There wasn’t much for Tigers fans to shout about at the Parc y Scarlets on Saturday night, but Owen Williams’ massive tackle on Michael Tagicakibau was one they would have savoured. That said, it was perilously close to an illegal tackle, and as the commentator points out you have to be really careful when lifting a player like that. What do you make of the tackle?
Video credit: gorpitsen junior
As you know by now, we are hilarious, and you should be following us on Facebook and Twitter. 
I don’t see a massive difference between that and the SW WC red card tackle. Both lifted the player to horizontal and then proceeded to drop the player. One results in a red card, the other isn’t penalised.
Please, look at Sam Warburton’s tackle again. To compare the two directly like that is ridiculous. Warburton lifts not just the legs through horizontal, but the body, dropping the player – from a height – on his head. Williams lifts the player here and one of his legs goes through the horizontal, the first contact with the ground is the buttocks. The body is not turned through the horizontal and only one leg is lifted like that. It’s better to draw comparison with Tagicakibau’s tackle on Anthony Allen earlier in the match.
I’m in two minds with this. While it is by the letter of the law at least close to an illegal challenge because he drops him the last 3 inches above the ground, it’s as safe as a tackle can get. What I don’t want to see is players dumped on heads or dropped from 6 feet in the air. Williams makes sure that he’s down on his backside and that’s the priority in safe tackles.
For comparison to Sam Warburton’s tackle, you’ve obviously forgotten what happened
Oh you b*tard wookie! A warning please before splattering one of the worst moments of my life on here again…
meh, I’m still not convinced. I don’t think Clerc landed on his head. For me he landed on his upper back, made to look worse by having his legs miles in the air. The point I was trying to make was the disparity in reffing, not to excuse Warbs. When seeing both in live play I thought Warbs was a yellow, and Williams just a pen. (which in my mind is closer than a red and no pen). I do agree the Warbs tackle was worse, but not to the degree shown by the two reffing decisions.
Any tackle where the player is dropped cannot deemed to be safe, as the player at that point is out of the tacklers control.
We see plenty of examples where players are lifted to horizontal, or through horizontal who are brought down by the tackler to the ground, with the tackler still ‘attached’. Those for me are the safest type of ‘big hits’.
Again for me, the Williams tackle was worthy of a pen nothing more.
Sorry Anarky, but I think you’re hoisted by your own here – “made to look worse by having his legs miles in the air” – yes, and the reason his legs were up there was because of how he was carried. This SW WC tackle debate is dead. It was a red card. There have been similar tackles since and not all were red carded but that doesn’t change what I, SW and Wales have mostly painfully accepted – it was a just decision as it’s the tacklers responsibility to hit in the correct way, not the tacklee’s (?) to fall in the right way.
I’m unperturbed :) for me, SW was a yellow, Williams was a penalty. However I do concede it was the wrong example to highlight.
But you have pointed out the inconsistency in applying the ruling which is what I’m trying to say. Williams did not deliver Tagicakibau to the ground in a safe manner – it should have been a penalty based on the current rules of the game. People are basing most of the ‘good tackle’ on the fact he landed on his back, which shouldn’t be the deciding factor.
It should be “did Williams just deliver him to the ground in a safe and controlled manner?” I don’t think the answer was yes. But like I said I wasn’t calling for a red card, or even a yellow, but did think it was a penalty.
I agree Anarky that consistency is all over the place. in the Mun v Sar game I saw Goode clearly, and with intent (as in he was looking at the man, not the ball) take out a jumper in the air. Replays on tele and in the ground showed it clearly. Zero sanction, just a stiff word. That’s usually a red card.
so out of all the great moments of the game you chose to glorify a tackle that could have been career or even life ending. Time to be responsible
I don’t think that was ‘career or even life ending’. it was just a damn good hit. He put him on his bum and back- his head didn’t go below his middle- his legs just got flicked up. I think it was a very sensible decision by the referee and he used his common sense to judge it was not dangerous, he was brought down safely. The point you can quibble on is his left arm lifting the right leg up. But at most it could be given a penalty. Not a card.
Safety is always important but this is a contact game.
Fabulous tackle, perfectly legal and well executed. Completely within the rules and never a threat to career or life; that is hysterical nonsense. Of course you seek to eliminate dangerous tackles but if you can’t tell the difference go and watch something else!
nothing wrong with that tackle, he hits him hard and puts him on his back, this is rugby, tackling is part of the game. a good hard fair hit, nothing else
Williams’ tackle was a great one
You are missing the point. The issue is not the tackle per say but that out of all the highlights of the game the commentators chose to highlight a tackle as opposed to the scoring of a try. The focus on negatives plays to those that consider big hits a highlight of the game.
Kerry, you see highlighting a tackle as somehow negative? For many of us the art of defence in rugby can be more exhilarating than seeing some tries flopped over. In this particular game the 2 Scarlets tries were not all that much – capitalising on two forced errors.
“The focus on negatives plays to those that consider big hits a highlight of the game” – now you’ve totally lost me, you a) see big hits as a negative and b) seem to think we shoudn’t fete them as an exciting part of the game? Have you heard of football perhaps? It has scores and no hits, might be more your thing?
your response proves my point that your whole enjoyment from a game of Rugby stems from tackles made and the more bone crushing the better. As a player and coach of many years, solid defense, including solid and well executed tackles are certainly part of the game but in recent years, like Rugby League, the more spectacular the “hit” the more media attention it gets to the point where you have websites purely focused on “The best Hits”. tackles are but a small part of the game but unfortunately many do not understand what the rest of the game is about.
Kerry, my response proves nothing of he sort. The only thing it proves is that you’ll ignore most of what someone says so that you can further your obviously personal crusade against what you see as the brutalisation of the game and also fuel your pompous sense of self importance by dismissing others as simply “not understanding what the rest of the game is about.” You could not be more wrong.
Your attempt to justify your position and denigrate my input was expected. Perhaps if you had a brother in a wheelchair as a result of a tackle you might also want to pursue the issue of tackling and its consequences.
You demanded the “denigration” by dishing it out. I am not attempting to justify my position, I am disagreeing with your statement that enjoying the big tackles is irresponsible. If you want people to take your point seriously you might avoid combining it with low level abuse about people’s inability to “understand” the rest of the game. Your smug “expectation” of my response does your cause no favours.
your pomposity exceeds your ignorance.
Nice Ding Dong lads! – enjoyed reading it! 10/10
Ding Dong Denny
Leicester tackle fine, Sam Warburton tackle fine. Le Clerc and Le Bleu whining surrender monkeys…again!