Is this a Red?

[OB..]

I agree this alone would not, but it establishes a standard of neglect for future incidents as a review of incompetence

What incompetence? The inability to reverse direction while in the air? Being unable to see through a player to find out if he has released the ball yet?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

What incompetence? The inability to reverse direction while in the air? Being unable to see through a player to find out if he has released the ball yet?

The referee's incompetence.

With regard to the tackler, he understands that a ball carrier may pass and must be aware that contact after a pass in not legal.

I do admit a waist high tackle from behind would not have drawn my interest.

As far as "committed to the tackle", he was committed to this tackle in the dressing room prematch. Being commited to a tackle is vague, ball ind hand is specific.

 

[OB..]

As far as "committed to the tackle", he was committed to this tackle in the dressing room prematch. Being committed to a tackle is vague, ball ind hand is specific.

Once you have got to an unbalanced position, maybe even almost airborne, you are physically committed to the tackle by being unable to change your commitment.

Literal application of your approach would penalise many tackles that are currently generally accepted, tackles that nobody sees as dangerous. You can give too much emphasis to outcomes.

 

[Rushforth]

The referee's incompetence.

I realise that NO isn't as good a referee as you - never mind as good as me - but to call him incompetent is a little bit rude.

As I recall it there was a scuffle afterwards, and NO had the chance to review both "late" tackle and scuffle. His verdict was that BOTH looked worse than they were.

"Looking bad" is not a red card offence. It is easier to justify (rightly or wrongly) yellow cards, because at least you will only be one step off. But there is a correct call, and even if the referee gets it wrong in your opinion, there is law 6, which does not allow you to call him incompetent.

 

[Dixie]

In this instance it is not a high tackle although I reckon if I had been refereeing it without the use of a TMO I would instinctively blow my whistle for something.

Which is why Nigel Owens is a much respected international referee, while you have some way to go to achieve that level.

 

[WombleRef]

Which is why Nigel Owens is a much respected international referee, while you have some way to go to achieve that level.

At least I appreciate he's a much respected international referee and don't call him incompetent like someone else.

I'm still learning and it is all about differing interpretations of the law. Saying how he's a better standard of referee than me so shut up (which is effectively what you have said) isn't going to help me learn and doesn't encourage discussion on the website.

And besides - all referees are human and make mistakes.

 

[Rushforth]

At least I appreciate he's a much respected international referee and don't call him incompetent like someone else.

I'm still learning and it is all about differing interpretations of the law. Saying how he's a better standard of referee than me so shut up (which is effectively what you have said) isn't going to help me learn and doesn't encourage discussion on the website.

And besides - all referees are human and make mistakes.

This is a common misapprehension. All referees are godly, and never make mistakes. I quote:

[LAWS]6.A.4 (a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.[/LAWS]

Notwithstanding the above, when you or I are the referee during a match, we are neither omniscient nor omnipotent gods. And after the match we - and NO too - are subject to (self-)criticism.

Lawes is an "enforcer" at a level where replays are possible from multiple angles. NO is a referee at that level. But there would likely have been the same sort of pushing and shoving in any game you or I might referee, and it might escalate if we decided to follow the ball rather than whistling immediately.

To be more constructive: amateur players will not mind if you penalise the "enforcer", in my experience. If there is some minor pushing and shoving (as there was here), then you can mention reversing the penalty "next time" if that happens again.

That said, it wasn't foul play. Technically late, sure, but "it looked worse than it was".

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I never suggested a ref send him off, I did suggest the opponent did.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I realise that NO isn't as good a referee as you - never mind as good as me - but to call him incompetent is a little bit rude.

As I recall it there was a scuffle afterwards, and NO had the chance to review both "late" tackle and scuffle. His verdict was that BOTH looked worse than they were.

"Looking bad" is not a red card offence. It is easier to justify (rightly or wrongly) yellow cards, because at least you will only be one step off. But there is a correct call, and even if the referee gets it wrong in your opinion, there is law 6, which does not allow you to call him incompetent.

Huh, my writing must be poorer than I thought. I don't believe I called NO incompetent. I did say that events like this can be used against the ref if similar events take place later in game, or that is what I meant.

At least I appreciate he's a much respected international referee and don't call him incompetent like someone else.

I'm still learning and it is all about differing interpretations of the law. Saying how he's a better standard of referee than me so shut up (which is effectively what you have said) isn't going to help me learn and doesn't encourage discussion on the website.

And besides - all referees are human and make mistakes.

 

[crossref]

That particular tackle was legal, but in general terms Lawes style of play is dangerous, and over time will lead to injuries and cards.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Boys, I do think I struck a nerve when I opened up another avenue of thought. Quite defensive by us aren't we when our hero is challenged or our teams victory isn't warmly received by all. Or perhaps our game we love is questioned.

Thanks for challenging conversation and "everybody knows it's legal once he is committed". NO even said in the tape, twice I believe "he was committed". As irony would have it Lawes did "let him up" and he did "roll away from the tackle"

 

[Browner]

That particular tackle was legal, but in general terms Lawes style of play is dangerous, and over time will lead to injuries and cards.

Eh?!!!

Sorry Courtney your 'style of play' is too dangerous to others to allow you to start this game ...... Maybe RC him in the tunnel ??? :shrugsarc)

 

[crossref]

Eh???

.

 

[Rushforth]

Eh???

.

he opened up "another avenue of thought".

I refuse to think through my bottom, but perhaps it works for some.

 

[RobLev]

Boys, I do think I struck a nerve when I opened up another avenue of thought. Quite defensive by us aren't we when our hero is challenged or our teams victory isn't warmly received by all. Or perhaps our game we love is questioned.
...

I really - really - don't think that's why you got the reaction you did.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

he opened up "another avenue of thought".

I refuse to think through my bottom, but perhaps it works for some.

Do you prefer the myoptic?, perhaps it works for some.

 

[Browner]

Eh???

.

I've read some posters previously indicate that they'd card someone for a "potentially dangerous " act as opposed to actual offending - its a bit of a quantum leap i know, but maybe CL's mere presence in a match is always deemed potentially dangerous for opponents and therefore preventative carding should be introduced for him cos of his match playing style , it would maybe satisfy the "potentialists" amongst the audience !

:sarc:

 

[crossref]

I think the Reffing is fine, but the coaching is suspect. CL approach will lead to cards.

He was lucky in that game, not lucky with the decision, which was spot on, but lucky that his tackle ended up so well timed. Another fraction of a second later and he would have been facing a RC. His judgement isn't that fine, he was fortunate.

Get RC in any RWC game and we could be out of the tournament

 

[OB..]

I think the Reffing is fine, but the coaching is suspect. CL approach will lead to cards.

He was lucky in that game, not lucky with the decision, which was spot on, but lucky that his tackle ended up so well timed. Another fraction of a second later and he would have been facing a RC. His judgement isn't that fine, he was fortunate.

Get RC in any RWC game and we could be out of the tournament

To get a RC for a late tackle it has to be blatant, not just slightly mistimed. You don't expect a quantum leap from perfectly legal to RC, bypassing warning, PK, YC.

 

[RobLev]

Do you prefer the myoptic?, perhaps it works for some.

I think you need to take the plank from your own eye first, NKW.

The implications of your approach - that any tackle that arrives after the ball is no longer in the ball-carriers hands is late and should be PK'd - make defence impossible.

I'll take the case defending Courtney Lawes and the ref who takes no action over his tackle, if you agree to take the case of defending the players who conduct a gang attack on Courtney Lawes that puts him out of the game - the approach you advocate - and the ref who overlooks that attack. Mine's a cakewalk...