Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
supersupporter

Probably the hardest tackle you will ever see

Recommended Posts

That's rugby. Isn't it?

The problem is that the ref has now punished a player for executing an excellent tackle. Where does the player go from here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1)Past the horisontal, (2)head first into the ground. Absolutely (3)ZERO control from the tackler, More reminiscent of a WWE "spear tackle" with with an uncontrolled dive the (4)purpose of injuring the player.

MINIMUM of a red card!

That was ABSOLUTELY RECKLESS.

t1.JPG

t3.JPG

t4.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that in NZ they have weight based rugby, would this not be an ideal idea for SA School rugby too. For me this was just a very big boy vs a very small boy, simple logic as to why all the red card rules would come into play, however, there is one one missing factor, at no point did he lift the player. The little guys legs remained in one place and the rest of his body was going in the direction the tackler was going

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kid looks like he should be helping out in the school library and not on a rugby field. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, supersupporter said:

I have heard that in NZ they have weight based rugby, would this not be an ideal idea for SA School rugby too. For me this was just a very big boy vs a very small boy, simple logic as to why all the red card rules would come into play, however, there is one one missing factor, at no point did he lift the player. The little guys legs remained in one place and the rest of his body was going in the direction the tackler was going

I think they have the same thing for league and union in parts of Sydney (the parts with large Pacific Islander population). Some of those islander lads can be 100 kegs at 12 or 13 and be playing against kids half their weight

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Barnacle said:

(1)Past the horisontal, (2)head first into the ground. Absolutely (3)ZERO control from the tackler, More reminiscent of a WWE "spear tackle" with with an uncontrolled dive the (4)purpose of injuring the player.

MINIMUM of a red card!

That was ABSOLUTELY RECKLESS.

t1.JPG

t3.JPG

t4.JPG

The tackler did not lift him past the horizontal. 

The tackler used his arms and the thackle was not high. Are you not twisting the laws a bit here? It sounds like  you wan to say that's a spear tackle, which it obviously is not...and you know better, so please educate me here. What am I missing?

Edited by DbDraad
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to get it straight....

You guys believe the following:

  1. A player jumps into the air to charge down a kick, can change direction in the air to avoid a player running into him
  2. A player getting ready to make a tackle, that is suddenly confronted with a change of direction or a player stumbling and falling into him should be able to ignore all laws of physics and human ability, must be able to get out of the way, otherwise he showed intent and should be red carded
  3. A player standing his ground to catch a ball while another jumps into the air and into him, should run away so that the one who jump should have all the rights to the ball (i.e a player with his feet on the ground should not be allowed to catch a ball)
  4. A player that makes a reckless uncontrolled tackle with no regard for any form of safety makes a legal tackle

NOTED!

I believe that not one of you have any grounds to say ANYTHING about player safety under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ever again... Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the commentator would say: “I don’t think that it is illegal because the tackler did not lift him past the horizontal”. 

The law says nothing about “the horizontal”. It says:

“LAW 9. FOUL PLAY

Dangerous play. 


18. A player must not lift an opponent off the ground and drop or drive that player so that their head and/or upper body make contact with the ground.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barnacle said:

Just to get it straight....

You guys believe the following:

  1. A player jumps into the air to charge down a kick, can change direction in the air to avoid a player running into him
  2. A player getting ready to make a tackle, that is suddenly confronted with a change of direction or a player stumbling and falling into him should be able to ignore all laws of physics and human ability, must be able to get out of the way, otherwise he showed intent and should be red carded
  3. A player standing his ground to catch a ball while another jumps into the air and into him, should run away so that the one who jump should have all the rights to the ball (i.e a player with his feet on the ground should not be allowed to catch a ball)
  4. A player that makes a reckless uncontrolled tackle with no regard for any form of safety makes a legal tackle

NOTED!

I believe that not one of you have any grounds to say ANYTHING about player safety under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ever again... Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Didn't say anything about player safety...I said it wasn't a spear tackle or ahigh tackle...and the tackler used is arms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vlagman said:

What the commentator would say: “I don’t think that it is illegal because the tackler did not lift him past the horizontal”. 

The law says nothing about “the horizontal”. It says:

“LAW 9. FOUL PLAY

Dangerous play. 


18. A player must not lift an opponent off the ground and drop or drive that player so that their head and/or upper body make contact with the ground.”

He did neither, he tackled, physics did the rest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At no point was that ever a tip or spear tackle.When someone is tackled hard, there doe snot always need to be blame, sometimes a tackle is just a tackle. I am with draad here, this sounds like you are looking to play blame. The kid just got FUBAR (Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition). It is logic like your as to why this game is getting soft.

So in theory a tackle is not allowed to be hard, the tackler at all times should assume that the little guy may fold like apiece of paper and go beyond the horizontal, even though, he was never speared, tipped, tackled high, or without arms, everything in that tackle for me was text book, unless the text book has changed for those who want the game to go soft. Long live the tackle...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, supersupporter said:

It is logic like your as to why this game is getting soft.

Read the rest of my post. Where all of you have bitched in the past, I have consistently said in most cases, they are "rugby incidents".

In this case the action is a direct result of the action and intent of the tackler. With the additional aspect of the tackle being made after he had already passed the ball.

Now, as I said. Fuck off! None of you have the right to any opinion on players safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Read the rest of my post. Where all of you have bitched in the past, I have consistently said in most cases, they are "rugby incidents".

In this case the action is a direct result of the action and intent of the tackler. With the additional aspect of the tackle being made after he had already passed the ball.

Now, as I said. Fuck off! None of you have the right to any opinion on players safety.

You fuck off!, since when does your idiotic opinion trump ours?

Maybe try identify one simple fact, no spear or tip tackle took place, the only wrong doing and that is still subjective is it was marginally late. But, if you think that the rest of the tripe you posted is accurate, you are off your meds. Just one chap being bigger than the other player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your intellectual disability prevents me from entertaining you on this topic any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DbDraad said:

He did neither, he tackled, physics did the rest.

Person A punches person B causing person B’s jaw to break. Person A punched. Physics did the rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vlagman said:

Person A punches person B causing person B’s jaw to break. Person A punched. Physics did the rest. 

Not the same thing.

OK, I did not read your previous post properly. You believe he should have been sent off for dangerous play? That's my problem with the laws. The subjectivity. How do you measure what is dangerous and what not?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Barnacle said:

Read the rest of my post. Where all of you have bitched in the past, I have consistently said in most cases, they are "rugby incidents".

In this case the action is a direct result of the action and intent of the tackler. With the additional aspect of the tackle being made after he had already passed the ball.

Now, as I said. Fuck off! None of you have the right to any opinion on players safety.

Go Fuck off yourself rude prick!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DbDraad said:

Not the same thing.

OK, I did not read your previous post properly. You believe he should have been sent off for dangerous play? That's my problem with the laws. The subjectivity. How do you measure what is dangerous and what not?

Enforcing the law will always be perceived as someone’s “subjective” interpretation of it. If you like the decision, you are likely to agree with the decision-maker’s interpretation of it. If not, you are likely to argue that he/she is making it up on the fly. 

An example. The US law on the indictment of a sitting president is not clear. The Supreme Court has, however, declared that it is not possible to indict a sitting president. The Dems, grudgingly, has now accepted that Trump cannot be inducted and is saying that it was a poor decision.  The irony is that, back in the day, when the ruling was made and it went in favour of Bill Clinton, the same Dems thought that it was a brilliant interpretation. More ironic is the fact that, at the time that the ruling was made, the Supreme Court was stacked with liberal judges. The current, mainly conservative, panel of judges has not even made a ruling in this regard, or has been required to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DbDraad said:

Go Fuck off yourself rude prick!

This is typical with some of these assholes, you try and reason or even give your point of view and you are sworn at, reminds me of that other asshole Saffex who used to do the same, they seemed to think that because they know how to copy and past laws that this will nullify any logic that no initial offence was committed, other than as I say a debatable marginal late tackle, as for the rest, it was just a truck having an accident with a Smart car. When the truck and the car have a crash, it does not mean the truck driver should go to prison because he is bigger. Logic is so stupid it makes me laugh.

And then to tell us to fuck off because we know nothing about player safety, and I guess Barnacle does. But, then again, what has he done to make it safer? Clearly nothing as this boy could have got seriously hurt because those "so called" in the know have done fok all other than tell us we know fuck all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Barnacle said:

Your intellectual disability prevents me from entertaining you on this topic any further.

"Intellectual Disability" this coming from someone who tells others to fuck off, simply because his assessment of a situation is so far out there he just looks stupid. So again, you fuck off and perhaps go fuck yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vlagman,

You are wasting your breath... They can't even read.

I say WWE "spear tackle" and the miss both the WWE and the quotation marks. (Where I describe the action of diving uncontrolled at someone)

They can't think logically.... Will not even allow their own kids to play rugby, but its okay that someone else kid suffers brain damage (concussion) in an uncontrolled "tackle". Added to this, this kid (child) was unconscious for a few seconds and placed in the recovery position, before coming to... Hypocrites, nothing more

In all the other examples I mentioned the "victim" contributed to the situation by their own actions. In this incident the "target" did nothing but pass the ball...

You will also note that they do not give a single logic argument to back up their oh so fucking important opinions, while both of us actually did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, supersupporter said:

"Intellectual Disability" this coming from someone who tells others to fuck off, simply because his assessment of a situation is so far out there he just looks stupid. So again, you fuck off and perhaps go fuck yourself

Give one single valid argument that transcends your hypocrisy and you may have an opinion...

Or for that matter any single valid argument

Edited by Barnacle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

  • Forum Statistics

    11,645
    Total Topics
    395,105
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    20
    Total Members
    2,160
    Most Online
    TheDuke
    Newest Member
    TheDuke
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...