PDA

View Full Version : 6N TMO Decisions



chopper15
02-02-08, 18:02
Not seeing the ball successfully grounded is obviously not an acceptable reason why the ref. should NOT award the try . . . . the question posed apparently is?

This pm's two examples; Ire v Italy, 'Is there any reason I cannot award a try?' and Eng v lovely Wales, 'Try or no try?'.

What prompts the ref. as to the phrasing?

Are they 'established' and are there agreed alternatives to suit the circumstances? If so, what are they?

I understand from that delicious commenter (sic) Brian Moore, that the Eng. try would've been awarded had the Ire. game's phrasing been used?

And what about James Hook at fly half ? . . .dangerous, fast runner, calculated field kicking and immaculate place kicker. If only England had a FH of that quality now, I s'pose you supporters are wishing!

Deeps
02-02-08, 19:02
Eng v lovely Wales, 'Try or no try?'.

Well as TMO in this house I noted that Sackey was up on his knees in his effort to ground the ball. It hardly complied with 22.4 (e) or (f) and, as I seem to remember Tindall was penalised for that a season or two ago, then Sackey rendered himself liable at that point too, let alone getting a try!

Considering all the other offences Joubert declined to call as well, I am not surprised he need help with this one too.

Unless the technology is good enough to do the business unequivocally, regardless of who else is in the way, then I really think it is time the iRB dispensed with this time expired experiment and allowed referees to get back to making their own decisions.

chopper15
02-02-08, 20:02
Well as TMO in this house I noted that Sackey was up on his knees in his effort to ground the ball. It hardly complied with 22.4 (e) or (f) and, as I seem to remember Tindall was penalised for that a season or two ago, then Sackey rendered himself liable at that point too, let alone getting a try!

Considering all the other offences Joubert declined to call as well, I am not surprised he need help with this one too.

Unless the technology is good enough to do the business unequivocally, regardless of who else is in the way, then I really think it is time the iRB dispensed with this time expired experiment and allowed referees to get back to making their own decisions.




Does the 'probability of the ball being grounded' in the ref's opinion, now supersede the 'ball must be seen to be successfully grounded' on the the TMO's monitor?

Sorry, Deeps, if my ques. reads confusingly but I'm having difficulty in phrasing it. Perhaps you get my drift?

And was Moore right?

Simon Griffiths
02-02-08, 20:02
There are (supposed to be) two questions the ref can ask the TMO. "Has a try been scored?" type question, or, "Is there any reason I cannot award the try?" type question.

With the former, the TMO has to see that a try has been scored to award it. With the latter, the TMO has to actually see a reason that a try cannot be awarded (i.e. wasn't scored) to say that a try cannot be awarded, otherwise it should be called a try.

As such, Moore was right... :wow:

Simon Griffiths
02-02-08, 20:02
On those two incidents...

Kaplan seemed to be horrendously out of position (i.e. couldn't have been in a worse position), whereas Joubert was in a great position and should have been able to make that call himself...

Will.Q
02-02-08, 20:02
Fellas this is all a bit picky and smells a little bit like sour grapes.

Point 1 - I haven't seen the match. Listened to it on the radio on the way back from my game. From what I heard, Wales fully deserved the win and England were awfully arrogant and deserved to lose. Well done to Wales.

Point 2 - Who cares about the finer points on the Sackey incident. The team of 4 got the call right in the end, and that is all that matters. I understand from the radio commentary that nobody on the face of gods green earth saw the ball grounded by Sackey. In the circumstances, the correct decision has clearly prevailed and the team of 4 have achieved what is expected of them in such a circumstance.

Mat 04
02-02-08, 21:02
There are (supposed to be) two questions the ref can ask the TMO. "Has a try been scored?" type question, or, "Is there any reason I cannot award the try?" type question.

With the former, the TMO has to see that a try has been scored to award it. With the latter, the TMO has to actually see a reason that a try cannot be awarded (i.e. wasn't scored) to say that a try cannot be awarded, otherwise it should be called a try.

As such, Moore was right... :wow:

Im afraid I have to disagree. The Sackey try was not visible, but the probabilty of it being scored was not sufficient enough to warrant the try being given in my opinion. Huw Bennett's arm was in a position that seemed to suggest a possible "held up".

FlipFlop
02-02-08, 21:02
Brian Moore was right - if the other question had been asked, then I'm pretty sure the try would have been awarded.

There are two questions, because there are 2 scenarios - for 1 the ref thinks it is a try, the other they either think it isn't.

(Oh yes - and I'm in agreement with SG below - I believe the RIGHT question was asked, and the right decision reached on this occassion)

Simon Griffiths
02-02-08, 21:02
Mat, the point is the phrasing of the question. Had Joubert used the same question as Kaplan had in the Ireland match, then the TMO would have had to award the try as there was no conclusive evidence that it had been held up. Ergo, Moore was right.

Joubert didn't ask the same question - he asked if a try had been scored. The TMO therefore has to see a try actually being scored/grounded. The TMO was spot on given what he saw and the question he was asked.

As it happens, the question selection probably, therefore, led to the correct decision being made.

Dixie
03-02-08, 00:02
So Chopper, to answer your specific question, the deal is this.

If the ref believes that a try has been scored, but wants to ensure that nothing exists to contrdict this view, he asks whether there is any reason he can NOT award the try. In such a case, the TMO has to clearly see a factor that justifies overturning the ref's belief that the try has been scored. In the case of the Sackey effort, there was nothing the TMO could see to help in the decision either way.

Joubert, despite being in a great position, was not in a position to believe that a try had been scored. That being so, he asked the TMO whether a try HAD been scored. The TMO then needs to see the ball grounded on or beyond the goal line by an attacking player, who is not in touch. If he can't see that, he should not award the try.

As far as I am aware, on a "try or no try" call, the balance of probabilities would not be enough - which is to say I think firm evidence is needed. This is the view I take in my own matches - if I don't see it, I don't give it. Not certain on this though within the TMO protocols - can a higher-level ref or assessor give clarity?

Deeps
03-02-08, 20:02
Im afraid I have to disagree. The Sackey try was not visible, but the probabilty of it being scored was not sufficient enough to warrant the try being given in my opinion. Huw Bennett's arm was in a position that seemed to suggest a possible "held up".

You miss the point entirely. Whether he grounded it or not is immaterial however much we were all besotted by the wonders of technology at the time. Sackey did not made the line under momentum nor did he just 'reach out with his arms'. He was up on his knees using his lower body in the effort to get the ball down over the top of a grounded Welshman. Nobody seemed to want to notice that aspect at all.

Deeps
03-02-08, 21:02
Does the 'probability of the ball being grounded' in the ref's opinion, now supersede the 'ball must be seen to be successfully grounded' on the the TMO's monitor?

Sorry, Deeps, if my ques. reads confusingly but I'm having difficulty in phrasing it. Perhaps you get my drift?

And was Moore right?

Chopper, I have no trouble drifting along with your thoughts. My view is that the referee, aided by his TJs, makes a decision as to whether a try has been scored or not. The technology could be good enough (SAT NAV, proximity radar etc but it's not, presumably because they do not want to spend the money. Until that day comes and a game is refereed entirely by technology then decisions should be left to the referee, whether he gets it right or wrong and whatever the consequences, financial or otherwise.

Why do we not use in goal TJs for Internationals as in Sevens?

Dixie
03-02-08, 21:02
Why do we not use in goal TJs for Internationals as in Sevens?Perhaps because the thankless task of being 4th Official would then move rapidly off the bottom of desirable appointments - to be replaced by being an in-goal official. Fewer tries in internationals than in 7's, Deeps - and longer, colder games.

To go back to your point on Sackey's "double movement" (Sorry! Couldn't resist it), if we are going to back up the play beyond the TMO's right to comment, we can back it up to Hook's neck tackle on Sackey (great photo in Sunday Times, apparently not on the website) and argue for the PT, bearing in mind that even with the tackle it was close enough to go to the TMO. But none of that helps to answer Chopper's original question.

truck'n'trailor
03-02-08, 21:02
Back to reffing in the bad old days with you, Deeps...

Mat 04
03-02-08, 22:02
Mat, the point is the phrasing of the question. Had Joubert used the same question as Kaplan had in the Ireland match, then the TMO would have had to award the try as there was no conclusive evidence that it had been held up. Ergo, Moore was right.

Im afraid I still have to disagree. While I accept the questions are different, and in some circumstances could produce different outcomes, I do not see how a clearly visible arm from a defending player that could very well be holding the ball up can be overlooked as a reason "not to award the try".

Deeps, Im curious as to why you singled me out about Sackey being on his knees, when nobody else has seemed to notice it either...

chopper15
03-02-08, 22:02
Chopper, I have no trouble drifting along with your thoughts. My view is that the referee, aided by his TJs, makes a decision as to whether a try has been scored or not.. . . . ...... Until that day comes and a game is refereed entirely by technology then decisions should be left to the referee, whether he gets it right or wrong and whatever the consequences, financial or otherwise.

Agree, Deeps!

If my memory serves me right, it wasn't so long ago when a ref had to see the ball successfully grounded to award the try. . . . not even probabilities were acceptable!?

Why not use the TMO only for that purpose now, but only after having consulted with his TJ/s?

Toby Warren
04-02-08, 08:02
I found the use of the TMO in Scotland France game was interesting, i have never seen it used for anything other than a try award. Did anyone else get the feeling that the TMO was itching to tell the ref that it was more than just a pen for the (albeit lame) headbutt.

If you hasve seen that what woud have you given?

Toby Warren
04-02-08, 08:02
I found the use of the TMO in Scotland France game was interesting, i have never seen it used for anything other than a try award. Did anyone else get the feeling that the TMO was itching to tell the ref that it was more than just a pen for the (albeit lame) headbutt.

If you had seen that what woud have you given?

Will.Q
04-02-08, 09:02
If I'd of seen it, I'd of given nothing but pen restart to France (as happened). It was something of nothing, hand-bags at best.

Simon Griffiths
04-02-08, 11:02
that could very well be
But therein lies the problem with your point; as it stands, 'could very well' is not enough if Kaplan's phrasing had been used. The TMO would actually have to see the arm under the ball - something you couldn't actually do in the Sackey instance, even though it looked likely.

However, Joubert used the other question, so this is all fairly irrelevent anyway... :p

Lizban, I thought CW was itching to recommend a YC as well. I'm afraid I have to disagree with Will, in my opinion, a head-butt always requires someone to take at least a few minutes to reflect.

chopper15
04-02-08, 11:02
If I'd of seen it, I'd of given nothing but pen restart to France (as happened). It was something of nothing, hand-bags at best.



Yes, Will, I agree, it's all about 'intent' as opposed to 'a sudden rush to the head'. The incident to which you refer was nothing more than the latter . . . . which 'handbags' usually are, IMO!


Now compare that with the Jonny/Thomas incident this w/e. In today's local (The Western Morning News), they say Jonny may be cited today by the match commissioner for a 'loose-arm' challenge.

This type of 'challenge', I feel, is a little more than 'a sudden rush to the head, or even an unfortunate happening.

It is a practised mascho technique popularised, apparently, by the Pacific Islanders simply to intimidate, and the consequences are often debilitating!

Bringing a swinging arm in late to perform the requisite grasp needs timing and experience to keep within in the law and refs, I feel, should stamp it out with a RC whenever there's even an inkling of doubt.

The WMN goes on to state 'there didn't appear to be any intent'.

I think the MC, however, should bear in mind when formulating his decision this evening that this offensive method of tackling does need practice and in consequence, as with the instinctive head butt, is a bloody unedifying sight!

And if poor ol' Jonny has to be 'used' in an effort to stamp it out, so mote it be!

Dixie
04-02-08, 12:02
I'm afraid I have to disagree with Will, in my opinion, a head-butt always requires someone to take at least a few minutes to reflect. Even if "accidentally" occuring during the scrum engage? OB continually warns us against painting ourselves into a corner with such absolutes, and he has a point. So two guys square up to eyeball each other - no fists. They get closer and closer until their foreheads are touching. Both off for butting?

If not, same situation, but the guy in Blue clearly brings his forehead into marginal contact with that of the guy in red, who is just standing his ground. No force used, still nothing more than eyeballing. YC to the guy in Blue?

If not, the same scenario, but the blue guy stumbles marginally at the last second, and ends up "nodding" the guy in red from a distance of 1cm. Not hard, not painful, but there. Red doesn't react. YC?

The last of these is not far from the weekend incident. The butt was clearly intentional, but very, very gentle. Doesn't the context of the game and the management history play any part in the decision? It could easily have gone the other way if there had been history - but I was happy enough with the outcome.

SimonSmith
04-02-08, 12:02
Obviously the boys in blue are all angels and I have no doubt that the filthy Frenchman was getting what he deserved :wink: , but if you're leading with your head, then you have to bear the consequences if you slip or get your timing wrong.

Not putting myself in a corner, but I view it the like the high tackle process - start at the top end and then work down from there.

Toby Warren
04-02-08, 15:02
As an aside is the TMO allowed to look at foul play? I think it is very sensible that he can but is it strictly within his remit?

Dixie
04-02-08, 16:02
6.A.7:
(c) The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.

Arguably, the decision about how to restart after a try comes under this heading. If there isn't that latitude, then strictly the TMO had no right to review the incident, as far as I can see. But common sense would indicate a wide latitude.

Toby Warren
04-02-08, 16:02
Thanks Dixie, seemed sensible my only observation is he didn't (appear to) talk to his TJs - They may well have had a great view but equally they could have put a flag out.

I did enjoy the irony of the Kiwi TJ missing a forward pass that lead to a French try yesterday

Simon Griffiths
04-02-08, 18:02
(1) Even if "accidentally" occuring during the scrum engage? OB continually warns us against painting ourselves into a corner with such absolutes, and he has a point. (2) So two guys square up to eyeball each other - no fists. They get closer and closer until their foreheads are touching. Both off for butting?

(3) If not, same situation, but the guy in Blue clearly brings his forehead into marginal contact with that of the guy in red, who is just standing his ground. No force used, still nothing more than eyeballing. YC to the guy in Blue?

(4)If not, the same scenario, but the blue guy stumbles marginally at the last second, and ends up "nodding" the guy in red from a distance of 1cm. Not hard, not painful, but there. Red doesn't react. YC?
1 - Not a head-butt.
2 - Not a head-butt.
3 - Yes, YC.
4 - Not a head-butt.

My definition of a head-butt may be more specific than other people's: i.e. I don't believe that contact between heads automatically is a head-butt. Essentially, I believe a head-butt has to be an intentional contact between heads by accelerating the head at another player in a situation where it is not inevitable.

Simon Griffiths
04-02-08, 18:02
Essentially, something along the lines of this definition works for me:

"An aggressive hit with the head."

Account Deleted
04-02-08, 21:02
The Head but, for me, needed either yellow or red.

JW led with a swinging arm. Still he's not facing a citing as the time has past.

Greg Collins
04-02-08, 21:02
Even the "gentle" head butt is surely designed to provoke the oppo into retaliation? Isn't it, a best a form of unsporting conduct and as such surely requires the perpetrator to go ponder the meaning of life for a while, ten minutes would do nicely....

Dixie
05-02-08, 08:02
Even the "gentle" head butt is surely designed to provoke the oppo into retaliation? Isn't it, a best a form of unsporting conduct and as such surely requires the perpetrator to go ponder the meaning of life for a while, ten minutes would do nicely....
Partularly at our level, where there are few restraints to stop things getting out of hand, I would not dispute anyone acting as you suggest, which may well stop all sorts of problems later. But at internationals, with citing commissioners, press etc, it may be overkill.

As it happens the citing commissioner has declined to cite the Scot for his Glasgow kiss, and has also not seen anything inappropriate in Wilko's tackle. I imagine in both cases their previous good conduct has gone into the decision-making mix.

OB..
05-02-08, 11:02
I imagine in both cases their previous good conduct has gone into the decision-making mix.
I hope not. The decision is supposed to reflect whether or not the incident was worth a red card. Mitigation is for the Disciplinary Committee.

tim White
05-02-08, 12:02
Re. "Double Movement" Was Sackey preventing any player on his feet gaining access to the ball when he refused to lie down ? As I remember the Tackler had not released him and therefore prevented him from reaching out for the line. Incidentally I thought there was an arm underneath the ball and if I ever get to be a TMO I would not have given this one as touched down either.

Account Deleted
05-02-08, 12:02
It matters not one jot who the players is. Foul play is foul play.

JW puts in a couple of these every season and the same trite "he's not a malicious player" rubish gets touted.

It a bit like the sad situation when a schoolchild dies. and all his teachers etc say what a fantastic pupil and well behaved child he / she was. I've never know a terraway to die.

Sadly, I remain convinced that two reasons ensured that The man known as "Jesus" was going to get off were:

1; Who he was.

2; Who the citing officer was.

Still it's all done and dusted now. We move on to Week two!

chopper15
05-02-08, 14:02
The Head but, for me, needed either yellow or red.

JW led with a swinging arm. Still he's not facing a citing as the time has past.



Is it just a coincidence that, apart from ATTR above, threads focussed on the head-butt with no mention of the more serious implication and intent of the 'practised' swinging arm as referred to in my earlier thread?

The general attitude to the latter, not Wilkinson specifically I hasten to add, I find disturbing.

In today's Times, John West the citing commissioner, is purported as saying that Wilkinson's high ,swinging-arm tackle was accidental and that Henderson's head-butt stemmed from an obstructive swing by Traille in the first place and - now listen to this, 'so either both deserved to be cited or neither'.

Can you honestly take him seriously?

Dixie
05-02-08, 15:02
Chopper, your post asserts as fact that W's tackle was a) high and b) practiced. I would dispute that it was high (ball carrier was bent at the knee, leaning into the tackle, W is not a tall guy, unlike Thomas. The tackle was probably stomach-high: http://tinyurl.com/358nu6).

As to it being a practiced (and thus deliberate) technique, I don't see how you can say that. If you argue that it is common, then elite refs need to ping it as dangerous and illegal, which it clearly is.
law 10.4a - Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Penalty: Penalty Kick
But "deliberate" implies an intent to hurt through illegal play - this technique seems to me inherently less likely to bring down an opponent due to the rigidity of the arm, and so the only reason to do it is to break 10.4a. Red card. The fact that neither the ref nor the citing commissioner saw it that way suggests you may be misinterpreting the facts.

(incidentally, that definition of a fist or arm to include a head or knee seems typical of the iRB's approach to lawmaking. When Julian Clarey got in trouble for announcing (on live TV after a commercial break) that he'd just been fisting Norman Lamont, the possibility of him not being able to see what he was doing never even occurred to me!)

OB..
05-02-08, 16:02
Can you honestly take him seriously?
Yes.

None of the offences merited a red card. End of.

Account Deleted
05-02-08, 16:02
In your opinion!

For me any head but demands a card. Also Wilkinson was responsible for the high tackle

HIGH TACKLE MADE CLEARER
2007-11-17 16:27:47

The International Rugby Board, whose first obligation, is to determine the laws of the game, the way the game is played, has clarified one aspect of dangerous tackling - the high tackle. The IRB makes it clear that tackle that makes contact with the head or the neck is dangerous regardless of where the tackle started.

In a circular to members dated 1 November 2007, the IRB states:

Council at its interim Meeting held on October 19, 2007 considered a recommendation from the Rugby Committee on dangerous tackling.

Please find below the decision of the Council in relation to dangerous tackling.

The Council had before it a report from the IRB Judicial Chairman to the Rugby Committee with regard to a decision of a Judicial Appeal Committee based upon an interpretation of Law 10.4 (e) which relates to high tackles. That interpretation suggested that the tackle above the line of the shoulders would have to start at a level above the line of the shoulders for it to be dangerous and in contravention of Law 10.4 (e). Following discussion if was AGREED to accept the recommendation of the Rugby Committee that the following interpretation be applied:

A dangerous tackle is effected whenever there is contact above the line of the shoulders whether the contact is the first or a subsequent point of contact. To be clear, a tackle which involves arm contact below the line of the shoulders and thereafter contact is made with either the neck or the head of the tackled player is a dangerous tackle with in Law 10.4 (e).


That's the IRB View on the point of Law.

Wilkinson made contact above the line of the shoulders FACT. therefore it was dangerous.
John West's argument that it was accidental does not stop it being dangerous play.

OB..
05-02-08, 16:02
John West's argument that it was accidental does not stop it being dangerous play.
But that still does not make it a red card offence - which is all that matters.

Account Deleted
05-02-08, 17:02
So a high stiff arm into the face of a player does not warrent action? Okay. You can't argue against such logic.

OB..
05-02-08, 17:02
So a high stiff arm into the face of a player does not warrent action? Okay. You can't argue against such logic.
I did not say any such thing.

I merely made the point that an offence has to be worth a red card in the citing commissioner's opinion before he will take action.

A referee can give a penalty or yellow card, but a citing commissioner cannot.

Account Deleted
05-02-08, 17:02
Whist I would argue that with the arm being both stiff and high a red card would be justified. (those are personal opinions which we would discuss in an assessor / referee discussion in the need arose no doubt.)

The citing commisioner felt JW had no case to answer because it was accidental. Meaning, if it had not be accidental then there would have been a case to answer?

Account Deleted
05-02-08, 17:02
Still what's done is done. we move on.

chopper15
06-02-08, 15:02
[QUOTE=chopper15;37518]

In today's local (The Western Morning News), they say Jonny may be cited today by the match commissioner for a 'loose-arm' challenge.

This type of 'challenge', I feel, is a little more than 'a sudden rush to the head, or even an unfortunate happening.

It is a practised mascho technique popularised, apparently, by the Pacific Islanders simply to intimidate, and the consequences are often debilitating!

Bringing a swinging arm in late to perform the requisite grasp needs timing and experience to keep within in the law and refs, I feel, should stamp it out with a RC whenever there's even an inkling of doubt.

The WMN goes on to state 'there didn't appear to be any intent'.

I think the MC, however, should bear in mind when formulating his decision this evening that this offensive method of tackling does need practice and in consequence, as with the instinctive head butt, is a bloody unedifying sight!
[QUOTE]




I have been misrepresented and think it only fair that I add further comment before we terminate the discussion.

I did not refer to a 'high tackle' as the MC, as I understood it, was considering a 'loose arm' tackle and I gave reasons for my distaste for that paticular assault, see above, and was hoping for some sympathetic comment for my views?!

The thrust of the thread's discussion was of the high-tackle which is relatively easy for the ref. to spot. . . . not so the 'practised' loose arm tackle!

OB..
06-02-08, 15:02
There are two quite different points being confused here.

(1) was it a red card offence, such that a citing commissioner ought to take action?

(2) are swinging arm tackles a Bad Thing?

The answer to (1) appears to be No. The answer to (2) is Maybe - it depends.

If we carry on, can we please be clear as to which point we are challenging?

Dixie
06-02-08, 16:02
...HIGH TACKLE MADE CLEARER
2007-11-17 16:27:47A dangerous tackle is effected whenever there is contact above the line of the shoulders whether the contact is the first or a subsequent point of contact. To be clear, a tackle which involves arm contact below the line of the shoulders and thereafter contact is made with either the neck or the head of the tackled player is a dangerous tackle with in Law 10.4 (e).
ATTR, this is not as decisive as it looks at first sight. Is "the line of the shoulders" to be judged against a man standing up, or against wherever the shoulders may be at the time?

If the latter, then consider this: A forward picks up at the base of a "muck" 5m out, and charges towards the oppo line, with shoulders at the line of the hips. An oppo forward, standing off the muck, tries to knock the attacker backwards in the tackle to prevent him scoring. The attacker, leading with his head, is hurt when his head makes contact with the defender's hip, while the defender's arms simultanously wrap around the attacker's torso.

Red card to the defender for a dangerous tackle? It meets all the emboldened parts of your quote. If you will rely on the subsequent mention of an arm tackle, which I view as merely an example, what if the hurt was caused by the attacker driving into the defender's shoulder as the latter tried to get low enough to tackle the legs?




In today's local (The Western Morning News), they say Jonny may be cited today by the match commissioner for a 'loose-arm' challenge. ... The thrust of the thread's discussion was of the high-tackle which is relatively easy for the ref. to spot. . . . not so the 'practised' loose arm tackle!

Chopper, I hope you won't take it as a racial slur if I say that the WMN's use of the phrase "loose-arm tackle" to describe what most on here would view as a "stiff-arm tackle" suggests their view may be diametrically opposite to the accurate one!:hap:

Account Deleted
06-02-08, 16:02
OK let me simplify Jonny Wilkinson Put a stiff arm into the head of a player whilst making no attempt to bind. He was not even looking remotely where he was swinging.

Careless, dangerous & illegal. If it had been some Italian prop of french forward or a South Sea Islander during the RWC They'd be watching this weekend on TV.

Because it is St Jonny and in John West eys it was accidental. That's OK.

Clearly the debate is over. Let's hope St Jonny does do it again this week.

Phil E
06-02-08, 16:02
Its not the intent that matters, its the outcome.

14 November 2006
As there appears to be a variation in interpretation in certain instances
of high tackles, the IRFU request a ruling on Law 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling.
Situation: A tackle is made, or attempted, where the initial contact is made below the line of the shoulder, but the arm(s) of the tackler subsequently make contact with the head or neck of the tackled player.
Question: Even if the subsequent contact with the head or neck is not intentional, but the contact is dangerous, should the referee rule on the intent (initial tackle) ie. No sanction; or should the referee rule on the consequence ie. Sanction? If the ruling is sanction, would the referee be correct in considering the dangerous aspect as accidental, and consider cards only if he deemed the tackling action to be careless?
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question
raised:
The referee should not rule on intent, but on the outcome. In this situation the outcome was a dangerous tackle in that the tackler made contact with the head or neck of the ball carrier. For this type of tackle the referee has three options available: penalty only, penalty and yellow card, penalty and red card.

Account Deleted
06-02-08, 17:02
Which is why John West was wrong!

OB..
06-02-08, 17:02
Which is why John West was wrong!
So you are insisting that ALL swinging arm offences should get a red card?
Why do you keep ignoring this vital question?

Account Deleted
06-02-08, 17:02
John West said there was no action because it was not intentional.

The IRB say intent in NOT relevant.

The IRB say that there are 3 sanctions of which Red is the most severe.

In my opinion, which I believe I am entitled to, it was a Red.

You differ - It is your right to do so.

John West did not say "no citing because it's not worthy of red" rather "no citing because there was no intent". If it was dangerous and a Red needs to be considered then John West should not look at "mitigating circumstances" that's for the panel to decide and not him.

I believe this debate would not be happening with any other player especially those nationals I referred to in my last post. However, because it is St Jonny then we can't ban him can we.

Account Deleted
06-02-08, 17:02
Options are there. Not all offence are red I believe to two in this thread were.

SimonSmith
06-02-08, 17:02
I have no problem with the discussion of high tackles.
I do however want to call out that we haven't, as a community, started to attribute national bias or to cast slurs of that ilk.

This is a civilized discussion board, and I'd like it to stay that way please

Dixie
06-02-08, 17:02
Which is why John West was wrong!


CThe tackle was probably stomach-high: http://tinyurl.com/358nu6).

John West is the best. It says so on my tin of skipjack tuna. The link shows the tackle, and proves it to be no more than waist high, with T leaning severely into it. How are you supposed to tackle someone who deliberately puts his head at normal tackle height? I assert that the two rulings offered on p.5 of this thread mean, when speaking of tackles above shoulder height, the height of the shoulder of the standing attacker. Otherwise, the attacker can use his body position to make any tackle illegal, and we've lost our game.

OB..
06-02-08, 18:02
John West said there was no action because it was not intentional.

The IRB say intent in NOT relevant.
Not relevant to the question whether or not the tackle was in fact dangerous. However that is by no means the same as saying that all such tackles (even if this were one such) MUST be red cards. Some will be just penalties, some yellow cards.


John West did not say "no citing because it's not worthy of red" rather "no citing because there was no intent". If it was dangerous and a Red needs to be considered then John West should not look at "mitigating circumstances" that's for the panel to decide and not him.
No. Mitigating circumstances come into it only AFTER it has been decided that it was a red card offence. John West decided it was not.

cymrubach
06-02-08, 18:02
The link shows the tackle, and proves it to be no more than waist high, with T leaning severely into it.

Dixie, this is not the tackle in question that caused the damage, just another example of a neck high tackle that the IRB are trying to stamp out if you take their ruling at face value. Another example, and there are lots of them at elite level, where there is a law for them and another one for us.

My main winge on this one is Jonnys article in the press that it was not his tackle that caused the injury to JT. Clearly it was, however, I'm of the belief that it was not malicious, possibly a penalty, maybe a yellow, but certainly not a red, therefore I agree no need to cite. Jonny would have earned far more plaudits had he come out and said, he was sorry for the outcome of the tackle but it was not intended. How he can review the footage and deny he caused the injury beggers belief...

Rant over:mad:

chopper15
06-02-08, 19:02
So you are insisting that ALL swinging arm offences should get a red card?
Why do you keep ignoring this vital question?



Reference my earlier point, OB;

ie. bringing a swinging arm in late to perform the requisite grasp needs timing and experience to keep within the law and refs, I feel, should stamp it out with a RC whenever there's even an inkling of suspicion.




IMO, too many of you are refering to high easy-to-spot short arm tackles.

My thread was not to judge JW but to draw your attention to the practised and insidious use of the 'swinging arm' tackle - which I must admit JW's resembled before the actual hit.

Most of these are aimed directly at the body with the sole intent to debilitate and more often than not, because they're a practised ' hit-first-then-grasp' technique, they go unnoticed.

Account Deleted
06-02-08, 20:02
When you tackle you adjust to the height of the player. There is no specific height which is the cut off point.

As was said on a picture question on this site concerning the scrum. A picture can hide what a DVD / video shows. Clearly Wilkinson was careless or even reckless. There was no attempt to perform a tackle in the Law book sense of the word. Intent is irrelevant outcome is the only criteria according to the IRB.

West did say I've not cited him because it was only a yellow or perfectly legitimate did he: Why not? He said it was not malicious. To say he made the call on based on mitigation is the clear inference I take from his comments.

Account Deleted
06-02-08, 20:02
To answer Chopper.

There is far to much use of the stiff arm and shoulder barge "tackle" in the game. Gavin Henson is another who has repeatedly got away with it and do many when "clearing out".


However, the genaral view among players, coaches, top level refs and the IRB seems to be "As long as it "opens up" the game. Who cares?"

chopper15
06-02-08, 20:02
To answer Chopper.

There is far to much use of the stiff arm and shoulder barge "tackle" in the game. Gavin Henson is another who has repeatedly got away with it and do many when "clearing out". As long as it "opens up" the game. who cares?

A rather careless and, as a ref, irresponsible statement to make, I would've thought, ATTR!?

Account Deleted
06-02-08, 21:02
It's my view of the general attitude in the game not my personal one. I will edit my post to make the comment a little clearer.

My opinion is that we need to be a lot stricter on Violent play. Be it careless ,reckless or downright thuggery.

A few games with a couple of early cards and the message might just get home.

Over Xmas Nigel Owens did just that when he carded Mike Phillips for a late shoulder barge "tackle" in the Ospreys game Vs Llanelli however, he then allowed a lot to go on and the game ended up as bad as the rest of the Welsh Xmas Derbies.

OB..
06-02-08, 22:02
West did say I've not cited him because it was only a yellow or perfectly legitimate did he: Why not? He said it was not malicious. To say he made the call on based on mitigation is the clear inference I take from his comments.
I don't understand your logic. My interpretation is that he was simply explaining why it was not a red card offence. He doesn't need to spell that out - surely it is reasonable to assume that he knows his job?


There is far to much use of the stiff arm and shoulder barge "tackle" in the game.
I agree.

However to study this particular case I would have to go through the game to find it - and I am not that much of a masochist!

Simon Griffiths
07-02-08, 00:02
However to study this particular case I would have to go through the game to find it - and I am not that much of a masochist!The whole aura about you has just vanished OB... :wink:

As far as the tackles etc go... on the field, I will rarely give a RC unless I deem something to have been malicious. I don't think this necessarily amounts to 'bottling it' (I've had sending off forms up to the neck recently... well, one in each of the last two matches anyway). Reckless will usually be an automatic YC, and careless usually a stiff talking to (or YC depending upon temper of the match and just how careless it was...).

Account Deleted
07-02-08, 09:02
There are some players who seem to make a career out of careless tackles. In many sports You wonder how several become considered greats with such poor techniques.

I remember an analysis of Bryan Robson the English football "great". One of the discussion panel refered to number of injuries he'd received and the fact that it was his poor technique that caused his injuries. You have thought that on the way to greatness these people would learn the basics of their trade.

Greg Collins
07-02-08, 13:02
Quite often those with fantastic amounts of talent in their chosen sport have very poor technique compared to their less talented peers. Their very unorthodoxy may be what gives them the edge over their opponents. Not quite the same thing but the young Michael Owen used to dance over and around tackles in the box but his side didn't always score as a result. By adopting the more orthodox technique of going down when contact was made more penalties were awarded and more goals scored.

Maybe the greats don't feel a need to learn techiques when talent delivers all that is required of them? When talent is not enough then they work on technique.

Most sports coaches also place far too much emphasis, IMO, on coaching a players strengths rather than coaching their weaknesses, something those who advise/assess/observe me are not guilty of.

Account Deleted
07-02-08, 14:02
So people with poor tackling technique can get away with "I didn't mean it it was just poor tackling" when they knock someone out can they?

Davet
07-02-08, 14:02
A high arm which connects above the line of the shoylderes when the opponent is in the process of ducking, or goung to ground is not deliberate. If it's not deliberate then it's not really a red card, if it's not a red card offence then what's the point of citing it?

Greg Collins
07-02-08, 16:02
So people with poor tackling technique can get away with "I didn't mean it it was just poor tackling" when they knock someone out can they?

If their poor technique constitutes dangerous play then it should be managed as such, if not "play on".

chopper15
07-02-08, 16:02
You all keep referring to 'high', 'late', 'shoulder barge' and 'straight arm' tackles.

JW was cited for a 'swinging arm' tackle, which, I must admit, looked very much like it.

This is a practised technique intended to hurt and intimidate which, unlike the other more clumsy dangerous tackles, is popular because its difficult for refs to spot!

Jacko
07-02-08, 16:02
Was he even cited? I just thought the tv folks got in a bit of a flap over it.

OB..
07-02-08, 18:02
He was not cited because in the opinion of John West the contact was accidental.

Mike Whittaker
07-02-08, 22:02
Just wonder if a player's past record is considered when arriving at such a conclusion? One assumes the citing officer is aware of a players reputation and Jonny is about as clean as they come...

Clearly at that stage it should only be the alleged offence which is considered but hard to be totally objective.

Account Deleted
07-02-08, 22:02
There was no citing

Mike Whittaker
07-02-08, 22:02
There was no citing

Apologies, I should have said in John West's opinion...

chopper15
08-02-08, 14:02
There was no citing

So what exactly in context is 'cited'?

I thought JW was 'cited' ie. brought to book, and the 'citement charge' was found to be 'not proven' . . . or have I been watching too many of those US tv. lawyer imports?

Like the new sign-off?

PaulDG
08-02-08, 14:02
So what exactly in context is 'cited'?

It's a mechanism which allows the game's officials to apply a retrospective "red card" to a player.

A player who is "cited" faces the same discipline procedure as if he had been sent off.

Which is why no action can be taken if the officials believe the alleged offence would not have resulted in a sending off had the referee seen it, seen it from a different angle, whatever.

Citing can be applied at all levels of the game though it's almost impossible to support without a match video.

Simon Griffiths
09-02-08, 15:02
Corrupt Italian TMO on show in the Wales match. Either corrupt or pathetically useless. How on earth could he award that Williams try!? :mad:

Phil E
09-02-08, 15:02
Wales at 20, Scotland at 15

TMO decision on Welsh try.

IMO he got it wrong and the players foot was in touch before the try was scored. For once I was in agreement with the commentators.

Anyone else see it?
What did you think?

Phil E
09-02-08, 15:02
My thoughts exactly, just posted new thread on it.

Foot was well in touch.

Phil E
09-02-08, 15:02
Just seen new angle, in John Macenroes words "There was chalk dust!"

Simon Griffiths
09-02-08, 15:02
And, as someone suggested elsewhere, a divot being kicked up from his left foot that Tiger Woods would be proud of.

Phil E
09-02-08, 16:02
France v Ireland

ROFLOL, France drive over the try line, referee gives signal for held up.

Commentator says "we are going to the TMO"

Referee gives scrum 5 to France for being held up

Commentator says "were having a scrum, the referee must have seen a forward pass"

ME---> screaming at the tv "shutup, you dont know what your talking about"

Simon Griffiths
09-02-08, 16:02
I wasn't the only one then. Although I thought the commentator was more adamant about the forward pass comment.

Nigel Owens great again. In the right place, had a good view, and just got on with it. No need to go upstairs if you can see it yourself.

Phil E
09-02-08, 17:02
Did you see the maul where the French player dived on top of it and lay there like a stranded seal?

Ref missed it completely.

collybs
09-02-08, 18:02
However

From the camera behind the action in touch it is clear that the foot did not touch the line and the divot came off the boot and not off the ground.

Simon Griffiths
09-02-08, 18:02
No it wasn't.

Phil E
09-02-08, 18:02
You can see white chalk fly up as his foot drags along the line, this was on the camera on the other side of the ground.

Definite touch, youll see it in the papers tomorrow.

chopper15
09-02-08, 22:02
However

From the camera behind the action in touch it is clear that the foot did not touch the line and the divot came off the boot and not off the ground.

The only thing that wasn't in focus was the blurred foot that looked suspiciously if it was above the touch line. If the TMO wasn't sure, what wouldv'e been the ref's decision?

KML1
09-02-08, 22:02
Not sure I like us using the word "corrupt" on these threads. We all know that we make mistakes but using "corrupt" is way over the mark.

I haven't seen the game or any highlights but I remember that Stu Dickinson in the RWC cup final did not have access to all the footage that was shown - he had a selection. I also recall in a Heineken Cup game earlier this year, the TMO was only shown 2 angles, when the TV viewing world had 6 or 7 - one of them crucial.

Already on this thread we have had 2 views so maybe, just maybe, the TMO didn't have all the footage and made his decision base on what he saw.

Having said that, the Irish ref (whose name Ive laready forgotten) who gave a Wilkinson try at Twickers last year is no longer officiating at this level.

Simon Griffiths
09-02-08, 22:02
Bloody hell KML1! Get a sense of humour, the guy's Italian! :wink: I wasn't seriously suggesting he was on the take... :chin:

KML1
10-02-08, 09:02
Corrupt Italian TMO on show in the Wales match. Either corrupt or pathetically useless. How on earth could he award that Williams try!? :mad:

Sense of humour fully in tact - as anyone who knows me will say, I have a wierd one myself. It's just that they dont translate very well here! Just think we need to be careful what and how we say things nowadays.

Mike Whittaker
10-02-08, 09:02
As they used to say before the days of the video ref, "If you look at the score in the paper, you will find that it was a try."

As the major used to say regarding a try you have awarded and about which you have second thoughts, "Did it deserve a try?" You will no doubt find the answer is, "Yes!" Matter closed :)

chopper15
10-02-08, 12:02
The only thing that wasn't in focus was the blurred foot that looked suspiciously if it was above the touch line. If the TMO wasn't sure, what wouldv'e been the ref's decision?

Now you've all mouthed off at all and sundry, what's the answer to my query?

Simon Griffiths
10-02-08, 13:02
Well, when I saw it at full-speed I thought it wasn't a try - but then I wasn't where the referee or touch judge were, so can't be sure of what they would have seen and therefore thought from their position.

I would probably have aired on the iffy side, as I usually do when the corner pole is hit.

Davet
10-02-08, 17:02
The view that shows the foot in touch was not one that we saw before the decision was made.

My understanding is that the views the TMO takes are the ones we see as he is looking.

If that is so then the question really is why does he not have access to all the shots - who decides what he can see, and how does it work?

Simon Griffiths
10-02-08, 17:02
Chris White mentioned how the TMO gets his shots a couple of months ago when he gave a talk about the RWC. The TV production team supply the shots to the TMO, and select the angles, speed etc.

Apparantly Sky are by far and away the best, as their director (or whatever position on the production team puts it together) does it week-in week-out, working with the TMO quite regularly, and they know now what is being considered and what the TMO's priorities are given the referee's question etc.

Account Deleted
10-02-08, 19:02
No try for me.

However, to answer Chopper's question: Sorry, I can't only he can say what he thought. Though I would say he did sounda little shall I say "amazed" atthe TMO's call so I GUESS he thought "probably not".

Robert Burns
10-02-08, 22:02
Something no ones commented one either was the touch judge who when williams grounded the ball showed the ref the thumbs up.

No sour grapes though, despite being a critical point in the game, Wales by far and away deserved their win, Good Luck for the Grand Slam!

chopper15
10-02-08, 23:02
If the TMO wasn't sure, what wouldv'e been the ref's decision?

Sorry ATTF I didn't get it!

I'll put it another way. Can the TMO say 'Sorry I'm not sure' or something similar if the slo-mo wasn't positive? Then what's the ref. to do?

OB..
10-02-08, 23:02
If the TMO cannot see anything useful, he simply hands the decision back to the referee, who will presumably say "No try". (Otherwise he would have asked "Can you give me any reason why I should not award a try?")

Simon Griffiths
11-02-08, 00:02
Wales by far and away deserved their win
...by virtue of being the least inept of the two teams on display. Although, England once again take the title of the most inept team of the week. :(

SimonSmith
11-02-08, 01:02
I think you'll find that the comparative is "less", not least when only comparing two teams.:) :nono:

I'll have to take your word for how bad England were compared to Scotland though

Davet
11-02-08, 16:02
Simon it was a close run thing, but as usual in England - Scotland encounters, England won.

We were, by shade or two only, the most incompetant team of the weekend.

OB..
11-02-08, 17:02
At least England are improving. Against Wales we had a good half followed by complete and utter incompetence.

Against Italy we had a good half followed by a merely poor half.

"Always look on the bright side of life" (Life of Brian). Unfortunately I doubt if we can keep the momentum going against France.

MattSei
11-02-08, 18:02
At least England are improving. Against Wales we had a good half followed by complete and utter incompetence.

Against Italy we had a good half followed by a merely poor half.

"Always look on the bright side of life" (Life of Brian). Unfortunately I doubt if we can keep the momentum going against France.

Th S/H will need to watch his knees around the French no. 6 during the scrums. During at least two scrums I watched the flanker mule kick at the Irish s/h's legs as he was passing behind him.

Davet
11-02-08, 18:02
Against Italy we had a good half


Did we - I thought our possession was poor in the firts half and almost non-existent in the 2nd.

I haven't seen the stats - any one...

OB..
11-02-08, 18:02
Being 20-6 up at half time with two converted tries fits my current definition of "good".

OB..
11-02-08, 19:02
Here (http://www.sas.com/offices/europe/uk/rugby/pdf/w2-match-ita-eng.pdf) are some stats. First half possession was 10:20 to 9:16 in our favour. Time in opponent's half was virtually equal.

Simon Griffiths
23-02-08, 18:02
Another very iffy TMO decision I thought today. Ireland v Scotland, Bowe try. I felt he was down and held (i.e. tackle completed), then pushed himself along and then reached out. That was my opinion when I saw it originally at full speed, and my thoughts of the completion of each stage confirmed when the showed the replay.

McDuck
23-02-08, 19:02
Close one - I think that he was ok, benefit of doubt to attacker imho

Dickie E
23-02-08, 20:02
I felt he was down and held (i.e. tackle completed), then pushed himself along and then reached out.

Otherwise colloquially known as a 'double movement' :wink:

Simon Griffiths
23-02-08, 21:02
:wow: Careful there, don't want to ruffle any feathers.

Davet
23-02-08, 22:02
Perfectly good try. The movement was immediate, in fact he never stopped.

Combination of momentum and active reaching, which is totally legal.

Simon Griffiths
23-02-08, 22:02
He can immediately put his arm out to reach the line, but he can't push and wriggle along the ground to get close enough to do so, which is the main part I'm concerned with.

Jacko
24-02-08, 00:02
I didn't see it live, but is it in line with the TMO protocol to refer calls like these? Surely he is asking to check what happened in the field of play as the grounding was obviously fine.

Simon Griffiths
24-02-08, 00:02
"In the act of scoring" (or something similar) also comes into it if I recall correctly.

Mike Whittaker
24-02-08, 09:02
My memory (totally unreliable at all times) was that the TMO only said that he could award the try, thereby leaving unsaid the message, "Well I can't comment on what happened in field of play as you well know, and the grounding was fine as everyone knows, so of course I have to say you can award the try when you have attempted to pass the buck. However the experts on rugbyrefs.com will see right through your little game buddy!" :Looser:

OB..
24-02-08, 11:02
It seems to be impossible to get hold of the current TMO protocol, but an old version says "The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball)."

Davet
24-02-08, 18:02
He can immediately put his arm out to reach the line, but he can't push and wriggle along the ground to get close enough to do so, which is the main part I'm concerned with.

he can stretch his whole body. Reaching is not just an arm thing. if i reach for the top shelf I may well stand on tip-toe and stretch everything.

The really important part is "immediate". If he wriggles and scrunches along the ground then its not immediate, but its not the use of kness etc. which is at the heart of this - it's simply timing.

OB..
24-02-08, 19:02
he can stretch his whole body. Reaching is not just an arm thing.
Not the interpretation I am used to. If a player moves his body nearer the line, that is deemed illegal.

Your version would allow a player to push forward with his knees to get to the line. Mine wouldn't.

What do others do?

Dixie
24-02-08, 21:02
Your version would allow a player to push forward with his knees to get to the line. Mine wouldn't.

I aim to avoid awarding tries where momentum is assisted by any other form of locomotion, but am happy with a reach forward to place the ball. That said, I can be confused by just how bouncy some players seem genuinely to be when they hit the deck near the line.

OB, I think pushing forward with your knees goes beyond reaching, and is not what Davet was condoning. I have sympathy with Davet's view that "reaching is not just an arm thing". Attacker's forward momentum is competely arrested by a big hit, and he is brought to his knees and held 1.2m from the line. His arm is 1m long. He flops forward, reaches out and grounds the ball 1m beyond the line. His ankles remain exactly where they were when the tackle took place. Try or no try?

OB..
25-02-08, 00:02
Dixie - if he is "brought to his knees and held", I do not see how he can "flop forward", so I don't really understand your example.

Maybe I have misunderstood Davet's view. The only sort of deliberate body movement (ie excluding momentum) I would condone would be if a player came down on top of the ball and then had to roll slightly sideways to free his arm with the ball before reaching.

I don't think we can produce anything precise because once again we are dealing with a continuum. There will always be different views at the edges of whatever guidelines we come up with.

Simon Griffiths
25-02-08, 01:02
I'm going along with OB's type of thinking. Momentum and arm are fine, moving your body to get there isn't.

Bowe clearly pushed himself further along with his bent right arm under his body (a bit of a one sided crawl).

Emmet Murphy
25-02-08, 13:02
Have to say I disagree Simon - I thought his body moved under his own momentum and then he placed the ball.

OB..
25-02-08, 13:02
Have to say I disagree Simon - I thought his body moved under his own momentum and then he placed the ball.
I have no problem with momentum. However the point at issue if how much movement do you consider constitutes "reaching", when there is no momentum.

Davet
25-02-08, 13:02
I think we are back on the rather silly track of trying to define words in special ways.

A Player may reach out and ground the ball.

In whose dictionary is reaching deemed to be something that only involves the arms? Not mine. How many of you have stretched your bodies and stood on tip-toes to reach something? That's more than just arms.

How is pushing with the knees to try to stretch not part of reaching?

The ONLY issue is immediacy - not invented stipulations about what does and does not constitute reaching.

Emmet Murphy
25-02-08, 15:02
I agree with Davet that reaching can involve more than just the arms. Without momentum I would not expect to see any movement from the waist down but each situation needs to be judged on its own merits really.

OB..
25-02-08, 17:02
Davet - a word always has to be understood in its context. In ordinary speech, reaching could involve getting to your knees to push forward a metre or two to reach the goal line. In rugby that is clearly illegal since you are not on your feet.

For me the rugby context has always been about moving your arms forward but not your body.

Mike Whittaker
25-02-08, 20:02
Totally agree with you Davet, and can't see why 'reach' should mean anything different in rugby from that which is commonly accepted elsewhere...

OB..
25-02-08, 20:02
Player is tackled and ends up with his ankles held just out of reach of the line with arms only. He raises himself up, pushes his body forward with his knees and grounds the ball on the line.

To me that is illegal, and I am sure I have seen it penalised, though it would be difficult to dig out the evidence. I shall look out for it in future - either way.

Since you want to use dictionary definitions, I have just looked up Collins, leaving out obviously irrelevant meanings:
1. to arrive at or get to (a place or person) in the course of movement or action
2. to extend as far as (a point or place)
5. to pass or give (something to a person) with the outstretched hand
6. to make a movement (towards), as if to grasp or touch

Meaning 5 could exclude any significant movement of the body, but otherwise nothing to rule out crawling along the ground, which we know is illegal in rugby.

I don't think this is a useful approach. We need a consensus on how the whole concept is best interpreted for the game of rugby. I have always thought my view represented such consensus, based on discussion with others and personal observations of what happens in practice etc. I wonder how far apart we are in fact.

chopper15
25-02-08, 21:02
5. to pass or give (something to a person) with the outstretched hand

An 'outstretched hand'?

OB..
25-02-08, 22:02
5. to pass or give (something to a person) with the outstretched hand

An 'outstretched hand'?
I don't see a problem. What are you getting at?

Mike Whittaker
26-02-08, 09:02
Well there we are, another point on which there is not an agreement :)

No doubt the law makers (and lawyers?) will get there sticky hands on it and create even more confusion. Meanwhile the great uninformed mass on the touch line can continue to scream "double movement ref" or "momentum ref" depending on which team has, or has not scored :rolleyes:

I have yet to see a ref make a decision on this, when I am assessing, with which I have disagreed, given his explanation to me as to why it has been made.

If we are not careful we will end up with law makers attempting to define terms such as "immediate" to recognise that it is in practice impossible to achieve. There is always some delay and we allow different amounts of delay depending upon the match, weather, players, score etc etc.

Meanwhile we can continue to have our debates without resort to unhelpful dictionaries and dissociate that which we see in Internationals from that which we manage at level 10.

Davet
26-02-08, 09:02
OB - the answer, to my mind is simple. Don't worry about what is or is not classified as reaching, the word is well known. Instead you should worry about "immediate". A player wriggling and crawling is NOT acting immediately. The immediacy requirement constrains the amount of "reaching" which is acceptable, but would accomodate the spasmic lunge as the player hits the ground. That lunge is a whole body reach, and happens immediately - so OK. If there is a pause between hitting the ground and "reaching" then that is not immediate, and so illegal. As Mike points out the actual timeing of immediate will depend on conditions and level of game - "is it reasonable?" should be the test.

chopper15
26-02-08, 10:02
I don't see a problem. What are you getting at?

Outstretched arm? The hand holds the ball!

chopper15
26-02-08, 10:02
Well there we are, another point on which there is not an agreement :)

No doubt the law makers (and lawyers?) will get there sticky hands on it and create even more confusion. Meanwhile the great uninformed mass on the touch line can continue to scream "double movement ref" or "momentum ref" depending on which team has, or has not scored :rolleyes:

I have yet to see a ref make a decision on this, when I am assessing, with which I have disagreed, given his explanation to me as to why it has been made.

If we are not careful we will end up with law makers attempting to define terms such as "immediate" to recognise that it is in practice impossible to achieve. There is always some delay and we allow different amounts of delay depending upon the match, weather, players, score etc etc.

Meanwhile we can continue to have our debates without resort to unhelpful dictionaries and dissociate that which we see in Internationals from that which we manage at level 10.




You probably could do without my comment, but I like the way you think Mike and would hope more refs get to think the same way and recognise and ignore, or even better, dig in and pursue the soft-soap line often, too often, given by 'them'!

There's no excuse why the 'Dogs of Law' haven't yet been nailed. 'Them' have negligently ignored them for decades! And we all know which 'dogs' we're referring to. The big problem is, the sometimes confused interpretations make them even worse.

An off-the-cuff eg;

. . . . the definition of 'direct into touch', I would've thought 'the ball having passed thro' the vertical plane of the touch-line' would've been essential in an attempt to give unambiguous clarity, if, of course that was/is the intention. Interpretation decrees, however, that is not so!

So what exactly do we mean now by, 'Out on the full' and 'straight in'. . . . having passed thro' the touch-plane?

And how many of you out there knew that a player and/or ball in the air is officially accepted as 'being out of play' and all that it may entail?

OB..
26-02-08, 12:02
Outstretched arm? The hand holds the ball!
:confused: It was a verbatim quote from a dictionary.

OB..
26-02-08, 12:02
Davet - I think you need both, since the law uses both.

However without further input I think we have taken this about as far as we can go.

Mike Whittaker
26-02-08, 23:02
Davet - I think you need both, since the law uses both.

However without further input I think we have taken this about as far as we can go.

... don't want to reach too far! Might be considered to be wriggling :swet: