Comments on: Video (with comparisons): Was Farrell’s Tackle Legal?

By: Len

Len — Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:07:17 +0000

OK not sure how many on here are are armchairers and how many are players this is how it went no opinion just fact the angle that farrell went into the tackle is the precribed way that any great tackler trains to hit the idea is you hit with the the leading shoulder whilst driving forward and upward under the ball carrying arm extentending your arms to wrap around the body part of the body of the man you have target this could be the thighs upwards and below the shoulders the point of this tackle is to knock the play backwards by lifting some of his weight making his traction with ground less. All well and good and players like farrell under superb tutelage probably from dad is a great exponent . here the problem sometimes the guy you hit is either a sgood as you or perhaps bigger , heavier or fastier or combination of these which is what happened here so on collision farrel could not knock him back and only manage to stop him and bounce of himself. the arms went out to complete the tackle but the speed of the collision nd the reultant velocity
rebound meant that they just grasped at thin air so perfectly legal hard tackle by to very hard and aggressive combatants not prepared to give an inch where possible end of story if you difagree with this you are dont know what your talking about otherwise we would have frankentein monster and mummys walking round the fields with their arms out trying to grab people. Ive put this here today because the same things happened against australia where the guy was even bigger and there was even less time but he layed his body on the line look at the video from directly behind he led with the shoulder across the chest as the aussie dipped his shoulder to meet the contact his right arm extendedto secure his man to the collision weas so fast and hard they never came to gether , had the aussie hit harder and knocked farrel back you would have seen farrell complete the tackle as the came together but try scored, by hitting hard intiially and the big guy expecting an easy walk over he was able to create the momentum in the collision that sent him backwards away from the tackle

By: Don P

Don P — Sun, 11 Nov 2018 03:50:03 +0000

What’s happened to you AlexD? I thought you were back? Got the sack again? Anyway, trust you enjoyed the match? Pity that Lawes was offside though. Still, what’s done is done. On to the next one. Happy days.

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 23:20:04 +0000

Ouch Burt. A bit bitchy. Unclear about yr ‘scrum Vs..’ comment though? Anyway, would you specifically state what is not balanced converning my statements on Farrell’s illegal tackle? Especially so as yr ‘chip’ comment was purely subjective. Pots & kettles? Shall I look fwd to yr response?

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:51:46 +0000

AD, Simplistic.

By: Burt

Burt — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 10:19:40 +0000

Scrum Vs verdict, 2-1 on the side of a correct decision. So you can probably find as many opinions for as against. As I’ve alluded to before, in light of several similar challenges during the match the descion was consistent. I do think you need to find some balance, maybe putting a chip on the other shoulder may help somewhat….

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 19:38:43 +0000

AL, agree 100 %. There you have it Pab. On this occasion you’ve blinded yrself with fake science & reframed actuality. More dastardly than Terry-Thomas!

By: Michael Dennis

Michael Dennis — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 13:06:26 +0000

I wanted to believe it was legal; because of the 14 kilo weight discrepancy between Farrell and the bloke he tackled. In the dying embers of the match, it was probably the only way he could have stopped him. Farrel to be truthful got away with that one and England won a match maybe they should have lost. Still, at least it evens the matches played against SA this current year at 2 all.WEll done the men in white

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 12:14:29 +0000

Nsly, ironic & I regret that you find my tone condescending, as I, rightly or wrongly, perceived yr last sentence similarly. Whatever. You don’t have agree with anything I’ve stated, even concerning Barnes. However, he was just 1 of a number of journo ‘experts’ who agreed that it was a penalty. Flatman. Slot, Jones being others. Perhaps they’re all wrong, but I venture that they have no reason to condemn Farrell. They have no particular record of having done so in the past to the best of my knowledge. Neither do I, especially being non English, although not rating Farrell as much as some (all?). However, I call a spade Spade & frankly Farrell’s action was thuggish & illegal for reasons already stated. Repugnantly, he got away with it. You OTOH, can only, by ‘inteterpreting’ this ‘foul’ (for that’s the heading under which Farrell’s action is found under WR laws) be seeking to justify this incident. Understandable, only up to a point. And as I’ve already asked elsewhere, if an AB perpetrates this sort of ‘tackle’ nxt Sat, will yr view still be the same? Doubt it. Sometimes we see what we want to see. Happy days.

By: Nsly

Nsly — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 09:46:42 +0000

Don P, I’ve read all your comments, and while I disagree with the majority of what you say (in particular your unbelievably condescending tone), I can’t be bothered to pick a fight with you on any of your points (life is too short) aside from the one about Barnes.

What I said is a point of fact. Barnes made a statement which directly contradicts the laws of rugby. All I did was point that out as it severely undermines Barnes’ point of view and his rugby intellect. No other journalist or ex player has made such a mistake this week.

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 05:04:44 +0000

Can’t argue with that AL & 2 ‘thumbs ups’ to boot!

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 05:01:21 +0000

You got there in the end Dazza.

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 04:58:56 +0000

Burt, to state that the ref was incompetent is grossly unfair.. on incompetence.