This "no arms" chop tackle
Printed From: Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets
Category: RUGBY
Forum Name: ARE YOU BLIND REF.... OR ARE WE WRONG ???
Forum Description: Refereeing points of law questions and answers
URL: https://scarletfever.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41584
Printed Date: 27 March 2026 at 3:53am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: This "no arms" chop tackle
Posted By: KID A
Subject: This "no arms" chop tackle
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 10:34am
|
From matches this weekend - One gets a yellow, one gets play on. Which one is correct? https://vine.co/v/eFjIW0v0EA5" rel="nofollow - https://vine.co/v/eFjIW0v0EA5 https://vine.co/v/eFDj5WqUHev" rel="nofollow - https://vine.co/v/eFDj5WqUHev |
Replies:
Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 11:03am
| There was some arm movement in the other game towards a tackle I guess but none from Pete Edwards. Pete's just looked clumsy as putting your head on the ground in front of Nick Williams was a bit crazy of Pete and dangerous for him not Williams. A yellow card for this is pretty harsh regardless although I think there had been a warning from the ref prior to that ? |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 11:59am
I have absolutely no problem if every one of these is now going to be a yellow card. |
reesytheexile wrote:Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 12:07pm
|
Be a lot of yellows. As well as Williams, Shingler should have had one late on if applied consistently. |
Posted By: ScarletSpiderman
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 12:33pm
Looked at the Shingler one just now. A lot of Ulster fans online complaining about it. To me it looked like Shingler was there and Scholes ran into him, more than a no-arms tackle. |
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 1:09pm
|
Would like to see the other angle on Pete's incident, but it look as if neither arm is in front of the body to even resemble a tackle. I think the other on is just a mistimed tackle ! After all who expects Irish Props to have a turn of speed like that !  ------------- |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 2:26pm
This is the first I've heard of this new law/directive. It seems crazy. The 'no arms' law was brought in to stop body checks of the type where the defender runs into the ball carrier, usually smashing him with a shoulder to the upper body (I LOVED doing this as a player - it was legal in those days!). Pretty clearly, it can be quite tricky to get the arms involved in time if you are going for the shins - even if you intend to wrap the arms around the legs, getting the timing right isn't easy. More importantly, the tackler is FAR more likely to get hurt than the tackled player. This change is ridiculous, IMHO - are there any stats to show that this tackle causes many serious injuries to the tackled player? I doubt it... Three additional thoughts: Does this mark the end of Lydiate's test career? Is this directive in force for the RWC? (Players haven't had time to get used to it.) Under a strict interpretation, I assume ankle taps must also be illegal under this directive - can that really be the case? ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: Mrfwon
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 3:04pm
No arm tackle aside, when is Nick going to get cited for leading into tackles with his shoulder??????????  ------------- Scarlets!!! |
Posted By: John
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 4:21pm
We were already on a warning of a yellow for the next no arms tackle because Aled had commited one previously. |
Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 15 September 2015 at 8:13am
|
This hardening of the law by referees will go the same way as crooked scrum feeds and the 5 second "use it" rules. Tough early on and then nothing. |
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 15 September 2015 at 8:57am
There is NO NEW LAW OR DIRECTIVE. The LAW has always been that "arms must be used in a tackle" as long as I've been Playing/Coaching/Refereeing. Every now and again, a wide eyed coach thinks he'll try and push the boundaries of law, then another coach says "if they're doing it, we're doing it" until it becomes an everyday occurrence in the game, look at "The Hit", the "Lineout Lift" and the "Kickoff Receiver Lift", not to forget the Lee Byrne "Leading with the knee (then foot out) kick receive". It's the natural relationship between Cop & Baddie, every time there is a law, there is someone on the other side trying to find a way to break it without being detected. One that has crept in lately & be berated on here is the 2nd man in clearing opposition players that are not bound ! Really p****es me off that one ! ------------- |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 15 September 2015 at 9:14am
Ulster commentator out of touch again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsMTCEujBU#t=41m25s" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsMTCEujBU#t=41m25s |
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 15 September 2015 at 10:22am
As in previous thread, 2015/2016 Directive ! http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=9&language=EN" rel="nofollow - http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=9&language=EN ------------- |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 18 September 2015 at 4:25pm
I'm amazed to read this, as I have (in 55 years of watching rugby) NEVER seen players warned or yellow carded for tackling anyone around the shins before it happened to Pete. (Indeed, at school we were ALWAYS told to tackle opponents around the legs. I suppose the arms would usually be involved, but as I wrote earlier, it's not always possible to time that right if someone runs into you.) It seems to me that if everyone were to apply the law in the same way, Lydiate's test career - or even his playing career - would be at an end. And I'm sure he's not the only one. I also doubt that the Scarlets' coaches have been teaching Pete to shin tackle players in practice sessions - the mind boggles! As for your second point - I don't think the clearing out of non-bound players is recent, as I've been complaining about it for years. The Scots and Irish are pretty nifty at this, as no doubt are the ABs (who usually invent new ways to cheat, but are quick to learn from others), and the Aussies (remember their scrum ploy of sending the wing forward out as a 'blocker' so that the 8 could score from 5-yard scrums?). It's a pity IMO that we won't have Nigel O as a ref at the RWC - streets ahead of most other refs - let's hope we get some decent ones, anyway. ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 18 September 2015 at 5:41pm
|
It's not "tackling" though is it. Because no arms were used. I have no problem with it as a law. As long as every one is now given a yellow card. |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 18 September 2015 at 7:20pm
Fair enough - I can see quite a few 7 a side games coming up! As for it's not tackling - again, correct as for the letter of the law. Why wasn't this enforced for the last 55 years, then? Could it be that no-one ever got hurt by a no-arm chop tackle, as opposed to the rightly banned spear tackle and (now) neck-twist? I'm very pleased those have been banned, AND that players are being penalised and/or binned for them. ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 18 September 2015 at 7:26pm
|
As a more general point regarding laws (here, I'm including all laws, not just rugby ones) - it sometimes happens that clearly unfair or unworkable laws are passed, usually because the legislators haven't thought things through properly. What invariably happens in these cases is that the laws are widely ignored, and are quietly ditched. We'll see where we go with tackling around the legs. Either everyone will apply a stricter interpretation, leading to lots of yellow cards - or we'll go back to a more common sense position where penalties will only be awarded if the tackle seems dangerous. BTW - no-one has answered my Q about ankle-taps - are they legal, or not? You can't wrap your arms around one leg with one hand! ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: Havard Fan
Date Posted: 18 September 2015 at 7:40pm
|
I think we are forgetting that we already gave a penalty away for a no arms tackle minutes before Pete was sent off. The ref warned our capt who should have filtered that warning through the team. The second was stupid and as we were already warned about it, deserved a yellow. It feels harsh to us as it was against us and it was a hit on Jim Williams who seems to get away with a lot. I'm glad they are more strict on it as it is dangerous. Basically shoulder barging someone's legs and knees is going to put someone out of the game for a while. With regards that ankle tap question, not sure the comparison as by definition you are using your hands or arms in a tackle. If you tripped them with your feet that would be different, penalty possible yellow card dependant on the situation. |
Posted By: Havard Fan
Date Posted: 18 September 2015 at 7:43pm
| A big concern of mine though is the no arms clear out. This has the potential of causing life changing injuries. However as pointed out, it happens frequently but should be clamped down on. |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 18 September 2015 at 7:48pm
1. I agree that Pete was stupid to do something that had just been penalised by the ref when someone else did it. 2. I didn't think Pete's tackle (or any similar tackle) was likely to injure Williams, and think he was more likely to hurt himself. I haven't seen any evidence that tackles of this sort have caused injuries - as opposed to spear tackles or the clearly dangerous 'neck twist'. 3. I hold to my point - if this sort of tackle hasn't been penalised for 55 years or more, why start now? ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: Havard Fan
Date Posted: 18 September 2015 at 8:33pm
| Shoulder charges have always been penalised. The last 8 years or so has seen the development of effective chop tackle. Chop tackles are great where arms are used. What you have started to see the last couple of years especially, is the player not even making an attempt to use the arms. I think jake ball was pinged for this type of tackle for Wales last year. With regards injuries, I think it's quite clear. As an attacker, if you are shoulder barged to the knee area and your studs are locked in, you can say goodbye to your ligaments. I know this has happened. This can happen also in a legal chop tackle, however you can add a lot more force and weight to a hit if you don't use your arms. |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 25 September 2015 at 12:25pm
You could not be more wrong. Have you ever seen the classic JPR smash on French wing Gourdon, just as he was preparing to dive over in the corner? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXY6Wfk0Vyg" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXY6Wfk0Vyg There was also the famous tackle by Haydn Mainwaring on Avril Malan, which knocked the Springbok captain cold and in no small way led to the Barbarian's defeat of the previously unbeaten tourists: "The tackle against South Africa, 1961: Swansea full-back Haydn Mainwaring was the last hope as Springbok Avril Malan charged for the line. No bother, Mainwaring took him out with the most perfectly timed shoulder charge - "like a comet burying itself into earth", reported The Sunday Times. So I have to assume that you are (relatively) young. The shoulder body check was not banned for very many years after I started watching and playing rugby - and I, for one, used to thoroughly enjoy using it!  As for Meat's tackle - it was to the shins, not the knee - and as it was head-on, a knee in the shoulder would far more likely dislocate the shoulder than damage the knee. Knees are vulnerable to side tackles or to twists when players are caught in rucks/mauls - see Webb's recent injury. There is no way to make rugby or any other sport 100% safe. Refs need to judge whether the tackles were risky or not. I happen to disagree with that particular ref, on that occasion anyway. ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 06 October 2015 at 3:33pm
|
I've seen at least 5 or 6 of these no arms chop tackles now since the Ulster game. None have been penalised, let alone yellow carded. This one was by an all black. Using his head. On his own try line. https://vine.co/v/ePKrB6JuM6I" rel="nofollow - https://vine.co/v/ePKrB6JuM6I |
Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 06 October 2015 at 7:01pm
|
Plus the Romanian replacement scrum half looked to have nutted a Canadian who came in at the side of the maul that lead to their last try. The panellists chatted about it afterwards and said had it been spotted, it could've been a red card plus probably prevented Canada losing. ------------- In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind. |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 06 October 2015 at 8:07pm
| JP Doyle's just given one. And a penalty try. That's more like it. |
Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 06 October 2015 at 8:09pm
|
At last. JP Doyle rides to the rescue and enforces the law. Wonder if Fiji will pay attention to that? ------------- In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind. |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 21 November 2015 at 8:34pm
From games this weekend : One of these is penalised. One is not. Can you refs tell me why? Thanks. 
|
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 22 November 2015 at 7:02am
|
Because it's a stupid law in the first place? Not clear how much contact is made in the first tackle - looks more like an ankle-tap. I did ask a while ago if these were also banned, as they are clearly 'no-arm' tackles. Don't think I got an answer.
------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 24 November 2015 at 2:21pm
If you're referring to an "ankle tap" then I have commented on this before on a number of times. An "ankle tap" is NOT a tackle as invariably the ball carrier is not held and brought to ground as defined in Law. (See below) In rugby the hand is included in "the arm" but the shoulder is not ! "A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground. A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place. Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and bring that player to ground, and who also go to ground, are known as tacklers. Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers. 15.3 Brought to the ground defined (a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’. (b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball carrier has been ‘brought to ground’. http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15&language=EN" rel="nofollow - http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15&language=EN ------------- |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 24 November 2015 at 3:03pm
Thanks for that. Presumably, then, a no-arm chop tackle is NOT a tackle under the laws. So how can refs justify penalising players for "not using their arms in a tackle" - if it isn't a tackle in the first place? (I really am sorry about this, but the laws need to be clearer IMHO. We'll be in "How many angels can dance on a pinhead" territory soon!) Seems to me the 'dangerousness' of a tackle (or non-tackle) should be the important thing, but I readily admit that drafting laws is a difficult and thankless task... which is why some 'legal' tackles result in nasty injuries, and some 'illegal' ones do not in any way risk the limbs of the 'tackled' player, but get penalised anyway... ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: John
Date Posted: 02 December 2015 at 3:12pm
In the top one, Williams attempts to avoid the tackle by jumping sideways and the Sarries player does, sort of, move his left arm forward immediately prior to contact. So perhaps that should not be penalised These do not apply in the second one but the "tackler" gets kneed in the head for his sins. But I am not a referee.... And I see that the referees have not answered the point that a no-arms "tackle" is not a tackle. |
Posted By: scarletabroad
Date Posted: 02 December 2015 at 6:16pm
| incompetence?? |
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 03 December 2015 at 11:12am
Thought I had in a previous post by relating it to a "tap tackle" ! my bad ! ------------- |