Strauss' tackle

It's obvious to any fair minded fan that Strauss was not trying to do a tip tackle.....so what happened? Well Wikus checked and hopped. Strauss took him as his weight was transferring up and drove.

The physics of that are obvious. The tackler pushing forward tends to push up......the legs are the point of contact, so they go up.....and the unsupported upper body goes down. I think much the same thing happened with the Welsh skipper at the RWC.  These things are matter of physics, more than intention and they happen in a blink of an eye. That's why the red against Wales was so out of proportion.

Parenthetically in the NFL you see wide receivers taking these falls all the time......these guys learn how to bridge with one arm while still retaining possession with the other.

HAve t oagree abanning was uncalled for. The yellow re Goosen and then the injury to him cost theCheetahs the match unfortunately.

So again Lions very fortunate to win this one. The Currie Cup champs now realise  they are up against it.  Aim for a top ten spot. Anything above 8 would be a great season for both these sides.

Have to agree a banning was uncalled for. The yellow re Goosen and then the injury to him cost theCheetahs the match unfortunately.

Goosen has immense potential. Just hope at 19 this season is not to much for him. They must also give Sias game time to take pressure off Goosen.

So again Lions very fortunate to win this one. The Currie Cup champs now realise  they are up against it.  Aim for a top ten spot. Anything above 8 would be a great season for both these sides.

Hope no one read both posts!!!  However, on second thoughts, windpomp could benefit by doing so.

I saw an interview with Warburton recently and he said that when he saw the replays of the incident, it was uglier than he thought at the time:

www1.skysports.com/rugbyworldcup/story/21957/7289750

Wales captain Sam Warburton admits that the tackle that saw him sent off in their World Cup semi-final defeat to France was "uglier" than he had thought, and that referee Alain Rolland was right to show him a red card.

Please windpomp given the speed it happened and the lack of intention a red was a very severe sentence. I have seen worse not given a red  -where is the consistency.  Also as far as I recall he did not drive his opponent into the ground. Pretty mild stuff really

Also what do you expect Sam to say . If he said it was harsh he would have been skinned alive by the media. No justice I am afraid was not  done. All he could say is he deserved the sentence otherwise it would have been seen as him trying to excuse himself and not taking responsibility etc. His chances of again captaining Wales would have been zero.

Winpomp try to read between the lines! I am sure Sam knows he was hard done by.

I'll see if I can get Sam's Twitter address and send him something to say that he make sure next time that he speaks he clear it with you first so that he know exactly what his perception of the events were, because he is just causing crap for your theories.

The key is the comment "that he did not intend" to do that. My contention is it generally happens because the runner has his weight going up......and the tackler is driving forward. And it usually happens in slow motion, so there is plenty of time for the tackled player to get an arm down. Players need to be trained to absorb this.

If these tip tackles were so dangerous many NFL players would be hurt every game.  Players need to be trained to absorb the downward motion. This high tackle thing is being taken to the point of absurdity. An arm around the shoulders and it's a supposedly dangerous tackle. In the old days if you were out of position for a tackle the old collar tackle was blessing....never saw a player hurt either.

If you're looking for something truly dangerous, a fetcher with his neck down over the ball with an opposing prop hitting him at force....there's your neck breaker. Another thing that happens currently which is far more likely to cause serious injury is the head butting tackle.....perfected by the Saders and Franks in particular. The player rams the top of his head into the face of a runner. I've seen it and it's deliberate.

What aggravated Warburton's issue was that he dropped the player onto his neck from a hight. There was a specific ruling by the IRB about this offence, prior to the RWC. There were concerns about piledriving the player and dropping him head or shoulders first into the ground. The only one that carried some degree of mitigation was when the player was dropped but not from a height and not head/shoulders first. The ones that would get a player off scot free was were he was tipped, but then put down safely and with caution. The ones that are to be severely dealt with are, as I said, the pile driving one, and the one where the player is dropped head or shlouders down, which were the case in these two instances.

I trust that neither Strauss nor Warburton, at the time, had no intention to hurt the other players, otherwise I would have seriously questioned their sportamanship.

The fetcher situation that you described is similar to the Bakkies on Adam Jones one, except it did not end in a headbut but a dislocated shoulder for Jones. It was legal and Bakkies got penalised unnecessary, but you're correct it could have been more serious. And then the Franks story...................... jawellnofine, as they say. never been penalised.............. probably never will be penalised. Same goes for SBW with his antics.

A dangerous tackle is a dangerous tackle regardless of intent. It must be treated and punished as such. The Warburton tackle in particular could have ended a players life very easily.

What happened in Warburton's case and with Strauss was the lift motion and then a drop. In both cases you could almost see a light bulb going off for the tackler. Oh my.....I'm about to do a spear tackle. The natural reaction is then to let go. But by then the player is tipped and he falls with his upper body pointed at the ground. There was no "drive" into the ground in either case.....there was a drive forward, which resulted in the lifting.

We are headed in the direction of outlawing all offensive tackling. No arms for example. Why is that really a problem? Again, it isn't in the NFL. And any creep up into the neck area is penalized, even if the runner ducks. Pretty soon any attempt to drive the tackled player backwards will be verboten.....or maybe the dive tackle. I can just hear it .....he left his feet while tackling. Or how about the double tackle on Schalk....damn dangerous to be hit high and low.

The fact is, most of the horrendous injuries in rugby come from totally different factors. The drive tackle is so reviled because viewers assume intent. My point is, generally there is no intent and no injury, a collapsed scrum is far more dangerous. It's another feel good thing for the administrators of a dangerous game.

No Moz, I do not quite agree. When that lightbulb goes off, the first instintive action should not be: "Let go of him and let him drop", it should be "wow, let me put him down safely" then he won't be in the smelly stuff afterwards. yes, it is splitsecond decisions, but isn't that what rugby is about? What is a split second decision to go for a dropgoal different from a split second decision to put someone down safely? I am not too clued up on NFL, because I do not watched and it does not interest me in the least.

Thing is that you cannot make rules for every eventuality, and there is one golden rule in all, well most sports............... do not go out to try and injure your opponent.

Vlag I'm not sure that golden rule applies. The bouncer in cricket, the various moves in wrestling, boxing.....hell even water polo. The contact in ice hockey is far more unreffed than in rugby. And when de Wet Barry was doing those crash tackles, he wasn't trying to massage the guy.

The issue in my mind is, was he deliberately trying to spear the tackled player. That he was trying to apply some hurt goes without saying. And in most cases, as I'm trying to point out, the answer is no. The spear tackle happens because of physics, not intent.

The thing that concerns me is that if you relax the laws the outcome will most probably be more of these kinds of tackles. I noted your reference to the NFL, and yes many of those tackles would result in annual fatalities in rugby, but they are better protected for those kinds of impacts. We need to make sure that those tackles will not be acceptable. It's bad enough as it is with New Zealand getting away with most of them. Show more leniency and someone somewhere down the line will cop a very severe injury.

I think Strauss' bannoing is fair. It was a tip tackle and he still drove the Lion into the ground. He pleaded guilty asnd got the correct punishment. Rules are rules.,

I think Strauss' bannoing is fair. It was a tip tackle and he still drove the Lion into the ground. He pleaded guilty asnd got the correct punishment. Rules are rules.,

Moz, a point of interest. You mentioned wrestling, and I trust you are referring to Amateur wrestling and not this WWE noncence. By far the most injuries, and there are not many,  in wrestling occur either accidently, or due to inexperienced match officials. The wrestling rules with regards to actions that could cause injuries are very strict and they are applied just as strictly.

I can give you an example: In the early eighties one of the changes to the rules was that you could no longer grab and bend over one finger of an opponent. (I cannot remember the exact wording). you had to grab hold of at least four fingers and you were not alowed to bend them over. They later changed it again, and you are not allowed to grab hold of an apponents fingers at all. You have to grab hold of his entire hand. That is one small rule. There are other rules particularly regarding bending and twisting arms, legs, etc. And these rules are not new. The last time I officiated at big events were the SA senior championships in the late 90's and at that time they were already long in excistence

Well Vlag you clearly have a much deeper understanding of amateur wrestling. Sounds like they are doing a good job. Rules are fine as long as they don't emasculate a sport. I accept the tip tackling rules, and even the no hands rule. But go much further and the heavy tackle will become a thing of the past.....and that's a loss. I still remember Joggie Jantzen, Mannetjies Roux as well as Barry. These guys were weapons.

Safer rugby is a good idea. But I'd start somewhere else  eg lineouts and the hit in the scrums. That's  a damn dangerous thing that never really existed in the old days.

Rugby is always going to be dangerous, but not relative to some activities. They had a series on dangerous recreation on CBS last night. Three activities were featured.....the guys in those flying suits diving off mountains, a kid free climbing 2000 ft vertical cliffs, and some Afrikaans ou, swimming with great whites. They all looked hair raising, but that free climbing stuff is so crazy, it's literally hard to watch.

Just happened to be watching a documentary last night about the Afrikaaner ou hand feeding a Tiger shark in open water........must be the one you're talking about Moz unless there's more bedonnered Afrikaners out there!

I'm with the rules are rules theory as long as they're consitent across the board. Bend them and you end up in a lot more strife.