Sarries vs Ulster

[Ian_Cook]

But Shirley moving the mark to the 10m would play havoc with the ensuing free kick

"Sir, can I kick it straight out or not"...

"erm, depends on where the mark is son".

Well, IMO, a FK direct to touch should be a gain in ground anyway but with the throw in to the opponent of the kicker.

For example, if you make an aimless "aerial ping pong" kick in play from say 30m out from your own goal-line and it alights between the opponents 10m & 22m lines, the opponent could mark the ball and kick it out back near your 22m. Result? You had possession 30m out, and now, you're competing for possession in around the same place. This sort of outcome would discourage aimless kicking as an exit strategy, and instead, you might try to learn a new/old skill, the wipers kick; a low angle trajectory kick designed to bounce into touch behind the opponent's backline. Or, heaven forbid, you might even try running the ball!

 

[irishref]

[LAWS]. Request

Situation:
A tackle is made, or attempted, where the initial contact is made below the line of the shoulder, but the arm(s) of the tackler subsequently make contact with the head or neck of the tackled player.

Question:
Even if the subsequent contact with the head or neck is not intentional, but the contact is dangerous, should the referee rule on the intent (initial tackle) ie. No sanction; or should the referee rule on the consequence ie. Sanction?

If the ruling is sanction, would the referee be correct in considering the dangerous aspect as accidental, and consider cards only if he deemed the tackling action to be careless?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The referee should not rule on intent, but on the outcome. In this situation the outcome was a dangerous tackle in that the tackler made contact with the head or neck of the ball carrier. For this type of tackle the referee has three options available: penalty only, penalty and yellow card, penalty and red card. [/LAWS]

So, a tackle that starts legal can end up dangerous, 6\2006
A kick chase that also started legal, also can end up dangerous, as Paynes did.

Both decided by outcome, not by any assessment of intent (notwithstanding my belief that it wasn't as inadvertent as others would believe)

Hopefully this explains my thinking irishref..

Yes Browner, no argument on my side when things are as clear as "tackle made/attempted". For what it's worth, and I'm guessing this is the actual case, Payne's contact with Goode has been judged to be an attempt at a tackle. In that case I have no truck with the red.

However - and I'm sorry for being so tenacious on this point - I still don't see the contact as an attempt by Payne to make a tackle. Which, in my mind, is absolutely key for the clarification you quoted and of course for 10.4(i).

I think it would be helpful to update 10.4(i) to include the word charge.

But just ignore me, I'm still sad at our being out of Europe!! Never mind, we have the league to win!

 

[Browner]

Yes Browner, no argument on my side when things are as clear as "tackle made/attempted". For what it's worth, and I'm guessing this is the actual case, Payne's contact with Goode has been judged to be an attempt at a tackle. In that case I have no truck with the red.

However - and I'm sorry for being so tenacious on this point - I still don't see the contact as an attempt by Payne to make a tackle. Which, in my mind, is absolutely key for the clarification you quoted and of course for 10.4(i).

!

Irish, I wasn't saying that 6\2006 met payne's ball chase exactly. . Like you I didn't think it was a bonafide tackle attempt.

I'm only suggesting that Law (through 6\2006) has already shown how inadvertent contact will be considered when ' dangerous 'outcomes are witnessed.

Its not case law, its merely a very useful guide as to what to expect if it were put to the test. IMO.