RugbyRebels

So it's at 33.36 on the clock basically. Smith clearly wants to avoid the tackle, which is sensible enough, but I'm not sure if he throws a bad rushed pass just to get away, or if there's a knock on that was missed?

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/watch/ ... ns-round-5

Raggs wrote:Just rewatching this quickly, because I do want to see who it was that threw that wild pass running away from the tackle (I think Murley, but could be wrong), when I find it, I'll post the time stamp. However, I've just seen something that if it happened to my team, I'd be a bit annoyed, but given it's an England player, I'm chuffed.

Watch Curry and Care in the scrum at 25.05 on the match clock. Care is stood where he's supposed to be, at the side onside, and Curry is doing his utmost to trip him up, actually succeeds in the end!

Yeah, I spotted that one too. Decent bit of shitehawkery if you get away with it, although I'd reckon that's a bit too high on the risk:reward ratio given the TMO. Certainly not one to try at international level.

Puja

Raggs wrote:So it's at 33.36 on the clock basically. Smith clearly wants to avoid the tackle, which is sensible enough, but I'm not sure if he throws a bad rushed pass just to get away, or if there's a knock on that was missed?

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/watch/ ... ns-round-5

None of the above?

They have a lot of players stacked on that side against just 1/2 Sale defenders. They clearly want to get the ball to the edge as quickly as possible. But the ruck was slow and it took too long to get the ball in Smiths hands.

Timbo wrote:

Raggs wrote:So it's at 33.36 on the clock basically. Smith clearly wants to avoid the tackle, which is sensible enough, but I'm not sure if he throws a bad rushed pass just to get away, or if there's a knock on that was missed?

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/watch/ ... ns-round-5

None of the above?

They have a lot of players stacked on that side against just 1/2 Sale defenders. They clearly want to get the ball to the edge as quickly as possible. But the ruck was slow and it took too long to get the ball in Smiths hands.

What's the option then? If it wasn't a bad pass or a knock on, what was it?

Timbo wrote:

Raggs wrote:So it's at 33.36 on the clock basically. Smith clearly wants to avoid the tackle, which is sensible enough, but I'm not sure if he throws a bad rushed pass just to get away, or if there's a knock on that was missed?

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/watch/ ... ns-round-5

None of the above?

They have a lot of players stacked on that side against just 1/2 Sale defenders. They clearly want to get the ball to the edge as quickly as possible. But the ruck was slow and it took too long to get the ball in Smiths hands.

Spot on for me. Get that ball away and its a line break. It was the correct option he just needed a split second more and we’re lauding it as more Smith magic.

Just seen this and really not sure what to make of it.



Am I just horribly biased? I can't tell if de Glanville jumps slightly or is actually lifted by Esterhuizen as he goes in. It's not a shoulder charge by Marler but not sure how he can wrap his arms when TdG goes flying like that.

Correct call?

I realise this wasn't against Sale but too late now.

Marler is turning sideways into a shoulder charge before there's contact. Once he's done that if everything goes his way he might still be able to wrap the (tucked) arm, although it might be a wrap that's incidental at that point, but he's given up control prior to making contact and then not everything works out for him.

Yeah there's not a clear attempt to wrap an arm there, which is what I think does for him. The way that de Glanville goes flying over the top is down to the weight of Esterhuizen, but there's still a dangerous element to what Marler is doing

there is a query as to whether what Marler is doing is dangerous, at least according to the game, in what happens to de Glanville. if Marler executes a legal tackle in that instance the carrier could still get tipped over the top of him onto the carrier's head. it's a penalty for a no arms tackle, but as to the rest it feels a bit iffy. we're basically saying if you don't follow the letter of the law and something happens which might have happened even if you have you're culpable, and that's a bit of a messy picture

Shoulder charging at knee height is dangerous to everyone

But if he wraps his arm even if contact is made with the shoulder it'd be legal, which I assume the game broadly equates with safe. For myself I'd have banned contact on/below the knee years ago, unless we're talking about something like a tap tackle, but for sure the big impacts, but that's not remotely the actual stance of the game.

Digby wrote:But if he wraps his arm even if contact is made with the shoulder it'd be legal, which I assume the game broadly equates with safe. For myself I'd have banned contact on/below the knee years ago, unless we're talking about something like a tap tackle, but for sure the big impacts, but that's not remotely the actual stance of the game.

It's a strange one and not sure I'm expressing it right, but I think there is something in whether you are diving down or up rather than just what height you hit. If you get really low and drive up, I think you can make a decent tackle at knee height (granted at the pace in the clip it'll probably still be dangerous). Where players' heads and shoulder's go down towards the ground, I view it as a no arms tackle even of they make a token effort to lift their arms. It's like the side on tackle with token outstretched arm.

When I was playing, I actually had a spell where I felt like I had mastered defending my own line by just diving at the players feet. Never got pinged and not that dangerous at a lower (slower) level, but essentially it is a bit of a coward's way out. Ironically, people credit you for being brave doing it as you end up under a pile of bodies, but essentially you have just tripped someone rather than tackling them properly and risking being bumped off.

Digby wrote:there is a query as to whether what Marler is doing is dangerous, at least according to the game, in what happens to de Glanville. if Marler executes a legal tackle in that instance the carrier could still get tipped over the top of him onto the carrier's head. it's a penalty for a no arms tackle, but as to the rest it feels a bit iffy. we're basically saying if you don't follow the letter of the law and something happens which might have happened even if you have you're culpable, and that's a bit of a messy picture

If Marler raises his height enough to wrap the arms, and he would have to change his height to wrap, then the chances are de Glanville doesn't get flipped like he does. For me it's a reckless tackle and the ref makes a fair call. I do think he probably gets away with just a penalty if de Glanville it's flipped but hey ho. If you dive in recklessly in the game with laws as they are you may well get carded. If you touch the head and the tackle isn't a legal one, no arms, no other mitigation is allowed. The key here is learn to tackle properly.

I think Joe knows how to tackle … in fact, I’d argue that he’s up there with the best defensive props in world rugby.

Anyway … hopefully de Glanville is OK. It was an unfortunate incident but dealt with fairly well at the time. Yellow card, move on.

Was at the game and having seen the highlights I think it's one of those 'no fault' cards. I think players and fans need to get used to the fact that sometimes the laws of physics, angles and just the complicated nature of 30 people running around here and there will sometimes result in contact like this.
Having said that the laws are there to put doubt in the tacklers mind and players probably need to understand they can't just dive in to tackles, just as they can't go upright into them.
It's difficult, because my instinct is often to say 'oh come on!' to these refereeing decisions, but then I remind myself it's probably better long term for both player safety and attacking rugby to be harsh with them.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Was at the game and having seen the highlights I think it's one of those 'no fault' cards. I think players and fans need to get used to the fact that sometimes the laws of physics, angles and just the complicated nature of 30 people running around here and there will sometimes result in contact like this.
Having said that the laws are there to put doubt in the tacklers mind and players probably need to understand they can't just dive in to tackles, just as they can't go upright into them.
It's difficult, because my instinct is often to say 'oh come on!' to these refereeing decisions, but then I remind myself it's probably better long term for both player safety and attacking rugby to be harsh with them.

That seems fair.

It’s clearly dangerous to have one guy flying up on the air and landing on top of another. I just struggled to put my finger on exactly what any one player had done wrong in that scenario, and I still think it’s a contribution from all 3 that essentially caused it.

I don’t have a massive issue with it receiving a yellow, but it was just a bit weird. A quirk of this incredibly stupid game I suppose.

This was the incredible comment I saw that prompted my interest in it.

“This was a red all day long. But worse is the fact that not one Bath player came to their team mates defense.They stood around and just watched from a distance. In my team we all would have rushed Marler and pummeled him into the ground. Bath are obviously a team lacking any team cohesion. They don't like each other. And certainly won't go to bat for each other.”

Mikey Brown wrote:“This was a red all day long. But worse is the fact that not one Bath player came to their team mates defense.They stood around and just watched from a distance. In my team we all would have rushed Marler and pummeled him into the ground. Bath are obviously a team lacking any team cohesion. They don't like each other. And certainly won't go to bat for each other.”

Which could easily be translated as "Professional rugby players have a better understanding of what is and isn't okay on a rugby pitch than I do; so I'd have gone off on one, and been in the wrong". Added to which, there's the (currently fashionable) hyperbolic dig at Bath.

For me the tackle itself was a rugby incident. Had Esterhuizen not been tackling TdG high, then Marler's tackle would have been more-or-less fine (except the lazy arm up with no realistic chance of wrapping, and maybe a slight lift). Had Marler gone higher, then Tom would have had some bruised ribs, and there was a significant risk of a clash of head, for any of the 3 of them.
Marler probably should have read that Esterhuizen had the tackle nice and secure, backed off and tried to jackal the ball. But there's nothing to say that he couldn't join the tackle itself, or that he shouldn't go low.
Nothing malicious, but a dangerous situation was created, and Tom did land on his head, in a nasty looking way. This was closer to being a simple penalty than it was to a red card, but the current climate puts it firmly into the carding territory - yellow was the right call IMO.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:“This was a red all day long. But worse is the fact that not one Bath player came to their team mates defense.They stood around and just watched from a distance. In my team we all would have rushed Marler and pummeled him into the ground. Bath are obviously a team lacking any team cohesion. They don't like each other. And certainly won't go to bat for each other.”

Which could easily be translated as "Professional rugby players have a better understanding of what is and isn't okay on a rugby pitch than I do; so I'd have gone off on one, and been in the wrong". Added to which, there's the (currently fashionable) hyperbolic dig at Bath.

For me the tackle itself was a rugby incident. Had Esterhuizen not been tackling TdG high, then Marler's tackle would have been more-or-less fine (except the lazy arm up with no realistic chance of wrapping, and maybe a slight lift). Had Marler gone higher, then Tom would have had some bruised ribs, and there was a significant risk of a clash of head, for any of the 3 of them.
Marler probably should have read that Esterhuizen had the tackle nice and secure, backed off and tried to jackal the ball. But there's nothing to say that he couldn't join the tackle itself, or that he shouldn't go low.
Nothing malicious, but a dangerous situation was created, and Tom did land on his head, in a nasty looking way. This was closer to being a simple penalty than it was to a red card, but the current climate puts it firmly into the carding territory - yellow was the right call IMO.

So just to be clear, you’re okay that the other 14 Bath players didn’t run in to ‘pummel’ Marler and get themselves red cards?

Mikey Brown wrote:So just to be clear, you’re okay that the other 14 Bath players didn’t run in to ‘pummel’ Marler and get themselves red cards?

Correct - I'm just a bleeding heart when you get right down to it; and think that violent vengeance in a world of TMOs, and in a situation where the ref has already pointed at the event and said that it's being dealt with - would be a bad thing... all things considered.

You could reasonably expect more of a reaction from Bath, something of an us against the world mentality fronting up aggressively. In part that looks a bit pathetic because typically everyone knows it'll lack for out and out violence, but a team being together and standing up for their own (and even when they're wrong) is something you can observe in winning sides

I think there was no retaliation because it was pretty clear there was no malice in the challenge.
After 15 minutes, I was fully expecting Bath to crumble and Quins to put 50 on them and to be seeing all about Stuart Hooper being sacked on here. But in fairness to Bath, they won the whole middle section of the game and it was only partly due to Marler's yellow and Quins form.