France v Scotland

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Has Barnesy had to pop into Sports Direct for some AR flags?

:biggrin:

 

[Balones]

It would appear that based on what has been happening throughout the 6 Nations, release of bind and changing position by the No8 at scrums is now allowed.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

It would appear that based on what has been happening throughout the 6 Nations, release of bind and changing position by the No8 at scrums is now allowed.

Mais oui. Aldritt did it twice in one scrum. :biggrin:

 

[ACUSmember]

Surely it’s irrelevant if France scored the try if Barnes felt a penalty try could be awarded. No advantage to get 5 points against 7 points and a yellow card?

 

[Aphrodite007]

A point of law that I've never understood.

French player follows his own kick and is tackled illegally just before the try-line, although he still manages to ground the ball.

How is it fair that the decision is a try with conversation with the corner, rather than a penalty try and a YC?

Not only is the player being penalised for trying to complete the move, but France are now in a worse situation (harder conversation and playing against 15) than they would have been otherwise. Feel like it rewards the team that commits cynical foul play.

 

[Balones]

You can award a PT if you think the try could have been scored in a more advantageous place. This was not the case here.

 

[Aphrodite007]

But the cynical foul play was still committed - why does it not get sanctioned just because France happened to score anyway? Wouldn't the French player have been better off not grounding it and claiming the penalty try and YC?

I'm not saying WB got it wrong, more that the law needs rethinking.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Well you wanted a controversial decision.

 

[ACUSmember]

You can award a PT if you think the try could have been scored in a more advantageous place. This was not the case here.

On the "beam up the player committing foul play" principle there's surely an argument French player could have been under the posts had he not been tackled early?

 

[Balones]

But the cynical foul play was still committed - why does it not get sanctioned just because France happened to score anyway? Wouldn't the French player have been better off not grounding it and claiming the penalty try and YC?

I'm not saying WB got it wrong, more that the law needs rethinking.

I’m not saying you are incorrect but it it usual to award a YC for dangerous/dirty play rather than an ordinary penalty, but you can if you think it is appropriate. But here there was some doubt because the tackle came in as the French player was trying to play the ball so it could be deemed mistiming.

Anyway, I don’t care because Wales have won the championship!

 

[timmad]

What have we learned from the 6 Nations? That, for true lovers, a tournament can be exciting without crowds. The players' commitment is still the same. Rugby Union, historically, has been a game for players not spectators: let's move back in that direction and make the laws reflect it. Put-ins at the scrum, off feet at every occasion, etc. #oldfogey

 

[Pinky]

That and the fend/hand off above chest/shoulder is now illegal.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

That and the fend/hand off above chest/shoulder is now illegal.

I don't think it is that black and white Pinky.
If you hand off a would be tackler going low and your open hand is on their head, I think that would be ok.

 

[Dickie E]

I don't think it is that black and white Pinky.
If you hand off a would be tackler going low and your open hand is on their head, I think that would be ok.

but an elbow away from your body with contact to the throat with force and no mitigation is certainly illegal

 

[Flish]

That and the fend/hand off above chest/shoulder is now illegal.

Not see any hand off’s penalised, just forearm’s to the throat

 

[KoolFork]

You wouldn't penalise a ball carrier pushing a would-be tackler to the ground as they came in to tackle. Or would you?

 

[KoolFork]

But the cynical foul play was still committed - why does it not get sanctioned just because France happened to score anyway? Wouldn't the French player have been better off not grounding it and claiming the penalty try and YC?

I'm not saying WB got it wrong, more that the law needs rethinking.

He probably would, but takes the risk that the threshold for a penalty try is often way beyond probable. Same with Rees-Zammit last week.

I'm surprised WB didn't award a penalty KO to France and a YC.

 

[KoolFork]

Anyone think that WB allowed too many infringements before warning Scotland? I may be wrong, but it seemed like Scotland got away with more than France in similar circs.

I thought he dealt well with Hoggy's request to have Dupont YC'd, telling him it wasn't cynical. So, in WB's mind next offence means next similar offence, which I prefer to next offence. (I've often thought this is odd, because the law talks about the SAME offence in the repeated context.)

Also, WB didn't penalise France just before the final try and there were numerous offsides, especially with players with their hands on the ground.

 

[Camquin]

I am not sure that he could award either a PT - as the ball was loose the Welsh player was going to have to score where he did.
Similarly, I think that he can only award a penalty restart if the foul play was after the try.
I think he could have awarded a yellow card, but it would be unusual compared to modern refereeing practice, even if they were on a warning. I would only expect it for dangerous play.

It is a strange corner case. As the try was scored the foul play was not in fact material. But if we penalised all instances of non-material foul play we would never stop blowing the whistle.

 

[KoolFork]

II think he could have awarded a yellow card, but it would be unusual compared to modern refereeing practice, even if they were on a warning. I would only expect it for dangerous play.

Is that right or the norm?