bazzaj wrote:Once a Knight wrote:Is the nub of it not that:-
(1) It was, within the laws, a legitimate tackle.
But that
(2) It was a cheap shot blind side opportunity to put hurt on the 10.
(3) It was, as a tackle, never going to be in time to affect the pass.
(4) Lawes is a dirt bird.
I'm surprised so much discussion has gone on about it. Lawes saw an opportunity and took it. What irks is the ready willingness to hurt someone, potentially seriously. I always regarded blindsiding someone as pretty low.
1-Correct
2-As long as rugby has been played, players will want to make those sorts of hits on the 10 and its up to sides to protect their play maker. Since day one players are taught to hit the man on a follow through tackle to leave an impression. Talk to Wilkinson or ROG about Serge Betson a master of the art; ref 2002 6 nations and 2003 WC quarter final.
3-
Lawes when he launched himself did not know for a fact whether the 10 was going to pass or not. Its due to his physique and athleticism that his tackle range is longer than most which means he can launch himself a lot early than the majority of players. Therefore whether the 10 has the ball or not at the time of impact is irrelevant.
4- Further Irrelevance.
As I say haven`t seen to many people involved with the game say there was a problem with the hit.
I haven`t seen it all though, has even the French made a complaint as I haven't heard?
Utterly wrong, you clearly haven't watched it subsequently, the only thing Lawes "launched" was Plisson.
The "launched" word & your description of his tackle range through "launching" is utter bullshit, at no stage did Lawes "launch"/dive/leave the ground.
Check it out so you can stop making a fool of yourself Jizzer.You are simply mistaken.
My own point is not that Lawes was significantly late, he was fractionally late only, my point is he knew exactly what he was doing, he knew the ball was gone & to cause significant damage to Plisson on the outer margins of the Laws is what followed. The laws in the shape of Nigel & the TMO gave him a bye ball, their decision, move on and live with it.
My point is that Lawes is a lowlife scumsucking motherfukka who simply set out to damage a player, not unlike Callum Clark in many ways, the main difference being that Lawes unlike Clark was so marginally outside the bounds of acceptability that he gets away with it. A fraction later and he would be getting some rest time through suspension.
More than that, I have no interest in the fact that he was borderline legal, he got away with an assault by the skin of his teeth, it was still an assault and it was not within the spirit of the game.