SCO-WAL breakdown

[Rich_NL]

https://twitter.com/theblitzdefence/status/1105082189555945473?s=19

Just out of interest - how many penalties could be blown for in this clip?

I was unhappy with my game yesterday: I was a last-minute stand-in for an injured fellow ref, the weather was filthy, the match was the lowest league level and I was trying too hard to manage a game out of it and not blow my whistle every twenty seconds. I misjudged it, the game was sloppy... But even so, I didn't allow any rucks like that.

 

[Donk93953]

https://twitter.com/theblitzdefence/status/1105082189555945473?s=19


What planet was the ref on?

 

[Zebra1922]

https://twitter.com/theblitzdefence/status/1105082189555945473?s=19


What planet was the ref on?

Something a bit more constructive or specific might be more helpful. For me I only see 1 clear penalty, side entry by Tipuric. Anything else?

 

[Rich_NL]

I see not through the gate by blue, side (rear?!) entry by red, also possible not releasing by red, arguable off feet by blue.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Typical elite stuff.

 

[Dickie E]

illegal entry by red #7. Everything else Ok for me.

 

[tewdric]

Scotland off feet was the first offence..

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I see not through the gate by blue, side (rear?!) entry by red, also possible not releasing by red, arguable off feet by blue.

what is gate? no longer exists does it?

I believe #7 was in accordance to the remnants of this former gate as:
Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.

After watching several hundred times, I believe ref got it right

illegal entry by red #7. Everything else Ok for me.

Illegal entry to what? a tackle or ruck?

 

[Rich_NL]

illegal entry by red #7. Everything else Ok for me.

You feel Blue 7 is OK at that angle? I'm surprised, I thought it C&O not through the gate.

 

[Rich_NL]

what is gate? no longer exists does it?

I believe #7 was in accordance to the remnants of this former gate as:
Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.

After watching several hundred times, I believe ref got it right

Ah, so the angle of permissible approach tends to 180 degrees as you get closer to your own goal line, but only 25 degrees near your opponent's?

 

[Dickie E]

You feel Blue 7 is OK at that angle? I'm surprised, I thought it C&O not through the gate.

he only needs to come from diretion of own goal line. I'd be OK with his angle. Red #7's entry was a cynical & desperate attempt to protect possession.

 

[Flish]

7 Blue entry is fine for me in what I can see, but first offence is 7 blue (head below hips at the ruck) so FK red, Red 7 is side entry though which is a PK offence so question for me is does a PK offence just after a FK trump it or do we go back to the first offence (FK).

I think I would blow for the most material, so PK to Blue for in at the side.

 

[Pinky]

I think 7 blue was ok, and as no ruck had formed - there were no red players in contact and on their feet, I would have expected a penalty to blue for holding on, and if you let it run, then definitely a penalty for red 7 side entry. You could also have penalised red 5 for diving over the top of it all, off his feet too

 

[Gracie]

I'd say that there were multiple offences but sadly, like too many areas, at elite rugby they appear to be being overlooked; I have to love this article and its explanations especially Luke Pearce's approach to the breakdown back in 2015

https://www.crashballrugby.com/articles/rugbys-new-year-resolution-reforming-the-ruck

 

[menace]

For me, blue #7 entry is fine but I refuse to believe that a jackler on his toes the entire time can be considered to be on his feet/holding his weight?


So for me it's red ball as an outcome.
Red #7 entry to clean out is debatable..looks illegal to but he removes the threat.
But ref appears to take a breath to see what happens next.
Presumably ball comes out to red and fairly quickly...so seems reasonable to play away from a PK here. (One pk wiped out another). Found a reason not to blow. (Material affect and all that ie blue didnt earn the turnover, red maintained quick and clean ball...play on).

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

he only needs to come from diretion of own goal line. I'd be OK with his angle. Red #7's entry was a cynical & desperate attempt to protect possession.

What is secondary signal for cynical and desperate?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Ah, so the angle of permissible approach tends to 180 degrees as you get closer to your own goal line, but only 25 degrees near your opponent's?

Well, 180 could only occur on own goal line.

I don't think the law is well writ, but thankfully it is better than pretending a gate was ever a law.

 

[menace]

What is secondary signal for cynical and desperate?

This: :nono: X3

 

[Dickie E]

For me, blue #7 entry is fine but I refuse to believe that a jackler on his toes the entire time can be considered to be on his feet/holding his weight?

Menace, I hear you but if I look at that still photo, and imagine that blue headgear and yellow boots weren't there, I believe the ref would have rewarded the jackler.

 

[belhysys]

for me the clip is too short. hard to see the entry direction of red. However for me first offence is off feet from blue, even for international lvl, then side from red. if red gets the ball plays on - no materiality