Disciplinary

[archiekeith]

Seems to me that term "tackle". Referred to in the rules is now being executed in actual use has "collision "! Collision and tackle are not synonymous and the way I was tought to tackle was with the use of both hands reaching out directed below the head and around the body or legs. Tackling as collision are intended to inflict hurt on a player it seems to me and is expected by both player and spectators alike. Hence courting injury even when not now cosidered "malicious. Sorry if what I have written is paradoxical but it is in my opinion an antimony in the game. Unfortunately if the Referees applied the rules laid down in the games constitution of the game would never get off the ground except if we follow Barry McDermott's comment made years ago as I remember- "the rules of RL are just a guide"!

[archiekeith]

Read antinomy in my above post.

[Wigan_forever1985]

Force = Mass x Speed, or Weight x Speed in everyday usage.

So you're right that a reduction in speed of 50% would reduce the force by 50%.

Two problems though:

1. The attacking player's speed wouldn't be reduced if they time their run onto the ball. Since the speed of a collision is the total of the two objects (players), then, assuming players of equal weight, a 50% reduction in the speed of one results in a 25% reduction in force.

2. The defending player has half the distance to gain speed, but that doesn't mean he's at half speed! Usain Bolt wasn't at half speed after 50m of a 100m race! And, if necessary, a defender could still start from 10 metres back as long as he didn't cross the 5m line before the ptb took place

Sorry to be technical, but I was interested in your idea and wanted to check it out.

A final point. I assume there have been studies of when head injuries occur most. My guess would be that speed of impact at the initial tackle after a ptb wouldn't necessarily be a main factor. Think about collisions with knees, hips, elbows, and stiff-arm tackles, for example.

So i would challenge the above

1. Yes you are correct that a player carrying the ball in would get a running start however this is the case in both scenarios and im not sure they would hit it at the same speed for 2 main reasons

If you are running onto the ball at full speed you need to receive a flat pass. If the defensive line is 5m closer to the play of the ball they will be able to be in and around you as you collect the ball which means that you need to collect and secure a lot quicker this will be seen as more high risk so you're either likely to slow or pass backwards which will make running at full speed a lot harder

2. yes a defender could start from 10m back but that would require the whole line to do so otherwise you're leaving a giant hole in your defence while you prepare for a shot that might not work. Again you are correct to say your top speed is achieved over a shorter distance but because the event is quicker youre less likely to attain that more likely to stand static or even retreat

So i think while youre correct players could play like they do now with a 5m rule and it not have a massive effect i think they are unlikely to play like that so it actually would maybe not receive a 50% reduction but close to it

[morley pie eater]

Force = Mass x Speed, or Weight x Speed in everyday usage.

So you're right that a reduction in speed of 50% would reduce the force by 50%.

Two problems though:

1. The attacking player's speed wouldn't be reduced if they time their run onto the ball. Since the speed of a collision is the total of the two objects (players), then, assuming players of equal weight, a 50% reduction in the speed of one results in a 25% reduction in force.

2. The defending player has half the distance to gain speed, but that doesn't mean he's at half speed! Usain Bolt wasn't at half speed after 50m of a 100m race! And, if necessary, a defender could still start from 10 metres back as long as he didn't cross the 5m line before the ptb took place

Sorry to be technical, but I was interested in your idea and wanted to check it out.

A final point. I assume there have been studies of when head injuries occur most. My guess would be that speed of impact at the initial tackle after a ptb wouldn't necessarily be a main factor. Think about collisions with knees, hips, elbows, and stiff-arm tackles, for example.

So i would challenge the above

1. Yes you are correct that a player carrying the ball in would get a running start however this is the case in both scenarios and im not sure they would hit it at the same speed for 2 main reasons

If you are running onto the ball at full speed you need to receive a flat pass. If the defensive line is 5m closer to the play of the ball they will be able to be in and around you as you collect the ball which means that you need to collect and secure a lot quicker this will be seen as more high risk so you're either likely to slow or pass backwards which will make running at full speed a lot harder

2. yes a defender could start from 10m back but that would require the whole line to do so otherwise you're leaving a giant hole in your defence while you prepare for a shot that might not work. Again you are correct to say your top speed is achieved over a shorter distance but because the event is quicker youre less likely to attain that more likely to stand static or even retreat

So i think while youre correct players could play like they do now with a 5m rule and it not have a massive effect i think they are unlikely to play like that so it actually would maybe not receive a 50% reduction but close to it

Can't argue with that.

My reply focused on the maths, but you're right, as with any rule change, coaches have to modify tactics.

[archiekeith]

You seem to miss the point. The collision is the problem ! Tackles executed in the manner Ive stated above would be described correctly as a tackle no matter the size and speed of player. Tackling using both hands eliminate's the flaying arm,stiff arm use. Proper coaching of the tacking of players as described would completely iradicate the collision so called tackle and allow for a safer game for players. I'm not calling for the sanitisation of our game but actually to allow a more attractive spectacle,and emphasis on skill especially with the growing concerns re- concussion etc.

[Charriots Offiah]

Does anyone know why Charnley got banned?

[josie andrews]

Does anyone know why Charnley got banned?

Kicking out at Drinkwater.

[Caboosegg]

Does anyone know why Charnley got banned?

Kicking out at Drinkwater.

Watched it multiple times and it's a joke.
It was nothing and Charnley has hit people worse with his stupid flailing in the tackles.

[WarriorWinger]

Does anyone know why Charnley got banned?

Kicking out at Drinkwater.

Watched it multiple times and it's a joke.
It was nothing and Charnley has hit people worse with his stupid flailing in the tackles.

I hate it when players keep kicking out when trying to get up off the floor especially when they have their legs in the air, I haven't seen the Charnley one but you see it loads of times in games.

If a defender started to kick their legs about at attacking players on the floor they would be penalised, you can still 'gesture' that you are trying to get up off the floor without the constant kicing that some players do.

[archiekeith]

I agree in principle. However in cases you refer to had the tackler rolled away on completion of the tackle or as I have seen on many occasions the player is still being not allowed to regain their feet has the rules require. We all know It's called slowing the game down a practice not recognised by
the rule,Constitution or spirit of the game which generally are so drafted to mediate the speed of. the game