Wales v New Zealand

[Teh Mite]

You have a nice day too mate, don't burst a blood vessel in your brain or anything like that.

And you too. Let me know when you actually have any real answers also.

 

[Teh Mite]

PS: If you want to see an example of the "misuse" I speak of, take a look at my signature. That banner is there because what I wanted to put there was edited out by one of YOUR mods under YOUR instruction, so don't come the holier than thou "I'm only posting as a poster" crap with me. I know precisely how the editing of my signature came about, and I know precisely how people like you think, because I have dealt with your kind on a professional level all of my life!

PS: Your signature was deliberately inflammatory, and in no way shape or form "a bit of fun", instead designed to antagonise and offend members of The Rugby Forum. We received several complaints about your signature almost immediately. Over deliberation, we decided that it was in the interests of the boards members to remove it and you were contacted about this and requested to remove it. You ignored these requests from staff so one of the moderators acted in the best interests of TRF and it's members to remove the offending item. You then immediately proceded to replace the signature with another version, again designed to antagonise our members so it was again decided to removed the signature.

Once you decided to replace it yet again with "Censored by the Cyber-Bullies", for the sake of letting sleeping dogs lay we let that stay. However now you have yet again raised the issue, I invite you to state your case to Charlie, Dan and Myself why this was deemed suitable material for The Rugby Forum and it's members. We trust you will have your case stated to all three directors within the next 48 hours if this is such a serious issue to you.

If we deem your reasoning behind the signature to be sufficiently acceptable, we will reassess our decision and keep you informed if we decide this does not contravine the TRF laws as clearly stated above.

Closing date for your application of appeal is 2/12/2010 @ 09:30 GMT

 

[cardassian]

Whether the Laws state it or not I think intent should be seen as key in these situations.

Powell, Mealamu and Hartley all should of been stood down for a few weeks.

Jones did nothing wrong however, definately going for the ball and it was an unfortunate turn of events.

Got to remember they're not playing tiddlywinks

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Wow ... Stephen Jones that is all!

 

[dullonien]

Smartcooky I would have thought from someone who knows the rules better than most, you'd know that there is nothing wrong with trying to kick a rugby ball when it's loose on the ground. The player who CHOSE to dive on the ball knew what the risks were, there was nothing dangerous in the slightest with Jones choosing to kick the ball. Rugby is a contact sport where you are llowed to handle the ball and use your feet, everyone knows there's a chace on getting a kick to the head if you dive for a ball that's loose on the ground, especially when you're in the opposition half and all they want to do is clear the ball. This is in the same way that a player attempting to charge down a kick knows theres a chance of getting a boot to the face as Lewis Moody had found out plenty of times.

While were at it, if a tackle begins below the shoulders and slips up high, then that isn't a penalty, although they are often given because in live play it looks high. Again, unfortunate accidents aren't intentionally dangerous and therefore don't deserve penalties, yellow cards or citings. Mistakes on the other hand can on occasion, such as high tackles such as Carters on Martin Roberts, no malice invoved, but he simply got it wrong.

For the record, out of the clips you showed above, I though the only one with the correct outcome was Stephen Jones' kick, as it deserved nothing and got nothing. Carter's high tackle probably didn't deserve the weeks suspension, but I can't remember if it was picked up in game and yellow carded or not. If it wasn't then that's the reason for the ban. I thoughs Mealamu's headbut deserved much, much longer sentance. I also thought Hartley's offense deserved a few weeks, and it looks very intentional to me. We all know everyone's views about Powell's hit, which deserved a good few weeks minimum.

Overall the citing system is still badly broken, and I don't understand why it hasn't been fixed yet.

 

[smartcooky]

While were at it, if a tackle begins below the shoulders and slips up high, then that isn't a penalty,

Yes it is. There was an iRB directive about it a few years ago, and it is still in effect. The gist of it was twofold.

► A tackle in which the first point of contact is below the line of the shoulder, but which then rides up and strikes the ball-carrier above the line of the shoulder, is still to be considered as a high-tackle.

► A tackle in which the tackler aims the first point of contact to be below the line of the shoulder, but in which the ball carrier "ducks into" the tackle so that he is struck above the line of the shoulders is still to be considered as a high-tackle.

On the Stephen Jones thing, we'll have to agree to differ. I accept that it was an accident, and that it wasn't deliberate, however, when you kick at the ball in close vicinity of players on the ground, you have a duty of care to those players. For example, you are not allowed to kick the ball out of a player's hands. That is dangerous play.

 

[dullonien]

I don't think I've ever seen either of those directives implemented in games, and tbh find them both totally stupid. But I'll believe you if you say so, as you're knowlage on the rules is very good.

Regarding the Jones insident. I'd agree with you if the player was already on the ground, however he wasn't. He chose to dive for the ball knowing full well someone else would be also trying to play the ball. You see stuff like this all the time in games when the ball get's spilled, and I don't think I've ever seen a penalty or any reaction to any of them.

 

[smartcooky]

Here is the Appendix to Regulation 17. The directive was based on this...

 

[dullonien]

Cheers cooky.

Would be interested to know if you agree with it or not aswell, as I don't understand how someone can be held accountable if the tackle simply slips up due to no fault of his own, or if the opposition player decided to duck, or accidentally slips into a tackle. On both accounts, the tackler isn't directly responsible and therefore should not be punished in my view.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Cheers cooky.

Would be interested to know if you agree with it or not aswell, as I don't understand how someone can be held accountable if the tackle simply slips up due to no fault of his own, or if the opposition player decided to duck, or accidentally slips into a tackle. On both accounts, the tackler isn't directly responsible and therefore should not be punished in my view.

A tackler is responsible for his tackle and what damage it does, accidents happen to good people driving on the road and they are still held responsible for the actions which played out.

If you cannot successfully control a tackle that is tight around the shoulders or upper chest, then attempt another tackle type to stop the player. If a tackle slips up from a relatively low starting point there is often discretion given by referees and thats good that they have that kind of discretion. Still, technically the player can be done for it if the ref felt it'd started from too high a point to control how high it slipped.

 

[smartcooky]

Cheers cooky.

Would be interested to know if you agree with it or not aswell, as I don't understand how someone can be held accountable if the tackle simply slips up due to no fault of his own, or if the opposition player decided to duck, or accidentally slips into a tackle. On both accounts, the tackler isn't directly responsible and therefore should not be punished in my view.

Just because I know that is the Law, doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it (and I don't).

However, on the field with a whistle in my hand, I would have to enforce it, because I am being assessed on my Law application.

For some Laws, such as offside, acertain amount of latitude is allowed for materiality as judged by the referee, but Law 10 always trumps materiality. Referees are not allowed to pick and choose which Laws they enforce and which they don't.

 

[dullonien]

A tackler is responsible for his tackle and what damage it does, accidents happen to good people driving on the road and they are still held responsible for the actions which played out.

If you cannot successfully control a tackle that is tight around the shoulders or upper chest, then attempt another tackle type to stop the player. If a tackle slips up from a relatively low starting point there is often discretion given by referees and thats good that they have that kind of discretion. Still, technically the player can be done for it if the ref felt it'd started from too high a point to control how high it slipped.

Although the comparison kinda works, it also kinda fails. I've acknowlaged that an accidental high tackle i.e. sticking out an arm in a reflex motion that connects above the shoulder should always be penalised, what I'm disputing is that a tackle which begins legal, but rides up due to no fault of his own should be treated in the same way. Or even worse, that a high tackle resulting from the tacklee (probably not a word) ducking somewhat should. Quite often the reason a tackle slips up is because the ball carrier is carrying the ball quite high up on his body or on his chest, meaning the tacklers arm slips up on the ball and ends up high. To use your car anology, we should not compare this to an accident which has occured through driver fault, but due to an unforseeable event, such as a patch of black ice baybe, or a mechanical fault with the car. In this case they would not be held responsible for what had occurred by the police.

Rugby is a contact sport where injuries etc. can occur, that's part of the parcel. I hold similar views about personal injury claims due to minor injuries (whiplash etc.) caused by a car 'crash', or more specifically small knocks, but probably shouldn't get into that.......

Just because I know that is the Law, doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it (and I don't).

However, on the field with a whistle in my hand, I would have to enforce it, because I am being assessed on my Law application.

For some Laws, such as offside, acertain amount of latitude is allowed for materiality as judged by the referee, but Law 10 always trumps materiality. Referees are not allowed to pick and choose which Laws they enforce and which they don't.

Fair enough, I would completely expect you to uphold the rules whilst reffing a game, I was just curios as your personal views on the matter. Also, not challenging your views here, but the rules.

 

[azeli]

Yes it is. There was an iRB directive about it a few years ago, and it is still in effect. The gist of it was twofold.

► A tackle in which the first point of contact is below the line of the shoulder, but which then rides up and strikes the ball-carrier above the line of the shoulder, is still to be considered as a high-tackle.

► A tackle in which the tackler aims the first point of contact to be below the line of the shoulder, but in which the ball carrier "ducks into" the tackle so that he is struck above the line of the shoulders is still to be considered as a high-tackle.

On the Stephen Jones thing, we'll have to agree to differ. I accept that it was an accident, and that it wasn't deliberate, however, when you kick at the ball in close vicinity of players on the ground, you have a duty of care to those players. For example, you are not allowed to kick the ball out of a player's hands. That is dangerous play.

Ha ha - I have used this excuse once or twice...." oh, but he ducked into it ref!" Smartcooky, you haven't reffed in any Auckland comps??

 

[smartcooky]

Ha ha - I have used this excuse once or twice...." oh, but he ducked into it ref!" Smartcooky, you haven't reffed in any Auckland comps??

Yes I did (although technically it was not Auckland as it is now, because when I refereed up there it was mostly on the North Shore (North Harbour didn't exist then).

I used to play for Western United (not sure if they even exist any more; the colours were mid-green with two thin white hoops either side of a single black hoop running around the chest). Our home games were at the Huapai Domain (not far from the best little country pub in the area.. the Huapai Tavern.