PDA

View Full Version : Wasps v Llanelli: 2nd Wasps try



ex-lucy
14-01-08, 17:01
was this not a cavalry charge/ flying wedge situation?

I know the laws state you cant do these from a 5m penalty and this move was off a rucky thingy ... but still .. the law was enscribed due to safety considerations and thus the same reasoning should have been applied here. No?

beckett50
14-01-08, 17:01
No.

There was no obstruction, since the ball carrier (Ibanez) was at the front for the wedge.

Cavalry charge only relevant at PK/Fk situation where oppo have to be back some distance - as opposed to standing on the offside line for the Ruck.

Toby Warren
14-01-08, 18:01
There was a potential argument that Vickery (I think he scored) could have been done for holding on as it appeared his knees touched the ground about 2-3 times.

Very pedantic and would have been v shocked if no try had been given for that

OB..
14-01-08, 19:01
This sort of situation is commonplace, and never gets penalised.

Therefore that is the way the law is being interpreted.

Davet
15-01-08, 01:01
I was concerned that the tactic was pretty much equivalent to a cavalry charge - Law 10 says a CC "usually" occurs at a PK close to the goal-line.

This seems to be interpreted by 99.9% of all known refs as meaning exclusivley at a PK - but strictly... that ain't what's writ.

However, to change the practice might take a long time, and consistency might mean going with the flow until a general agreement is reached.

Dixie
15-01-08, 08:01
... a CC "usually" occurs at a PK close to the goal-line.

This seems to be interpreted by 99.9% of all known refs as meaning exclusivley at a PK - but strictly... that ain't what's writ. This is true. But the essence of a cavalry charge is: a) a static ball awaiting play; b) several attackers waiting to receive a pass; c) defenders uncertain where the point of attack will be; and crucially d) attackers getting up a head of steam before the ball is brought into play.

In what way is that different from any scenario at the base of any scrum/ruck/maul? If you extend the idea of the cc to include more than a PK scenario, you ought to penalise anyone in the backs or loose forwards acting as strike runners and moving before the SH passes the ball. This would be silly, IMO.:chin:

Tibbs
15-01-08, 11:01
I'd be totally against that - I scored 3 tries in 7 years in my senior rugby career. 2 were from the back of diving mauls and one was an heroic run from [ahem] 3 metres out from a popped pass from the back of a ruck. The only way I made it over was because I was already at full speed when I got the ball.

I won't allow you to take away 1/3 of my tries never, Never, NEVER!

/calms down :p

Chris

OB..
15-01-08, 15:01
It is for the referee to decide if the play is dangerous, given the details of the situation, the skills of the participants etc.

Whether or not it can be labelled "cavalry charge" is irrelevant.

Dixie
15-01-08, 16:01
I won't allow you to take away 1/3 of my tries never, Never, NEVER!

Chris

Good grief! I thought Maggie Thatcher had slipped of the radar a bit. Seems she's alive and well, reffing under an assumed name in London:D Just rejoice!

AndyKidd
15-01-08, 16:01
Good grief! I thought Maggie Thatcher had slipped of the radar a bit. Seems she's alive and well, reffing under an assumed name in London:D Just rejoice!


The Iron lady may know more about the Laws of Rugby than Stuart Barnes. If she ever stopped to listen to Denis that is!