Tackle off Feet - Diving to Score

[RemainingInTheGame]

It's always the tight head

The tight head prop is always the thinkingest Prop.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That is the way I have read it and been told by advisors.
If you can't ID the culprit, i.e. front row going down at a push over try, the choose someone but basically someone has to go for a sit down

Our (WRU) guidence is the opposite. IF you can't ID the player then there is no card. You do not guess. The offending player goes to the bin. It is not a game of "who draws the shortest straw."

 

[jdeagro]

That is the way I have read it and been told by advisors.
If you can't ID the culprit, i.e. front row going down at a push over try, the choose someone but basically someone has to go for a sit down

Tangentially related:

We had a game (I was player / captain, not the ref) where the other team was being very unsportsmanlike and somewhat abusive towards the ref. At one point the ref blew for a penalty against them and they punted the ball 50m away so we couldn't go quick, etc. This happened behind the refs back as he was blowing the penalty, so he didn't see who the offender was. He asked the offending team who kicked the ball, and of course no one wanted to own up to it. I happened to be near the ref and being able to tell he was about to deliver a card from his body language, I politely mentioned to him "I think that one goes to the captain then". And that is what the ref resultantly ended up doing lol.

Not sure now if there's anything official in the lawbook on that, but I feel I've seen that as a resolution in other matches before.

 

[didds]

The tight head prop is always the thinkingest Prop.

this.

100%

 

[SimonSmith]

Tangentially related:

We had a game (I was player / captain, not the ref) where the other team was being very unsportsmanlike and somewhat abusive towards the ref. At one point the ref blew for a penalty against them and they punted the ball 50m away so we couldn't go quick, etc. This happened behind the refs back as he was blowing the penalty, so he didn't see who the offender was. He asked the offending team who kicked the ball, and of course no one wanted to own up to it. I happened to be near the ref and being able to tell he was about to deliver a card from his body language, I politely mentioned to him "I think that one goes to the captain then". And that is what the ref resultantly ended up doing lol.

Not sure now if there's anything official in the lawbook on that, but I feel I've seen that as a resolution in other matches before.

This is a common belief in the US.

And it can't be supported in law.

 

[jdeagro]

This is a common belief in the US.

And it can't be supported in law.

I believe I've seen it applied in non-US matches before as well. I don't watch much US rugby TBH.

Out of curiosity, what would you do in a similar situation if you couldn't identify the offender?

 

[Dickie E]

I believe I've seen it applied in non-US matches before as well. I don't watch much US rugby TBH.

Out of curiosity, what would you do in a similar situation if you couldn't identify the offender?

I'd do the same as if I missed foul play. Concentrate harder to avoid missing incidents.
I'm not a big fan of referees who imperiously fill their lungs for the big whistle blast & primary signal, while turning their back on what's going on

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

I believe I've seen it applied in non-US matches before as well. I don't watch much US rugby TBH.

Out of curiosity, what would you do in a similar situation if you couldn't identify the offender?

To be honest, it's got to be an absolute edge case where you can identify and call a penalty try or other YC offence but can't identify a single individual who is guilty.

The way I think about it there are generally multiple offenders and I get pick one for a sit down (e.g. collapsed maul near goal line).

Probably similar to @Dickie E with his comment on the example; ref should have had eyes on the ball and signalled in a way to accommodate this.

 

[Phil E]

You cannot card someone at random, that's not equitable or lawful.
"Captain, if I could identify the guilty player he would be going off, you may not get so lucky a second time."

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Scenario from a good mate:
As he is speaking to the captains he hears a thud. He turns around to se a handful of players, one with blood streaming from his nose. He did not see anything but clearly a pucnh / head butt has been thrown. He askes: What did you do that for?" One player replies: " He pushed me!" The speaker got a red card for his troubles. Had the guy kept quiet there would be nothing he could do, other than askshould he have separated the players beofre speaking to the captains? Answer YES! He made a mistake and the idiot gave the ref a "get out of jail card". My mate learned his lessonGet the players apart and then speak top the captains.

Yes we, "should have", "could have" done things differently and we need to learn from our mistakes. BUT, when we are faced with our mistake any not ideal situation and we can't id the player we should not be guessing.

"Guys There clearly has been foul play but I've not got a number. Someone has got away with it this time. Don't risk it again you might not be so lucky next time!" After the game review it and draw conclusions and act in the future.

 

[SimonSmith]

I believe I've seen it applied in non-US matches before as well. I don't watch much US rugby TBH.

Out of curiosity, what would you do in a similar situation if you couldn't identify the offender?

Work hard to identify the offender.
Work harder if I missed it.
Call both captains over and make it clear to both that if I had seen the offender he would be walking, and that I expected pristine behavior. Then I'd go forward 10m.

What I wouldn't do is contract outside the law for that.