- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Some still pictures:
Start of the run - 1½-2m behind:
Approaching the 22 - approaching tackler seen - 1m behind:
Tackler closing - virtually level:
Just before contact - marginally (and I mean only marginally) ahead:
Still pictures can be cherry picked
Moving pictures tell the real story
So, ian:
Your animated .gif of the long shot demonstrated that the tackler could not have gone around the support runner.
No, quite the opposite. I believe it demonstrates that he could have. Had he not changed direction to push the support runner, he may have been able to pass in front of him, and at least attempted to tackle or ankle tap the ball carrier. If you watch the front on video, the ball carrier's right foot gets very close to the touch line, so it may not have taken much to get him to step over. Also, by running in front of the support player, he might have prompted that player to play him, and that WOULD be a PK.
You accept that running alongside your ball carrier is not the place to be to take a pass/offload:
No I do not, because, the last time I looked, flat passes were still legal!
and you ignore the fact that being tackled does slow you down (or the tackler isn't doing it right) so the support runner you had alongside you is now a couple of metres ahead and struggling to get back to take an off-load.
No. I do not ignore that, because your "fact" is, quite simply not relevant.... read on
And the sequence of stills I have posted shows that the support runner was moving up from a good position to take a pass/offload from the time the would-be tackler was in view.
TBH, whether he was level or marginally ahead makes little difference - in either position, he wasn't going to take a pass/offload if the BC was tackled.
I disagree entirely with this.
Being a person who enjoys watching and analysing the game, I recognise that a player will be able to see that a tackle is about to be made, and a possible offload is about the be thrown, and will slow down in anticipation of that happening.
I entirely agree that the tackler steps off his left foot to push the support runner out of the way - but given the size differential, don't see this as relevant to the price of fish.
Its the only C&O offence committed! Its not irrlevant!
I agree with the summaries of OB, crossref, Blackberry and paule of the principles to be applied. You don't.
I agree with OB and Blackberry
I do not agree with crossref
We also disagree over what exactly happened - but that is a subsidiary issue.
I see the video evidence and understand what actually happened.
Last edited: