RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Its not a tackle, and NO has not yet said "ruck now", so Black 13 is entitled to consider it as still a Law 14 situation, so he can approach from any direction and make contact with White 9 if he so chooses. By the time he does call "ruck now" Black 13 has moved into a position directly behind the ball.
Not so. It's self-evident that until NO sees a ruck, he won't call "Ruck now". He starts that call while Black #13 is still alongside the pile, putting one hand on White #9, and facing across the pitch.
I argue that he is clearly behind the ball and behind the HMF, you argue that he isn't. That's fine, you're seeing it through your English Rose coloured spectacles; I'm seeing it while wearing my All Black eye-patch.
I'd noticed the appropriateness of your avatar in this respect. Please, pause the video when you hear the "R" of ruck now, and take note of Black #13's position.
However, even if it is marginal, I would not expect any player about to join a Law 14 situation (or a tackle for that matter) to have to take a step back and then forward again, nor would I expect any referee in such a dynamic part of the game to demand that.
If he has in fact joined from the side (and NO seems to believe he did - I'm not defending that decision, only pointing out what he seems to have decided), and his team gain an advantage, surely the decision must follow, whatever the dynamics of the situation? It's an offence, it's both clear and obvious and its material.
If Cipriani wasn't tackled, then what's Black #20 doing at 4:51? He's fallen onto Cipriani. If Cipriani's already on the ground, then #20 should be pinged under Law 14.2(a); if he's not, #20 thereafter holds and brings him to ground - ie tackles him. I think NO gave Black #20 the benefit of the doubt and ruled it a tackle rather than a deliberate falling onto a player on the ground.
What, you're hedging your bets now?..."if he didn't ping "A" for this, he must have pinged "B" for that"[/QUOTE]
No. I'm (i) trying to understand why NO ruled as he did, and (ii) asking you a question. If Cipriani is on the ground, one would have expected NO to penalise Black #20 for falling onto a player on the ground. Am I incorrect? Does Law 14.2(a) not prohibit falling onto a player on the ground?
If you can find me ANY footage that shows Cipriani on his feet, and Vito holding him and bringing him to ground, then I'll agree it was a tackle.
We're not arguing over whether Cipriani was tackled or not; we are arguing over whether NO ruled he had been tackled. Because of Law 14.2(a), the only way that NO could have seen Black #20's action in dropping onto Cipriani as legal would have been if he ruled it as a tackle.
If NO really did Ping Black 13, Why did he not call and signal advantage
Good question; but since I am not, and never have been, arguing that the decision was correct, fortunately I don't need to answer it. My guess though is that he didn't have enough sets of vocal chords and arms at the time. He clearly was playing advantage, though, even though he never signalled it, because he blew up only after NZ got the ball away from the ruck.
You see, you're trying to have it both ways, and I'm not going to let you do that. Even taking as read, that NO thought Cipriani was tackled, then there was no offside and no HMF to consider, so Black 13 joins from directly behind the ball (even YOU have to acknowledge that).
I clearly haven't got my point across. Black #13 does not clearly join from directly behind the ball (although Black #16 does). He arguably joins from alongside it, and then swings his body round so that one foot approximates to being behind the ball/HMF. When the ruck begins (immediately before "Ruck now" is called,) he hasn't started that swing; so at the point NO sees a ruck, #13 is alongside it, putting one hand/arm on White #9. If any contact between hand/arm and #9 is insufficient to constitute a bind, he's offside at that point, so he's required to disengage, get onside, and then rejoin from behind the HMF if he so wishes. Leaving hand on and shuffling his feet round as he did isn't sufficient. If it does constitute a bind, then NO has ruled that he's thereby joined the ruck from in front of the HMF.
[QUOTEIf it was a ruck, then why did he say "in the side, not through the gate" when he had already called "ruck now". Did he forget he called ruck?[/QUOTE]
Very good questions. I think he expressed himself badly, probably partly because Black #13 had been at the side of the pile through both phases (tackle then ruck).