Courtney Lawes made fly-halves everywhere wince into their white wine spritzers at the weekend, with this brutal hit on France’s Jules Plisson:
To be perfectly honest, it was a weekend full of wonderful moments, and this headmaster-like dressing down from Nigel Owens from the same game was a very close second:
Video credit: RBS 6 Nations
34 replies on “Moment of the weekend: Courtney Lawes’ monster hit on Jules Plisson”
I’ve seen a number of people say the match hinged on that hit. I don’t know I subscribe to that, but boy it was impressive. The only way it could’ve been better is if the ball hadn’t gone! Brilliant technique. He hit the ribcage and wrapped up.
It wasn’t Lawes’ best tackle of the match, though, in my book. That was on Spedding under his posts when Spedding was looking for a counter and had an angle and men outside. For all the world it felt like Spedding was going to sweep out and be able to set up a decent clearance from the 22, at the very least. Then Lawes came in from out of nowhere and scythed him down, settin gup some intense pressure.
England are short of forwards who stand out as exceptional (despite the strength in depth) and Lawes since he came back has made a big difference to the team.
“Sorry to keep you George” was probably my favourite line from Owens. He said it to George Ford as he was walking back from telling off the captains, delaying him taking the conversion.
I watched the replays like everyone else. Surely the ball gone when Lawes hit the Frenchman? So It was late. To those who disagree, I ask; ‘what would you have said if a French 2nd rower had laid Ford out’ in similar fashion? Yellow card? @ least.
i would have said he was fully committed before the ball had gone. After an initial cry of outrage when I saw the incident first time of course
Commitment didn’t save the Scotsman (Russell I think) from yellow when going for a 50/50 catch a couple back – & he tried to pull out! Commitment is no excuse. Either it was late or it wasn’t. If the ball had gone, it was late. Can’t fudge rules, even if you/I disagree with same. They’re to prevent transgression/injury.
Man in the air is subject to different rules.
IRB’s interpretation not mine
I know. I was drawing comparison with the seeming inconsistency of rules, their ‘interpretation’ & the (potential) seriousness of transgressions. Lawes tackle could have seriously injured the Fr’man, with his being 100st heavier, hitting the guy in the back & it was pretty high up. Look @ the whiplash effect. More serious potentially than the Scots e.g. & who got yellow. Lawes got plaudits.
As alluded to prev, 1 of the ideas of rules is to prevent injury. I saw what I saw, so did you. The only ? is whether the ball had gone, or not, before the tackle. It had. That’s it.
That officials chose to ignore this fact ought to be of some concern, esp so with concussion injuries up 800% in the Premshp. Maybe better to wait until someone gets maimed maybe? Or worse? That’s the worst case scenario… which I’d rather see prevented.
There is a huge difference between taking a high ball and tackling players, you can’t seriously be comparing the two?
When the ball is in the air, a player has the duty to ensure he is aware of those jumping around him. When you consider this happens maybe 3-5 times in a match (that is that two players directly compete), then doing so is not unreasonable.
Asking players to do the same thing when tackling, which happens 400 times in a game; is madness.
Lawes commits before the ball is gone. Fair tackle, great tackle and I’d feel the same way if it was the other way round.
This tackle isn’t late at all. Late is deemed as, “has he launched himself into the tackle knowing the ball had already gone?” which in this case is a resounding, no. And that is how all rugby is refereed, if you don’t like it then don’t play it. If you go by your deeming of late then you could probably say that a high percentage of tackles made in rugby are illegal and should be punished. And if you think that that’s right and they should be then enjoy watching penalties awarded every five seconds.
Your argument literally makes no sense, if Plisson had kept hold of the ball, the outcome would be no different. Getting smashed by Lawes in a textbook and legal tackle.
The fact of the matter is that when Lawes launches himself to make the tackle anything could have happened, there was as much chance of Plisson running with the ball as there was him passing like he did.
Preventing injury is a huge thing I agree, but if he had been standing facing forwards the whiplash would have been exactly the same. ‘Pretty high up’, was it too high? No. 100st heavier? What has weight got to do with this argument at all. Every tackle has a chance of injury, its rugby after all. Do you try and hit someone as hard as you can when making a hit? Yes. That’s the whole point. Don’t even get me started on comparing this to tackling in the air, not similar at all in any way. I also think that Russell shouldn’t have been banned, just a yellow card.
And I’m not one of the Lawes types of players. Lightweight winger who’s seen his fair shares of injuries and taken some all mighty hits. Including being knocked out multiple times. I couldn’t have prevented them with anything your suggesting. The only way would be to stop playing. You’re the type of person who says we should all wear helmets thinking it would help, which is 100% not true. Rant over.
Read my subsequent comments to others below. It’s not a case of my ‘argument literally make(ing) no sense’, you must mean the law (also below).
As a fly who spent over a decade getting hit ‘late’ I don’t see any problem with that hit. Lawes was commit to the tackle when ball was passed nothing he can do about that.
Completing the tackle safely is often better than half pulling out of it and risking injury to both the fly-half and the tackler.
It wasn’t a cheap shot, he didn’t go in with no arms or an elbow with intent to injury Plisson. And Plisson like any good fly-half didn’t make an issue of it.
The same goes as per my response to Leon. Yr point about Plisson not making ‘an issue of it’, is irrelevant.
And neither of you directly answered my ? about if the boot had been on the other foot.
Yes i did see above
Nigel Owens was happy it was legal initially. Reviewed it by TMO and he was happy. Then furthermore he hasn’t been cited either. We can only accept that it was legal and if it was then it was legal which ever way round it had occurred.
I wonder if Plisson was happy? The Fr players certainly didn’t look too happy. I reiterate; it was late. The ball had gone, regardless of Owens’ emotional state of mind, happy or otherwise.
Again, would you have been ‘happy’ if a French 2nd rower had laid Ford out in similar fashion?
The officials got it wrong, that’s all. Surely you’re condoning late tackles are you?
The time between when the ball leaves his hands and when the hit occurs is a fraction of a second. Far too late to pull out of the tackle. Stop watching slow motion replays
If you didn’t allow for referee interpretation around whether the player was committed to the tackle or not then it would be far too easy to buy a penalty.
Wait till someone lines you up for a big hit, then quickly throw ball away.
Tackler already committed hits player, 3pts thank you sir
I’m not condoning late hits. I’m saying this was not a late hit
If in doubt go take a refereeing course
Have replied to yr later blog, but don’t you think it strange if ‘TMO’s ‘Stop(ed) watching slow motion replays’? How else can they (I, or anyone) decide?
As it happens, you’ve reminded me, not of ‘… tak(ing) a refereeing course’, but a coaching course – as a matter of interest.
Thnx.
The definition of a late tackle has been clarified. As Lawes was already in the act of tackling when the ball was offloaded, it is not classified as a late tackle. The ref and TMO both looked at it. They are correct. So no we are not condoning late tackles as that wasn’t one.
As a Leicester fan who has been on the other side – watching Lawes do exactly that to Toby Flood twice in the premiership final and force him from the field – I can say, yes its brutal, but he treads that tight-rope of timing and gets them right. Why I am glad he plays for England. But hate that he plays for Northampton.
Being a Northampton fan he is like a god to me. I was sitting in a pub in Leicestershire when that game was on and not only were all the other Leicester fans happy that the tackles were legal, one of the fans predicted that would be a tactic for Northampton to try and get a nervy young George Ford on the pitch.
Don P to your earlier point about player safety I do conceed that tackling a player in the back could be dangerous and the laws may need some review to protect players in that regard
You’re about the only 1 who does Leon. Can’t help but wonder though, If it’d been, say Liam Messam, hitting Ford under the same circs, @ HQ, (in fact I’d bet Blub’s house on it), that there’d have been an English outcry.
IMO, we see what we want to see. Human nature; the ‘duality of Man’ & all that. I looked @ it again & again. The ball HAD gone before impact. I couldn’t find anything in the rule I looked up in mitigation of a tackle being late. It’s either late or it’s not. Physics dictates that.
But hey, ho. Who wants their ‘heros’, esp ‘enforcers’, criticised?
Regds.
I looked up the rule, quoted below, Henry, but didn’t see anything on ‘ not classified as a late tackle’.
If you have an alt site, I’d be interested to take a gink.
To clarify my use of the word ‘happy’. I meant satisfied that it was within the laws.
Don, bless you, are you being a little provocative again?
I am sure that no England fan would be “happy” to see George Ford tackled in the same way. Silly.
However, unlike some others, most of us (who understand the game anyway) would accept that it is part of the game, and certainly would accept that t was good timing of both the pass, and the tackle.
Playing the game for many years, one “knows” what is late, and what is not. I was there, and there was no-one, even the French guys behind me, who thought it was late in real time.
You are correct that the French players didn’t look happy. In fact they acted in quite an unhappy fashion. But that isn’t relevant to the legallity of the tackle.
Why thank you Blub, as it is my sincerest hope that God does indeed bless me.
However, from yr tone, you’ve been taking lessons from Stephen Jones of the S Times – again. And my, my, speaking on be1/2 of the masses to boot. Tut, tut.
Respectfully, perhaps 1 or 2 others have also played the game don’tcha know?
What you claim to ‘know’, or some random ‘French guys’ thought, Is utterly irrelevant.
Just read my comments to McMurphy. Then suggest you go to Specsavers.
Happy hunting.
Sorry Don but you are incorrect, what I know and what these random French guys thought is entirely relevant.
Unlike your reference to lessons from Stephen Jones – which is not understood.
IYO & to you. No need to apologise.
Stephen Jones often uses the ‘bless’ word.
…not condoning late tackles…
For goodness sake. Plissons arms were still outstretched in the motion of passing the ball.
Because it was such a brutal hit it ‘looked’ bad, which was why they came back and reviewed it. It turned out to be just fine. And I watched Betsen do just that exact thing to Jonny Wilkinson all game long in about 2001, and I thought then, as now, it’s fine.
Yes, it could have hurt him, but it was a totally legal hit. His shoulder hit in the ribcage and he wrapped up.
Agree to disagree then, but look @ the moment of contact again. The ball was yards away, so by definition it had to be late. Being ‘committed’ doesn’t comer into it’. Law 10.4 – Dangerous Play and Misconduct – (e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, LATE or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick.
What a hit! J Plisson had the nose broken when the french team went to Italia the week before.
This is rugby !
http://www.comeonsport.com/RUGBY,68.html
You don’t have a son then, or a boyfriend/hubby /girlfriend who plays? If any of those had been hit like that, you’d have been happy I suppose. Check out the rule above Ghengis.
I’m with you Don. I am bemused and rather horrified with the level of outright glee that people are expressing about this tackle as if its something to admire. Legal or not, it is a pretty awful sight to see this brutality and yeah, call me a bit soft but having seen what concussion can do to the brain, I can barely look at it. Plisson lands on his head and Lawes is utterly indifferent to the Frenchman’s welfare. I suppose some people might be aroused and excited by the sight of a massive punch to the head in a boxing match, oh yes all perfectly legal but its hardly something to admire.
‘The duality of man’ as the guy said from Full Metal Jacket. I can actually admire boxing skills, but when thinking afterwards about a fight, the actual damage that can done is pretty awful. Same with rugger hits. All people here seem to think of is about justifying Lawes’ ‘tackle’; he does have a bit of a rep as well. However if the hit were from the other side, on Fored, as prev stated, their attitude would v likely change. Food for thought.