RWC Aus vs Sco

[The Fat]

Might be amusing IF it was funny.

I gathered that you didn't think it was funny. However, are you implying that it should have been a PK for offside and playing the ball or do you agree with the referee that it was accidental offside and therefore only a scrum?


Quote Originally Posted by Blackberry:

At 61.00 minutes did anyone see the Australian player ahead of the ball struck by it when kicked by a team mate? just a scrum


Quote Originally Posted by The Fat:
Judging from the time you posted this, I assume you are talking about the Aus v Pumas game?
If so, Folou grubber kicks and the ball hits a team mate in front of him. Are you saying you don't see this as accidental offside?
Not sure what Pegleg's response means. Need to clarify?
Definitely accidental offside if it's the Folou kick

 

[Pegleg]

Did not see it. Just a bit sick of the continued moaning. This site if far to parochial it's like a suporters site at times. I expect better from referees who supposed to be grown up men.

 

[The Fat]

Did not see it. Just a bit sick of the continued moaning. This site if far to parochial it's like a suporters site at times. I expect better from referees who supposed to be grown up men.

Sent you a PM

 

[Pegleg]

Sent you a PM

Replied.

 

[OB..]

It is a very difficult one though as no one wants to encourage play acting or deliberate knock forwards being disguised to look like genuine attempts as then we go down the route of wendyball and diving.

Agreed. We need a balance.

It is hard to imagine why anyone would see an advantage to his team in an out-and-out deliberate knock forward. It is surely unfair on the attackers if a player can simply say "sorry it was an accident" and get a scrum when his attempt at the ball was reckless.

I think the balance is about right at present, and is well understood by the players.

 

[crossref]

seems to me that the only actual disincentives for a deliberate knock on are
- the possibility of a YC
- the possibility of a Penalty Try.

Absent those, if it was only a PK, defenders would cheerfully knock on every time, conceding a possible 3 points, rather than a likely 5/7

In other words it's very important for one or the other (or both) to follow.

 

[Dixie]

It seems to me that we need some clarification regarding the overlap between a 10.2(a) intentional offence (foul play) and an offence like Deliberate Knock Forward, which is dealt with outside Law 10. The Yellow Card is awarded when a player has been temporarily suspended. The definitions section defines Temporary Suspension as being covered by Law 10 (Foul Play). The LoTG uses the term Temporarily Suspended in 19 instances, one of which is 10.2(a) - but it suggests that the YC should only be issued when through foul play the offender prevents a try being scored. There is no suggestion that the foul play itself warrants the card.

Having said that, 10.5 does suggest exactly that (subject to the availability of the lesser sanction of admonishment):

[LAWS]10.5(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.[/LAWS]

I have to say, I find the lack of clarify in the LoTG on YC situations to be regrettable. That said, I do recognise that it is a good idea to allow the referee some latitude, but the criteria against which he judges such latitude should be a matter of clear public record.

 

[Pegleg]

10.2(a) - but it suggests that the YC should only be issued when through foul play the offender prevents a try being scored. There is no suggestion that the foul play itself warrants the card.

I think that's not correct. It is saying that any breach of this law that prevents a try is a card IF a PT is awarded. Not that you ONLY issue a card if a PT is awarded. I think the two are very different animals.

 

[Phil E]

I think that's not correct. It is saying that any breach of this law that prevents a try is a card IF a PT is awarded. Not that you ONLY issue a card if a PT is awarded. I think the two are very different animals.

And it is not compulsory to issue a Card with a PT. WR ruling in law dated 2004.