: Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:58 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

Wouldn't make a great deal of difference to the modern game TBH. Tackling is moving more towards restraint & wrestling techniques rather than out and out collisions and will, I suspect, continue to do so.

This is IMO as much to do with the poor running techniques in this country. How many times does the attacking forward collect the ball from an almost standing start. The only time they seem to take the ball at pace is when the gain line has been broken and a quick ball is played to a close running attacker whilst the defensive line is still trying to form.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:02 pm  

This must have now passed "the voluntary tackle" as the most talked about non-incident ever

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:07 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

This must have now passed "the voluntary tackle" as the most talked about non-incident ever

If things had been a little different and it had been "Fielden's volountary tackle" then you lot would still have not let it lie.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:09 pm  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

If things had been a little different and it had been "Fielden's volountary tackle" then you lot would still have not let it lie.

I fear you are correct

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:13 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

I fear you are correct

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:16 pm  

tvoc wrote:

For me you primarily tackle with the arms. A shoulder without the arms wrapping around is a dangerous technique both for the player giving and receiving and it probably explains why they are rarely seen in a game.

Agree. Time it was gone in my opinion.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:17 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

This must have now passed "the voluntary tackle" as the most talked about non-incident ever

To be fair we've now moved beyond the "non-incident" and onto the general premise of tackling technique. Which seems an apt use of a Rugby League discussion forum.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:32 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

I've said all along it's a fair shot.

I agree to some extent with Potter that if we're sayingshoulder to the head is legal we might have some issues, but in that particular circumstance, I think it was OK.

I suspect that Potter is incorrect in his interpretation of the RFL ruling. From the RFL website...

RFL Disciplinary wrote:

Player does make contact with head of opponent, shoulder not elbow or forearm, not an illegal challenge, opponent dips into tackle

...it's a bit ambiguous, they could mean:

a) Player does make contact with head of opponent, shoulder not elbow or forearm, not an illegal challenge. Opponent dips into tackle.

OR

b) Player does make contact with head of opponent, shoulder not elbow or forearm. Not an illegal challenge, opponent dips into tackle.

For me (b) is the correct interpretation and also how I interpret the challenge - i.e. the challenge was not illegal because Maurie ducked into the contact rather than Bailey attacking his head.

The mention of being the shoulder is, to me, a clarification over Eddie's initial reaction on Sky (he said it was a forearm until Stevo and Cullen corrected him on the replay). I also assume it is mentioned as a mitigating factor - it shows lack of intend and that Bailey had less control over where the contact was than if it had been a forearm.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:35 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

but you cant alter the height of yous shoulder as you can your arm,

they way maurie was running had bailey dipped his shoulder to hit mauries chest it would have greatly increased the risk of a clash of heads which could have resulted serious injury to both parties

and you can only shoulder barge as high as your hieght players arent going to start leaping into each other for many reasons, not least it being a rubbish technique easily stepped

and burrow wouldnt run in like maurie did, he is much more agile and so runs more angles looking to step and duck, than trying to run through a player like maurie tried

there is no need to change the rules, this isnt a new thing and it adds to the game

id have thought it was standard to change the height of your shoulder in the tackle, ie get lower. if your upright your only going one way; backwards.

a few years ago we were seeing players in the NRL leaping into tackles to make shoulder charges so it did happen before the cleared it up.

RE burrows - you need to be proactive not reactive. no good just waiting til a 5'4'' player comes along with rubbish feet and gets decapitated.

and people who say that its the attackers responsibility. what happens when a players slipping a tackle but still gets slowed down/held up. he's just an easy target for one of these tackles, particularly if he stumbles. and yes, i have seen this happen

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:40 pm  

Glenn Quagmire wrote:

Potter was interviewed on SSN last night and he said something along the lines of, "When a player ducks from 6ft 4 to 6ft and breaks his nose something is going wrong." However, my opinion on that is that if he runs upright and Bailey hits him in the same way, he hits him in the chest.

Potter is talking nonsense for me.

Bailey is also 6ft 4...his shoulder height is probably somewhere around that 6ft mark that Maurie was ducking to...do the maths Mick

(oh and we already know something did go wrong - Maurie got injured)