[INTERNATIONAL] Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

[Arabcheif]

So he not turned round ind is running after the ball. He turned side on. He then allowed his momentum to go into the player. Now if he'd wrapped like a tackle, or had turned all the way round and was actually moving toward his own try line when there was contact then, I'd completely agree. But for me he's made no attempt to even try to change his momentum. Then he's lead with his shoulder. he's brought his arm down into the sling position. This is a deliberate act, is unnatural do this unintentionally, hence the charge.

@Thepercy - I'm not upset I'm just confused that refs can view this as anything other than a no-arms tackle/shoulder charge. Someone mentioned that there needs to be drive in the no-arms tackle. That's nonsense, can you show me where in the decision making matrix is mentions that there needs to be a drive into your opponent. This implies that as long as your standing still you can just let the BC run into your shoulder. This for me is incorrect.

 

[Flish]

This implies that as long as your standing still you can just let the BC run into your shoulder. This for me is incorrect.

Except you can, it's commonly accepted (well except under the high ball it seems!) that you can hold your line, so if you stand dead still or run in the same line and a BC runs into you then you've done no wrong, if however you change your line or drop your shoulder and make a move towards the BC then you're potentially in trouble (unless you wrap and tackle or push)

 

[Arabcheif]

Except you can, it's commonly accepted (well except under the high ball it seems!) that you can hold your line, so if you stand dead still or run in the same line and a BC runs into you then you've done no wrong, if however you change your line or drop your shoulder and make a move towards the BC then you're potentially in trouble (unless you wrap and tackle or push)

Is there a law ref for that? squint feeds a generally accepted but still against the laws.

 

[OB..]

So he not turned round ind is running after the ball. He turned side on. He then allowed his momentum to go into the player.

You think he can control his momentum sufficiently?!

Now if he'd wrapped like a tackle,

it would probably have been late - at least that was (to me) clearly his view.

or had turned all the way round and was actually moving toward his own try line when there was contact then

No time.

, I'd completely agree. But for me he's made no attempt to even try to change his momentum. Then he's lead with his shoulder. he's brought his arm down into the sling position. This is a deliberate act, is unnatural do this unintentionally, hence the charge.

It's a perfectly normal way to try and change direction. He brings his right arm in to help the turn.

Your version of reality is clearly very different from mine, so it is probably a waste of time continuing.

 

[Arabcheif]

I'm just trying to understand here. At no point have I said he could avoided the collision. I'm not suggesting he could've managed to get out of the road. I'm also not suggesting that he could've turned all the way round and be moving towards his goal line. If he had completed a proper wrap tackle, he wouldn't have been late. The ball had only just left the foot of the BC. But if your saying there's nothing wrong with this then there's nothing wrong with this.

If that the case, I now understand why I was told by another RR member a while back to not mention this forum to my refs society.

But I defer to your greater knowledge. I'll be sure to argue your points if I get pulled up when I'm playing. Peace out.

 

[ChrisR]

Worth a read. Covers several current discussions.

https://www.planetrugby.com/loose-pass-scott-barrett-fallout-and-law-amendments/

 

[Flish]

Is there a law ref for that?

No, which is my point, there is no law that says you can't stand still, if you do and someone runs into you then it's kinda on them really, you have literally done nothing, you haven't obstructed, shoulder barged, no arms tackled or anything - literally nothing is what you have done!

It's an extreme but silly point

 

[didds]

No, which is my point, there is no law that says you can't stand still, if you do and someone runs into you then it's kinda on them really, you have literally done nothing, you haven't obstructed, shoulder barged, no arms tackled or anything - literally nothing is what you have done!

It's an extreme but silly point

I don't disagree - except for one scenario... where an opponent chases his team's kick ahead and leaps for the ball. If he then lands on top of this totally stationary player and as a result flips and lands on his head that stationary player is likely to see a red card. For not doing anything at all except standing where he was before the kick happened.

I'd love to be told something has changed and this is now no longer the case

didds

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I didn't see a lot in the KB clash although I've decided Goodhue deserved a crack in the head for that haircut.

 

[Balones]

I see that Jack Goodhue is not playing this coming weekend because of injury. Perhaps it was the kick on KB’s hip that did it?

 

[Jz558]

Crikey, wish I'd never mentioned it

That said, and I'm wondering how to phrase this, but when you're the 'dominant collider', you do make sure you make your mark for the next time round.

 

[Jz558]

Which is what I suspect KB did

 

[Balones]

I don't disagree - except for one scenario... where an opponent chases his team's kick ahead and leaps for the ball. If he then lands on top of this totally stationary player and as a result flips and lands on his head that stationary player is likely to see a red card. For not doing anything at all except standing where he was before the kick happened.

I'd love to be told something has changed and this is now no longer the case

didds

I am sure there is a lot of empathy with your thoughts. The only thing I would say is that being totally stationary is not quite the same as moving slightly. At the same time I do sense a more pragmatic position being taken by referees at the level I observe. A totally static player being crushed by a ‘jumper’ would receive considerable sympathy from me and the referee not penalising or even penalising the ‘jumper’ for reckless play would gain a degree of support from me. Having said that it would have to be on a case by case basis with all nuances of the context being taken into account.

 

[Flish]

I don't disagree - except for one scenario... where an opponent chases his team's kick ahead and leaps for the ball. If he then lands on top of this totally stationary player and as a result flips and lands on his head that stationary player is likely to see a red card. For not doing anything at all except standing where he was before the kick happened.

I'd love to be told something has changed and this is now no longer the case

didds

Yeah, touched on that with some sarcasm in my original post #42 above, for me the same logic as holding your ground anywhere else on the pitch should stand - but others disagree

 

[nhughes]

For me the key guideline here is "Clear and Obvious" and this definitely is not. NZ player drops the ball to kick before KB can make an attempt to tackle him, once he hasn't got the ball Beale can't tackle him but momentum will bring both of them together. There's literally a second for all this to take place as well.

 

[Treadmore]

If he then lands on top of this totally stationary player and as a result flips and lands on his head that stationary player is likely to see a red card.

Have you got an example of such a stationary player being penalised?

 

[Balones]

For me the key guideline here is "Clear and Obvious" and this definitely is not. NZ player drops the ball to kick before KB can make an attempt to tackle him, once he hasn't got the ball Beale can't tackle him but momentum will bring both of them together. There's literally a second for all this to take place as well.

Sorry you are wrong. It was about 0.6-0.7 of a second if you are able to time it frame by frame. International sprinters are given 0.1 of a second to react to a gun legally and they are concentrating on only doing one thing and are not moving and have to change direction. Most have reaction times of 0.15 and that is before they actually move. That represents the pressure being applied to the blocks.

So basically I agree with you. Sometimes we ask/expect even our most capable players to do the impossible.

 

[didds]

Have you got an example of such a stationary player being penalised?

do I need an exact example for it to be so? We've discussed this before ad nauseum - it IS what would happen. The fact that as yet it hasn't is no indication that it in theory cant. This forum is full of examples from matches with bizarre scenarios that nobody has seen before but have eventually happened.

WRT this scenario I've now opined multiple times that the best kick NOW is directly to an opponent - because that player will now HAVE to run away from where the ball lands because remaining on the spot where the ball will alight is too problematical.

didds

 

[didds]

Sorry you are wrong. It was about 0.6-0.7 of a second if you are able to time it frame by frame. International sprinters are given 0.1 of a second to react to a gun legally and they are concentrating on only doing one thing and are not moving and have to change direction. Most have reaction times of 0.15 and that is before they actually move. That represents the pressure being applied to the blocks.

So basically I agree with you. Sometimes we ask/expect even our most capable players to do the impossible.

yep - test batsmen facing a delivery at 90 mph from just less than 22 yards away etc

 

[mcroker]

For me Beal puts himself into the path of the ball-carrier and then proceeds to body-check him with the arm in the sling position. This to me seems the definition of a shoulder-charge.

I think all this talk of momentum and turning is relevant only as mitigating circumstances to that offence.

Using my convent hand pocket sized easy to remember high tackle guide... no head contact, completely subjective degree of danger, mitigating factor that he is turning/trying to pull out. PK for me.