Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: Article: Law clarification requests

      
  1. #51
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    3,116
    Thanks (Received)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    296

    Default Re: Article: Law clarification requests

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    Hear, hear.
    Shouldn't that be "Here, here" as in "Me too".

  2. #52

    Referees in England
    chbg's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    D&WRURS, HRURS & ARURS
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    15 May 09
    Posts
    849
    Thanks (Received)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    150

    Default Re: Article: Law clarification requests

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisR View Post
    Shouldn't that be "Here, here" as in "Me too".
    No - probable contraction of 'hear him, hear him'; often used in UK Parliament to voice approval with points made in debate.

    Or is this another example of "two countries separated by a common language"?
    Be reasonable - do it my way.

  3. #53

    Promises to Referee in France
    L'irlandais's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CT Alsace-Lorraine
    Grade
    EdR + LCA
    Join Date
    11 May 10
    Posts
    3,602
    Thanks (Received)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    144

    Arrow Re: Article: Law clarification requests

    A similar idea was expressed by Oscar Wilde in The Canterville Ghost, 1887

    "We really have everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language".
    OB.. I accept your point it was not a deliberate Knock-on, but still think scrum red was the correct call.

    SimonSmith, agreed some infringements carry a different penalty near the goal line. Interestingly WR did not really try to address this part of the clarification with their answer to the IRFU.
    "We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we’re inclined to accept."
    John Henry Newman

  4. #54

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,020
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    775

    Default Re: Article: Law clarification requests


  5. #55
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    977
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Article: Law clarification requests

    Just noting it was Matt Carley, no stranger to being at the centre of some debate on some big decisions in recent weeks.

  6. #56

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,681
    Thanks (Received)
    99
    Likes (Received)
    1364

    Default Re: Article: Law clarification requests

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckieB View Post
    Just noting it was Matt Carley, no stranger to being at the centre of some debate on some big decisions in recent weeks.
    it was the TMO who is at the centre of this one.
    MC gave what most posters here believe was the correct decision.
    The TMO didn't agree - he evidently thought it was a tackle off the ball.
    MC kept with his decision (albeit possibly for the wrong reason)

  7. #57
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    429
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    85

    Default

    For me, Foden genuinely tried to intercept & was in a good position to catch the ball when it came down. MC says he wasn't 100% certain that BF was going to catch the ball, but I think it was very very likely that he would. Accordingly the main reason he didn't was that he was tackled & prevented from catching it.

    Timing is everything, & IMO the red player who pulled Foden away from the ball knew Foden wasn't currently in possession & knew exactly what he was doing.

    So I award PK to Northampton.


    "OB - If he knocks it up in the air and is attempting to regather it, he must be considered "in possession" in the sense that he can be tackled - otherwise fumbling a catch protects you from being tackled." IMO It's insufficient to have a blanket view on this, context & timing have an important role.
    Last edited by VM75; 18-04-17 at 19:04.

  8. #58

    Referees in Scotland
    Pinky's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Edinburgh Rugby Referees Society
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    09 Apr 10
    Posts
    1,196
    Thanks (Received)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    110

    Default Re: Article: Law clarification requests

    This has been considered before. Craig Joubert allowed the player not in contact with a knocked ball to be tackled as a ball carrier adding that you couldn't juggle all the way to the goal line.

  9. #59
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    977
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Article: Law clarification requests

    I am one for context in this situation. As I suggested in a prior post, in this situation I saw it was one player contesting the ball directly, his eyes on it all the way, and another player taking a punt on the player being in possession of the ball as he instinctively made his attempt or interfered.

    For me that leaves it in the territory of, not even a mistimed tackle but, in the 10.4 (e):

    Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

    Still a penalty but not necessarily reckless.

    It is no less acceptable to me to have a player who is legitimately receiving a ball who has yet to gather it, to be wrapped by an opponent who has his head down and making an assumption the pass will be completed. What if it had been a missed pass over the top. and the player wasn't even involved?


    I should like some more examples. It is clearly a fine line and something I need to be more certain on my understanding for application on the pitch.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. RRF clarification requests-- not 5m
    By crossref in forum Archive
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 29-11-11, 15:11
  2. Article: Law Clarification Request - Law 12
    By Robert Burns in forum Archive
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28-11-11, 17:11
  3. Features Added - Any more requests?
    By Robert Burns in forum Archive
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-09-11, 13:09
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-07-11, 15:07
  5. Law Clarification
    By chopper15 in forum Archive
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-11-07, 17:11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •