• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Refereeing decisions

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
In Ireland V Arg, Arg received a kick off, were subsequently held up and Ireland got the put in at the scrum, I thought if it was off a kick off, then the ball doesn’t get turned over?
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
In Ireland V Arg, Arg received a kick off, were subsequently held up and Ireland got the put in at the scrum, I thought if it was off a kick off, then the ball doesn’t get turned over?
One of rugby,'s more stupid laws, this only applies to kicks in general play
If a maul is formed immediately after a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in open play, a scrum that is awarded for any of the above reasons will be to the team of the ball catcher.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
The Kerevi written judiciary decision is up on the six nations site


I really like that they publish these. Well worth reading the desicions if you want to understand the process
The Committee considered that the dangerous tackle was a result of poor technique, rather than by design, and by remaining upright and not lowering his body position prior to the tackle, the collision was inevitable in the upper body/ head area. There was however no sign of any malice whatsoever, and the Players actions were considered to be reckless and not intentional
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
"Poor technique" indeed... I haven't watched it since the weekend, but that was my initial reaction as Kerevi had put his head in the wrong place.
 

JRugby2

Ted Thorn (20)
The Kerevi written judiciary decision is up on the six nations site

I really like that they publish these. Well worth reading the desicions if you want to understand the process
The Committee considered that the dangerous tackle was a result of poor technique, rather than by design, and by remaining upright and not lowering his body position prior to the tackle, the collision was inevitable in the upper body/ head area. There was however no sign of any malice whatsoever, and the Players actions were considered to be reckless and not intentional


Unless you're a tracking missile - you can't guarantee what part of the body you're going hit when you make a tackle (ball carriers will ALWAYS move in the moments prior to contact). If you target the sternum - your impact area is probably going to be somewhere between the navel and the head, whereas you target the navel, its now probably between the sternum and the hips.

A sudden and significant drop/ movement is pretty much reserved for players who slip into contact or are impacted by another player.

This is consistent with the application of law in open play tackles for yonks.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
If you target the sternum - your impact area is probably going to be somewhere between the navel and the head, whereas you target the navel, its now probably between the sternum and the hips.
Yep, agreed. Kerevi was always going to get suspended because his head lined up with the ball carrier's head through the entire tackle process. He was never low enough to get mitigation.
 
Top