[Law] Weekly whistle

[didds]

If nothing else, I think he would be guilty under Law 10. Having been called for an infringement he is then cynically obstructing Blue 10 from taking advantage.
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]'Foul play [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]is anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, r[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]epeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.'[/FONT]

so that would include my 15 kicking to touch scenario presumably? Es-p[ecially maybe if I reword that to be

Red 15 knocks on in attempting to catch. Blue 11 is chasing and is almost upon the ball. Red 15 toe pokes the ball into touch.



didds

 

[didds]

Holding on the ground, I think. It might have been harsh - was he trying to get back to his feet immediately, or was he preventing white legitimately taking the ball on the ground?

To be honest, after re-watching it a few times I'm not sure he should have been penalised.

As I'm seeing it (ignoring any KO): red dives on a loose ball; white grabs him on the ground (falling on a man on the ground?), red tries to get back to his feet with white holding on, white releases, ball recycled.

Surely if he'd just given the KO we wouldn't even be discussing it!

its a very moot point that white grabs him while on the ground - he gets (hands) on him but to no meaningful effect., By the time he actually gets his arms around red , red is off his hands and knees. This arrived at after watching several times - the first impression (as was staffs) was that the 10 wasn't actually in contact when red gets to his feet. I'm still not seeing anymore PK there than multiple other times when a BC takes contact with a defender.

didds

 

[DocY]

its a very moot point that white grabs him while on the ground - he gets (hands) on him but to no meaningful effect., By the time he actually gets his arms around red , red is off his hands and knees. This arrived at after watching several times - the first impression (as was staffs) was that the 10 wasn't actually in contact when red gets to his feet. I'm still not seeing anymore PK there than multiple other times when a BC takes contact with a defender.

didds

I think we agree then

They should have picked an example when the penalty wasn't at all dubious!

 

[Staffs_Ref]

so that would include my 15 kicking to touch scenario presumably?

didds

Quite possibly. These things are seldom black & white. You certainly need to factor in the context as I wrote in my response to DocY just now - and in this situation you are dealing with professional rugby players who are very aware of what they are doing.

That said, in real time, without the aid of replay, I would still have probably just called the knock-on and awarded an attacking scrum.

 

[DocY]

Quite possibly. These things are seldom black & white. You certainly need to factor in the context as I wrote in my response to DocY just now - and in this situation you are dealing with professional rugby players who are very aware of what they are doing.

To me, it's pretty black and white - if it wouldn't be a penalty if it didn't follow from a infringement, it's not a penalty.

This is just how the game is played at every level. You play the whistle (and often a bit more).

Having knocked on, what should red have done in this case? Obviously he's going to try to get the ball back, but what could he do that isn't going to result in him being penalised or conceding possession (without a scrum)?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

To me, it's pretty black and white - if it wouldn't be a penalty if it didn't follow from a infringement, it's not a penalty.

This is just how the game is played at every level. You play the whistle (and often a bit more).

Having knocked on, what should red have done in this case? Obviously he's going to try to get the ball back, but what could he do that isn't going to result in him being penalised or conceding possession (without a scrum)?

I don't disagree ... The point I was making about the context making it less than black and white relates to the level of match. A professional player who has knocked the ball on in this situation and then prevents his opponent getting possession is almost certainly deliberately cheating ... at lower levels it may not be quite such a cynical action.

 

[didds]

I think we agree then

They should have picked an example when the penalty wasn't at all dubious!

Yup!


didds

 

[Phil E]

I think both examples are WTF! moments, where a normal fan would have gone WTF was that for?
I think both are borderline. It's almost like they are using these articles to justify decisions that are a bit marginal?
:chin:

 

[Staffs_Ref]

I think both examples are WTF! moments, where a normal fan would have gone WTF was that for?
I think both are borderline. It's almost like they are using these articles to justify decisions that are a bit marginal?
:chin:

You old cynic, you! :smile:

 

[didds]

I think both examples are WTF! moments, where a normal fan would have gone WTF was that for?
I think both are borderline. It's almost like they are using these articles to justify decisions that are a bit marginal?
:chin:

I like a good conspiracy theory!

But Phil is dead right with WTF moments.

I'd wager there was only one person in that stadium that had that nailed at a PK. Albeit the guy that didn't have a video to replay as many times as I have (albeit my initial thought was KO scrum).

didds

 

[rugbyslave]

Episode 3:
https://www.facebook.com/springboks/videos/10153736508694576/

 

[DocY]

Black 2 grabbing around the neck for me, but what was 11 black thinking?