Olly Woodburn 2nd YC vs Leicester

[Stu10]

which would bring into play the mystical 10 point try!
mind you, a few of those and the flopping/falling/diving onto the try scorer would soon stop!

meanwhile back in 1992... (2:20 video time of the link doesn't work properly)

I'm pretty sure the cracked disk in my lower back was the result of someone dropping on me after scoring a try

 

[SimonSmith]

Oops.

England players to be given new social media guidelines after Nowell charge

England players will be given fresh instructions on using social media after a tweet by Jack Nowell led to an RFU charge against the Exeter wing

www.theguardian.com

 

[crossref]

I asked chatgpt

In rugby union , a player slides along the ground to score. Can an opponent slide to the ground to stop him ?

No, an opponent cannot slide along the ground to stop a player from scoring in rugby union. This is considered dangerous play and is penalized by the referees. According to Law 9.25 in World Rugby's Laws of the Game, "A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground."

If an opponent attempts to slide along the ground to stop a player from scoring, they risk injuring both themselves and the player with the ball. Instead, defenders must use legal means to stop the attacking player, such as tackling them with a wrap-around technique or pushing them out of bounds


Pretty good!
But where did 9.25 come from ???

 

[didds]

Can you physically play a player on the ground?

I guess so - eg flipping a prone, off his feet, unpenalised player at a "ruck" out of the way ?

 

[shebeen]

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.

Is he an arriving player or a second tackler? Well the fact that he is not going for the ball but tackles the BC into touch would suggest the second.

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.

I agree here. OW pulls off an excellent try saving tackle, but it is deemed illegal due to 13.4
Stakes will always be higher for a try saving tackle. He shows incredible skill here to get the sliding player off the pitch and it is not dangerous (just a snapshot but shows it clearly as a tackle).



Let's be ridiculous here for a bit. under 13.4 any BC who is isolated can preempt a tackle by going to ground just as the tackler arrives, hoping the tackler will complete what is now an illegal tackle, instead of pulling out at the last miniute and competing for the ball. That is jeopardy in the rules.

 

[shebeen]

i think this is the previous one -- I must say it never occured to me that this should have been sanctioned

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1607812373326319616

couldn't watch this due to rights, but here it is with global access (and then reddit comments)

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/zwnlfn/_/j1ydcec

 

[didds]

couldn't watch this due to rights, but here it is with global access (and then reddit comments)

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/zwnlfn/_/j1ydcec

which is what others here have opined also, including me in my #32

 

[didds]

But where did 9.25 come from ???

Its chatgpt ... it comes with some interesting, and startlingly incorrect, stuff it seems (Ive seen sopme Shakespeare "essays" its "written" and they are horribly wrong in places.)



LOL.

 

[Rich_NL]

Q0j

Pretty good!
But where did 9.25 come from ???

I've spoken to researchers who've been asked for copies of papers that ChatGPT has decided they've written and given references for, that sound like papers they might have written, but which don't exist.

It's basically a lazy student who googles a bit, fills in with stuff that sounds about right, and presents it convincingly whether it's true or not. Its chief skill is sounding authentic.

 

[crossref]

Its chief skill is sounding authentic.

Which is a very valuable skill, takes humans a long way

 

[Decorily]

........ presents it convincingly whether it's true or not. Its chief skill is sounding authentic.

A bit like refereeing!

 

[Phil E]

Is he an arriving player or a second tackler?

He is an arriving player because the tackle had already been completed before he joined in. Both the original tackler and the ball carrier were on the ground when he arrived.
He was not a second tackler.

 

[Stu10]

He is an arriving player because the tackle had already been completed before he joined in. Both the original tackler and the ball carrier were on the ground when he arrived.
He was not a second tackler.

Phil, can you please clarify your earlier comment... do you think the outcome would have been different if in-goal versus in the FOP, or did I misinterpret your post?

 

[Phil E]

Phil, can you please clarify your earlier comment... do you think the outcome would have been different if in-goal versus in the FOP, or did I misinterpret your post?

I was pointing out that the tackle had already been completed before the second Exeter player made contact, so he wasn't part of the original tackle and therefore has an obligation to stay on his feet.

 

[Stu10]

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.

@Phil E , I meant this comment earlier in the discussion... was McGinty's action OK because he was in-goal, and/or because he did a different action (I would argue that he did not fall onto the player, instead falling next to the player)... of course, maybe McGinty should have been penalised???

 

[Arabcheif]

So 14.11 states -

1. The tackle ends when:
   1. A ruck is formed.
   2. A player on their feet from either team gains possession of the ball and moves away or passes or kicks the ball.
   3. The ball leaves the tackle area.
   4. The ball is unplayable. If there is doubt about which player did not conform to law, the referee orders a scrum. The throw is taken by the team moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.

Since none of these criteria have been met. Then I'd conclude that the tackle was still in progress. S0 WB was a 2nd tackler. I also don't think he dived on the Ball Carrier. He tackled him, from the side. No where does it state that a tackler needs to remain on his feet during a tackle. For me, this was a perfectly legitimate attempt at a tackle, which had the desired outcome, no try scored.

I think that the crus of this is when is the tackle completed? If it as soon as the BC is brought to the ground, then we'd need to ref that as such and rule out any tries that are scored after a tackle is "completed" (when the Law 14.1/2/3 conditions for the tackle are completed. Or the tackle isn't completed till the BC is stationary, which is how we ref it.

The other video that "should've" been penalised, again shouldn't be. If you penalise that one, then you need to have the requirement of the player regaining his feet before the try can be scored in this scenario. As he's been tackled (a tap tackle is still a tackle). Which would be a poor requirement to have. If either the player in the 2nd video that wasn't penalised or BW had tackled in a dangerous manner - shoulder/no arms or slid feet 1st, then fine that's a different issue. That is not what happened here though.

 

[Stu10]

So 14.11 states -

1. The tackle ends when:
   1. A ruck is formed.
   2. A player on their feet from either team gains possession of the ball and moves away or passes or kicks the ball.
   3. The ball leaves the tackle area.
   4. The ball is unplayable. If there is doubt about which player did not conform to law, the referee orders a scrum. The throw is taken by the team moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.

Since none of these criteria have been met. Then I'd conclude that the tackle was still in progress. S0 WB was a 2nd tackler. I also don't think he dived on the Ball Carrier. He tackled him, from the side. No where does it state that a tackler needs to remain on his feet during a tackle. For me, this was a perfectly legitimate attempt at a tackle, which had the desired outcome, no try scored.

I think that the crus of this is when is the tackle completed? If it as soon as the BC is brought to the ground, then we'd need to ref that as such and rule out any tries that are scored after a tackle is "completed" (when the Law 14.1/2/3 conditions for the tackle are completed. Or the tackle isn't completed till the BC is stationary, which is how we ref it.

The other video that "should've" been penalised, again shouldn't be. If you penalise that one, then you need to have the requirement of the player regaining his feet before the try can be scored in this scenario. As he's been tackled (a tap tackle is still a tackle). Which would be a poor requirement to have. If either the player in the 2nd video that wasn't penalised or BW had tackled in a dangerous manner - shoulder/no arms or slid feet 1st, then fine that's a different issue. That is not what happened here though.

Focus on whether the tackle has ended, as per 14.11, is an interesting angle; but this falls down for me following this approach to the conclusion that if a ruck is not formed and the ball is not played away, then every arriving player (first, second, third, etc) is entitled to dive on and "tackle" the player on the ground, which clearly is ridiculous.

 

[didds]

De-rail coming!

"As he's been tackled (a tap tackle is still a tackle). "

Is it? slapping a player's ankle so he trips is certainly accepted - but the BC hasn't been held and brought to ground after all.

 

[Arabcheif]

Focus on whether the tackle has ended, as per 14.11, is an interesting angle; but this falls down for me following this approach to the conclusion that if a ruck is not formed and the ball is not played away, then every arriving player (first, second, third, etc) is entitled to dive on and "tackle" the player on the ground, which clearly is ridiculous.

Well yes, this would be a tackle, there is no numerical limit for tacklers in Law. So would be subject to the requirements of the tackle. Wrapping arms, height etc. So players couldn't just dive on players or charge into them sliding in however they want. An example of what would be good, is the Woodburn tackle here.

 

[didds]

So players couldn't just dive on players or charge into them sliding in however they want. An example of what would be good, is the Woodburn tackle here.

But Woodburn slid in?