Tackling technique.

[Oakboy]

First of all, I am no expert. Despite having been a solid lump, I never mastered the skill.

The reason I raise the issue relates to head collisions. The likes of Underhill, often advocated as a marvellous tackler, is falling foul of HIAs and cards.

Conversely, Pollock has been criticised on here for his technique of 'concedingly' bringing an opponent down; the same technique that is saving try after try on the goal line.

Tackling from the side has more or less continued unchanged over the decades. It is the head-on stuff that is the issue.

The way that head contact is being refereed now, in a valid quest to reduce head injury (arguably), will kamikaze tackling in the Underhill fashion gradually get fazed out and the fall-back, drag-to-ground method become universal?

[Mikey Brown]

There’s never going to be one superior technique for all situations, but if anything it feels like referees have dialled back on penalising high tackles. I don’t think we’re seeing players adjust their technique that much because it’s still worth the risk for them to go for the ball or the big chest hit, while remaining on their feet.

Underhill’s was an extremely rare high shot (in a slightly awkward scenario) from a player who almost always targets the midriff.

I don’t quite follow the Pollock bit.

[Scrumhead]

100% agree with @Mikey Brown. Underhill has been unfortunate to have been put into a couple of unfortunate scenarios leading to cards in the last few weeks but that doesn’t mean there’s something fundamentally wrong with his tackling technique.

As for Pollock, I feel like this is another piece around of @Oakboy being unwilling to accept any kind of criticism of him.

The critique I’ve seen is that he is that he tends to make more ‘soak’ tackles rather than dominant hits. There’s a trade off IMO. His current style may allow the opponent to make more metres in contact but also gives him a better opportunity to effect a jackal (which he is good at). I think there is merit to what he’s doing. However, that is dependent on him making the turnover or at least significantly slowing the ball down. If he doesn’t, he’s just giving up cheap yards and putting the defence on the back foot. Hence the criticism.

[Banquo]

100% agree with @Mikey Brown. Underhill has been unfortunate to have been put into a couple of unfortunate scenarios leading to cards in the last few weeks but that doesn’t mean there’s something fundamentally wrong with his tackling technique.

As for Pollock, I feel like this is another piece around of @Oakboy being unwilling to accept any kind of criticism of him.

The critique I’ve seen is that he is that he tends to make more ‘soak’ tackles rather than dominant hits. There’s a trade off IMO. His current style may allow the opponent to make more metres in contact but also gives him a better opportunity to effect a jackal (which he is good at). I think there is merit to what he’s doing. However, that is dependent on him making the turnover or at least significantly slowing the ball down. If he doesn’t, he’s just giving up cheap yards and putting the defence on the back foot. Hence the criticism.

He's also not matured physically as yet, so needs to toughen up before he can take repeated big hits on imo. The critiquing is valid, even if there is a reason or two as before....and it could be that you don't want that trade off against say South Africa and wait til he can mix and match.

It's analagous to the criticism levelled at Ford/ (almost any 10) who rarely misses a tackle, but inevitably has to soak it up if left exposed to a big runner....though probably this example is a lot less fair.

On the OP- you are still going to have to be able to knock big runners back, else you'll simply get over-run, and side tackles also allow for easier offloads. Ideally- as the likes of lawes and underhill do, you target the ball carrying area, and drive up/parallel and forwards. You do need to work on the technique though, as its not naturally taught when young and very different...head position especially is quite challenging.

[Epaminondas Pules]

100% this


Part of the problem you see with some tackles deemed high is that in targeting the ball and driving upwards is if the player dips even slightly then the ball area also includes head and neck. It is different at lower levels because late and low comes into play where the onus is also on the ball carrier not to dip / lead with the head into contact.

[Oakboy]

All interesting stuff and I fully accept the explanations of method, the perceived need for clattering carriers backwards and the criticism of Pollock. What I wonder is whether the head-on, impactful tackling is going to fade out because of risk. I am categorically not advocating that.

What concerns me is that we will reach the point where any such tackle is deemed contributory to head injury even if low enough to be acceptable as at present. The argument might be: "If fall-back tackling works and is safe, any head-on stuff is an unacceptable risk."

It just seems the logical next step in the refereeing process, much as I do NOT want to see it. The first legal case might be the catalyst.

[Epaminondas Pules]

In such a dynamic game as rugby with lots of direct lines of running I don’t think it would ever be possible.