National League Rugby Discussion Forums Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > League Rugby - www.leaguerugby.co.uk > Clubhouse chat
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New World Rugby Tackle Laws Jan 3rd
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

IMPORTANT Remember to read the rules of the board and abide by them when posting.

New World Rugby Tackle Laws Jan 3rd

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
Loo fighters View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 01 May 2013
Location: Online...
Status: Offline
Points: 2020
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Loo fighters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2017 at 07:22
Originally posted by RedOrDead RedOrDead wrote:

Did anyone see Rugby Tonight on BT sport? They discussed the new laws with Wayne Barnes. Barnes said that contrary to what World Rugby have said, contact with the head of a player in a five yard out, pick and go scenario where the ball carrier ducks into the tackle isn't necessarily a penalty. Yet again, we the paying public are left our in the dark by the governing body saying one thing and the referees doing another, leaving us with no clue what is going on.

He was asked about the Sarries incident, but gave a very political response. I find the collective conspiracy from referees to refuse to admit to any wrongdoing from anyone utterly ridiculous, particularly when other mechanisms prove that they aren't infallible (in this case, the disciplinary). I strongly disagree that Ben Kay's assertion that the referee should fail to enforce the laws in a situation like this for the benefit of the spectacle of the game.


Barnes also mentioned the referee using discretion...I thought the new laws eliminated discretion when dealing with the high tackle, taking away the "grey area" making it a black & white offence. All the talk beforehand lead us to believe that ANY contact with the head/neck area was an automatic yellow, possibly escalated to a red on TMO review. Sending both Barritt & Barrington off would have sent a huge message.

Edited by Loo fighters - 12 Jan 2017 at 07:23
Family-Rugger-Beer...
Back to Top
RedOrDead View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedOrDead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2017 at 11:04
Exactly. A zero tolerance approach with some tolerance! I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with his view, just that it's at odds with what I read / heard before it was implemented, leaving the vast majority of those involved in the game (the folks on the sidelines) with little clue what's going on. I don't see why we can't have laws that can be followed to the letter so that everyone understands what's happening.
Back to Top
backrowb View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2013
Location: Gods own county
Status: Offline
Points: 1484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote backrowb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2017 at 12:03
How the referee and the 4th official missed the swinging arm to the chops from Barritt is beyond belief. Barrington was very, very unlucky....as was Parling.
Back to Top
Cricks at 2 View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 08 Dec 2015
Location: Bedford
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cricks at 2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2017 at 13:39
I think it is impossible to remove referee discretion or judgement. Having viewed the incident many times, from the initial, real time footage and through the various angle slo mos, I believe Barritt should have gone on red and Barrington on a yellow. The reason being that had Barritt not got in first, Barrington would probably have been able to adjust his 'tackle' angle. Barritt moved Parlings upper torso in to the path of Barrington's (albeit clumsy) approach. I guess it is the fine line between reckless and clumsy. Not a good scenario to start applying the new laws though.
Back to Top
RedOrDead View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedOrDead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2017 at 14:58
As Barnes explained it last night (I believe it's available on BT Sport's website for anyone who missed it and is interested, it's certainly on Twitter), I agree with your take Cricks at 2. Both players were "reckless", so according to what World Rugby have said, the minimum sanction that can be applied is a yellow card. Given the way Barritt rides up and tweaks Parling's neck, there is no doubt in my mind that it was a bad enough offence to warrant a straight red. If referees are being allowed some discretion, then the fact that Parling was tipping forwards serves as some mitigation for Barrington, so a yellow seems appropriate.

Maybe I'm being idealistic and unrealistic suggesting that the laws should be totally black and white. What I was getting at (and explaining poorly) is that there should be clarity and consistency from the establishment. I've just reread World Rugby's release on this, there is some leeway implied regarding the appropriate sanction for a reckless tackle, but everything else is black and white with the bottom line being that if a defender touches an opponent's head, the minimum sanction is a penalty.

I explained my worries about these changes further up the thread before a match was played under them. Barnes specifically addressed one of my concerns - how to defend a pick and go from your goal line and basically said that a common sense approach would be taken. I have no problem with this approach, it addresses my worries and will make for a fairer game IMO. My point is, if leeway is going to be allowed, say so in the laws, don't pen a law that isn't going to be followed from day one.

It might be that if I was party to the "Law Application Guidelines" this would all have been clear from day one, but these are hidden away on a password protected site. If this is the case, why on earth should the necessary information to understand the application of the laws be a secret? Surely this is more likely to lead to misunderstandings (like thinking that any head contact is at least a penalty) which damage the credibility of the game when referees don't do what the public have been told that they do.
Back to Top
RedOrDead View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedOrDead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2017 at 15:07
Originally posted by Cricks at 2 Cricks at 2 wrote:

Not a good scenario to start applying the new laws though.

Not a good scenario at any time and unfortunate for Exeter who should have enjoyed 10 minutes against 13 men, but from the point of view of improving everyone's understanding of the changes, I'd say it was great timing and now that it has been discussed, everyone has a better understanding, referees included, who will be less likely to bottle a decision like this.

It's a shame that BT didn't have rights to the Scarlets vs Ulster game (highlights on the BBC website) as it would have been another interesting one to hear discussed. My opinion is that this was another bottle job - the first two Ulster tacklers made reckless contact with the carriers head, so Ulster got off very light.

It appears that Rugby Refs is back up and running. I'm off to have a browse!
Back to Top
GodBlessTheApple View Drop Down
First XV squad
First XV squad
Avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2011
Location: South West
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GodBlessTheApple Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2017 at 14:02
RedorDead - bearing in mind that Rugbyrefs.com is a forum for community based referees who do not operate at the elite end of the game... of course.
Did I really say that?
Back to Top
RedOrDead View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedOrDead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2017 at 14:59
I wasn't aware that they discriminated and am pretty sure that one regular poster referees (or did) in the NPC.

Of course what? Are you suggesting that community based referees are being told to apply the laws differently to elite ones?

Having taken a look, I was surprised how little discussion there was. Maybe it's because the site has had problems, or maybe discussions are taking place behind closed doors.
Back to Top
hit'em'ard View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 790
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hit'em'ard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2017 at 15:46
Originally posted by RedOrDead RedOrDead wrote:

Did anyone see Rugby Tonight on BT sport? They discussed the new laws with Wayne Barnes. Barnes said that contrary to what World Rugby have said, contact with the head of a player in a five yard out, pick and go scenario where the ball carrier ducks into the tackle isn't necessarily a penalty. Yet again, we the paying public are left our in the dark by the governing body saying one thing and the referees doing another, leaving us with no clue what is going on.

He was asked about the Sarries incident, but gave a very political response. I find the collective conspiracy from referees to refuse to admit to any wrongdoing from anyone utterly ridiculous, particularly when other mechanisms prove that they aren't infallible (in this case, the disciplinary). I strongly disagree that Ben Kay's assertion that the referee should fail to enforce the laws in a situation like this for the benefit of the spectacle of the game.
In defence of the ref, he went through all of the criteria that he had been given with the video assistant more than once and they both agreed at every stage on how it should be applied.  Therefore, agree with it or not, there must be some consistency in what these guys are being told and how to apply it. 
 
For me, Barritt was the red card offence in the incident and the sentences handed out show that on reflection, the committee agree they got it wrong on the night.  The weight of the decision was given towards where the knock out blow occurred rather than why the knock out blow occurred.  Everything that happened to Parling following Barrits contact was a consequence of that initial contact.  Barrington very unlucky to walk, Barrit very lucky to stay. 
 
None of which was intentional.  Barrington went looking for Parling to apologise as he was rolled off the pitch, Barrit went into the hearing admitting fault.  I doubt theres an ounce of hard feeling from Parling toward either of them.  These things happen in a contact sport. 
 
It just shows that it will take players time to adjust, not just the officials.  I think its going to take everyone a few incidents to iron out the creases and straighten out what the correct application is.  We will reach a point where common sense starts to creep back into things.
Back to Top
Insignificant Tick View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner
Avatar

Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 930
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Insignificant Tick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2017 at 16:07
Originally posted by hit'em'ard hit'em'ard wrote:

Originally posted by RedOrDead RedOrDead wrote:

Did anyone see Rugby Tonight on BT sport? They discussed the new laws with Wayne Barnes. Barnes said that contrary to what World Rugby have said, contact with the head of a player in a five yard out, pick and go scenario where the ball carrier ducks into the tackle isn't necessarily a penalty. Yet again, we the paying public are left our in the dark by the governing body saying one thing and the referees doing another, leaving us with no clue what is going on.

He was asked about the Sarries incident, but gave a very political response. I find the collective conspiracy from referees to refuse to admit to any wrongdoing from anyone utterly ridiculous, particularly when other mechanisms prove that they aren't infallible (in this case, the disciplinary). I strongly disagree that Ben Kay's assertion that the referee should fail to enforce the laws in a situation like this for the benefit of the spectacle of the game.
In defence of the ref, he went through all of the criteria that he had been given with the video assistant more than once and they both agreed at every stage on how it should be applied.  Therefore, agree with it or not, there must be some consistency in what these guys are being told and how to apply it. 
 
For me, Barritt was the red card offence in the incident and the sentences handed out show that on reflection, the committee agree they got it wrong on the night.  The weight of the decision was given towards where the knock out blow occurred rather than why the knock out blow occurred.  Everything that happened to Parling following Barrits contact was a consequence of that initial contact.  Barrington very unlucky to walk, Barrit very lucky to stay. 
 
None of which was intentional.  Barrington went looking for Parling to apologise as he was rolled off the pitch, Barrit went into the hearing admitting fault.  I doubt theres an ounce of hard feeling from Parling toward either of them.  These things happen in a contact sport. 
 
It just shows that it will take players time to adjust, not just the officials.  I think its going to take everyone a few incidents to iron out the creases and straighten out what the correct application is.  We will reach a point where common sense starts to creep back into things.

Totally agree. The ref even told Barrit that he had made contact with the head then totally ignored his offence, how ? On what planet can any ref justify not giving him even a yellow ? That wasn't just getting it wrong, it was ignoring the evidence of his own eyes. Ben Kay's assumption that the ref was thinking that to send Barrit off would have ruined the game is just laughable and the ref should be swiftly demoted because its just incompetance / stupidity / not knowing the rules/ not enough rugby knowledge or experience.How do these guys even begin to be thought of as decent refs ?It wasn't even a misinterpretation, just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Back to Top
RedOrDead View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedOrDead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2017 at 19:31
Originally posted by hit'em'ard hit'em'ard wrote:

In defence of the ref, he went through all of the criteria that he had been given with the video assistant more than once and they both agreed at every stage on how it should be applied.  Therefore, agree with it or not, there must be some consistency in what these guys are being told and how to apply it.

Don't you think that fourth officials are in an impossible position and that something needs to change? I regularly get the impression that fourth officials are thinking "open your eyes man" but are prevented from explaining themselves by the protocols and the fact that they know that their conversation is on public. I'm not saying that this was the case in this situation, I didn't watch it live, so for all I know, the the fourth official and the referee had shared the same crack pipe before the match!

Originally posted by hit'em'ard hit'em'ard wrote:

None of which was intentional.  Barrington went looking for Parling to apologise as he was rolled off the pitch, Barrit went into the hearing admitting fault.  I doubt theres an ounce of hard feeling from Parling toward either of them.  These things happen in a contact sport.

I fully understand your point and think that you're probably right, but I think that anyone who agrees with what World Rugby are trying to achieve and their approach needs to adjust their attitude. The point about the new laws is that an offence of this nature that merits a card is reckless, so the injury could have been avoided - Barrington's (if you agree that it was a yellow) and Barritt's recklessness caused Parling's injury.
Back to Top
RedOrDead View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedOrDead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2017 at 19:36
Originally posted by Insignificant TickTotally agree. The ref even told Barrit that he had made contact with the head then totally ignored his offence, how ? On what planet can any ref justify not giving him even a yellow ? That wasn't just getting it wrong, it was ignoring the evidence of his own eyes. Ben Kay's assumption that the ref was thinking that to send Barrit off would have ruined the game is just laughable and the ref should be swiftly demoted because its just incompetance / stupidity / not knowing the rules/ not enough rugby knowledge or experience.How do these guys even begin to be thought of as decent refs ?It wasn't even a misinterpretation, just wrong, wrong, wrong.[/QUOTE Insignificant TickTotally agree. The ref even told Barrit that he had made contact with the head then totally ignored his offence, how ? On what planet can any ref justify not giving him even a yellow ? That wasn't just getting it wrong, it was ignoring the evidence of his own eyes. Ben Kay's assumption that the ref was thinking that to send Barrit off would have ruined the game is just laughable and the ref should be swiftly demoted because its just incompetance / stupidity / not knowing the rules/ not enough rugby knowledge or experience.How do these guys even begin to be thought of as decent refs ?It wasn't even a misinterpretation, just wrong, wrong, wrong.[/QUOTE wrote:


On a planet on which the referee believed that the challenge was accidental, not reckless. Not saying that it was the case and certainly not that it should have been the case, just that this is the only rational that doesn't paint the referee as thinking he's more important than the laws of the game.

If there was anything in Ben Kay's suggestion, heads should roll. I don't recall Barnes' response if any to this assertion, do you?

On a planet on which the referee believed that the challenge was accidental, not reckless. Not saying that it was the case and certainly not that it should have been the case, just that this is the only rational that doesn't paint the referee as thinking he's more important than the laws of the game.

If there was anything in Ben Kay's suggestion, heads should roll. I don't recall Barnes' response if any to this assertion, do you?
Back to Top
hit'em'ard View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 790
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hit'em'ard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2017 at 08:20
Originally posted by RedOrDead RedOrDead wrote:

Originally posted by hit'em'ard hit'em'ard wrote:

In defence of the ref, he went through all of the criteria that he had been given with the video assistant more than once and they both agreed at every stage on how it should be applied.  Therefore, agree with it or not, there must be some consistency in what these guys are being told and how to apply it.

Don't you think that fourth officials are in an impossible position and that something needs to change? I regularly get the impression that fourth officials are thinking "open your eyes man" but are prevented from explaining themselves by the protocols and the fact that they know that their conversation is on public. I'm not saying that this was the case in this situation, I didn't watch it live, so for all I know, the the fourth official and the referee had shared the same crack pipe before the match!

Originally posted by hit'em'ard hit'em'ard wrote:

None of which was intentional.  Barrington went looking for Parling to apologise as he was rolled off the pitch, Barrit went into the hearing admitting fault.  I doubt theres an ounce of hard feeling from Parling toward either of them.  These things happen in a contact sport.

I fully understand your point and think that you're probably right, but I think that anyone who agrees with what World Rugby are trying to achieve and their approach needs to adjust their attitude. The point about the new laws is that an offence of this nature that merits a card is reckless, so the injury could have been avoided - Barrington's (if you agree that it was a yellow) and Barritt's recklessness caused Parling's injury.


I'm seeing 4th officials give their opinion through how they say things and slightly changing tone. They aren't really making decisions but are trying to lead refs down what they see as the right path.

I fully back the changes to the laws but I thing that given the nature of our sport that there needs to be a slight softening because pure accident should not be punished and will be. Bristols Pisi being the example. Fully committed to taking the ball. I also think players are going to go looking to get guys sent off. I state the tackle in the air ruling and a Silver Ferns 7s player (in the Olympics) jumping, ball already in hands, as an England player comes in to tackle and buys a yellow card. I want us to police that just as hard. If a player puts themselves in danger to buy a card, irrespective of getting hurt in the process, they should be the one disciplined. We will see this.
Back to Top
RedOrDead View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedOrDead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2017 at 12:34
Originally posted by hit'em'ard hit'em'ard wrote:

I'm seeing 4th officials give their opinion through how they say things and slightly changing tone. They aren't really making decisions but are trying to lead refs down what they see as the right path.

This is what I was alluding to, but for whatever reason, I don't think that the referees are taking the hint.

Originally posted by hit'em'ard hit'em'ard wrote:

I fully back the changes to the laws but I thing that given the nature of our sport that there needs to be a slight softening because pure accident should not be punished and will be. Bristols Pisi being the example. Fully committed to taking the ball. I also think players are going to go looking to get guys sent off. I state the tackle in the air ruling and a Silver Ferns 7s player (in the Olympics) jumping, ball already in hands, as an England player comes in to tackle and buys a yellow card. I want us to police that just as hard. If a player puts themselves in danger to buy a card, irrespective of getting hurt in the process, they should be the one disciplined. We will see this.

We're certainly singing from the same song sheet on this one. I see World Rugby's approach as rather hypocritical. The term "reckless" has now been coined as something that is being discouraged in tackles, yet the laws / interpretations as they stand are actively encouraging players competing for a high ball the be reckless IMO. This was typified to me by the George North incident against Leicester - North jumps knees first towards a defender's head and the defender gets a yellow card! This merits a thread in its own right.

I remember watching the sevens incident with amazement. Wasn't this a simple case of the referee getting it wrong rather than a problem with the laws? I don't believe that the laws specifically legislate for this, but would have thought that most referees would penalise it as either dangerous play or an unsporting act. If referees follow the example of the referee on that day, it's an instant PK (or try under the posts) every time a team is in possession of the ball! Equally, if it is a PK to the ball carrier's side, why isn't a penalty try awarded and a yellow card given to the defender when a playing diving for the line is successfully tackled?


Edited by RedOrDead - 15 Jan 2017 at 12:37
Back to Top
hit'em'ard View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 790
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hit'em'ard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2017 at 14:43
I can only recall my very early playing days and I'm sure as kids people were penalised for 'jumping into tackles'.  Now, I suspect this is more to do with leading knees (a la North) than buying penalties.
I was pretty sure in the 7's the ref went to the TMO?  Or watched a replay.  Basically gave themselves enough time to watch it and still get it wrong.  I couldn't believe what I'd seen.
 
Look, we've seen players take a dive to buy penalties, its creeping in and I'd really like the game to stamp on it and ban offenders, be it post match if required.  That in no way removes the necessity to look after players safety, but in any situation someone will see opportunity and the spirit of the game doesn't really go hand in hand with professionalism.
Back to Top
RedOrDead View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedOrDead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2017 at 15:09
Me too. I checked the laws before making my previous post, as I said, it's not specifically legislated for, but covered by dangerous play. I'd have thought that anyone who grew up playing the game would have the same understanding - IIRC it's something that kids have an instinct to do to avoid being tackled, so is clamped down upon hard by referees of youth games.

I agree 100% about diving too. I'd say that it needs to be added to citing officers' remit. AFAIK, at the moment, they are only there to look for red card offences that weren't red carded to refer to judicial officers, meaning that they are unlikely to be able to refer "simulation".

As an aside, given the bad press that soccer receives for diving, I find it behind belief that they haven't brought in a citing system for this.
Back to Top
Insignificant Tick View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner
Avatar

Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 930
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Insignificant Tick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2017 at 15:21
The Glasgow player accentuating the lift was what incensed Keith Earles so much. Enough to call him a cheat as he started the walk to his early bath !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHk6pqxuCOw

I agree with Earles.
As hard as it is to believe, the Glasgow player exaggerated the tumble onto his own neck in an effort to get Earles sent off. It needs to be seen in real time to see the unnatural roll the Glasgow player did in order to land on his own neck.

Lets hope they nip it in the bud.


Edited by Insignificant Tick - 16 Jan 2017 at 15:43
Back to Top
RedOrDead View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedOrDead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2017 at 15:54
Again, a little outside the remit of this thread - another controversial area worthy of its own thread. I understand what you mean, but at the same time I can see an argument that says once the ball carrier was lifted off the ground, he realised that landing on his head as inevitable and by tucking his chin to his chest, was making an effort to minimise the impact on his head / neck. Having kept lifting and driving once it seemed clear that he was tipping the ball carrier, I don't see that Earls can have much of a complaint with the decision irrespective of that the ball carrier did.

Talking of controversial decisions and moving back to hit'em'ard's point, did anyone see the Toulon vs Sale game? The defender makes a very legitimate attempt to get low against a ball carrier leaning forwards (putting his head perilously close to the ball carriers' knees in doing so), as the carrier takes the ball into contact, he jumps over the tackler, putting himself into a dangerous position. What happens? The defender gets a yellow card and his team concede a a try. So much for cutting out reckless play and promoting safety. Something needs to be done about this sooner rather than later.



Edited by RedOrDead - 16 Jan 2017 at 15:55
Back to Top
Insignificant Tick View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner
Avatar

Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 930
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Insignificant Tick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2017 at 16:44
Unfathomable.
You can't wrap your arms around something that isn't there !
Ball carrier jumped the tackle, although not by much, but as the tackler went so low he missed him.
Back to Top
Moody Blues View Drop Down
World Cup Winner
World Cup Winner
Avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2013
Location: Macclesfield
Status: Offline
Points: 733
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Moody Blues Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2017 at 14:37
Originally posted by RedOrDead RedOrDead wrote:

Talking of controversial decisions and moving back to hit'em'ard's point, did anyone see the Toulon vs Sale game? The defender makes a very legitimate attempt to get low against a ball carrier leaning forwards (putting his head perilously close to the ball carriers' knees in doing so), as the carrier takes the ball into contact, he jumps over the tackler, putting himself into a dangerous position. What happens? The defender gets a yellow card and his team concede a a try. So much for cutting out reckless play and promoting safety. Something needs to be done about this sooner rather than later.
RoD - Yes, I saw this incident in the Toulon vs Sale game and couldn't believe Clancey's decision to give Kieran Longbottom a yellow card for that tackle.  He went low for a legitimate tackle on the Toulon hooker who jumped the tackler.  I thought the penalty should have been for Sale if anything and certainly no yellow card for Kieran.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.