the Retallick red card

[Torquemada 1420]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, simply ban exoceting into rucks. Make the joining requirement the same manner as the depowering of the scrum hit i.e. you have to join the ruck in a controlled manner before pushing.

[Insane_Homer]

I would've thought red carding players for doing dangerous illegal hits at rucks should be an massive incentive for them to think twice about how they approach these situations in the future?

[Torquemada 1420]

I would've thought red carding players for doing dangerous illegal hits at rucks should be an massive incentive for them to think twice about how they approach these situations in the future?

How's that worked out so far?

[Paddington Bear]

I would've thought red carding players for doing dangerous illegal hits at rucks should be an massive incentive for them to think twice about how they approach these situations in the future?

How's that worked out so far?

Each iteration of player safety takes a while to filter through. It wasn't so long ago that it was 'literally impossible' to avoid tackling jumping players in the air. It still happens of course but far less frequently and players who do it know immediately they're off.

[Insane_Homer]

I would've thought red carding players for doing dangerous illegal hits at rucks should be an massive incentive for them to think twice about how they approach these situations in the future?

How's that worked out so far?

I'd hope better than having to change the rules every time a poor All Black player gets a red card for being a dumb cunt.

[PornDog]

Direct, targeted head contact with shoulder, no attempt to use arms at all, full body weight, failed to stay on his feet, it's fucking dangerous and it's a bloody red.

Literally nobody is arguing any different - we're talking about removing dangerous situations from the game, and most likely improving the quality of the game at the same time.

I do wonder how you think the attacking team's players will join the ruck if the defending team is trying to push over the ball. My best guess is they will come in full tilt hitting the ruck. If anything we might very well find the right for the ball will become muddled and the ball slow. Just because players are not playing within the laws of the game, you want to change the game to accommodate them? Until what, the next problem comes along and we just remove the contest at the ruck completely?

It's called a ruck - watch any game from a year starting with 19xx and you will see what it is supposed to be like. We have changed the game to allow the poach - it's shit, dangerous and a card magnet. We didn't have it before, we can not have it again. The right to the ball is muddled now - rucking over the thing before you pick it up massively simplifies things.

What's more is, if you want to win the ball you have to commit players to the ruck, which in turn the offensive players might have to commit additional players and all of a sudden we have no need for 50/22 laws to try and take players out of the defensive line.

Players break the laws all the time, they get punished - I'm not advocating we change that simple concept, but the poach now is way more powerful than it was even when it first came in in the noughties (leaving aside that the vast majority of instances fall foul of "hands in the ruck"). Now there can be offensive players on their feet at the ruck, but so long as you are the first defender to arrive you are allowed to put your hands on the ball - it's bullshit! And as I said, the defender is allowed to take a position that an offensive player would rightly get pinged for sealing off for. There's a fundamental unfairness to it.

This is currently legal, and it shouldn't be, by players on either side of the ball (Pockock sealing off and Furlong off his feet)-

[JM2K6]

Retallick's not even trying to blast him backwards, he's hitting down. Mad shit.


Anyway, I brought this up last time and I'll say it again: the problem is that players are coached to chase every lost cause and smash everything regardless. "What is he supposed to do?" He's supposed to realise he's too fucking far away and that if he can't wrestle the player off the ball in time then the ball is lost. Tough fucking shit.

Holding onto possession should not be more important than not smashing people in the fucking head.

[LoveOfTheGame]

It's called a ruck - watch any game from a year starting with 19xx and you will see what it is supposed to be like. We have changed the game to allow the poach - it's shit, dangerous and a card magnet. We didn't have it before, we can not have it again. The right to the ball is muddled now - rucking over the thing before you pick it up massively simplifies things.

What's more is, if you want to win the ball you have to commit players to the ruck, which in turn the offensive players might have to commit additional players and all of a sudden we have no need for 50/22 laws to try and take players out of the defensive line.

Players break the laws all the time, they get punished - I'm not advocating we change that simple concept, but the poach now is way more powerful than it was even when it first came in in the noughties (leaving aside that the vast majority of instances fall foul of "hands in the ruck"). Now there can be offensive players on their feet at the ruck, but so long as you are the first defender to arrive you are allowed to put your hands on the ball - it's bullshit! And as I said, the defender is allowed to take a position that an offensive player would rightly get pinged for sealing off for. There's a fundamental unfairness to it.

This is currently legal, and it shouldn't be, by players on either side of the ball (Pockock sealing off and Furlong off his feet)-

You cannot compare the current game to that era, it's ridiculous. Big fundamental changes to laws like you are suggesting sometimes have very different end results to that which you were hoping for. The worse outcome would be that defending teams don't contest rucks at all, due to low probability of winning the ball vs having an effective defensive line, which will make horrid rugby league style play. Or, equally as shyte both teams adding too many players to each and every ruck in order to win/defend the ball. This will make for slower ball. No, for me we should rather stick to the existing laws. Players like Retallick/Aki are in the wrong, not the jackler. Why do you want to protect the players like them and penalise the player with all rights to the ball?

[Grandpa]

From the Guardian Newsletter today (emailed).. Robert Kitson

Last days of the jackal

The Breakdown has it on good authority that the days of the jackal are numbered. There has been steadily growing disquiet across the game about the risks attached to stooping players, heads down and necks exposed, being cleared out at rucks by onrushing opponents seeking to blast them off the ball. Brodie Retallick’s red card for clearing out Japan’s Kazuki Himeno is just the most recent high profile example and it is now understood that World Rugby are ready to act.

There is also renewed talk of introducing a different set of laws for professional and community rugby, with the objective of trying to make the game safer for all. If the removal of the so-called “jackal” - and its nasty relative the “crocodile roll” - help to deliver that goal they will not be missed.

[Grandpa]

Retallick got a 2 game ban by the way. Available for England game.

[LoveOfTheGame]

From the Guardian Newsletter today (emailed).. Robert Kitson

Last days of the jackal

The Breakdown has it on good authority that the days of the jackal are numbered. There has been steadily growing disquiet across the game about the risks attached to stooping players, heads down and necks exposed, being cleared out at rucks by onrushing opponents seeking to blast them off the ball. Brodie Retallick’s red card for clearing out Japan’s Kazuki Himeno is just the most recent high profile example and it is now understood that World Rugby are ready to act.

There is also renewed talk of introducing a different set of laws for professional and community rugby, with the objective of trying to make the game safer for all. If the removal of the so-called “jackal” - and its nasty relative the “crocodile roll” - help to deliver that goal they will not be missed.

Seems about right, remove an entire generation of players geared towards playing to the ball so that idiots like Retallick don't have to sit on the side-lines.

[Raggs]

I'm going to be intrigued as to how you re-write the law to say you're not allowed to pick a ball up off the floor and it not have some ramifications.

[Torquemada 1420]

I would've thought red carding players for doing dangerous illegal hits at rucks should be an massive incentive for them to think twice about how they approach these situations in the future?

How's that worked out so far?

I'd hope better than having to change the rules every time a poor All Black player gets a red card for being a dumb cunt.

Trouble is it's not just the ABs, is it? How many reds in the GP this week?

[PornDog]

You cannot compare the current game to that era, it's ridiculous.

Sorry young whipper snapper - but that's nonsense. It's the same fucking game with the same principals. Training, diets and tactical awareness has improved, but the mechanics are all practically the exact same (lifting is new - I'll give you that).

Big fundamental changes to laws like you are suggesting sometimes have very different end results to that which you were hoping for.

That's kind of the whole problem. Rucking was gotten rid of in the first place because the powers that be were afraid that mommy wouldn't let little Timmy play if he got stud marks on his back. Now instead we have 120kg exocet missiles to players heads.
Not only that, but we also have only the one or maybe two players in a ruck, leading to packed defensive lines and having to bring in laws like 50/22. Treating symptoms and not the disease!

The worse outcome would be that defending teams don't contest rucks at all

Who is advocating for that? Seriously, go back and watch some games and see how effective at winning the ball rucking was. Was probably the biggest difference the ABs had over most other sides - fucking sharks feeding as soon as there was a whiff of weakness at the ruck. Scotland won a Grand Slam with brilliant rucking. You don't know what you're talking about!

due to low probability of winning the ball vs having an effective defensive line, which will make horrid rugby league style play.

Have you switched argument mid stream here? This is part of my point and largely what we have now with endless one out bosh being incredibly prevalent.

Or, equally as shyte both teams adding too many players to each and every ruck in order to win/defend the ball. This will make for slower ball.

again, you don't know what you're talking about. you're just plain wrong here! I sympathise because you've probably never known anything different.

No, for me we should rather stick to the existing laws. Players like Retallick/Aki are in the wrong, not the jackler. Why do you want to protect the players like them and penalise the player with all rights to the ball?

It's like you actually haven't understood the argument - again probably because you can't imagine how it works! Nobody (let me say it again - NOBODY), is arguing for protecting dirty play. Ultimately the conversation is about removing opportunities for dirty play from the game. And with the added bonus of cleaning up the breakdown and hopefully creating a more exciting game. Yay!

------------------------

The only thing that really needs to change is the shape of the poacher. That's it. Instead of hips lateral and in a sealing off position, they need to step over the ball and bend the knees to pick it up. That's literally the only change that's needed - everything else will flow from that position change.

[Grandpa]

I'm going to be intrigued as to how you re-write the law to say you're not allowed to pick a ball up off the floor and it not have some ramifications.

Bend your knees

Does Aaron Smith's head ever get below his hips every time he picks up the ball?

[Raggs]

What era are you taking about here porndog? There's a very good chance you've got some serious rosy glasses on.

[Grandpa]

I'm going to be intrigued as to how you re-write the law to say you're not allowed to pick a ball up off the floor and it not have some ramifications.

Bend your knees

Does Aaron Smith's head ever get below his hips every time he picks up the ball?

I'm with ymx... no hands allowed

[Raggs]

I'm going to be intrigued as to how you re-write the law to say you're not allowed to pick a ball up off the floor and it not have some ramifications.

Bend your knees

Does Aaron Smith's head ever get below his hips every time he picks up the ball?

I'm with ymx... no hands allowed

Never allowed to pick the ball off the floor? That's going to complicate things.

Of course, one way to actually solve this, would be to insist on a full release from the tackled player. Immediate place and full release. Then the jackaller wouldn't be stuck there trying to fight for the ball in the first place, and could pick it up as the laws intend.

[PornDog]

What era are you taking about here porndog? There's a very good chance you've got some serious rosy glasses on.

The 90's and into the early 00's - what part of it are you taking issue with?

Poaching was not a thing that existed prior to 20 years ago (it was a penalty offence called hands in the ruck). Over those 20 years the poach has become more and more overpowered (when was the last time you heard a ref say "hands away, ruck formed"?) with greater allowances given to the poacher year on year.

Rucking did result in plenty of turnovers. The ABs were great at it and Scotland did win a Grand Slam with it being probably their biggest strength (on both sides of the ball).

I mean I probably do have rose tinted glasses to some extent (we all do), but I'm pretty comfortable with what I'm arguing for here! If there's a specific nonsense call you want to level at me then fair enough, fire away.

Never allowed to pick the ball off the floor? That's going to complicate things.

Again, literally NOBODY is arguing for this. I'm guessing you must be a young'un as well Raggs and are having difficulty imagining how the breakdown should work. Plenty of turnovers won at the ruck before poaching, and yes, people did pick up the ball.

[PornDog]

And just because the phrase always reminds me of this.............

[Raggs]

What era are you taking about here porndog? There's a very good chance you've got some serious rosy glasses on.

The 90's and into the early 00's - what part of it are you taking issue with?

Poaching was not a thing that existed prior to 20 years ago (it was a penalty offence called hands in the ruck). Over those 20 years the poach has become more and more overpowered (when was the last time you heard a ref say "hands away, ruck formed"?) with greater allowances given to the poacher year on year.

Rucking did result in plenty of turnovers. The ABs were great at it and Scotland did win a Grand Slam with it being probably their biggest strength (on both sides of the ball).

I mean I probably do have rose tinted glasses to some extent (we all do), but I'm pretty comfortable with what I'm arguing for here! If there's a specific nonsense call you want to level at me then fair enough, fire away.

Never allowed to pick the ball off the floor? That's going to complicate things.

Again, literally NOBODY is arguing for this. I'm guessing you must be a young'un as well Raggs and are having difficulty imagining how the breakdown should work. Plenty of turnovers won at the ruck before poaching, and yes, people did pick up the ball.

Hear no hands in the ruck call plenty, used it myself in the last few weeks.

Jackals aren't part of a ruck. There is no ruck with a single player in place. They are attempting to pick up a ball that should not be held on to. The problem is people playing the ball whilst off their feet, and not allowing jackallers to take it. The reason the jackal now has to be in such a strong position is he's not only fighting with the player illegally playing the ball whilst off his feet, they were trained in having to survive multiple clearout attempts before the ref would finally get around to punishing the illegal player on the floor. Thankfully it switched a little a season or two ago, when it just required a clear attempted lift, but it seems to have reverted back to having to survive a few beating again now unfortunately.

So to reiterate, jackals are attempting to pick the ball up off the floor. What law should be put in place to prevent this?

EDIT - And with a very quick check I've found a clear jackal turnover from George Smith from 2001.

[PornDog]

Jackals aren't part of a ruck. There is no ruck with a single player in place. They are attempting to pick up a ball that should not be held on to. The problem is people playing the ball whilst off their feet, and not allowing jackallers to take it. The reason the jackal now has to be in such a strong position is he's not only fighting with the player illegally playing the ball whilst off his feet, they were trained in having to survive multiple clearout attempts before the ref would finally get around to punishing the illegal player on the floor. Thankfully it switched a little a season or two ago, when it just required a clear attempted lift, but it seems to have reverted back to having to survive a few beating again now unfortunately.

this is often the case you're right, but it's also often not the case these days. you will regularly see now that offensive players are at the ruck and on their feet, but because the poacher is the "first man" to arrive from the defensive team he's allowed to put hand on the ball. It drives me fucking nuts and is one of these greater allowances being allowed to the poacher that has crept in over the years. 5 years ago you never saw that.

You also have the poacher sealing off. If an offensive player took this shape they would rightly be penalised. It's unfair to allow one side to do something but not allow the other to do the same thing! It's just not a fair competition.

The tackled player is allowed to immediately place the ball upon being tackled, this right is also often impinged by the poacher, who more and more frequently is getting away with not releasing in the tackle. Penalties are also often awarded without any clear lift, with poachers even just interfering with the balls ability to come out and winning a penalty from that (like holding a player into the ruck on the wrong side).

But, more often than not, things are as you describe, and I agree with you Ref's should be quicker on the whistle when there is a clear poach in place. This waiting to see if they survive the clear out is a nonsense and needs gone from the game. however I would still tweak the laws in these instances. I would do this in the interests of safety and in the interests of the game.

So to reiterate, jackals are attempting to pick the ball up off the floor. What law should be put in place to prevent this?

EDIT - And with a very quick check I've found a clear jackal turnover from George Smith from 2001.

What law - to pick up the ball you must have a foot in front of the ball, whether that be your (the poacher's) foot, or a team mates foot, but then you can pick it up. That's what a ruck was. Step over the ball, bend your knees and pick it up - it's that simple.

Is there still a place for a poach - absolutely. It would shift those advantages that have been gradually awarded to poachers over the last 20 years back towards the offensive team sure, but if players get isolated you can still poach (and them hanging on to the ball would be even more obvious), and even only partially isolated players (slow support) can easily lead to turnovers by rucking over the ball.


In response to your Edit - yes indeed. That is when things started to change - basically Smith and McCaw pioneered it. They did so because the IRB decided to make rucks a thing of the past, but that's when it started.

[inactionman]

Jackals aren't part of a ruck. There is no ruck with a single player in place. They are attempting to pick up a ball that should not be held on to. The problem is people playing the ball whilst off their feet, and not allowing jackallers to take it. The reason the jackal now has to be in such a strong position is he's not only fighting with the player illegally playing the ball whilst off his feet, they were trained in having to survive multiple clearout attempts before the ref would finally get around to punishing the illegal player on the floor. Thankfully it switched a little a season or two ago, when it just required a clear attempted lift, but it seems to have reverted back to having to survive a few beating again now unfortunately.

this is often the case you're right, but it's also often not the case these days. you will regularly see now that offensive players are at the ruck and on their feet, but because the poacher is the "first man" to arrive from the defensive team he's allowed to put hand on the ball. It drives me fucking nuts and is one of these greater allowances being allowed to the poacher that has crept in over the years. 5 years ago you never saw that.

You also have the poacher sealing off. If an offensive player took this shape they would rightly be penalised. It's unfair to allow one side to do something but not allow the other to do the same thing! It's just not a fair competition.

The tackled player is allowed to immediately place the ball upon being tackled, this right is also often impinged by the poacher, who more and more frequently is getting away with not releasing in the tackle. Penalties are also often awarded without any clear lift, with poachers even just interfering with the balls ability to come out and winning a penalty from that (like holding a player into the ruck on the wrong side).

But, more often than not, things are as you describe, and I agree with you Ref's should be quicker on the whistle when there is a clear poach in place. This waiting to see if they survive the clear out is a nonsense and needs gone from the game. however I would still tweak the laws in these instances. I would do this in the interests of safety and in the interests of the game.

So to reiterate, jackals are attempting to pick the ball up off the floor. What law should be put in place to prevent this?

EDIT - And with a very quick check I've found a clear jackal turnover from George Smith from 2001.

What law - to pick up the ball you must have a foot in front of the ball, whether that be your (the poacher's) foot, or a team mates foot, but then you can pick it up. That's what a ruck was. Step over the ball, bend your knees and pick it up - it's that simple.

Is there still a place for a poach - absolutely. It would shift those advantages that have been gradually awarded to poachers over the last 20 years back towards the offensive team sure, but if players get isolated you can still poach (and them hanging on to the ball would be even more obvious), and even only partially isolated players (slow support) can easily lead to turnovers by rucking over the ball.


In response to your Edit - yes indeed. That is when things started to change - basically Smith and McCaw pioneered it. They did so because the IRB decided to make rucks a thing of the past, but that's when it started.

Yep - aside from the general sealing off, it seems an accepted practice for the jackaling player to bearhug the tackled player, ball and all, before they've had a chance to place the ball. There's no chance to either place the ball or to drive the jackaling player off the ball.

They at least got rid of the 'drag net' tactic of hands on the ground past the ball and almost rely upon being driven back into the ball by the clearout - that was both sealing off and asking for injury.

[LoveOfTheGame]

You cannot compare the current game to that era, it's ridiculous.

Sorry young whipper snapper - but that's nonsense. It's the same fucking game with the same principals. Training, diets and tactical awareness has improved, but the mechanics are all practically the exact same (lifting is new - I'll give you that).

Common Grandad, that simply is not true. Cars made when you were celebrating your 21st in the 1930's also had the same mechanics and served the same purpose, but you cannot compare it to modern day cars.

Big fundamental changes to laws like you are suggesting sometimes have very different end results to that which you were hoping for.

That's kind of the whole problem. Rucking was gotten rid of in the first place because the powers that be were afraid that mommy wouldn't let little Timmy play if he got stud marks on his back. Now instead we have 120kg exocet missiles to players heads.
Not only that, but we also have only the one or maybe two players in a ruck, leading to packed defensive lines and having to bring in laws like 50/22. Treating symptoms and not the disease!

Remind me again why there was a need for rucking? Wasn't it something to do with the ball not coming out the right end quick enough? You know, slowing the ball down?

The worse outcome would be that defending teams don't contest rucks at all

Who is advocating for that? Seriously, go back and watch some games and see how effective at winning the ball rucking was. Was probably the biggest difference the ABs had over most other sides - fucking sharks feeding as soon as there was a whiff of weakness at the ruck. Scotland won a Grand Slam with brilliant rucking. You don't know what you're talking about!

Eee, watched my fair share of games in the 80's and 90's and no, I think you have very selective memory on this. Not all of it granted, but they are not bringing back rucking.

due to low probability of winning the ball vs having an effective defensive line, which will make horrid rugby league style play.

Have you switched argument mid stream here? This is part of my point and largely what we have now with endless one out bosh being incredibly prevalent.

No, focus.

Or, equally as shyte both teams adding too many players to each and every ruck in order to win/defend the ball. This will make for slower ball.

again, you don't know what you're talking about. you're just plain wrong here! I sympathise because you've probably never known anything different.

Ok Old Man Time

No, for me we should rather stick to the existing laws. Players like Retallick/Aki are in the wrong, not the jackler. Why do you want to protect the players like them and penalise the player with all rights to the ball?

It's like you actually haven't understood the argument - again probably because you can't imagine how it works! Nobody (let me say it again - NOBODY), is arguing for protecting dirty play. Ultimately the conversation is about removing opportunities for dirty play from the game. And with the added bonus of cleaning up the breakdown and hopefully creating a more exciting game. Yay!

------------------------

The only thing that really needs to change is the shape of the poacher. That's it. Instead of hips lateral and in a sealing off position, they need to step over the ball and bend the knees to pick it up. That's literally the only change that's needed - everything else will flow from that position change.

Remove opportunity for dirty play from the game by removing the jackler? You are bat shit crazy. A whole generation of players have grown up playing the modern laws. There are in fact many open sides with smaller physics playing at the very top level because they are allowed to play toward to ball and stealing the ball at the breakdown. If you remove this option or change the Laws they will serve no other value at that level,. Bigger Saffa style opensides would be the order of the day e.g. Schalk Burger.

[PornDog]

First of all, apologies - the whipper snapper things was me trying to be cute in saying that you just don't remember anything different (which you clearly don't) and I understand that you have difficulty imagining how it works. Instead I think I just came across as a twat.

You cannot compare the current game to that era, it's ridiculous.

Sorry young whipper snapper - but that's nonsense. It's the same fucking game with the same principals. Training, diets and tactical awareness has improved, but the mechanics are all practically the exact same (lifting is new - I'll give you that).

Common Grandad, that simply is not true. Cars made when you were celebrating your 21st in the 1930's also had the same mechanics and served the same purpose, but you cannot compare it to modern day cars.

Good thing we're not talking about cars, eh? I'm also not talking about the game from the 1930's, I'm talking about it from 20 years ago. Over that time, as I've explained, the poacher has gradually been granted more and more leeway. I believe this needs to be redressed.

If you want to explain to me which parts of the game are incomparable to the game 20 years ago then work away, but "it just is, isn't it obvious" isn't an answer.

Remind me again why there was a need for rucking? Wasn't it something to do with the ball not coming out the right end quick enough? You know, slowing the ball down?

Dude, just no! You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding about what I'm actually talking about.
Rucking had been a part of the game for over a hundred years, it was removed on safety grounds. Bullet, meet foot!

Eee, watched my fair share of games in the 80's and 90's and no, I think you have very selective memory on this. Not all of it granted, but they are not bringing back rucking.

Well, according to Grandpa's post/The Guardian you're wrong - Yay!

[LoveOfTheGame]

Look, good luck with your view on this. I’m not in agreement obviously and somehow doubt you’ll get your wish. And no I don’t think you’re a twat, if memory serves you are Irish right? Let’s leave some spite for Saturday.

[Torquemada 1420]

Good thing we're not talking about cars, eh? I'm also not talking about the game from the 1930's, I'm talking about it from 20 years ago. Over that time, as I've explained, the poacher has gradually been granted more and more leeway. I believe this needs to be redressed.

The game has become more and more a bastard from of league i.e. everything is centred around the floor......... for a game that is meant to be played on its feet. We need to be looking at a wider picture whereby the side with the ball is not so heavily rewarded (actually, given a much lower risk of losing the ball option) by going to floor rather than keeping it alive.

[Grandpa]

Look, good luck with your view on this. I’m not in agreement obviously and somehow doubt you’ll get your wish. And no I don’t think you’re a twat, if memory serves you are Irish right? Let’s leave some spite for Saturday.

The Guardian suggests the Jackal will become extinct soon...

[LoveOfTheGame]

Look, good luck with your view on this. I’m not in agreement obviously and somehow doubt you’ll get your wish. And no I don’t think you’re a twat, if memory serves you are Irish right? Let’s leave some spite for Saturday.

The Guardian suggests the Jackal will become extinct soon...

A year out from the World Cup? Utter complete nonsense mate. If they do it is not enough time for teams to adjust, not enough games for us in the SH.

[JM2K6]

Look, good luck with your view on this. I’m not in agreement obviously and somehow doubt you’ll get your wish. And no I don’t think you’re a twat, if memory serves you are Irish right? Let’s leave some spite for Saturday.

The Guardian suggests the Jackal will become extinct soon...

Kitson? He's fucking clueless. A nicer Stephen Jones. It may happen, it may not, but he's no kind of authority.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Retallick's not even trying to blast him backwards, he's hitting down. Mad shit.


Anyway, I brought this up last time and I'll say it again: the problem is that players are coached to chase every lost cause and smash everything regardless. "What is he supposed to do?" He's supposed to realise he's too fucking far away and that if he can't wrestle the player off the ball in time then the ball is lost. Tough fucking shit.

Holding onto possession should not be more important than not smashing people in the fucking head.

That was basically Bundee Aki's defence after the incident that got him banned. He appeared under the impression that if he couldn't make a legal tackle then he was entitled to make an illegal one.

[Dan54]

Look, good luck with your view on this. I’m not in agreement obviously and somehow doubt you’ll get your wish. And no I don’t think you’re a twat, if memory serves you are Irish right? Let’s leave some spite for Saturday.

The Guardian suggests the Jackal will become extinct soon...

Personally would be happy if it did, and you just blow over ball like we used to. I never saw any problem when we had to ruck with feet. Tackle a player, and everyone has to roll clear none

[Dan54]

Brodie got 2 weeks, so out until England

[Grandpa]

Look, good luck with your view on this. I’m not in agreement obviously and somehow doubt you’ll get your wish. And no I don’t think you’re a twat, if memory serves you are Irish right? Let’s leave some spite for Saturday.

The Guardian suggests the Jackal will become extinct soon...

Personally would be happy if it did, and you just blow over ball like we used to. I never saw any problem when we had to ruck with feet. Tackle a player, and everyone has to roll clear none

Me neither. Hopefully post world cup it's gone... Not just the Guardian calling for it... The Telegraph as well ran a similar story... where there's smoke, there's a player with his hips in the air...

[Gumboot]

Brodie got 2 weeks, so out until England

Glen Young got nothing, and is available for selection against the ABs next week.

Farcical.

[Guy Smiley]

Brodie got 2 weeks, so out until England

Glen Young got nothing, and is available for selection against the ABs next week.

Farcical.

My take on this and other incidents regarding dangerous play...

the fact that player A gets a lighter sanction than player B for similar incidents (no two incidents are identical and that is pivotal) should in no way, detrat from the seriousness of the offence,

We know from long experience that inconsistencies occur. We can't know the precise details of every offense or the reasoning behind decisions made by panels made up of different individuals.

The bottom line is that Retallick was clumsy and his action was fucking dangerous.

I would prefer to see WR (and a few other codes struggling with similar grey areas) remove all mitigation from deliberations around actions like this. If a player makes high contact, a simple system of graded penalties can apply. Accidental contact, careless contact, deliberate etc etc... but the bottom line should be protecting players from injury, not weaseling around that because... reasons, like no harm done, slipped over, came in late.

Don't hit players high. End of.

[average joe]

If it's not a ruck, you should just be able to pick the ball up. There are existing laws on how this should be done.

If a ruck is formed you are no longer allowed to go for the ball, you have to bind and attempt to drive over the ball.

So, what does the existing laws say about a ruck? What is a ruck? When is a ruck formed?

[Blackmac]

Brodie got 2 weeks, so out until England

Glen Young got nothing, and is available for selection against the ABs next week.

Farcical.

Young was about an inch away from a perfect clearout. Brodie was a country mile.

[Gumboot]

Brodie got 2 weeks, so out until England

Glen Young got nothing, and is available for selection against the ABs next week.

Farcical.

Young was about an inch away from a perfect clearout. Brodie was a country mile.

He was more like an inch away from copping a red card, according to the ref. Would've been entirely justified too. That poor wee scrummie could've died. But the ref bottled it, and the thug got off, er, scot-free. Shameful.

[sockwithaticket]

Brodie got 2 weeks, so out until England

And this is a big part of why we still see players executing dangerous tackling and clearing out techniques. The punishments are negligible.

I see that Retallick was the latest to get time off on proviso of completing a coaching intervention. What is a coaching intervention in isolation going to do for any pro player, let alone a 31 year old who's on the cusp of becoming a test centurion? They're going to do this mandated course and then walk right back into environment that coaches them to tackle upright/high and that every ruck is winnable if you go into it withe enough reckless abandon.

Any coaching intevention should be for the whole team, including coaching staff, of any player who commits one of these offences and it should involve them being parked in front of harrowing documentaries/interviews about early onset dementia Clockwork Orange style. Maybe then they'll actually consider changing their approach to tackle heights and leaving the ball when it's lost. At the moment it's clear that they only pay lip service to player safety.