Dan Coles 5s error
- Thread starter Browner
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,111
- Post Likes
- 2,372
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,093
- Post Likes
- 1,809
then that's plain rubbish. That means if that white player was 6 foot 6 inches tall, laying parallel to the goal line with his foot marginally closer to blue dead ball line than the ball , the ruck is still in existence? That's plain and utter bollix.
hence my scornful laughter.
I can see - given that elites are sallowed to just flop everywhere and thus could end off off their feet over the ball, that this interpretation/clarification allows for the "ruck" to continue with bodies numerous all off their feet laying all over the ball. I discount that this also means nobody over the ball whatsoever. That's just bloody stupid. When its clearly out its clearly out, not in because the nearest prone player's toe is half a gnats scrotum closer to the dead ball line than the ball itself.
The WR 12 year old law maker needs a better idea of what is supposed to be going on.
Of course, if refs were instructed to PK/YC any player (continuously) falling all over the ball, then this stupid mess wouldn't exist to be misinterpreted. But that would be FAR too difficult - like straight scrum feeds are.
didds
hence my scornful laughter.
I can see - given that elites are sallowed to just flop everywhere and thus could end off off their feet over the ball, that this interpretation/clarification allows for the "ruck" to continue with bodies numerous all off their feet laying all over the ball. I discount that this also means nobody over the ball whatsoever. That's just bloody stupid. When its clearly out its clearly out, not in because the nearest prone player's toe is half a gnats scrotum closer to the dead ball line than the ball itself.
The WR 12 year old law maker needs a better idea of what is supposed to be going on.
Of course, if refs were instructed to PK/YC any player (continuously) falling all over the ball, then this stupid mess wouldn't exist to be misinterpreted. But that would be FAR too difficult - like straight scrum feeds are.
didds
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,093
- Post Likes
- 1,809
if you are happy admiring the fancy new clothes the emperor is wearing Phil, that is your prerogative.
If you honestly believe that ball is IN a ruck then that is also your prerogative.
But me - its crap. And its obviously crap. As is my prerogative to believe and call. That is no more IN a ruck than I am ever likely to play for England.
didds
If you honestly believe that ball is IN a ruck then that is also your prerogative.
But me - its crap. And its obviously crap. As is my prerogative to believe and call. That is no more IN a ruck than I am ever likely to play for England.
didds
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,093
- Post Likes
- 1,809
the only way that ball is still withion the periphery of the players formerly known as the ruck is the white knee adjacent to it, but not over it.
If you want to believe the WR 12 year old meant that this means a ruck exists and not the ball is out that is your prerogative.
I am merely saying that if the clarification means that - that is bollix and someone has clearly lost the plot, or has badly misinterpreted what may be a more sensible approach.
whatever.
didds
If you want to believe the WR 12 year old meant that this means a ruck exists and not the ball is out that is your prerogative.
I am merely saying that if the clarification means that - that is bollix and someone has clearly lost the plot, or has badly misinterpreted what may be a more sensible approach.
whatever.
didds
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,385
- Post Likes
- 1,486
Its consistent with how we look at the scrum ball. Adjacent to the No8 but with no-one over it, within the arc around the flanker and the 8? Still in. Same thing here
This is how I felt about the "HIT". (The Australian Interpretation of the Forward Pass notwithstanding).
However, during any match, law 6.A.4(a) applies. By which I mean to say that however wrong the referee is in point of law, if he calls "use it" when something that looks vaguely like a ruck exists, he has decided (again, rightly or wrongly) that a ruck exists.
I never complained about referees decisions after games when I used to play, let alone during them. I have no interest in doing so ever again, now that I know how impossible it is to referee "by decree".
However, once the call "use it" comes from the referee, you have to be a bit thick not to know the difference between 5 seconds and 0.5.
Finally had a look at the video and it is clearly a PK against Coles. Ref has determined that blue have won the ruck and the ball is now at the back which is why he calls "Use it".
If RP had thought the ruck was over, at that stage, he simply would not have given the "use it" call. He would have said nothing at all or "Ball is out".
His communication after blowing his whistle is clear.
28 minute mark on game clock for those who could not view the clip in an earlier post.
If RP had thought the ruck was over, at that stage, he simply would not have given the "use it" call. He would have said nothing at all or "Ball is out".
His communication after blowing his whistle is clear.
28 minute mark on game clock for those who could not view the clip in an earlier post.
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,093
- Post Likes
- 1,809
The Fat - I am not saying that the interpretation RP used meant he was wrong - he was following the guidance, as you explain.
What i am saying is the guidance is total rubbish - because that ball is REALLY out. You know it, I know it, everybpdy canm see it. We just have this stupid clarification that is reqwuired because players no longer have to be onl their feet for a ruck to occur. At least at these levels. So as one law is ignored, another had to be clarified somewhat bizarrely to make the game make sense. then the calrification just gets over used or misinterpreted.
flopped bodies over ball - the clarification makes some sense to get on with the game.
no bodies over the ball, flopped or not = its just daft..
Anyway - back to RP being correct within the framework of the daft use of a clarification - why did RP not YC Cole?
C&O?
didds
didds
What i am saying is the guidance is total rubbish - because that ball is REALLY out. You know it, I know it, everybpdy canm see it. We just have this stupid clarification that is reqwuired because players no longer have to be onl their feet for a ruck to occur. At least at these levels. So as one law is ignored, another had to be clarified somewhat bizarrely to make the game make sense. then the calrification just gets over used or misinterpreted.
flopped bodies over ball - the clarification makes some sense to get on with the game.
no bodies over the ball, flopped or not = its just daft..
Anyway - back to RP being correct within the framework of the daft use of a clarification - why did RP not YC Cole?
C&O?
didds
didds
Pegleg
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,330
- Post Likes
- 536
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 3
You reckon he, effectively, changed his mind on the illegality of the action. Fair enough. I can't agree that makes any sense but there we go.
Personally I think he regretted his call to use it as, really, the ball was out.
but, shrug, if it was a mistake it was a small one, the ball was arguably in, arguably out, and in these marginal situations the Ref's job is to make a call, he made it, move on ... Don't spend time worrying about it, it's a small thing.
but then Cole goes for the ball! Curses. Now it's a big thing.
OK, having called 'use it' (ie that the ball was in) RP may sympathise with Cole, but it has to be a PK against Cole....
But a YC? when the original call was probably wrong ? Nah... just doesn't feel right .
I could see myself handling this in exactly that way, and afterwards reflecting : 'hmm, shoolda been a yellow. Yup, and that's why I'm 11+1 and not reffing the 6N'
but, shrug, if it was a mistake it was a small one, the ball was arguably in, arguably out, and in these marginal situations the Ref's job is to make a call, he made it, move on ... Don't spend time worrying about it, it's a small thing.
but then Cole goes for the ball! Curses. Now it's a big thing.
OK, having called 'use it' (ie that the ball was in) RP may sympathise with Cole, but it has to be a PK against Cole....
But a YC? when the original call was probably wrong ? Nah... just doesn't feel right .
I could see myself handling this in exactly that way, and afterwards reflecting : 'hmm, shoolda been a yellow. Yup, and that's why I'm 11+1 and not reffing the 6N'
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,093
- Post Likes
- 1,809
FWIW that would be my guess too. Which would then suggest that the clarification interpretation used by RP as explained by others was - in RPs mind - maybe not correct vafter all.
So its -
* RP uses clarification correctly, but then cops out/errors in not YCing Cole
OR
* RP uses clarification, then thinks it is WRONG, so doesn't YC Cole. But now doesn't change the PK call based on the incorrect use of the clarification. Scotland score 3 points for something RP now thinks wasn't actually actually true.
Either way, RP seems to have stuffed it.
didds
I wonder if Coles had a good view of the ball when RP said 'use it' perhaps he didn't, perhaps he hears RP saying use it, knows that the ball is coming out soon, sees ball and thinks WTF, it's popped out! and goes for it.
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
Its not the first time we've not seen a YC issued in similar circumstances, in this clip the ball is even more obviously within the ruck, yet this players cynical play of interupting fast ball isn't punished either .... See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d7y8KHNjpSc