"simulation" in the professional game

[crossref]

This is probably the meat of this incident, it would be very different if the contact was high forcd

It was a YC act of foul play...

 

[crossref]

b)White's playacting. We all know he was not injured, and he didn't play to the whistle. No one else bought it as they all played on. According to the laws, his action is a penalty offence.

By which Law?

 

[crossref]

After TMO review, I would’ve penalized Faf de Klerk for the hit to the face, and reversed it for White’s unsportsmanlike behavior. I don’t see how de Klerk’ contact rises to the level of YC with the unbelievably low level of force.

See Dickies post #19 , it had to be a YC
And then, given White was a victim of a YC offence , in what way is it unsportsmanlike to draw that to the refs attention?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

But what should he have done?
And what would have been the likely result ?

Volun has a good go at answering that in #13

YOu can achieve it without going down as though shot. If you can't see that them nothing I say will change it.

 

[crossref]

YOu can achieve it without going down as though shot. If you can't see that them nothing I say will change it.

What should he have done to achieve it?

 

[shebeen]

By which Law?

The 9.7c that you initially highlighted.



We clearly read it differently. If you don't think someone doing a "Maradonna" is handled by this law, then we need a new law that covers it explicitly. 9.27 could maybe be applied here.

 

[crossref]

But 9.7.c doesn't ban theatrical appeals, the offence is to pretend that an opponent had committed an infringement. In this case the opponent *had* committed an infringement. Indeed a serious one, starting point RC, mitigated to YC as lack of force.

9.27 - bad sportmanship is your straw to clutch at, but again, when a player is a victim of a YC offence how can it be bad sportsmanship to let the referee know? You may well counter that he could have complained in a different manner - -which is why I have invited you to say what he *should* have done. volun-selected's post 13 above is good on this : any other action by White most lilely means FdK gets away with it.

I guess in the land of WRU blazers who write the laws the expectation is that after this event Nick White would soldier on, then inform his captain, who would politely doff their scrumcap and ask the ref to review the footage at his earliest convenience. The offense would be sanctioned and we all carry on. Meanwhile, in the real world, FDK may well have rolled White over, snagged the ball, and released Green to go on to score. The ref would now be thinking "can I really roll it all back for *that*?" and cue the uproar for TMOs ruining the game or Refs not enforcing laws fairly, etc., etc....

 

[Phil E]

By which Law?

Appealing is penalisable. Appealing doesnt have to be verbal.

 

[crossref]

Appealing is penalisable. Appealing doesnt have to be verbal.

When someone suffers a YC-worthy act of foul play, it would be unusual to also sanction the victim for appealing. Not saying impossible, but not usual.
What we normally sanction is the constant noise of 'offside / off his feet / holding on'. etc and normally his is after a 'keep everyone quiet' warning to the captain?

What do you think Nick White should have done ?

 

[Phil E]

What do you think Nick White should have done ?

Played to the whistle. If there is foul play missed by the referee, then that's what the TMO is for.

Thin end of the wedge responding to appealing.

 

[didds]

its like this. If its head contact & foul play, they start at red card and then mitigate down. But they can only mitigate down by 1 level (ie low force). Therefore a yellow card was inevitable.

So theer is no PK-only availability?

I cant swear Im right but Im sure Ive seen reviews of contacts to head with alleged such low force its PK only ...

didds

 

[crossref]

Played to the whistle. If there is foul play missed by the referee, then that's what the TMO is for.

Thin end of the wedge responding to appealing.

it's an answer that makes sense: it's not about the theatrical manner of his appeal, it's just the fact that he appealed at all.

that's a stall you'd have to set out early of course...

 

[Locke]

So theer is no PK-only availability?

I cant swear Im right but Im sure Ive seen reviews of contacts to head with alleged such low force its PK only ...

didds

There is. It is not an automatic YC. See image from head contact process issued March 2021. And I see this is lowest possible level of danger for head contact.

 

[Locke]

As an addition, for what it’s worth, I read Law 9.7.c to apply whether or not an opponent has actually committed an infringement.

I hate any sort of soccer-esque diving in rugby. I’d love to see it stamped out at every opportunity.

Penalty to Australia for de Klerk’s foolish swat to the face. Reversed to SA for White’s brazen disregard for the spirit of the game and infringement of 9.7.c.

 

[crossref]

As an addition, for what it’s worth, I read Law 9.7.c to apply whether or not an opponent has actually committed an infringement.

that can't be the case, though. It can't be illegal for the captain to approach a ref and say that one of his players has been thumped... (if he has) ..

 

[Locke]

that can't be the case, though. It can't be illegal for the captain to approach a ref and say that one of his players has been thumped... (if he has) ..

I’ll have to acknowledge that a technical interpretation of the wording of the law, under my view, would have to include that but I don’t view that as a common sense inclusion of what the law is trying to prohibit.

 

[crossref]

I’ll have to acknowledge that a technical interpretation of the wording of the law, under my view, would have to include that but I don’t view that as a common sense inclusion of what the law is trying to prohibit.

It's to do with trying the get your opponent sanctioned for an offence he didn't commit. Deception.

If the opponent did commit an offence he has only himself to blame for the sanction

It's not a law about omerta

 

[Rich_NL]

I’ll have to acknowledge that a technical interpretation of the wording of the law, under my view, would have to include that but I don’t view that as a common sense inclusion of what the law is trying to prohibit.

It was brought in in response to deception, so what to you is common sense is a technical interpretation of the wording of the law

 

[Rich_NL]

My personal opinion: Faf's tap was very low danger, PK worthy. White's dying swan was also PK worthy, but not enough to reverse the call on a head contact PK

 

[Jarrod Burton]

As an addition, for what it’s worth, I read Law 9.7.c to apply whether or not an opponent has actually committed an infringement.

I hate any sort of soccer-esque diving in rugby. I’d love to see it stamped out at every opportunity.

Penalty to Australia for de Klerk’s foolish swat to the face. Reversed to SA for White’s brazen disregard for the spirit of the game and infringement of 9.7.c.

Soccer-esque diving is when a player gets tackled, no contact is made and they pull their legs up and fall over writhing in agony. White did get hit in the face in this instance and his response wasn't PK worthy under 9.7 as an offence had occurred - otherwise every time someone gets a head knock in a tackle and they stay down you could argue a penalty against them for making the officials consider (which would involve the TMO checking replays) that an offence had occurred. 9.27 is a long bow to draw - does Whites behaviour compare with calling the ref a cheat, pushing a water carrier, abusing the crowd, giving the bird to someone, spitting on a player, rubbing your blood on a player, etc?