|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 22/10/2008 22:11:27
Posts: 2,
Visits: 8
|
|
Hi, its my 1st post on here so be nice  Cant see this posted elsewhere on here but can any of you guys especially the welsh refs on here help with the following? http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/pdfs/...athway2008.pdf"A tackle may be only made if the tackled player is held by the waist or below. Contact higher on the body should be penalised". This now applies from U9's to U11's and I am told it has been brought in to encourage coaches to teach the basics of a traditional tackle. This is because to many players are reaching our district levels at U12's with poor tackling skills. My problem though is that as usual the WRU have not given any guidance on how this is to be refereed which is leading to a lot of confusion and differing applications of the rule. example. Blue player is running with the ball and Red player decides the ball isnt shielded well and rips it out of Blue players grasp. There has been no tackle so he didnt need to go below the waist. I have been penalising this as Blue player has made contact with Red player above the waist. This is causing a lot of discussion amongst coaches and some other referees are letting it go. Who is right? |
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 30/11/2008 16:37:19
Posts: 25,
Visits: 50
|
|
| You sound as if you're the victim of another $%&T decision by rugby administrators mate- if the WRU/ any Union dont want the poor wee darlings tackling each other then why dont they get them playing tag until they're old enough to play the game properly? I am all for safety laws for juniors in as far as their physiological development is concerned (e.g. U19 scrum law & junior rugby variations) but some of the stupid ones like the no. 9 not being allowed past the tunnel & no lifting in the lineout are RIDICULOUS! (if a team at U12 can be coached to do it safely then that should be to their advantage- NH Unions came up with that one & it confuses me as SH fields (certainly in SA & Australia) are harder to fall on...) As usual the self same administrators then dont have the unbderstanding of the game nor the ability to GO to grassroots & engage the teachers, coaches & parents who coach & referee at that level & empower them to aply their stupid laws! People seem to have forgotten that ours is a CONTACT sport... there, I dared to say it! I think these sort of decisions (along with the brain surgeons who decided to use size 4 balls all the way up to U14!) are WORSE for the game than the ELVs... I suggest you go to the WRU & try & get some clarity- dont be surprised if you get a few different interpretations...
Rugbia floreat ubique
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 27/11/2008 14:22:14
Posts: 4,
Visits: 13
|
|
| HI I WOULD AGREE, THERE IS AMBIGUITY HERE RESULTING FROM THE WHOLE PROCESS OF THE TACKLE NOT BEING THOUGHT THROUGH PROPERLY. LOOKS A BIT KNEE-JERKY TO ME. PERSONALLY, I WOULD ALLOW A 'STEAL' EVEN IF THE BALL IS CARRIED AT ABOVE WAIST HEIGHT. A 'TRADITIONAL' TACKLE IS MADE BY ENVOLOPING A PLAYER WITH YOUR ARMS (THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BELOW THE WAIST RULING IS TO ENCOURAGE A WRAP AROUND TACKLE AS LOW AS POSSIBLE). IN A 'STEAL', THE ARMS WILL NOT BE IN A 'TACKLE' POSITION, HENCE IN MY OPINION THIS IS NOT A HIGH TACKLE. I HOPE THIS IS CLEARER THAN MUD. PAULA
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 06/01/2009 10:43:29
Posts: 142,
Visits: 1,125
|
|
| Here is what the WRU referee's department had to say on the matter: Looking at the Pathway Law I can see the confusion, contact above the waist, the Law was introduced to encourage the children to learn the art of tackling below the waist, in the instance described below I would suggest the player did not attempt to tackle and just ripped the ball away which I see as being perfectly legal.
The Referee must look at the players intention, if he tackles or attempts to tackle a player stood upright above the waist he should then be penalised.
Hope this helps.
So the answer broadly agrees with Paula. On high tackles in general, problems arise with players changing heights before the tackle. The lower tackle target should reduce the problems of miss hits. I have rarely seen a deliberate high tackle at U11 and below in the last sixteen years of coaching. Still gets penalised with a reminder. Swinging elbows and fend offs cause more problems at this age.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 08:49:15
Posts: 163,
Visits: 194
|
|
R&B... WRT s/half not passing the scrum midpoint I always thought this wasn;t a safety angle, but to help s/halves develop their pass over time without the added pressure of the oppo breathing down their necks. ie its a developmental consideration. In due time this pressure is allowed, by which time the passing per se should have been sorted.
Does that make some sense?
didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 06/01/2009 10:43:29
Posts: 142,
Visits: 1,125
|
|
| I agree with didds on the scrum half pass. We need to get the game going from the back of scrums and allow the backs an opportunity to have some space.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 22/10/2008 22:11:27
Posts: 2,
Visits: 8
|
|
| Cheers guys, the brief comment from the WRU refs department clears things up a bit. My only concern is that players who dont like front on tackles will now stand up and atempt to rip which while not hugely dangerous wont teach them the art of tackling. Makes refing a bit clearer though, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 30/11/2008 16:37:19
Posts: 25,
Visits: 50
|
|
didds (15/10/2008)
R&B... WRT s/half not passing the scrum midpoint I always thought this wasn;t a safety angle, but to help s/halves develop their pass over time without the added pressure of the oppo breathing down their necks. ie its a developmental consideration. In due time this pressure is allowed, by which time the passing per se should have been sorted.
Does that make some sense?
diddsThanks Didds- I thought that was what the size 4 ball was for  On a serious note, as you say, the passing SHOULD have been sorted... I think thats one of those tough ones we will always debate- on the one hand you'd like the youngsters to play for fun & develop their skills before they start playing for performance & to win, but in my limited experience of coaching schoolboys, some of the law variations at junior level make things really difficult for: higher age grades (not going past the tunnel at U16 & below is fine in theory wrt the above point, but after that, what happens to a school/ club whose best 9 cant cope with pressure? We've already depowered the U19 & below scrum for safety, do we now penalise a better team to allow the other side an opportunity to compete?) tours (especially where local Unions have their own versions!) Referees & parents- a lot of the confusion & sniping at refs from school/ jnr club coaches is a result of law variations, poor/ inconsistent interpretation & coaches who've trained to coach RUGBY (the 'adult' version- which also differs between professional & amateur levels in much of the refereeing interpretations anyway! Just check how much leeway the pros get at the breakdown that a schoolboy/ jnr club ref would ping) & then throw in 95% of the parents who are supporting/ pushing their kids & dont know the OLD laws never mind the ELVs & age grade variations... & yet its such a simple game! 
Rugbia floreat ubique
|
|
|
|