Rucking is by definition reckless and dangerous

[didds]

Really?

Law 16. 3 (f) A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally ruck players on the ground. A player
rucking for the ball must try to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally
step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Are you suggresting after the first "unintentional" contact with the player. He did not understand what he was doing? If he did then it was intentional and at best a remarkable lasck of care.

well the TMO said it was accidental which i take to mean was not intentional.

Was the TMO wrong then?

didds

 

[didds]

The issue I had with it was that, if RP was already playing Irish advantage, what was Brown thinking he was going to achieve? .

preventing the ball being spread wide and a possible try? versus disrupting play leaving the PK awarded, defences reset etc?

standard approach to advantage called I would suggest. Play continues until the whistle is blown.

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

well the TMO said it was accidental which i take to mean was not intentional.

Was the TMO wrong then?

didds

I believe he was.
And the question of intent is (almost) of secondary importance.

His boot came into contact with another player's head. We penalize all sorts of other actions for the actual act and not the intent - see, jumping for the ball and hitting a player in the air.

In principle this is no different. I suspect one of three things: either England got a lawyer in front of people to head it off at the pass, the pendulum has swung back the other way from the World Cup, or the TMO and Citing Officer got it wrong. (The latter two are not mutually exclusive).

Fact: Brown kicked the opposing player in the head.
Reasonable assumption: He ought to have know what was happening.
Smith conclusion: he had a case to answer.

I go back to: if Russell deserved his suspension, what's the difference here? Are there rose colored spectacles being worn?

 

[didds]

Basically I think they just make up on the spot to be honest Simon, as they go along.

And I perceive there is some secret squirrel agreement to not card players unless they cannot avoid it


didds

 

[davidlandy]

there is some secret squirrel agreement to not card players unless they cannot avoid it

Agreed.

Cui Bono?

 

[crossref]

they don't seem reluctant to card for cynical offences

 

[Dixie]

Having let this run for 45 posts after posing the question, I'm fascinated by the differences of opinion as to both danger and recklessness. From what I recall of the slo-mo, Brown had stepped beyond Murray's head, and it was actually Brown's heel that was driven into Murray's eye by the action of Irish ruckers attempting to prevent him playing at the ball on the ground in the ruck. This was admittedly compounded by further accidental impacts while flashing away at the ball - but again the act of drawing back his foot was what made contact. Like Didds, I can well believe that Brown had no idea he was making contact with Murray. I would agree with the TMO that this was wholly unintentional, and not in fact retaliation at all.

Like Crossref, I do suspect that RP had decided he was going to card one of them, and let Brown off on the basis that he would get Care. That left him with no option when it came to reviewing what may have been a harsh call regarding not rolling away - but I suspect that Care could have done better if he had to.

 

[thepercy]

Anyone have the video?

 

[L'irlandais]

Anyone have the video?

Try this link

 

[crossref]

Personally, I can't believe he got away without a card.

But the whistle should have gone far earlier, before a card was deserved.

 

[L'irlandais]

Bear with me, I do realize that Law 22 does not apply here, However the situation is not too dissimilar ; goal-line fever infects defenders and attackers alike. :-(

[laws]Law 22.4 (f)
In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.[/laws]

The kick/heel back to the eye was unintentional, however under the circumstances, I do not think MB should have been allowed put boot to ball. (for the simple reason that the actual outcome was predictable.)

 

[menace]

Now that I've seen the incident....

I concede that Green was infringing by holding the ball and should be pinged but I'm a little surprised that nobody in 50 posts (that I could see) that Browns entry and joining the ruck is not being questioned?
Ie
[LAWS]b)
A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick


(c)
Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

So If he's not joined to the ruck correctly does he still have the right to ruck for the ball in the first place? Technically I believe he's committed an infringement just as bad as green...he shouldn't have rights now to just go rucking away even if it is at the ball? I thought not as he's not part of that ruck, but I could be convinced/corrected. I'm sure I've seen plenty of PKs given where a player is not bound and kicks the ball out and they've been deemed as 'not part of the ruck' and therefore offside.....and I've done it myself (Or have I missed something? I only saw the clip above so did not see or hear the lead up or follow on of the refs decision).



I think we all agree if Poite go onto the whistle early enough this wouldn't have happened

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I wonder what type of studs he was wearing?

 

[didds]

they don't seem reluctant to card for cynical offences

true. But compare Finn Russell and James Haskell's touching a player in the air for starters. And Sam Warburton's tip tackle v the Irish chap in week 1 of this 6N.

Foul play seems to be ignored now.


didds

 

[didds]

but I suspect that Care could have done better if he had to.

I'm not thyat sure - its a case of "don;t get somewhere you can;t control of course, but he is part of a tackle (tackle assist) and falls on top of the ball carrier and then clumsy oaf Haskell jackles pinning Care underneath him, sandwiching DC between JH and the green ball carrier.

"Don't end up there" is think is the operative phrase

didds

 

[crossref]

I'm not thyat sure - its a case of "don;t get somewhere you can;t control of course, but he is part of a tackle (tackle assist) and falls on top of the ball carrier and then clumsy oaf Haskell jackles pinning Care underneath him, sandwiching DC between JH and the green ball carrier.

"Don't end up there" is think is the operative phrase

didds

I felt it was reasonable to PK Care, on the 'don't end up there' basis.

The YC felts harsh - if its for being deliberate and cynical, well I didn't think it was cynical.
If the YC is simply because of the field position 'don't end up there, doubly don't end up there in that field position' well, I guess I do follow that logic ...

 

[didds]

Bear with me, I do realize that Law 22 does not apply here, However the situation is not too dissimilar ; goal-line fever infects defenders and attackers alike. :-(

[laws]Law 22.4 (f)
In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.[/laws]

The kick/heel back to the eye was unintentional, however under the circumstances, I do not think MB should have been allowed put boot to ball. (for the simple reason that the actual outcome was predictable.)

Fort the avoidance of doubt, I do agree that MB probably wasn't very bright here. But again I ask "What should MB have done differently" given RP had signalled ball out and there was a gap to get through? Saying "act legally" is WADR to OB just rather trite. So what are his legal options, aside from using the foot/bot which the TMO said was acceptable anyway?


didds

 

[crossref]

MB of course DID act legally !

 

[OB..]

MB of course DID act legally !

What I saw was reckless use of the boot. Once the ball was (illegally) picked up, he should no longer be trying to kick it, but rely on the referee. Frustrating, yes, but no excuse.

 

[crossref]

well, yes I agree, I thought it was illegal, but the citing officer seems to have decided it was legal.

(or perhaps he just didn't think it worth a RC, I am not sure)