Originally Posted by
GIGS20
The Tupou incident is a clearer example of the point I want to make so I'm gonna use that.
He didn't have a choice, what else could he do and all those other statements are pointless obfuscation.
The "else" he could do is concede the ruck is lost and prepare to challenge the ball carrier. Players do it all the time, late to the ruck, plenty of people standing over the ball protecting it, join the line and prepare to make a dominant tackle. Yes counter ruck is always an option, but that doesn't mean it's an option that you're obligated to take. Simply don't take the option and prepare to deal with the outcome better.
Yes the Banks tackle is harder to argue that he could completely pull out of the play like that, but there are still a number of options that Banks either deliberately or subconsciously rejected. The ball was on his side, since Pulu had just dealt with Muirhead and hadn't had time to transfer it away, so a heavy tackle under the ribs would have a high chance of knocking the ball loose, if that tackle is strong enough, there might have been a chance of knocking Pulu into touch, or he could have played to get hands on the ball and attempt to hold it up.
His approach clearly indicates that none of these options were going to be taken, he was going for an upright ball n all tackle with enough force to unsettle Pulu. A perfectly reasonable decision until the risks associated with it catch up to you and you put two players on a stretcher.