Ireland Vs New Zealand

[didds]

oh another query... sometime in the 1st half Ire won a PK against a lazy runner after a breakdown in the AB22. Ire seemed to query why not FK and the ref said something along the lines of you could have run around him rather than pass into him, so its only a PK not a YC. Black had infringed several times in their own 22 by this time -

https://youtu.be/SQL9rjywJrg?t=1960

Surely the point is that the lazy runner shouldn't have been there ("nothing happens by accident at this level" etc) and so irrespective of what happened he reduced the options available?

didds

 

[crossref]

oh another query... sometime in the 1st half Ire won a PK against a lazy runner after a breakdown in the AB22. Ire seemed to query why not FK and the ref said something along the lines of you could have run around him rather than pass into him, so its only a PK not a YC. Black had infringed several times in their own 22 by this time -

https://youtu.be/SQL9rjywJrg?t=1960

Surely the point is that the lazy runner shouldn't have been there ("nothing happens by accident at this level" etc) and so irrespective of what happened he reduced the options available?

didds

I wondered about that as well, especially as the impression I got was that the ref had already issued a warning.

the view expressed to me was that green #9 deliberately threw ball at him, milking the ref for a YC, which was denied.
I can see that point of view.

Overall I thought NZ were lucky to escape a second YC at some point in the game - there were a number of possibilities where one might have been issued, but perhaps no single slam-dunk YC moment

 

[didds]

I wondered about that as well, especially as the impression I got was that the ref had already issued a warning.

the view expressed to me was that green #9 deliberately threw ball at him, milking the ref for a YC, which was denied.
I can see that point of view.

so basically if you can't pass to your #10 you just don't pass and risk that the potentially lesser option available doesn't end up in advantage over?

That may be an accepted ruling, and i can see its there to stop flash points from occurring, but - IMO - its pants. There is always another option even if it is only the #9 running into defenders, but it doesn't mean that option was the best one and it shows a lack of understanding of what green (here) may well wanted to have done.



Just because he did pass into #2 again shouldn't mean #2 wasn't a lazy runner worthy of a YC.

didds

 

[DocY]

the view expressed to me was that green #9 deliberately threw ball at him, milking the ref for a YC, which was denied.
I can see that point of view.

There was a bit of a fracas about this in the Pro12 a month or so ago - two situations like this on subsequent weekends (definitely the same team, maybe even the same player) where the SH threw the ball straight at a player running back on side. One week it was a YC, the second just a PK (and an explanation that the SH milked it).

The discussion in the society meeting was around C&O intent. If the offside player is running in a straight line towards a plausible position in the defensive line, it shouldn't be treated as intentional and is just a PK.

That said, this was covering a level where more happens through incompetence than intention.

 

[crossref]

=============

 

[didds]

The discussion in the society meeting was around C&O intent. If the offside player is running in a straight line towards a plausible position in the defensive line, it shouldn't be treated as intentional and is just a PK./QUOTE]

black #2 wasn;t running anywhere. He stood up, put his hands on his head and stood there - directly between 9 and 10 green.

didds

 

[Guyseep]

There were a few infringements prior to this penalty and a case can be made that these were repeat infringements warranting a YC, but I think the ref got it spot on here. He worded his explanation poorly though.

If you look at Dane Coles' actions - he is part of the tackle gets up and almost immediately green #9 throws the ball intentionally right into him. Coles can be seen backing away as well.

 

[crossref]

it seems to me green #9 is completely entitled to throw a pass almost immediately to his perfectly normally-positioned #10...

black shouldn't be there, and if he finds himself there he needs to stay flat on the floor.

 

[didds]

There were a few infringements prior to this penalty and a case can be made that these were repeat infringements warranting a YC, but I think the ref got it spot on here. He worded his explanation poorly though.

If you look at Dane Coles' actions - he is part of the tackle gets up and almost immediately green #9 throws the ball intentionally right into him. Coles can be seen backing away as well.

that's a fair comment. I agree, he does start to get out of the way. He'd have been better off staying on the deck - he may not have been so "lucky" another time!

didds

- - - Updated - - -

it seems to me green #9 is completely entitled to throw a pass almost immediately to his perfectly normally-positioned #10...

black shouldn't be there, and if he finds himself there he needs to stay flat on the floor.

... but I do fundamentally agree with CR ... black 2 needed to not influence the action even if accidentally.

didds

 

[Guyseep]

it seems to me green #9 is completely entitled to throw a pass almost immediately to his perfectly normally-positioned #10...

black shouldn't be there, and if he finds himself there he needs to stay flat on the floor.

I agree it's worthy of a penalty but I don't think it's cynical and should be a YC.

Look at the sequence of events. Black is part of the tackle, he gets up, sees he's in the way and starts to back away, green throws the ball right at him.

Is green entitled to throw the ball in that direction? Yes.
Was black intentionally and cynically getting in the way? No
Is it an infringement? yes and a penalty is sufficient.

 

[didds]

I do agree with guyseep there... but would temper it with on this scenario with a lot of red zone PKs already and potentially a warning from the ref to the skipper that its not a good place to find yourself in accidentally and that there are other options open to you as the offside player.

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

Paying the price for not watching it live

Did you hear the Cubs beat the Indians? Whoops ... sorry.

The trifecta ... Cubs, Ireland and Donald?

No mention of McMullin or Stein, anybody would think it was a two horse race.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I agree it's worthy of a penalty but I don't think it's cynical and should be a YC.

Look at the sequence of events. Black is part of the tackle, he gets up, sees he's in the way and starts to back away, green throws the ball right at him.

Is green entitled to throw the ball in that direction? Yes.
Was black intentionally and cynically getting in the way? No
Is it an infringement? yes and a penalty is sufficient.

There were no Black players on their feet in close physical contact with Green players,

therefore no ruck
therefore no offside line
therefore Black was entitled to be where he was
therefore no penalty.

I thought the Green 9 milked it anyway. Its time that kind of gamesmanship was smacked down with a big hammer!

 

[didds]

green 1 drives a black player back away from the tackle area. If that doesn't get counted as a ruck then there should be a lot of playing men without the ball being blown. ;-)

didds



:

 

[Guyseep]

There were no Black players on their feet in close physical contact with Green players,

therefore no ruck
therefore no offside line
therefore Black was entitled to be where he was
therefore no penalty.

I thought the Green 9 milked it anyway. Its time that kind of gamesmanship was smacked down with a big hammer!

As didds mentions green drives a black player away from the tackle area. There was definitely a ruck formed.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I disagree.

The Law says "A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground". I interpret this as meaning the ball is on the ground between them. As I see it, the two players in physical contact were well past the ball carrier before he was tackled.

If the ball carrier was not yet tackled at the time the Green player drove the Black player way, then the tackle hadn't happened. No tackle means no ruck can be formed (except for a ruck that forms from a Law 14 situation, which this wasn't).

Belay that. I'm looking at the wrong tackle.

D'oh!!

 

[Dickie E]

this is just disrespectful. Please do not watch or share:

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/searc...1:42:00Z&max-results=1&start=10&by-date=false

 

[Deafbok]

this is just disrespectful. Please do not watch or share:

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/search...&by-date=false

Ahhhhh, Villainous Lombardo...

That chop used to run "The Four Nations" Facebook page. Guy has no filters and an overwhelmingly anti-Kiwi slant bigger than mine (And I at least have a reason - Kiwi girl ran off with my engagement ring without the decency to formally break it off. Also, the All Blacks :tongue

Yeah, don't touch it with a 10-foot pole. You might catch the Stupid.