It was a YC act of foul play...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...This is probably the meat of this incident, it would be very different if the contact was high forcd
By which Law?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.
See Dickies post #19 , it had to be a YCAfter 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.
YOu can achieve it without going down as though shot. If you can't see that them nothing I say will change it.But what should he have done?
And what would have been the likely result ?
Volun has a good go at answering that in #13
What should he have done to achieve it?YOu can achieve it without going down as though shot. If you can't see that them nothing I say will change 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....
By which Law?
Appealing is penalisable. Appealing doesnt have to be verbal.
What do you think Nick White should have done ?
So theer is no PK-only availability?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.
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.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.
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.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
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) ..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’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.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) ..
It's to do with trying the get your opponent sanctioned for an offence he didn't commit. Deception.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 lawI’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.
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?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.