[2017 RBS Six Nations] Round 2: Wales vs England (11/02/2017)

[Ragey Erasmus]

i'm not saying that the law is clear, but i think to blow that up would be against the spirit of the game... everything you mentioned is as applicable to launch as it is to williams

williams didn't make the ball unplayable, he won the ball for his team in a position where it wasn't illegal for him to play the ball, if he would have just placed his arms on it an didn't move then maybe he would be killing the ball but that isn't what he did

No it isn't because Launchbury clearly got possession of the ball first. Again I'm not convinced, the whole not playing someone on the ground after they fall on a loose ball and the note saying it should be played on their feet, along with the rules excluding a player on the floor from doing anything except explicitly taking the ball out of another players hands makes me feel it is an oversight due to the rarity in which this situation occurs.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

i'm not saying that the law is clear, but i think to blow that up would be against the spirit of the game... everything you mentioned is as applicable to launch as it is to williams

williams didn't make the ball unplayable, he won the ball for his team in a position where it wasn't illegal for him to play the ball, if he would have just placed his arms on it an didn't move then maybe he would be killing the ball but that isn't what he did

- - - Updated - - -



why would williams not be able to play the ball?

Because he's on his knees?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Because he's on his knees?

which violates which law?

- - - Updated - - -

No it isn't because Launchbury clearly got possession of the ball first. Again I'm not convinced, the whole not playing someone on the ground after they fall on a loose ball and the note saying it should be played on their feet, along with the rules excluding a player on the floor from doing anything except explicitly taking the ball out of another players hands makes me feel it is an oversight due to the rarity in which this situation occurs.

i think the idea is that if two guys intentionally dive at the same time, which is what happens since williams is on the ground before launch is on possession, they should be given time to wrestle for the ball instead of just whoever gets to it first gets the ball

but it could be an oversight since this does rarely happen

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

which violates which law?

- - - Updated - - -

The same one applying to competing for the ball and being on your feet supporting your body weight in order to do so at rucks?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

The same one applying to competing for the ball and being on your feet supporting your body weight in order to do so at rucks?

that law only applies to rucks, there isn't a ruck here

there is also a law saying you have to be on your feet to play the ball after a tackle, but again there isn't a tackle here

the law that applies here is 14, which is ball on ground no tackle

this penalises players from intentionally falling onto a player on the ground, but williams was already on the ground when launch got the ball

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

that law only applies to rucks, there isn't a ruck here

there is also a law saying you have to be on your feet to play the ball after a tackle, but again there isn't a tackle here

the law that applies here is 14, which is ball on ground no tackle

this penalises players from intentionally falling onto a player on the ground, but williams was already on the ground when launch got the ball

Right so the ruck forms properly I presume when May joins? At which point the ref should be saying hands away now?
Also, close though it obviously is, launch bury is to ground before Williams - so even if thats unlucky for Williams, surely he's still committing an offence by falling on launchbury like that?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Also doesn't this present an odd scenario in which a player can come in to attempt a tackle, fail but still cause the attacking player to fall over and if they fall within reach, the failed tackler can then just make a grab at the ball if it is close enough without getting off the floor? That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Also doesn't this present an odd scenario in which a player can come in to attempt a tackle, fail but still cause the attacking player to fall over and if they fall within reach, the failed tackler can then just make a grab at the ball if it is close enough without getting off the floor? That doesn't seem right to me.

yeah, but the attacking player shouldn't be placing the ball they should be getting up and continuing to run

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

yeah, but the attacking player shouldn't be placing the ball they should be getting up and continuing to run

Yeah, but in this scenario several players have piled on top of him.
But yeah I can see its definitely more complicated than I first thought.
I suppose in situations like this what the referee says becomes more and more important. If he says to leave it now thats that. I just think that usually the moment the ball is secured by one party and both sides engage on either side, the rules of the ruck tend to apply.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Right so the ruck forms properly I presume when May joins? At which point the ref should be saying hands away now?
Also, close though it obviously is, launch bury is to ground before Williams - so even if thats unlucky for Williams, surely he's still committing an offence by falling on launchbury like that?

no, cause the ball isn't on the ground when may engages, so there is not ruck

when he makes his dive the ball is loose, a second later definitely a penalty


also think it's important to remember that this all happens in about 2 seconds so we can all appreciate how many different things these top level referees have to remember in such a short amount of time

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

My attempt at a player emotion pic. I'm tired and it seemed like a good idea...

 

[valley commando]

No doubt in my mind that when it comes to individual offences which might have brought more than a penalty, both teams transgressed with England perhaps being the luckier. Haskell might perhaps have been carded as well as launch and for Wales there were several deliberate knock-ons.

Ref didn't miss much else except an early counter-drive at a Wales lineout which bring fair, possibly cost them the chance at an attack. Itoje also rode high on a few tackles, nothing too major though.

Overall my sympathy is limited because I thought Wales were more consistently pushing boundaries at the breakdown. In particular, actually letting go of the tackled player completely was something they were thoroughly unwilling to do.

- - - Updated - - -



I think his point is that if you're the better side on the day and still lose, maybe your opposition is just better. And that's the point really; matched us on the day you did ; as good as side overall, though, you aren't. This might ultimately account for the result.

Are you saying that in your world the better side always wins ?

- - - Updated - - -

It's like I've been transported back to the 90s - Welsh fans claiming the moral victory.
Who was it who said that you never beat the Welsh - just score more points than them?

That would have been God

 

[TobesHodges]

Valley have day off - England are better than Wales right now and for the foreseeable future, get over it pal..

 

[Which Tyler]

That would have been God

May, Jonny's far too polite to have said that. I'm guessing an Aussie

 

[ALJ]

I must admit, I don't understand all the pontification about the turnover at the end of the game.

As I understand it, if you are on the ground (i.e. off your feet) you are out of the game, you can't tackle, kick, handle the ball, whatever - it's always been so.

Launchbury can dive on the ball but unless he gets up, he cannot do anything but lay it back.
Williams is off his feet - he can't handle the ball.

I think this is all covered by Laws 14 & 15.

That's it isn't it?

 

[valley commando]

Valley have day off - England are better than Wales right now and for the foreseeable future, get over it pal..

I don't agree.

By the way Guscott had 6 Wales players in his Lions 15 after the last round, 5 English, 3 Irish and 1 Scot.

- - - Updated - - -

May, Jonny's far too polite to have said that. I'm guessing an Aussie

Actually it was Max Boyce

 

[McTallshort]

Well if Guscott said it then it must be true

 

[MikeTheNative]

Well if Guscott said it then it must be true

I think guscot it full of crap.... unless he confirms my opinion then he's a respected pundit.

 

[Which Tyler]

I think guscot it full of crap.... unless he confirms my opinion then he's a respected pundit.

I think Guscott is full of crap, and typically ignore anything he says/writes... unless he confirms my opinion then I have cause to question my own opinion, and look at changing it.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Guscott gets me questioning how one can be such a great rugby player and so full of **** as a pundit. I genuinely don't what his shtick is.

In the build-up to England's first try, throughout the 26 phases that led to the score, Wales looked a bit under clubbed up front. But thereafter they began to dominate the scrums and compete well at the lineout – so much so they had the confidence to turn down kicks at goal in preference of a set-piec

Sorry but what? Dominate scrums? Compete well at lineout?