Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 71 to 79 of 79

Thread: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

      
  1. #71

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    711
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    181

    Default Re: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

    It keeps being said that ‘he knocked him over’. It was the collision that knocked him over and not anything that KB did with intent. (I appreciate that that in itself is possibly not an excuse.) The AB13 played a part in his being ‘knocked over’ or ending up on the groundby the options he took.
    It’s interesting that in widening the discussion to some of my colleagues and referees that I mix with on a regular basis, there is a strong degree of opinion that the AB13 went down too easily and tried to buy a sanction because he knew he wouldn't get near the ball. At community level it was felt that KB would have been clattered and have ended up on the ground. I’m about as convinced about that as much as I am that KB should be penalised. They were both off balance through the actions they took.

    Again I say that I would not lose sleep if there had been a call for an obstruction. Hard luck on KB and a case of expectation rather than much wrong or intentional. I simply don’t regard this as a ‘charge’. If KB had gone for AB13 as being implied as a ball carrier I’d be looking for a YC and perhaps be unhappy with only a penalty.
    Last edited by Balones; 17-08-19 at 12:08.

  2. #72
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    KSRFUR
    Grade
    Level 10
    Join Date
    11 Apr 18
    Posts
    286
    Thanks (Received)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    61

    Default Re: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

    "it wasn't me sir, it was the collision!".

    I don't think intent is really relevant, but FWIW I don't believe it was entirely unintended on KB's part that the collision happened...

    (From WR decision making framework) Shoulder charge: Arm of the shoulder making contact with the ball carrier is behind the tackler’s body or tucked in ‘sling’ position at contact


    I can accept the argument that AB13 was no longer the ball carrier - in which case law 9.25 would instead apply; but if you give KB the benefit of the doubt on already being committed (i.e. not late) then I think law 9.16 applies. The collision is not a random event, it is caused by KB running into AB13 - and I hold KB responsible for any infringements caused by him precipitating that collision.

    Watching it frame by frame, I think that KB catches the kicking leg of AB13, which causes his swift collapse; and there might even make head/neck contract with his shoulder (hard to see from this angle).
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/cqbsnb7lps...29.56.mov?dl=0

  3. #73
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    02 Nov 18
    Posts
    400
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    38

    Default Re: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

    I really don't know how your not seeing it thb?? I don't think there's an obstruction as the timing is acceptable for a legal tackle to be completed. Both players are moving yes, however KB isn't moving away from B13 but they are both moving towards each other. With the focus on the defender to attempt to get out the road. For me there was no significant change of direction from KB, he also turned so that his shoulder made contact with B13 in a sling position.
    Referring to the decision making framework this is a shoulder charge, with low degree of danger.
    He doesn't swing into the contact
    He's not drawing his arm back
    He's not attempting a dominant tackle
    He's not travelling at high speed or accelerates into the contact
    The tackle wasn't completed for me. Although some may argue that as B13 went to ground it may have been completed.
    So based on my that it's only a pen. But we've played on and the try was scored. No further action needed.

  4. #74

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    711
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    181

    Default Re: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

    What is worse? An accidental kick or an accidental contact (charge) with shoulder?

  5. #75
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    KSRFUR
    Grade
    Level 10
    Join Date
    11 Apr 18
    Posts
    286
    Thanks (Received)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    61

    Default Re: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    What is worse? An accidental kick or an accidental contact (charge) with shoulder?
    I think i’m just going to accept we are unlikely to agree on this one... on the plus side we both think the outcome of a try to the ABs is fair.

  6. #76
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    1,377
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    283

    Default Re: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

    [QUOTE=Arabcheif;361558]I really don't know how your not seeing it thb?? I don't think there's an obstruction as the timing is acceptable for a legal tackle to be completed. Both players are moving yes, however KB isn't moving away from B13 but they are both moving towards each other. With the focus on the defender to attempt to get out the road. For me there was no significant change of direction from KB, he also turned so that his shoulder made contact with B13 in a sling position.
    Referring to the decision making framework this is a shoulder charge, with low degree of danger.
    He doesn't swing into the contact
    He's not drawing his arm back
    He's not attempting a dominant tackle
    He's not travelling at high speed or accelerates into the contact
    The tackle wasn't completed for me. Although some may argue that as B13 went to ground it may have been completed.
    So based on my that it's only a pen. But we've played on and the try was scored. No further action needed.[QUOTE=Arabcheif;361558]

    Your first post in the thread:

    [QUOTE=Arabcheif;361558]Ah I see, for me def no arms tackle/shoulder charge. So yeah, YC for me. Didn't see any obvious head contact. Shoulder to check (above armpit height). So I'd play the advantage if i decided no try, come back for the Pen. Try was awarded but i think they def should've reviewed the "tackle" too.[QUOTE=Arabcheif;361558]

    The Bits in bold indicate your view has actually changed. No need for the ref to review it if he saw it as PK only. How you know he did not? Or he may have seen it as a "rugby collision" and no PK. Either way the try ends the debate between those two. There would be not CC as it was only, as a worse case scenario, a YC so CC does not get involved.

    As to the bit underlined there can be not tackle completed unless the BC is "Held and brought to ground" He certainly was not as your description of the incident clearly indicated. So, anyone arguing that it was is simply wrong.

  7. #77
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    KSRFUR
    Grade
    Level 10
    Join Date
    11 Apr 18
    Posts
    286
    Thanks (Received)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    61

    Default Re: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

    On a complete tangent a new YouTube keyboard shortcut learned today “.” And “,” to advance/rewind by a single frame.

  8. #78

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    711
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    181

    Default Re: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

    Basically I am agreeing with the referee and TMO. Nothing of any consequence happened.

  9. #79
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    02 Nov 18
    Posts
    400
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    38

    Default Re: Kurtley beale - lucky to stay on the field?

    [QUOTE=Marc Wakeham;361564][QUOTE=Arabcheif;361558]I really don't know how your not seeing it thb?? I don't think there's an obstruction as the timing is acceptable for a legal tackle to be completed. Both players are moving yes, however KB isn't moving away from B13 but they are both moving towards each other. With the focus on the defender to attempt to get out the road. For me there was no significant change of direction from KB, he also turned so that his shoulder made contact with B13 in a sling position.
    Referring to the decision making framework this is a shoulder charge, with low degree of danger.
    He doesn't swing into the contact
    He's not drawing his arm back
    He's not attempting a dominant tackle
    He's not travelling at high speed or accelerates into the contact
    The tackle wasn't completed for me. Although some may argue that as B13 went to ground it may have been completed.
    So based on my that it's only a pen. But we've played on and the try was scored. No further action needed.[QUOTE=Arabcheif;361558]

    Your first post in the thread:

    [QUOTE=Arabcheif;361558]Ah I see, for me def no arms tackle/shoulder charge. So yeah, YC for me. Didn't see any obvious head contact. Shoulder to check (above armpit height). So I'd play the advantage if i decided no try, come back for the Pen. Try was awarded but i think they def should've reviewed the "tackle" too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arabcheif View Post

    The Bits in bold indicate your view has actually changed. No need for the ref to review it if he saw it as PK only. How you know he did not? Or he may have seen it as a "rugby collision" and no PK. Either way the try ends the debate between those two. There would be not CC as it was only, as a worse case scenario, a YC so CC does not get involved.

    As to the bit underlined there can be not tackle completed unless the BC is "Held and brought to ground" He certainly was not as your description of the incident clearly indicated. So, anyone arguing that it was is simply wrong.
    Apologies, I meant to say pos YC for me in that comment. The review would be to confirm if there was head contact. As such there was not. If there was Head contact, I'd def go with the YC but as there wasn't so no YC. As I've said in every other comment I believe.

    As for the underlined bit, I agree, but others may not.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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