The rugby

[Dogtrousers]

I'll be interested to see what happens at Steward's disciplinary hearing. I think a red means an automatic ban. But this was more of a red for - at worst - being a bit dumb, rather than deliberate foul play. So can the disciplinary committee decide that sending off is sufficient? Do they even have the power to spare him a ban without having to overturn the red card.

I've no idea what the actual rules/powers are but it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Alex321]

yes it was a very poor video decision, Yes FS should have stayed face on, but the head contact was because HK had bent right down to pick up the bouncing "pass". Yellow was enough as there was no intent at all.

I quite like goal line drop out. If as an attacking side you go for a try but don't get it down, fair enough, you've had your "shot" and you missed. well done defence.

A heck of a long time / possibly always is the answer to your last question. You are referring to when a player is not behind his kicker at the point of a kick (not to touch, and in open play) as far as i can remember you then have to get behind your kicker, either by you retreating or the kicker (or someone else who was onside) running forwards and getting ahead of you to play you back onside, the point being if the kicker has got to where he is, and you are now behind him, its the same effect of you being behind him and tracking him as he runs forwards.

No, that isn't what I was referring to.

I was referring to the fact that when a quick penalty is taken, any opponent who was not 10 yards back from the spot it was given cannot get involved until they have retreated 10 yards (or behind the goal line if closer).

In this case, a player made the tackle (resulting in the attacker being held up over the line) who had clearly never retreated behind the goal line. But apparently he was "played onside" by a player who HAD been behind the goal line coming forward beyond him.

Looking at the official rules, that still seems to be the case, in which case the officials got that one badly wrong.
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/20

 

[matticus]

It will happen.

There's probably a word or snappy phrase for the way in which well meaning regulations are always manipulated for gain (and you can't blame people for it - they're there to win).

Marginal gains unintended consequences is probably the most-oft used.

 

[T4tomo]

No, that isn't what I was referring to.

I was referring to the fact that when a quick penalty is taken, any opponent who was not 10 yards back from the spot it was given cannot get involved until they have retreated 10 yards (or behind the goal line if closer).

In this case, a player made the tackle (resulting in the attacker being held up over the line) who had clearly never retreated behind the goal line. But apparently he was "played onside" by a player who HAD been behind the goal line coming forward beyond him.

Looking at the official rules, that still seems to be the case, in which case the officials got that one badly wrong.
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/20

Rule 20.14 then. Similar principal.

I can't recall which game or incident you refer to, but the refs reasoning was sound from how you describe it, provided his team mate got in front of him before he attempted the tackle.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Marginal gains unintended consequences is probably the most-oft used.

I'm thinking Bloodgate ... I'm thinking that rash of uncontested scrums when Wasps (I think it was) started fielding cardboard disposable props. I'm also (but somewhat less so) thinking of the "choke tackle" which can't have been in the law makers mind when they framed the laws around the maul and the put in.

 

[matticus]

I'm thinking Bloodgate

Oh yeah - Id forgotten about that!

At least no-one uses sandpaper on the ball ... yet ...

 

[Alex321]

Rule 20.14 then. Similar principal.
View attachment 682343
I can't recall which game or incident you refer to, but the refs reasoning was sound from how you describe it, provided his team mate got in front of him before he attempted the tackle.

Oops.

Somehow missed that when reading it. I wonder when that part came in? Looking it up, it seems to have been in place in 2003, and there aren't any older copies of the rules I can find on the net.

 

[T4tomo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65035837

So Steward's red card is rescinded, with the ruling it should have only been a yellow. Still game ruined and who know's if it effected the outcome?

 

[Dogtrousers]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65035837

So Steward's red card is rescinded, with the ruling it should have only been a yellow. Still game ruined and who know's if it effected the outcome?

Very bold

 

[T4tomo]

Very bold

what the ruling, or my assertion that England might have edged the Irish with 15 players?

 

[Dogtrousers]

what the ruling, or my assertion that England might have edged the Irish with 15 players?

The ruling. I honestly wasn't expecting that. Not often a ref gets undermined like that.

Your assertion isn't bold. It's just wrong In my grovelling humble opinion

 

[T4tomo]

The ruling. I honestly wasn't expecting that. Not often a ref gets undermined like that.

Indeed it isn't, but it was a shocker of a decision.

For the record I reckon Ireland would have still won it and deserved the GS, but it certainly helped them playing against 14 for the 2nd half.

 

[geocycle]

I’m surprised as well, usually the ref is supported publicly at least. It certainly changed the match and removed some of the drama for the spectators, but odds are the result would have been the same. The question for the authorities is why did 4 officials come to a decision that they now think was wrong and what can be done in the future.

 

[T4tomo]

I’m surprised as well, usually the ref is supported publicly at least. It certainly changed the match and removed some of the drama for the spectators, but odds are the result would have been the same. The question for the authorities is why did 4 officials come to a decision that they now think was wrong and what can be done in the future.

to be fair the rugby video review gets it right nearly every time, unlike the farce that is football's VAR,.

 

[Beebo]

the fact the balls was thrown forward along the ground was a huge mitigation, which the ref simply didn’t take into account.
And that meant it wasn’t a normal tackle situation.