Olly Woodburn 2nd YC vs Leicester

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Seemed a bit harsh to me but the commentators said it was fair according to the laws.

It's not the best clip but Olly Woodburn is the 2nd white player in at the end, trying to prevent the try by green. He was penalised (with YC & PT) for diving on a player on the ground, which pushed the BC into touch and prevented the try.

 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Technically correct under 13.4 but feels like a gotcha
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Apparently, the same ref was "admonished" for not acting in this way n a previous game.
 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
i think this is the previous one -- I must say it never occured to me that this should have been sanctioned

Thanks for this, Crossref and Marc. In the clip it looks a little different from this case because the defender doesn't appear to fall "on" the BC though, just next to him. Or does that fall under the same law? (No pun intended, lol.)

But yes if the same ref got admonished for not pinging this I can see why it might have been uppermost in his mind.
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
13.4 certainly seems a legit call here. Many will argue what else could he have done to stop the try, but as others have said many times in other threads, if you are trying to stop the try as the player is sliding over the try line then you've left it too late.

This is really an issue around the lack of consistency at elite level regarding law application.

I've particularly noticed while watching rugby the past 2 weekends how supporting players are flopping on top of rucks or leaning right over the ruck with hands on the floor on the far side, making the jackal totally impossible... I know this happens all the time, but I just felt it has been particularly bad recently.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Technically correct under 13.4 but feels like a gotcha

He gave a penalty earlier in the game for "falling on a player on the ground". So it wasn't a gotcha.

It sounded to me like the TMO tried to talk him out of it, but KD appeared to have already made his mind up.

I have also been told (like Marc) that he was pulled up earlier in the season for not penalising a similar situation, so it will have been playing on his mind.

PS: in the discussion KD also mentioned not entering the tackle area from the correct side (tackle had already been made by the first player), and the emphasis was on the second player illegally pushing the ball carrier into touch. Had the second player not slid in, then KD felt that ball carrier wouldn't have gone into touch.
 

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,845
Post Likes
361
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
The law needs to change.
If the ball carrier can deliberately go off feet and slide in from 5 or more metres out preventing a fair contest, defenders should have the right to slide into the ball to try to rip it which is what happened in the mcGinty tap tackle. The game is fundamentally about fair contests. Picture this if you can winger racing down line and slides for the corner 5M out. Oppsite winger coming across to cover simlarly slides for the corner about the same time and contact only occurrs 20cm from the line and the ball is not grounded. Is that a fair contest? I think so.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
The law needs to change.
If the ball carrier can deliberately go off feet and slide in from 5 or more metres out preventing a fair contest, defenders should have the right to slide into the ball to try to rip it which is what happened in the mcGinty tap tackle. The game is fundamentally about fair contests. Picture this if you can winger racing down line and slides for the corner 5M out. Oppsite winger coming across to cover simlarly slides for the corner about the same time and contact only occurrs 20cm from the line and the ball is not grounded. Is that a fair contest? I think so.

In the McGinty situation the player tackling/diving in was in in-goal when he made contact.

In the Leicester situation he was in the field of play.

There's also an argument that they came in from different angles.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,034
Post Likes
1,775
And so here we have the inevitable consequences of increased laws and regulations and interpretations and so on. As one law/reg/etc is introduced it then creates issues around areas that the initial change wasn't intended to deal with. So then new laws/regs/interpretations/etc need to be introduced which in turn then creates issues around areas that THAT change wasnt intended and so on and so forth. I havent seen the dive on body in-goal alluded to above, but Id say purely based on that one clip above this wasn't a dive onto a prone body but a "on the ground VERY adjacent to the body" with subsequent impacts etc.
I dont buy into a "5m slide is undefendable" idea - but then I equally dont buy into "well what else can we do" ? I dont have a solution under the current laws etc etc because as much as anything they are leaving one with fewer and fewer legal options rightly or wrongly. Its just where the game is. And yes - dont let the oppo get there in the first place definitely... though on a very very wet day that 5m slide COULD be a 10m slide ...
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
In the McGinty situation the player tackling/diving in was in in-goal when he made contact.

In the Leicester situation he was in the field of play.

There's also an argument that they came in from different angles.
I am still not sure whether this was penalised as a dangerous action (jumping on player on the floor) or a technical one (approaching tackle from the right direction, playing ball on the floor etc) .

If it's a safety thing then position on the pitch, direction etc, is all irrelevant - either it's dangerous or it's not
If it's a technical offence then yes all that is is really significant.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,621
Post Likes
499
I assumed watching (without sound) that it was for side entry. A technical offence at that level is easy to penalise as cynical.
 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
PS: in the discussion KD also mentioned not entering the tackle area from the correct side (tackle had already been made by the first player), and the emphasis was on the second player illegally pushing the ball carrier into touch. Had the second player not slid in, then KD felt that ball carrier wouldn't have gone into touch.
What time in the above clip does this discussion occur please Phil? Maybe it's because the commentators keep interrupting but I couldn't hear anything about side entry, just falling on a player on the floor.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
What time in the above clip does this discussion occur please Phil? Maybe it's because the commentators keep interrupting but I couldn't hear anything about side entry, just falling on a player on the floor.

I was listening to the ref live in tv control.
There was quite a prolonged discussion.

As I remember it, KD asked to check the touch and if it was in touch he wanted to look at the second player for falling onto the BC
After determining the BC was in touch KD wanted to know if the second player had caused him to go into touch, and if so he was looking at a PT and a YC for falling onto the BC.
At some point in the discussion he mentioned falling on a player on the ground and tackle area side entry.
The TMO showed him and KD said so I am looking at a PT and a YC.
The TMO said something like it looks ok to me, and showed some more angles.
I don't remember hearing any input for the AR's, I got the impression they didn't want anything to do with it.
KD finally said he had fell onto the BC who was already on the ground (something he had penalised earlier in the game) and that the BC wouldn't have been pushed into touch without this illegal play, so PT and YC (upgraded to red for a second yellow).
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
The law needs to change.
If the ball carrier can deliberately go off feet and slide in from 5 or more metres out preventing a fair contest, defenders should have the right to slide into the ball to try to rip it which is what happened in the mcGinty tap tackle. The game is fundamentally about fair contests. Picture this if you can winger racing down line and slides for the corner 5M out. Oppsite winger coming across to cover simlarly slides for the corner about the same time and contact only occurrs 20cm from the line and the ball is not grounded. Is that a fair contest? I think so.
In the McGinty situation the player tackling/diving in was in in-goal when he made contact.

In the Leicester situation he was in the field of play.

There's also an argument that they came in from different angles.

I think the critical aspect is whether the defender makes contact with the player or only the ball. Diving onto or sliding into a player on the floor is dangerous. My memory of the McGinty try save was that he went straight for the ball and didn't land on the player or dive over the player.

What is the relevance of being in the field of play versus in-goal wrt law 13.4?
 
Last edited:

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
I assumed watching (without sound) that it was for side entry. A technical offence at that level is easy to penalise as cynical.
There isn't a player over the tackle, so no offside lines, and side entry not a thing... at least that's how I see it.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
There isn't a player over the tackle, so no offside lines, and side entry not a thing... at least that's how I see it.
Even if no offside lines , have to arrive at a tackle from behind
10.8.c
Other players must...
Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Even if no offside lines , have to arrive at a tackle from behind
10.8.c
Other players must...
Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.
If we are saying the tackle was complete and he is an arriving player (which is reasonable) then he is off his feet at the tackle, entering from the side, and falling onto a player on the ground... take your pick for the penalty.
 
Top