I'm not talking about overt would play from the ball carrier.
If the tackle is low it would have to be very overt.
What I am talking about is deliberately trying to ensure that the tackler is at risk of a card when entering a tackle, by acting to maximise the tiniest bit of shoulder contact (for example) with the ball carriers head.
And if the tackler is entering the tackle area low, and the ball-carrier dips into the contact that's already identified as mitigation and takes the burden off the tackler. Would there be mistakes, probably, but on the off-chance that would happen, with the potential to suffer significant injury yourself, I can't see that happening.
This seems to me to be very similar to the trailing leg in football - a tactic that can be easily coached to maximise the likelihood of the opponent being penalised.
Except that the trailing leg gets you two minutes of a physio pretending to treat you whilst you roll around on the floor, and then a penalty, whereas deliberately trying to put your head in the vicinity of fourteen or fifteen stone channeled through the point of a shoulder gets you concussion and early onset dementia.
And, of course, the best way of doing this as a ball carrier it to lower upper body as you enter a tackle, which seems increasingly common.
People are entering the contact with lower hips because the counter to lower tackles is to drop the weight and lead with the upper arm trying to bump the tackle off - bulky second-rows and props have been doing it for years, although I'd agree it does seem to be spreading, particularly outside of the professional leagues. This is good, it's a sign that the tackles are going in lower.
Hard not to think that perhaps that lowering of upper body isn't just about the best way to ride a tackle, but the best way to ensure that the tackler makes contact with the head, which is more positioned lower and further forward.
No, you lower your body over the tackle and drive the arm down into the oncoming shoulder - you try to keep your head will out of the way.
And I agree that the safest tackle is when the ball carrier stands up and the tackler goes low, but surely the most risky is when both ball carrier and tackler go low as both are then leading with head and shoulders.
It's not more or less hazardous than when both go upright, but it is significantly less common - it isn't currently resulting in significant numbers of head injuries, and therefore doesn't need addressing in the same way. Law of unintended consequences, and all that, it might need to be looked at if it starts to become an issue, but the current situation needed to change.
Tom Curry gets a two game ban for something that was essentially accidental.
I would say 'careless', but I'd agree it wasn't malicious or deliberate.
On the other hand, Kriel in RSA v Scotland doesn't get a card of any sort, for a very similar event.
What's even more concerning is, at the moment, I've still not seen anything to suggest that he's even been cited after the match (which, for those not familiar with rugby, is a normal process for incidents which are missed by the officials during the game).
O.
