Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 81 to 83 of 83

Thread: Tap penalty to player already running: allowed?

      
  1. #81

    ELRA/Club Referee


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    08 Nov 18
    Posts
    102
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    30

    Default Re: Tap penalty to player already running: allowed?

    A cavalry charge could happen anywhere on the field as Phil E points out however in practice it only ever happened at 5m penalties because there was no point using it elsewhere as frankly the chosen behemoth usually ran out of puff after 5m.

    We had the debate about charge down recently and having thought about it I now think changing the laws of the game based on colloquial terms is not particularly efficient. We all think we know what they mean but in reality have very different pictures in our head.

  2. #82
    Coach/Referee

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    03 May 13
    Posts
    712
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    133

    Default Re: Tap penalty to player already running: allowed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jz558 View Post
    A cavalry charge could happen anywhere on the field as Phil E points out however in practice it only ever happened at 5m penalties because there was no point using it elsewhere as frankly the chosen behemoth usually ran out of puff after 5m.

    We had the debate about charge down recently and having thought about it I now think changing the laws of the game based on colloquial terms is not particularly efficient. We all think we know what they mean but in reality have very different pictures in our head.
    Like what colloquial term have you in mind?

  3. #83

    Promises to Referee in France
    L'irlandais's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CT Alsace-Lorraine
    Grade
    EdR + LCA
    Join Date
    11 May 10
    Posts
    4,248
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    210

    Default Re: Tap penalty to player already running: allowed?

    Like the OP was aware that a flying wedge was illegal, but was unsure about the “single player” cavalry charge. While it looked dangerous, I have the feeling he may have awarded the try. Or not?

    In 2011, a few RRF members were quite upset with Les Kiss’s choke tackle, because they mistakenly thought of it as the illegal seatbelt tackle. The former tactic being legal while the latter is dangerous. Although as pointed out recently on here, when the ball-carrier on a choke tackle tries to go to ground, the tacklers can end up holding him up way above the sholder line and so then it becomes dangerous play in the maul. (Strangling your opponent.)

    The USA term saddle roll wasn’t used this side of the pond right from the off. That and many cross over terms they use from Gridiron. Recently too one US ref confused a American Football play called hand off with a legit tactic in Union. But I can see why he was confused we wouldn’t whistle for a hand off systematically.
    In American football, a hand-off is the act of handing the ball directly from one player to another, i. e. without it leaving the first player's hands. Most rushing plays on offense begin with a handoff from the quarterback to another running back. The Southern Hemisphere game probably has terms we may not be entirely familiar with either.

    In rugby a hand off is a fend. Context is important.
    I am sure there are more examples if you have the patience to look for them. OB..’s advice in the other discussion, is relevant. If you penalize a team for using the Flying Wedge tactic then say “Dangerous Play” and explain to the Captain why it is dangerous. No need to use the specific term, which the player might not be familiar with. Use it if it helps, but be clear about why it’s dangerous. None of us want to get in a tiresome discussion at the bar after with a barrack room lawyer who objects to you saying it was a cavalry charge with it was only a single runner the number 8 in the OP. If you disallowed the try for dangerous play it cuts that discussion short.
    Last edited by L'irlandais; 4 Days Ago at 20:09.
    "We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we’re inclined to accept."
    John Henry Newman

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
  •