Dangerous Clearouts

[Niegs]

The amount of victim blaming comments that follow this.





Is it true that no one picked this up during the match?

[sturginho]

Exactly the same as the Williams clear out on Canna which Barnes said was fine. No consistency at all

[GogLais]

The amount of victim blaming comments that follow this.





Is it true that no one picked this up during the match?

TMO picked it up, ref wasn't interested.

[Raggs]

Couldn't believe he stayed on the pitch. Soon as the replay happened I stopped watching for a few minutes, came back to see the playing on, but was confused by the fact there was no red card symbol...

[GogLais]

Couldn't believe he stayed on the pitch. Soon as the replay happened I stopped watching for a few minutes, came back to see the playing on, but was confused by the fact there was no red card symbol...

And then the commentators had a chat on the lines of "After the game he (VdF) will say good clear out mate". Which is very noble and sporting of course.

[Hong Kong]

Couldn't believe he stayed on the pitch. Soon as the replay happened I stopped watching for a few minutes, came back to see the playing on, but was confused by the fact there was no red card symbol...

And then the commentators had a chat on the lines of "After the game he (VdF) will say good clear out mate". Which is very noble and sporting of course.

Through his bust up jaw??

[MungoMan]

His shoulders appeared lower than his hips. The (rather desultory) attempted bind followed rather than preceded contact to the other player's head / neck. That contact happened at some pace. Judging the player's intent by his observed behaviour, that intent was to injure.

Yeah nah fuck him.

[Kiwias]

If that had been an attempted tackle, he would have seen a Red Card -- his shoulder made contact directly with the opponent's jaw. Red card!

[sockwithaticket]

The amount of victim blaming comments that follow this.

BoD and Hartley were a disgrace in comms over this. I gather BoD has since walked himself back on some Irish show, conceding that players and coaches will need to start learning to concede certain rucks.

A lot was been made of VdF's head being up too which I find mystifying as it being lowered would make barely any difference in terms of height and Wood's point of contact would have been shoulder/neck. More crucially, charging in as he did is always illegal as it's simply a shoulder charge. If beaten to the ball like that his options to remove the jackaller are:
1) try and get low enough to get under him
2) try and peel his arms off
3) concede the ball and get ready to defend

Wood has, thankfully, been cited. We really need refs to get on the same page about what type of clearout they allow and it's good for the judiciary at least to be making it clear that such hits are not permissable.

[frodder]

The amount of victim blaming comments that follow this.





Is it true that no one picked this up during the match?

TMO picked it up, ref wasn't interested.

Correct, they agreed to disagree. Looked like a shoulder tot the head area imho

[Kawazaki]

The amount of victim blaming comments that follow this.

BoD and Hartley were a disgrace in comms over this. I gather BoD has since walked himself back on some Irish show, conceding that players and coaches will need to start learning to concede certain rucks.

A lot was been made of VdF's head being up too which I find mystifying as it being lowered would make barely any difference in terms of height and Wood's point of contact would have been shoulder/neck. More crucially, charging in as he did is always illegal as it's simply a shoulder charge. If beaten to the ball like that his options to remove the jackaller are:
1) try and get low enough to get under him
2) try and peel his arms off
3) concede the ball and get ready to defend

Wood has, thankfully, been cited. We really need refs to get on the same page about what type of clearout they allow and it's good for the judiciary at least to be making it clear that such hits are not permissable.

Or - and this is infinitely easier to do - simply make it illegal for a jackler to go for the ball unless he has at least one leg over the prone/tackled player. At a stoke it stops defenders going in for lost causes, makes jacklers support their own weight, makes it easy for refs to see who is legal but most of all it removes the head and neck from danger to clearouts.

[Kawazaki]

This Hill on Faletau hit got a yellow card. I think this is much worse than what Wood did.

[Biffer]

There was something similar in Edinburgh V Sale. Clear shoulder to the head in the ruck, Poite only gives a yellow, despite the TMO pretty clearly thinking it should be red.

[Raggs]

There was something similar in Edinburgh V Sale. Clear shoulder to the head in the ruck, Poite only gives a yellow, despite the TMO pretty clearly thinking it should be red.

I believe that one has been cited too.

[SaintK]

There was something similar in Edinburgh V Sale. Clear shoulder to the head in the ruck, Poite only gives a yellow, despite the TMO pretty clearly thinking it should be red.

I believe that one has been cited too.

Has Woods on Van de Flier in the Saints v Leinster game?

[JM2K6]

There was something similar in Edinburgh V Sale. Clear shoulder to the head in the ruck, Poite only gives a yellow, despite the TMO pretty clearly thinking it should be red.

I believe that one has been cited too.

Has Woods on Van de Flier in the Saints v Leinster game?

What do you think this thread is about? :)

[Torquemada 1420]

The amount of victim blaming comments that follow this.





Is it true that no one picked this up during the match?

It was picked up and reviewed and the ref came to a ludicrous conclusion: see the match thread.

[SaintK]

I believe that one has been cited too.

Has Woods on Van de Flier in the Saints v Leinster game?

What do you think this thread is about? :)

Cough.......just scrolled up

[Niegs]

The amount of victim blaming comments that follow this.

BoD and Hartley were a disgrace in comms over this. I gather BoD has since walked himself back on some Irish show, conceding that players and coaches will need to start learning to concede certain rucks.

A lot was been made of VdF's head being up too which I find mystifying as it being lowered would make barely any difference in terms of height and Wood's point of contact would have been shoulder/neck. More crucially, charging in as he did is always illegal as it's simply a shoulder charge. If beaten to the ball like that his options to remove the jackaller are:
1) try and get low enough to get under him
2) try and peel his arms off
3) concede the ball and get ready to defend

Wood has, thankfully, been cited. We really need refs to get on the same page about what type of clearout they allow and it's good for the judiciary at least to be making it clear that such hits are not permissable.

Or - and this is infinitely easier to do - simply make it illegal for a jackler to go for the ball unless he has at least one leg over the prone/tackled player. At a stoke it stops defenders going in for lost causes, makes jacklers support their own weight, makes it easy for refs to see who is legal but most of all it removes the head and neck from danger to clearouts.

I mentioned your suggestion to a ref friend recently who didn't disagree with it, and stressed that it should only be CLEAR opportunities to STEAL. Tackler should have released, give the tackled player one opportunity to place, if the ball is still free at that point, allow the steal because carrier got himself isolated/support isn't present. Holding in for a penalty shouldn't be rewarded, I feel, and it's keeping players in these positions / giving attacking support not much to work with when it comes to clearing out and the defender isn't making an attempt or hasn't yet grasped the ball.

In those cases, maybe they should give up and get ready to 'ruck' (as I teach my players) when you see opposition socks.... OR, as I thought WR put in place months ago, give immediate penalties for attacker not releasing and not make those players "survive the clearout".

[Ali Cadoo]

I’ve just Badered myself on a dangerous clear-out of last night’s chilli. Just waiting for the blood to return to my feet...

[Kawazaki]

BoD and Hartley were a disgrace in comms over this. I gather BoD has since walked himself back on some Irish show, conceding that players and coaches will need to start learning to concede certain rucks.

A lot was been made of VdF's head being up too which I find mystifying as it being lowered would make barely any difference in terms of height and Wood's point of contact would have been shoulder/neck. More crucially, charging in as he did is always illegal as it's simply a shoulder charge. If beaten to the ball like that his options to remove the jackaller are:
1) try and get low enough to get under him
2) try and peel his arms off
3) concede the ball and get ready to defend

Wood has, thankfully, been cited. We really need refs to get on the same page about what type of clearout they allow and it's good for the judiciary at least to be making it clear that such hits are not permissable.

Or - and this is infinitely easier to do - simply make it illegal for a jackler to go for the ball unless he has at least one leg over the prone/tackled player. At a stoke it stops defenders going in for lost causes, makes jacklers support their own weight, makes it easy for refs to see who is legal but most of all it removes the head and neck from danger to clearouts.

I mentioned your suggestion to a ref friend recently who didn't disagree with it, and stressed that it should only be CLEAR opportunities to STEAL. Tackler should have released, give the tackled player one opportunity to place, if the ball is still free at that point, allow the steal because carrier got himself isolated/support isn't present. Holding in for a penalty shouldn't be rewarded, I feel, and it's keeping players in these positions / giving attacking support not much to work with when it comes to clearing out and the defender isn't making an attempt or hasn't yet grasped the ball.

In those cases, maybe they should give up and get ready to 'ruck' (as I teach my players) when you see opposition socks.... OR, as I thought WR put in place months ago, give immediate penalties for attacker not releasing and not make those players "survive the clearout".

I always thought the law was that the tackled player has to be allowed to place the ball back after he's tackled but that is clearly being ignored by jacklers and referees. It's become a blight on the game.

[GogLais]

Or - and this is infinitely easier to do - simply make it illegal for a jackler to go for the ball unless he has at least one leg over the prone/tackled player. At a stoke it stops defenders going in for lost causes, makes jacklers support their own weight, makes it easy for refs to see who is legal but most of all it removes the head and neck from danger to clearouts.

I mentioned your suggestion to a ref friend recently who didn't disagree with it, and stressed that it should only be CLEAR opportunities to STEAL. Tackler should have released, give the tackled player one opportunity to place, if the ball is still free at that point, allow the steal because carrier got himself isolated/support isn't present. Holding in for a penalty shouldn't be rewarded, I feel, and it's keeping players in these positions / giving attacking support not much to work with when it comes to clearing out and the defender isn't making an attempt or hasn't yet grasped the ball.

In those cases, maybe they should give up and get ready to 'ruck' (as I teach my players) when you see opposition socks.... OR, as I thought WR put in place months ago, give immediate penalties for attacker not releasing and not make those players "survive the clearout".

I always thought the law was that the tackled player has to be allowed to place the ball back after he's tackled but that is clearly being ignored by jacklers and referees. It's become a blight on the game.

I noticed in the Worcester Ospreys game that a couple of penalties were given when players tried to twist to place the ball behind them, something I think was tolerated until now.

[Gypo Jenkins]

I mentioned your suggestion to a ref friend recently who didn't disagree with it, and stressed that it should only be CLEAR opportunities to STEAL. Tackler should have released, give the tackled player one opportunity to place, if the ball is still free at that point, allow the steal because carrier got himself isolated/support isn't present. Holding in for a penalty shouldn't be rewarded, I feel, and it's keeping players in these positions / giving attacking support not much to work with when it comes to clearing out and the defender isn't making an attempt or hasn't yet grasped the ball.

In those cases, maybe they should give up and get ready to 'ruck' (as I teach my players) when you see opposition socks.... OR, as I thought WR put in place months ago, give immediate penalties for attacker not releasing and not make those players "survive the clearout".

I always thought the law was that the tackled player has to be allowed to place the ball back after he's tackled but that is clearly being ignored by jacklers and referees. It's become a blight on the game.

I noticed in the Worcester Ospreys game that a couple of penalties were given when players tried to twist to place the ball behind them, something I think was tolerated until now.

Apparently, the law speaks to the tackled player immediately placing or rolling the ball in any direction other than forward, assuming he or she is allowed to by the tackler. A ref recently told me the tackle release is their first point of judgement for transgressions at the breakdowm. Everything else is secondary bit assuming there is a clear release and the tackled player understands and respects the law, then it's game on: a swift recycle or the legal jackler can simply pick up the released ball with minimal exposure to the kind of cleanouts highlighted above...... If only it were that simple, it would make a lot of sense

[Fangle]

Does anyone need Bakkie’s second hand arm bands?