK or a YC for a high tackle and the incidence is much reduced . I don't have to give many cards for that any more

Zebra1922
20-04-18, 07:04
Do you think there is still a problem ? I think that was yesterday's battle, these days players completely expect a PK or a YC for a high tackle and the incidence is much reduced . I don't have to give many cards for that any more
I think they’re a still a problem, either players who are coached to go high to try and prevent ball release, or when that red mist descends and they go high purposefully to hit hard (and maybe try and hurt).