June International Test: New Zealand vs. Wales [2nd Test] (18/06/2016)

[smartcooky]

the conversation we had at our society meeting is that the law is only meant to punish players who try to make it look like there was contact even though there wasn't any... exaggerating is not a penalty, only faking

Well that is not the conversation we have been having here, and it is not what the new Law says.

It was introduced as a response to the insidious creeping into the game of "simulation" from the round ball football code, where this type of behaviour is rife. It was primarily the actions of Huget a while back that brought this to everyone's attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f4Tq7f0xec

Contact was made on Huget, but he made a lot more of it than what actually happened to him.

This type of behaviour needs to be stamped out so that it does not become the blight on our game that it has on Wendyball

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

the penalty can only be assessed if foul play hasn't occurred
[TEXTAREA](d)
A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

if foul play did occur, how could you assess the other player with a penalty

 

[Nubiwan]

My understanding then is, you can do someone late with your shoulder, and as long as your opponent goes Hollywood to ground he gets a yellow.

To be honest there has been a bit of the football (Ronaldo look at me hurt ref) rubbish goin on in games of late. Particularly in the latish tackle, or obstruction scenarios. Disappointing to say the least.

naholo still should have seen yellow. Williams, best actor award....

 

[smartcooky]

the penalty can only be assessed if foul play hasn't occurred
[TEXTAREA](d)
A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

if foul play did occur, how could you assess the other player with a penalty

Have you ever seen a player (1) commit an act of foul play and an opponent (2) strikes him in retaliation?

Which one got assessed for the penalty?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Have you ever seen a player (1) commit an act of foul play and an opponent (2) strikes him in retaliation?

Which one got assessed for the penalty?

i'm not saying you can't have a penalty after foul play, in that situation the player who commits the second offense is the one that will have the penalty kick go against them

i'm saying you can't have a penalty for attempting to make it look like there was foul play if there was actual foul play

 

[smartcooky]

i'm not saying you can't have a penalty after foul play, in that situation the player who commits the second offense is the one that will have the penalty kick go against them

i'm saying you can't have a penalty for attempting to make it look like there was foul play if there was actual foul play

Yes, you can.

The intent of Law 10.2 (d) is to sanction players who commit any act to bring attention to any infringement by an opponent, whether or not an infringement actually took place.

Here are some of the situations referee coaches and advisers were briefed on a few weeks ago, for which they should be applying 10.2 (d)

[TEXTAREA]Play acting or "simulation" will be specifically outlawed in the game in a move that formalises resistance to a practice that has been creeping into the game in recent years. Any player who dives or feigns injury in an effort to influence the match officials will be liable for sanction.

Previously, such offences were covered under the laws covering general acts contrary to good sportsmanship.

If the referee believes that the intent of any act by these players was to influence their decisions, they should sanction the players accordingly;

► an acting scrum half at a ruck or tackle tripping over a potentially infringing opponent
► an acting scrum half at a ruck throwing/passing the ball at , and hitting, a potentially offside opponent
► a player feigning injury as a result of foul play whether or not the foul play actually occurred
► a player simulating, whether or not foul play has actually occurred.[/TEXTAREA]

These are copied straight from my briefing notes

As usual, I would expect referees to use ATP escalation.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

hmmm... I wonder why the US(or maybe just my society) have decided to teach a different interpretation

That last bullet makes it clear that you are supposed to punish any simulation or exaggeration, I'll try to get a hold of the PowerPoint slides from that meeting

 

[Which Tyler]

i'm not saying you can't have a penalty after foul play, in that situation the player who commits the second offense is the one that will have the penalty kick go against them

i'm saying you can't have a penalty for attempting to make it look like there was foul play if there was actual foul play

Of course you can - you give the first penalty; then reverse it for play acting.

The offence isn't for making a foul look like a foul - it's for play acting / exaggerating. This sort of thing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/11356174/The-worst-dives-in-rugby.html.
Example 1: simulation of a foul where no foul was committed.
Example 2: simulation of a severe foul where a really minor foul has been committed.
Example 3: simulation of a severe foul where a minor foul may have been committed.
Example 4: simulation of a severe foul where a minor foul may have been committed.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Of course you can - you give the first penalty; then reverse it for play acting.

The offence isn't for making a foul look like a foul - it's for play acting / exaggerating. See Huget / Habana for examples.

I understand that you can flip a penalty and have done so... I'm saying that my society instructed us not to penalise the player for simulation if there was foul play and that it was only a penalty if they made something out of nothing instead of a lot out of a little.
Do you understand what I'm trying to convey here?

 

[Which Tyler]

Yes, to my understanding of the new regulations; your society is wrong.
Equally though - this new law wasn't really needed in the first place - it was already covered under ungentlemanly conduct. Just another law that already exists, has been ignored, so a new law is now needed.

Under the examples above (obviously edited in after you'd started replying); under your society's view, only the first would be an offence.
For the 2nd, you could argue that a lame-arse punch was actually thrown
For the 3rd, you could argue that Farrell changed his line a little too late
For the 3rd, you could argue that Agulla's hand got a bit too close to the throat
In those 3 cases, you'd say that a foul has been committed; and therefor no foul for the simulation.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Yes, to my understanding of the new regulations; your society is wrong.
Equally though - this new law wasn't really needed in the first place - it was already covered under ungentlemanly conduct. Just another law that already exists, has been ignored, so a new law is now needed.

Under the examples above (obviously edited in after you'd started replying); under your society's view, only the first would be an offence.
For the 2nd, you could argue that a lame-arse punch was actually thrown
For the 3rd, you could argue that Farrell changed his line a little too late
For the 3rd, you could argue that Agulla's hand got a bit too close to the throat
In those 3 cases, you'd say that a foul has been committed; and therefor no foul for the simulation.

i'm definitely now of the opinion that there was something lost along the lines between world rugby and my society... i'll have to bring this up

 

[Ospreylian]

Well that is not the conversation we have been having here, and it is not what the new Law says.

It was introduced as a response to the insidious creeping into the game of "simulation" from the round ball football code, where this type of behaviour is rife. It was primarily the actions of Huget a while back that brought this to everyone's attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f4Tq7f0xec

Contact was made on Huget, but he made a lot more of it than what actually happened to him.

This type of behaviour needs to be stamped out so that it does not become the blight on our game that it has on Wendyball

Oh come on, the Naholo shoulder barge is completely different in every way to the Huget incident. The Huget incident happens after the whistle is blown, his reactions are completely exaggerated relative to the force of the push and he holds a completely different part of his body to where he was actually pushed. Also, Huget stays down on the floor for ages afterwards, football style, and milks it for all it's worth, whereas Williams gets to his knees straight away and (quite rightly) asks the linesman if he saw the very obvious shoulder barge. Here's another angle for you:

Whereas Huget falls with very little force, Williams falls at the same rate and trajectory as anyone would fall after being barged from the side and out into touch.
In fact, from the second angle it kind of looks like all he is doing when he throws his head back like that is shouting out in frustration or complaining, perhaps angry at the fact that he can't chase the ball through because he's been knocked to the ground. So the whole argument he is milking it is debatable to begin with.

Not to mention the fact that Williams does not at all infringe the " a player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent" rule whatsoever, as he WAS subject to foul play

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Oh come on, the Naholo shoulder barge is completely different in every way to the Huget incident. The Huget incident happens after the whistle is blown, his reactions are completely exaggerated relative to the force of the push and he holds a completely different part of his body to where he was actually pushed. Also, Huget stays down on the floor for ages afterwards, football style, and milks it for all it's worth, whereas Williams gets to his knees straight away and (quite rightly) asks the linesman if he saw the very obvious shoulder barge. Here's another angle for you:

Whereas Huget falls with very little force, Williams falls at the same rate and trajectory as anyone would fall after being barged from the side and out into touch.
In fact, from the second angle it kind of looks like all he is doing when he throws his head back like that is shouting out in frustration or complaining, perhaps angry at the fact that he can't chase the ball through because he's been knocked to the ground. So the whole argument he is milking it is debatable to begin with.

Not to mention the fact that Williams does not at all infringe the " a player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent" rule whatsoever, as he WAS subject to foul play

that's the reasoning my society is giving for their stance

 

[smartcooky]

Oh come on, the Naholo shoulder barge is completely different in every way to the Huget incident. The Huget incident happens after the whistle is blown, his reactions are completely exaggerated relative to the force of the push and he holds a completely different part of his body to where he was actually pushed. Also, Huget stays down on the floor for ages afterwards, football style, and milks it for all it's worth, whereas Williams gets to his knees straight away and (quite rightly) asks the linesman if he saw the very obvious shoulder barge. Here's another angle for you:



Whereas Huget falls with very little force, Williams falls at the same rate and trajectory as anyone would fall after being barged from the side and out into touch.
In fact, from the second angle it kind of looks like all he is doing when he throws his head back like that is shouting out in frustration or complaining, perhaps angry at the fact that he can't chase the ball through because he's been knocked to the ground. So the whole argument he is milking it is debatable to begin with.

All very interesting and all completely irrelevant, since it addresses comments that I haven't made. I have expressed NO opinion regards the shoulder barge.

Not to mention the fact that Williams does not at all infringe the " a player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent" rule whatsoever, as he WAS subject to foul play

You have missed the point entirely either because you don't understand what that Law means, or your understanding of what it means is incorrect.

"any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play" applies in two ways

1. you cannot pretend to be the victim of foul play when you were not.
2. even if you are the victim of foul play you cannot act to bring that to the attention of the referee.

This is directly, word for word off the WR website...

[TEXTAREA]"Play acting or “simulation†will be specifically outlawed in the game in a move that formalises resistance to a practice that has been creeping into the game in recent years.Any player who dives or feigns injury in an effort to influence the match officials will be liable for sanction".[/TEXTAREA]

The way Williams threw his head back dramatically as if he had been shot in the back was pure Hollywood. He was hit sideways; if his head movement was caused by the shoulder barge, his head would have moved sideways. It was obvious play-acting by him, worthy of any Wendyball dive, and it has NO PLACE in our game whether he was the victim of foul play or not.

 

[Tony Manx]

All very interesting and all completely irrelevant, since it addresses comments that I haven't made. I have expressed NO opinion regards the shoulder barge.



You have missed the point entirely either because you don't understand what that Law means, or your understanding of what it means is incorrect.

"any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play" applies in two ways

1. you cannot pretend to be the victim of foul play when you were not.
2. even if you are the victim of foul play you cannot act to bring that to the attention of the referee.

This is directly, word for word off the WR website...

[TEXTAREA]"Play acting or “simulation†will be specifically outlawed in the game in a move that formalises resistance to a practice that has been creeping into the game in recent years.Any player who dives or feigns injury in an effort to influence the match officials will be liable for sanction".[/TEXTAREA]

The way Williams threw his head back dramatically as if he had been shot in the back was pure Hollywood. He was hit sideways; if his head movement was caused by the shoulder barge, his head would have moved sideways. It was obvious play-acting by him, worthy of any Wendyball dive, and it has NO PLACE in our game whether he was the victim of foul play or not.

+1

 

[AzaMatt]

to be fair he does seem to milk it occasionally, must have been getting tips from master Hogg