The International Rugby Board have vowed to rid the game immediately of spear tackles after viewing the video footage taken by an Irish fan at the first Lions/All Blacks Test in Christchurch in June.
Though unable to act retrospectively, as the sides signed a tour agreement stating that disciplinary matters had to be resolved within 12 hours of a match, the IRB have decided that such spear tackles are ‘totally unacceptable and have absolutely no place in rugby’.
The film shows All Black pair Tana Umaga and Keven Mealamu slamming O’Driscoll to the ground from a height with the ball long gone.
The trouble, at least in NZ, lies in the crossover between League and Union: now that Union’s gone pro and they’ve patched up their differences, down here, with the Warriors in the NRL, League has had a huge influence on All Black tactics - including all the dirty bits - plays like that are becoming de rigeur, whereas for you effete Northern Hemisphere types they probably come as a bit of a shock. Hell, the AB’s practically play League now.
::shrug:: Ain’t told us dick we didn’t know at the time. The officials did nothing, the citing officer did nothing, and the ABs are just saying “we want to draw a line under it”.
We soft Northern Hemisphere ponces have generally believed that we don’t get a lot of protection south of the Equator, but taking the visiting captain out of the tour one minute into the first Test was a bit steeper than usual.
It’s where they hoist a man up in the air and throw him head-first into the ground. In this case O’Driscoll was lucky - he landed shoulder first and was only out of the game, the series and the tour. Marginally aggravated in this case in that O’Driscoll had got rid of the ball so long ago they had to consult a historian, but even if he’d still had the ball it would have been dangerous and illegal.
I’ve no idea if even American football armour is worth anything in a case like that, but don’t forget that rugby players, minus a little soft padding here and there, don’t wear any.
To a degree. Sprained necks and other such injuries aren’t uncommon in the event a player is upended and comes to the turf on his head/neck. However, the actual case likely would never occur in American football, as the vast majority of tackles don’t involve lifting up the ballcarrier. Not that surprising, if you’ve ever seen one of those behemoths up close…
My first impression on the subject line of the thread was “spearing”, or a spear tackle, in American football - it’s when a tackler leads with his helmet rather than his shoulder, increasing the risk of injury both to the ballcarrier and the tackler. Such a tackle will draw a fifteen-yard penalty for the personal foul.
Well, this was a two-on-one, and BO’D is one of the smaller players in the side (players in the 260lb bracket aren’t unheard of). So I guess two American footballers could lift one.
“Spearing” US style isn’t as big a problem in our game; most players don’t even wear a scrum cap (thin soft padding) and helmets are illegal. Tackling head-first is at your own risk and a poor idea.
Punishments in Rugby for an offence of this nature vary from:
A penalty kick, possibly at goal if the range is short enough (anywhere in the opponent’s half, it’s worth a stab in reasonable conditions);
A ten-minute “sin-binning”, during which time your side has to try and manage a player short; the offending side can bring on a temporary replacement to adjust the balance of the side (but has to switch him for another non-binned player);
A sending-off for the remainder of the match;
A subsequent banning from play for a period of weeks or even months.
The severity of the punishment depends on the degree of iniquity; in this case Umaga and Mealamu got off scot free.
While there is no official action that can be taken, it is of course open to the New Zealand Rugby Union to show that they are opposed to such violent and dangerous play and take their own action. Stripping Umaga of the captaincy, and excluding the players from the upcoming tour, for example, would have that effect. I doubt that we will see any action of any kind though, they have never shown any signs of that kind of class. The typical NZ attitude seems to be that rules are for other people.
…oh give me a break. Can we have a cite that the typical New Zealand attitude is that “rules are for other people?” Or how about a cite that the NZRFU are not opposed to violent and dangerous play? In this incident, it was quite clear that New Zealand did follow the rules that were agreed to by both the NZRFU and Lions Management. Now you expect the NZRFU to strip Umaga of the Captaincy based on months-old grainy video footage?
To some of the others in the thread, how about some evidence that http://www.olympic.org.nz/Article.aspx?Mode=1&ID=415]Tana Umaga or other New Zealand players target other players on purpose to “take them out?” How about a wider pattern that this is a “typical” New Zealand tactic? We now have O’Driscoll making allegations about the medical treatment he received over here, complaining about a nurse who wanted his jersey and the absence of morphine at the medical station. Now, the morphine turned up in minutes, and the “nurse” apparently, if she does exist, belonged to the Lions Medical Team, so if anyone was “picking the bones of the Lions corpse”, it was one of his own…
Seriously, how long will this incident drag out? Bryan Kelleher was “taken out” of the game and series with a dangerous tackle in the opening minutes of the Tr-nations against the South Africans, the judicary declared there was nothing wrong with it, our nation said “bugger” and moved on. Move on people.
You have the advantage over me with regard to the video. I haven’t seen it yet, only stills from a newspaper. But I think the sweep it under the carpet mentality is a little disturbing, especially in a country (my mother’s a New Zealander by the way, so I have a foot in each camp) which has had to endure the pain of facing up to matters pertaining to justice and truth long after the event.
Incidentally, there was an editorial in the New Zealand Herald the day after the incident, which I can’t download, as it is a pay site. However, I’d be interested to know the gist of what it has to say, beyond that I can glean from the snip they give:
…So when did the “let it go” become a “sweep it under the carpet” mentality? It was the hot topic on the sports talkback over here for at least a month. Opinion was divided nearly 50/50 over whether or not it was a fair or a dirty tackle. But ultimately, so what? We’ve had a poster calling for Umaga to be dropped as Captain, and for Mealamu to be dropped from the team for New Zealand to be “prove” they are against violence and dangerous play-all over an incident that happened months ago that has been decided according to the agreed rules. I bet you if the NZRFU did drop Umaga, it still wouldn’t be enough-how about a public flogging? We could draw and quarter him if you like?
( BTW, there is a google-cache available of the editorial in question. )
Regardless of how sensitive New Zealanders might be about whether this is a witch-hunt or not - the bottom line is that Rugby League has got the law right, and has done for at least a decade now. Namely, once the player is above horizontal the tackling player(s) MUST let go or forfeit an immediate penalty. The risk to the spinal cord is simply WAAAAAAAAAAY too great for such a law not to be in place.
“Sunday, June 26, Wellington
I thought it very important to attend [the Lions’ press session], to back up the anonymous words I put out in a statement last night to show clearly that it was me speaking and that I was happy to take questions on the issue. I wanted things to be transparent and in the open. I am determined to oppose the idea that this is a normal run-of-play rough and tumble incident. It isn’t and needs to be treated differently.”
If you want to read more, it’s here (registration (free) needed)
When I saw the tackle at the time on the television (there weren’t many replays at the time, as I recall, so I was going on the incident as it happened in real time), as someone who’s played the game, I was sure it was the execution of a deliberate plan worked out before the game to neutralise the player identified as the Lions’s danger man.
Really? When I was down there (1999, studied abroad in Perth for a semester, caught a game in Wellington), my unschooled eyes told me that League seemed tamer than Union. However, I might be confused: I see League as more defined and organized than Union (that is, it’s a lot easier to tell when one down ends and another begins). Perhaps I’m confusing that better organization doesn’t equal softer hitting.
