How is this not a YC or RC?

[Guyseep]

Apparently from an Oxford 3rds game. The ref doesn't even flinch

https://imgur.com/a/34V58

 

[Ian_Cook]

Wearing my referee's hat:
Pk for dangerous tackle/cleanout

Wearing my player's hat:
Opponent got what he deserved,: He had no right to be there (wrong side of the ruck & not bound, offside, playing the SH... take your pick)

 

[damo]

He came charging in from a distance which is dangerous in and of itself, but he wrapped his arms and performed a reasonable clear-out of a guy who was illegally a part of a breakdown making a nuisance of himself. It wasn't a shoulder charge, nor was it high.

I can easily see why the ref ignored it.

 

[didds]

*shrug*.

I can't see anything dangerous. arm wrap, on player in the immediate vicinity of the ball, no head clash.

Play on.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

He bound, legally. Which offence would you card for?

It looks worse than normal because blue stands up and starts appealing to the ref for something rather than staying bound in.

 

[TheBFG]

potential flash point, but not sure that there was anything illegal there :chin:

 

[Dickie E]

potential flash point, but not sure that there was anything illegal there :chin:

[LAWS]10.4 (h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.[/LAWS]

 

[didds]

[LAWS]10.4 (h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.[/LAWS]

so not applying to the bloke in that video then.

View attachment 3647

the image is somewhat grainy die to the nature of the provided video but the circled arm is that clearer's arm. Clearly use of the arm around the opponent.

So nothing illegal there at all then.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

He binds on. Nothing to see play on.

 

[ChuckieB]

Looks like a charge to me. Not being bound is just a supplemental nail in the coffin for any would be offender.

It does not imply the two conditions have to be considered hand in hand. The ref might have been unsighted as to the distance and speed of the charge.

 

[Decorily]

so not applying to the bloke in that video then.

View attachment 3647

the image is somewhat grainy die to the nature of the provided video but the circled arm is that clearer's arm. Clearly use of the arm around the opponent.

So nothing illegal there at all then.

didds

I'm not seeing the video so can't comment on it..... but how does a still image(grainy or not) show that nothing illegal happened with regard to the bind and clear out?
The bind could easily be after a shoulder contact etc.

 

[VM75]

He came charging in from a distance which is dangerous in and of itself, but he wrapped his arms and performed a reasonable clear-out of a guy who was illegally a part of a breakdown making a nuisance of himself. It wasn't a shoulder charge, nor was it high.

I can easily see why the ref ignored it.

I can also appreciate why the referee might ignored it, but you can't have it both ways ..... either he was

a] a legitimate ruck participant & therefore entitled to be there [but not play the 9 of course ]
or
b] he wasn't a bonafide ruck participant - which then means he was tackled/played illegally by the charging player.

as an aside, i think it likely his nuisance efforts had ceased/reduced because the referee probably had used a preventative instruction, which if so means I'd give a PK against the charging person because .... referees manage such interferences, & players aren't licensed to charge in such a way.

[ps, as a player i might have done the same & took one for my team in sending him a future deterrent message! ]

 

[damo]

I can also appreciate why the referee might ignored it, but you can't have it both ways ..... either he was

a] a legitimate ruck participant & therefore entitled to be there [but not play the 9 of course ]
or
b] he wasn't a bonafide ruck participant - which then means he was tackled/played illegally by the charging player.

as an aside, i think it likely his nuisance efforts had ceased/reduced because the referee probably had used a preventative instruction, which if so means I'd give a PK against the charging person because .... referees manage such interferences, & players aren't licensed to charge in such a way.

[ps, as a player i might have done the same & took one for my team in sending him a future deterrent message! ]

In my view he was participating in the ruck and liable to be played.

The fact he was illegally participating does not mean that other players can't play him.

The only question is whether this clear out was dangerous and therefore illegal.

 

[didds]

I'm not seeing the video so can't comment on it..... but how does a still image(grainy or not) show that nothing illegal happened with regard to the bind and clear out?
The bind could easily be after a shoulder contact etc.

Because it wasn't. Because I can see the video.

didds

 

[didds]

Looks like a charge to me. Not being bound is just a supplemental nail in the coffin for any would be offender.

Except he was bound.

So

1) how fast can a player enter a ruck. MPH or KPH, not bothered which.

2) how far away can a player begin his run at a ruck. Metres or feet, I don't kind.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

Except he was bound.

So

1) how fast can a player enter a ruck. MPH or KPH, not bothered which.

2) how far away can a player begin his run at a ruck. Metres or feet, I don't kind.

didds

I'm with Chuckie. [LAWS]Charging includes [/LAWS] doesn't mean exclusivity.

That was dangerous entry for my money. As the ref kept his whistle in his pocket, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an "even up" later in the game. Or maybe this was an "even up" for something that the ref missed/ignored ealier in the game.

I'm not going to define velocity or distance. If, in my opinion, a player does something dangerous, then he can pay the price.

 

[Pegleg]

If, in my opinion, a player does something dangerous, then he can pay the price.

Of course he may pay the price if he does something the referee considers dangerous. BUT, that is a judgement call.

Clearly this was not a "cut and dried" dangerous event in the opinion of this forum. Some here feel it was dangerous, some do not. A citing if possiblr at that level could establish what the "powers that be" consider it to have been. But it is not dangerous because you or I might say we think it is (or indeed the reverse!).

 

[damo]

I think it is a very marginal one. He runs in at pace from a far distance in a circumstance in which he could have misjudged his clear out easily.

His action was not actually dangerous, but it was done in such a way that it could easily have been potentially dangerous if something changed at the last second.

For me it's probably a PK, but I'm never giving a YC for it let alone an RC. That would be silly IMO.

 

[VM75]

In my view he was participating in the ruck and liable to be played.

The fact he was illegally participating does not mean that other players can't play him.

how was his participation illegal?

 

[VM75]

I think it is a very marginal one. He runs in at pace from a far distance in a circumstance in which he could have misjudged his clear out easily.

His action was not actually dangerous, but it was done in such a way that it could easily have been potentially dangerous if something changed at the last second.

For me it's probably a PK, but I'm never giving a YC for it let alone an RC. That would be silly IMO.

I don't PK for something being 'potentially' dangerous, it's either dangerous - or it isn't. The execution/outcome decides.