A place where escape goats go to play
https://notplanetrugby.com/
Certainly looked it on Saturday. Might have just been a stinger, but his arm was hanging useless for a couple minutes.
I think we need to seriously address ban length if the aim is actually to change behaviour. Teams can accommodate a player missing on the pitch and not being in the squad for 2 - 3 week fairly easily. There's also a massive issue with consistency of application of the law. It feels like reds seem to have become rarer because even incidents that look, based on the standards from a couple of seasons prior, like cast iron sending offs get downgraded to a sin bin for the flimsiest mitigation. It seems that an awful lot still doesn't get checked live or cited. For so long as a player's chance of being sent off remain low, coaches are going to keep getting them to hit higher and harder to make dominant tackles and tie up arms to prevent offloads.inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:14 am Isn't it nice to feel like we have options.
I've still not watched all the game, gutted by the red but Obano has got it all wrong. We're still a long way away from getting this sorted - although anecdotally it seems we're seeing fewer reds ,they're still occurring far too frequently to think we're solving the issue of high shots just by putting players on the naughty step.
I'm inclined to think of reds in the same way I think of scrum penalties - the difference between 'that was great' and 'that is a penalty/red card' is too fine.
Still, some excellent performances and I'll watch the second half when I'm a little less sore.
That's always been the problem. There's a reason players are hitting at chest height, and unless chest high itself is illegal they'll keep doing it - asking people to not compete (if we accept that chest high hits have a competitive advantage) is not really viable. This retains the risk that they'll slip high and receive a red.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:34 amI think we need to seriously address ban length if the aim is actually to change behaviour. Teams can accommodate a player missing on the pitch and not being in the squad for 2 - 3 week fairly easily. There's also a massive issue with consistency of application of the law. It feels like reds seem to have become rarer because even incidents that look, based on the standards from a couple of seasons prior, like cast iron sending offs get downgraded to a sin bin for the flimsiest mitigation. It seems that an awful lot still doesn't get checked live or cited. For so long as a player's chance of being sent off remain low, coaches are going to keep getting them to hit higher and harder to make dominant tackles and tie up arms to prevent offloads.inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:14 am Isn't it nice to feel like we have options.
I've still not watched all the game, gutted by the red but Obano has got it all wrong. We're still a long way away from getting this sorted - although anecdotally it seems we're seeing fewer reds ,they're still occurring far too frequently to think we're solving the issue of high shots just by putting players on the naughty step.
I'm inclined to think of reds in the same way I think of scrum penalties - the difference between 'that was great' and 'that is a penalty/red card' is too fine.
Still, some excellent performances and I'll watch the second half when I'm a little less sore.
All these dinosaurs who want red cards watered down should have to sit down with Ed Slater and explain that to his kids.inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 10:19 amThat's always been the problem. There's a reason players are hitting at chest height, and unless chest high itself is illegal they'll keep doing it - asking people to not compete (if we accept that chest high hits have a competitive advantage) is not really viable. This retains the risk that they'll slip high and receive a red.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:34 amI think we need to seriously address ban length if the aim is actually to change behaviour. Teams can accommodate a player missing on the pitch and not being in the squad for 2 - 3 week fairly easily. There's also a massive issue with consistency of application of the law. It feels like reds seem to have become rarer because even incidents that look, based on the standards from a couple of seasons prior, like cast iron sending offs get downgraded to a sin bin for the flimsiest mitigation. It seems that an awful lot still doesn't get checked live or cited. For so long as a player's chance of being sent off remain low, coaches are going to keep getting them to hit higher and harder to make dominant tackles and tie up arms to prevent offloads.inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:14 am Isn't it nice to feel like we have options.
I've still not watched all the game, gutted by the red but Obano has got it all wrong. We're still a long way away from getting this sorted - although anecdotally it seems we're seeing fewer reds ,they're still occurring far too frequently to think we're solving the issue of high shots just by putting players on the naughty step.
I'm inclined to think of reds in the same way I think of scrum penalties - the difference between 'that was great' and 'that is a penalty/red card' is too fine.
Still, some excellent performances and I'll watch the second half when I'm a little less sore.
I don't really think increased bans is the way to go, as the legislation allows this knife-edge.
eta: I took a while to post this as I'm supposed to be working- missed Raggs' comments above. They're the only feasible way I see of addressing this.
Jesus wept, the sanctimony.Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 2:16 pmAll these dinosaurs who want red cards watered down should have to sit down with Ed Slater and explain that to his kids.inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 10:19 amThat's always been the problem. There's a reason players are hitting at chest height, and unless chest high itself is illegal they'll keep doing it - asking people to not compete (if we accept that chest high hits have a competitive advantage) is not really viable. This retains the risk that they'll slip high and receive a red.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:34 am
I think we need to seriously address ban length if the aim is actually to change behaviour. Teams can accommodate a player missing on the pitch and not being in the squad for 2 - 3 week fairly easily. There's also a massive issue with consistency of application of the law. It feels like reds seem to have become rarer because even incidents that look, based on the standards from a couple of seasons prior, like cast iron sending offs get downgraded to a sin bin for the flimsiest mitigation. It seems that an awful lot still doesn't get checked live or cited. For so long as a player's chance of being sent off remain low, coaches are going to keep getting them to hit higher and harder to make dominant tackles and tie up arms to prevent offloads.
I don't really think increased bans is the way to go, as the legislation allows this knife-edge.
eta: I took a while to post this as I'm supposed to be working- missed Raggs' comments above. They're the only feasible way I see of addressing this.
wasn't having a go at you, I don't think they way we're doing it is effective either. But I'd go down the route of bigger bans, or at least getting rid of all these nonsensical discounts.inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 2:22 pmJesus wept, the sanctimony.Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 2:16 pmAll these dinosaurs who want red cards watered down should have to sit down with Ed Slater and explain that to his kids.inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 10:19 am
That's always been the problem. There's a reason players are hitting at chest height, and unless chest high itself is illegal they'll keep doing it - asking people to not compete (if we accept that chest high hits have a competitive advantage) is not really viable. This retains the risk that they'll slip high and receive a red.
I don't really think increased bans is the way to go, as the legislation allows this knife-edge.
eta: I took a while to post this as I'm supposed to be working- missed Raggs' comments above. They're the only feasible way I see of addressing this.
I want head shots gone, everyone with a ounce of sense and sensitivity wants head shots gone. I disagree with the way we're going about it. I don't think it's effective, and I don't think it will ever be effective unless we make chest high hits illegal. It's not cryptic.
Aye that was my thinking as well, Furbank being an auxiliary 10 certainly fits with the "two playmakers" approach they want to take.
Daly Mk II alert!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ar ... gby-unionChampionship clubs have welcomed the approval of promotion to the Premiership as a “new era” for the professional game in England.
In addition, the RFU council voted at Friday’s meeting to relax the minimum operating standards for promotion, with the deadline for achieving those standards spread over four seasons. An independently chaired Tier 2 board is also to be set up, giving the Championship greater control over commercial deals.
It's an interesting point - The ball carrier seems to have carte blanche about where they go and how high. I noticed in the final that Augustus routinely dropped his shoulder height immediately before being tackle - not nefariously, he was getting into a good position to drive through the tackle and keep hands free - but it did mean tackles would ride up as he essentially drove under the committed tackle. He also moaned to the ref a few times which did irk me, but in fairness he was being caught high.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 7:46 am In addition to looking at tackler height, whether reducing the legal target area and/or increasing bans it does rather feel like we need to do something about the carrier. With players braced for the tackle leaning forwards with the forearm presented there can be almost nowhere to tackle, and these are often carriers if you try to wait and get them from the side you'll struggle to hold them in a soak tackle.
It doesn't feel like the game knows what it wants, and in fairness it's not easy to see how to get there. The speed and power at the top level is just astounding, so that's another thing too, keeping it one game.
We do seem to have rather wandered out into a problem without knowing what we want to do or how to do it.inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:56 amIt's an interesting point - The ball carrier seems to have carte blanche about where they go and how high. I noticed in the final that Augustus routinely dropped his shoulder height immediately before being tackle - not nefariously, he was getting into a good position to drive through the tackle and keep hands free - but it did mean tackles would ride up as he essentially drove under the committed tackle. He also moaned to the ref a few times which did irk me, but in fairness he was being caught high.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 7:46 am In addition to looking at tackler height, whether reducing the legal target area and/or increasing bans it does rather feel like we need to do something about the carrier. With players braced for the tackle leaning forwards with the forearm presented there can be almost nowhere to tackle, and these are often carriers if you try to wait and get them from the side you'll struggle to hold them in a soak tackle.
It doesn't feel like the game knows what it wants, and in fairness it's not easy to see how to get there. The speed and power at the top level is just astounding, so that's another thing too, keeping it one game.
I've also seen a few cards given where the ball carrier has run straight into the tackler, closing the gap before the tackler was ready and stopping the tackler getting low.
He's also adept and smashing it back when he runs it back in.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:48 pm Other players are, frankly, just more rounded. His main asset being his aerial ability is only really a point of difference in games where there will be am awful lot of kicking.
There's something to be said for the Mike Brown school of fullbackingRaggs wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:27 pmHe's also adept and smashing it back when he runs it back in.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:48 pm Other players are, frankly, just more rounded. His main asset being his aerial ability is only really a point of difference in games where there will be am awful lot of kicking.
Against a team with bigger boots than ours (like France), we do often lose the kick tennis than crashing it back over the defensive line is a genuinely good option (it's why we had Billy hang back and do it).
No argument from me, just wanted to point out that it's not just his aerial ability that made him a good option. He offered a good power option, and having that in the back comes with added perks.inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:25 pmThere's something to be said for the Mike Brown school of fullbackingRaggs wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:27 pmHe's also adept and smashing it back when he runs it back in.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:48 pm Other players are, frankly, just more rounded. His main asset being his aerial ability is only really a point of difference in games where there will be am awful lot of kicking.
Against a team with bigger boots than ours (like France), we do often lose the kick tennis than crashing it back over the defensive line is a genuinely good option (it's why we had Billy hang back and do it).
It's useful to have options, although I'm not sure we'd be well advised to chop and change too much based upon perceived strengths of the opposition.
He also works really hard off the ball on attack and defence. it doesn't mean the bad will come his way, but he certainly puts in a shift. one might contend he's not working at the same pace as some others, but his work ethic is decentRaggs wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:27 pmHe's also adept and smashing it back when he runs it back in.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:48 pm Other players are, frankly, just more rounded. His main asset being his aerial ability is only really a point of difference in games where there will be am awful lot of kicking.
Against a team with bigger boots than ours (like France), we do often lose the kick tennis than crashing it back over the defensive line is a genuinely good option (it's why we had Billy hang back and do it).
Not easy to get at if a player is dipping into contact, perhaps leaning forwards and with a raised forearm. In many instances anyway. And we might end up encouraging tacklers to plant their faces into a hip which isn't in all ways an ideal outcome.
I've been off work for a while with a few depression issues. Recently I found out that my nephew who's in the larger academy squad for a premiership team was being coached by someone I used to play with. I've spent the most uplifting few weeks of my life helping out in training sessions. My expertise is not tackling, but observing how they're training the kids at the top level so as they won't tackle high is quite affirming.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:34 pmNot easy to get at if a player is dipping into contact, perhaps leaning forwards and with a raised forearm. In many instances anyway. And we might end up encouraging tacklers to plant their faces into a hip which isn't in all ways an ideal outcome.
Anyway, for myself I hope they're thinking on this in the round. I want carriers to be safe(r) but the point of the game is there's a contest, and that's very tricky to manage at the top end of the game
Upto and including u20s is sternum and below I believe. So those guys absolutely have to be sure of it. The pro game may survive by the simple process that the upcoming players have all been hitting at sternum and below in their formative years.Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:52 pmI've been off work for a while with a few depression issues. Recently I found out that my nephew who's in the larger academy squad for a premiership team was being coached by someone I used to play with. I've spent the most uplifting few weeks of my life helping out in training sessions. My expertise is not tackling, but observing how they're training the kids at the top level so as they won't tackle high is quite affirming.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:34 pmNot easy to get at if a player is dipping into contact, perhaps leaning forwards and with a raised forearm. In many instances anyway. And we might end up encouraging tacklers to plant their faces into a hip which isn't in all ways an ideal outcome.
Anyway, for myself I hope they're thinking on this in the round. I want carriers to be safe(r) but the point of the game is there's a contest, and that's very tricky to manage at the top end of the game
Basically, if you tackle with the shoulder that matches your front foot, you'll stay on the pitch. That and drills on timing tackles which are light years above what I was taught 30+ years ago.
Maybe there's some hope for the game
They get 'punished' for tackles anywhere above basically the belly button.Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:54 pmUpto and including u20s is sternum and below I believe. So those guys absolutely have to be sure of it. The pro game may survive by the simple process that the upcoming players have all been hitting at sternum and below in their formative years.Happyhooker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:52 pmI've been off work for a while with a few depression issues. Recently I found out that my nephew who's in the larger academy squad for a premiership team was being coached by someone I used to play with. I've spent the most uplifting few weeks of my life helping out in training sessions. My expertise is not tackling, but observing how they're training the kids at the top level so as they won't tackle high is quite affirming.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:34 pm
Not easy to get at if a player is dipping into contact, perhaps leaning forwards and with a raised forearm. In many instances anyway. And we might end up encouraging tacklers to plant their faces into a hip which isn't in all ways an ideal outcome.
Anyway, for myself I hope they're thinking on this in the round. I want carriers to be safe(r) but the point of the game is there's a contest, and that's very tricky to manage at the top end of the game
Basically, if you tackle with the shoulder that matches your front foot, you'll stay on the pitch. That and drills on timing tackles which are light years above what I was taught 30+ years ago.
Maybe there's some hope for the game
