Ulster V Leinster

[FightOrFlight]

First off I have to say I was worried when I saw Luke Pearce was doing this game but I was impressed with how he handled himself overall. He seemed calm and collected in what was at times a challenging game.

Game hinged on a few key moments:

Court's Red: For me a signed sealed and delivered RC. Everyone knows what will happen when you lift a guy and he comes down head first. Not much to be said.

Kearney's yellow: Lot of Ulster fans saying it should have been red however if Court had not been sent off earlier I very much doubt these calls would be out there. It was a bad attempt at a try saver but it was not red.

Ruddock's yellow: This one IMO was not handled well by the referee. He took very little time to examine what had actually happened and it was very similar to what I believe was the bad management of the Payne RC against Sarries. Ruddock was clearly knocked off balance and so was not in control of what he was doing. Jackson fell on to Kirchner and I believe had be not done so he would have come down fine but he fell awkwardly over Kirchner and that made it look worse. There was no card there for me and a PK for being clumsy was the max warranted.

Ruddock's card brought up what I think was a worrying clarification of the laws around players in the air. Pearce seemed to state that it did not matter of it was accidental of deliberate or if he knew Jackson was there or not. This for me opens up a black hole in law where a player on the ground must now concede considerable tactical advantage to a player in the air. It also blurs the mode of play lines a little bit. We now it seems in law have a defined difference between a player in reception of a kick and a player in reception of a pass. If a player was thrown a pass by another player and he jumped into the tackle and was taken in the air and landed on his head would we PK him for jumping into a tackle or RC the tackler for taking him in the air? Are we to define a kick catch as different to a pass catch even though the player in the air is in pretty much the same danger? This opens up the door to backs simply jumping to avoid being hit man and ball.
For me this "directive" is an attempt to justify what was a poor decision by Jerome Garces in RCing Payne. It raises questions over when and where a player can be in the air and if the same danger does not exist from a pass just because it is inconvenient in law.

 

[crossref]

Well, this is why it is so important for us to be able to read exactly what the directive says.

While the directive remains secret we have no idea whether the referee interpreted it correctly or not

 

[didds]

>Pearce seemed to state that it did not matter of it was accidental of deliberate or if he knew Jackson was there or not.

red jumps for the ball in the air

blue standing adjacent is watching him waiting for the catcher to land.

red teammate pushes blue player into red jumper while in the air.

PK against red for playing the man without the ball. Reversed because blue played the red jumper in the air. YC to blue player.



Its an extreme example granted. But its the extremes that show the realties.

didds

 

[Stuartg]

What I did not understand was why a penalty try was not awarded for Kearney's head hign tackle. The ref went to the TMO to ask if a try had been scored, the answer "Yes" came back. Try awarded in the corner and YC.

What would have happened if the answer had been "No".

A PT is awarded when foul play prevents a try being scored or a try being scored in a more advantageous position. I would contend that without the foul play Ulster would have scored nearer the pists, even if only a couple of metres nearer. The conversion was missed and Ulster lost by 2 points. I think the ref should have gone under the posts and awarded the PT straight away.

Am I alone in finding the BBC NI commentry one-eyed and generally dreadful.

 

[dave_clark]

Well, this is why it is so important for us to be able to read exactly what the directive says.

While the directive remains secret we have no idea whether the referee interpreted it correctly or not

mate, we've been though this. it's not secret, it's just that it's for panel referees only and not for plebs like us.

i think that's right, isn't it?

:biggrin:

 

[OB..]

A PT is awarded when foul play prevents a try being scored or a try being scored in a more advantageous position.

That second criterion only applies if the offence took place in in-goal. Did it? The initial contact certainly wasn't.

 

[Dixie]

That second criterion only applies if the offence took place in in-goal.

What an interesting point! I don't recall ever hearing that position advanced before. I can see where it arises:

[LAWS]22.17 MISCONDUCT OR UNFAIR PLAY IN IN-GOAL
(b) Foul play by the defending team. The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.
The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.[/LAWS]

But this is not the only mention in Law 22 of a PT:

[LAWS]Law 22.4(h) Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.

A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.[/LAWS]

If we accept (as we surely must) that 22.17 applies only in-goal, then it seems reasonable to infer that 22.4 is not merely a pre-statement of 22.17, but rather applies in the field of play. If that is not the case, then we need to find the provision that would allow a PT for foul play preventing a try in the field of play. The best I can do is 9.A.1 dealing with points values:

[LAWS]Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded between the goal posts.[/LAWS]

But the main point of that text in the left column is to define the points value (5 pts) in the column to the right of it.

In short OB - and we should perhaps tell people to sit down before reading on - I think you may have erred here.

 

[FightOrFlight]

Am I alone in finding the BBC NI commentry one-eyed and generally dreadful.

You surely are not!

Ulster has the biggest problem out of all the provinces with so called "pavilion support", ie: people who never played the game nor bothered to learn the rules, they were simply caught up in the melodic strains of Stand Up For The Ulstermen or dragged in directly or indirectly by some other branch of "Ulster patriotism". BBC pander to this a bit with their red tinted glasses with regards Ulster.

That being said it compares poorly with some of the stuff they come out with relating to England in the 6N!!:biggrin:

 

[The umpire]

You surely are not!

Ulster has the biggest problem out of all the provinces with so called "pavilion support", ie: people who never played the game nor bothered to learn the rules, they were simply caught up in the melodic strains of Stand Up For The Ulstermen or dragged in directly or indirectly by some other branch of "Ulster patriotism". BBC pander to this a bit with their red tinted glasses with regards Ulster.

That being said it compares poorly with some of the stuff they come out with relating to England in the 6N!!:biggrin:

Indeed, BBC NI is positively even handed compared with some of the BBC Wales stuff, in fact I think I saw a branch of MonocleSavers in Cardiff. And don't get us started on the studio people on the BBC.

 

[Dickie E]

it seems reasonable to infer that 22.4 is not merely a pre-statement of 22.17, but rather applies in the field of play.

I would agree. 22.4 includes a number of non-in-goal scenarios including a pushed over scrum. For me, 22.4 stuff would be better placed elsewhere than in Law 22.

 

[Dickie E]

In short OB - and we should perhaps tell people to sit down before reading on - I think you may have erred here.

I think OB.. looks good in a scarf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwkU8-d1gIk

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ruddock's card brought up what I think was a worrying clarification of the laws around players in the air. Pearce seemed to state that it did not matter of it was accidental of deliberate or if he knew Jackson was there or not. This for me opens up a black hole in law where a player on the ground must now concede considerable tactical advantage to a player in the air. It also blurs the mode of play lines a little bit. We now it seems in law have a defined difference between a player in reception of a kick and a player in reception of a pass. If a player was thrown a pass by another player and he jumped into the tackle and was taken in the air and landed on his head would we PK him for jumping into a tackle or RC the tackler for taking him in the air? Are we to define a kick catch as different to a pass catch even though the player in the air is in pretty much the same danger? This opens up the door to backs simply jumping to avoid being hit man and ball.
For me this "directive" is an attempt to justify what was a poor decision by Jerome Garces in RCing Payne. It raises questions over when and where a player can be in the air and if the same danger does not exist from a pass just because it is inconvenient in law.

I think you have some valid points here, and its a pity that others don't seem to want to discuss it. Something similar happened in the Crusaders v Brumbies match last night. A White Ball Carrier jumped into a Red tackler, landed with his midriff on the Red player's shoulder and flipped over, landing on his back before the Red player could do anything about it. Referee awarded PK against the Red player for a dangerous tackle. This borders on the ridiculous; what the hell is the tackler supposed to do about it.

The iRB need to get a handle on this quickly before things become farcical, and we have players jumping into tacklers to win PK's and/or avoid the "ball and all" tackle.

 

[FightOrFlight]

I think you have some valid points here, and its a pity that others don't seem to want to discuss it. Something similar happened in the Crusaders v Brumbies match last night. A White Ball Carrier jumped into a Red tackler, landed with his midriff on the Red player's shoulder and flipped over, landing on his back before the Red player could do anything about it. Referee awarded PK against the Red player for a dangerous tackle. This borders on the ridiculous; what the hell is the tackler supposed to do about it.

The iRB need to get a handle on this quickly before things become farcical, and we have players jumping into tacklers to win PK's and/or avoid the "ball and all" tackle.

I was thinking about the whole issue a little bit more today and to be honest I can think of many many other holes and/or loopholes in the whole "in the air/on the ground issue". Say for example a red 15 goes up as Goode did for Sarries and White 15 is chasing. Red 15 sticks up a knee as he jumps to protect himself(I mean god help the poor guy!) and catches White 15 flush on the temple with his knee. White 15 goes down and swallows his tongue. Ref blows up play and there is the terrible spectacle of the yellow jackets and doctors rushing on to care for and to even god forbid resuscitate White 15. Chances are the referee will restart with a scrum to Red and say "oh yeh accidental collision isn't it awful". Now what has happened here is not at all accidental...one player has delivered a deliberately positioned flying knee to the head of another player...an action that anywhere else on the field would be a mass brawl and a RC and 30+ week ban more for the player's protection than anything else. I have heard a lot of people when a guy on the ground cops one say "oh well he has to use his knee to protect himself in the air because he is vulnerable"....well if I am a centre and i get hung out to dry by one of the mate and have a 20 stone prop about to hit me man and ball and end my concious participation in the next month can I stick up an elbow for "protection"? I mean I am pretty "vulnerable" in this situation but I never chose to be in it....jumping is a choice...being hung out to dry is not!

To suggest that a player must wait for another player to "come down" before tackling them is just impractical really. It concedes too much tactical advantage. The suggestion that a player who "also jumps" is "better" is ridiculous in the extreme....this legalises a player launching himself into a player in the air under the guise of "contesting" and is IMO more dangerous than a man on the ground taking him out.

My point made in my previous post is what concerns me most. The idea of being allowed to jump to field the ball allows for players to legally jump into tackles if mode of play law is to be consistent. Furthermore it allows for players to jump into tackles with a knee up for "protection" as is seen when fielding a kick. If I saw a player thrown a bad pass jumping to avoid a big tackle and leading with his knee to the tackler's head it would be among the easier :norc: situations I could come across but it is seemingly legal when fielding a catch!

In the Ruddock situation Pearce says "we must protect players in the air"......well my response to that is who is protecting the player on the ground when a knee/hip/elbow or other solid feature hits them square on with 13-15 stone of gusto behind it??

 

[OB..]

The idea of being allowed to jump to field the ball allows for players to legally jump into tackles if mode of play law is to be consistent.

I don't see why.

Furthermore it allows for players to jump into tackles with a knee up for "protection" as is seen when fielding a kick.

I have seen players penalised for jumping with a foot stuck out.

 

[OB..]

I would agree. 22.4 includes a number of non-in-goal scenarios including a pushed over scrum. For me, 22.4 stuff would be better placed elsewhere than in Law 22.

In which case it is curious that none of the other references to a penalty try in, eg, the Foul Play law mention the "better position" possibility.

Yes, you do find bits of law seemingly out of place, but I don't find this particular suggestion very convincing.

 

[FightOrFlight]

I don't see why

A player fielding a high ball is jumping to avoid being cut in half so why is it illegal for a player catching a pass to do the same? Both are equally dangerous to all involved

I have seen players penalised for jumping with a foot stuck out.

I have seen players penalised for many things in my time, however time and time again players jump to catch with a knee up and get away with it. Many times I have seen the man on the ground wait for the guy to come down but cop a knee square on the head and be knocked out or concussed. Ref just says "accidental collision". Is that protection for the man on the ground?

 

[OB..]

A player fielding a high ball is jumping to avoid being cut in half so why is it illegal for a player catching a pass to do the same? Both are equally dangerous to all involved

You said "jumping into a tackle", which implied he already had the ball. That is different.

If a player is not allowed to jump to catch the ball, some perfectly safe plays will become illegal eg high pass but no opponent around.

I have seen players penalised for many things in my time, however time and time again players jump to catch with a knee up and get away with it. Many times I have seen the man on the ground wait for the guy to come down but cop a knee square on the head and be knocked out or concussed. Ref just says "accidental collision". Is that protection for the man on the ground?

In order to jump you need to raise your knee initially, but not to keep it up.

I still maintain it is essential to get some statistics on how many serious injuries there are from mid-air collisions. Anecdote and worry are not good enough.

 

[FightOrFlight]

You said "jumping into a tackle", which implied he already had the ball. That is different.

If a player is not allowed to jump to catch the ball, some perfectly safe plays will become illegal eg high pass but no opponent around.

Well if a player is getting a pass and jumps to avoid being hit after he catches he can more or less jump around a tackle. If this was presented on the pitch I would imagine most refs would PK him for jumping into a tackle. It means that you can be sprinting forward jump before you are going to catch the pass...catch it in the air and have a defender who cannot tackle you and must concede considerable tactical advantage to you. To my mind this would create quite a socceresque situation where players could "draw" a PK in the air just as a diving soccer player is said to "draw the FK".

In order to jump you need to raise your knee initially, but not to keep it up.

I still maintain it is essential to get some statistics on how many serious injuries there are from mid-air collisions. Anecdote and worry are not good enough.

Well the very one sided and badly thought out reactionary "directives" this week on players in the air seem to be pretty worry motivated.

 

[dave_clark]

Well the very one sided and badly thought out reactionary "directives" this week on players in the air seem to be pretty worry motivated.

have you read it?

 

[FightOrFlight]

have you read it?

Directly quoting Luke Pearce: "It doesn't matter if it is deliberate or not we must protect players in the air" this is ater him having seen the footage of Ruddock more or less tripping over and falling toward Jackson. It is easy enough to pick up what the main point of the directive is.