• 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.

Reds v Force Rd 8 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
No4918

No4918

John Hipwell (52)
@Bairdy believes @Scoey holds that position because of Marto's commentary? Now i know you are just shit stirring or that is the dumbest comment I have ever read on the interweb.
 
Scoey

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
Bairdy said:
I have a feeling you hold this position because of Marto's commentary on the weekend, but I'll just comment on the incident one last time.

(i) does not only relate to a tackle; it mentions additional forms of contact, i.e. "A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play."

(e) He did not tackle Haywood in the defined way as you say, but Placid made contact with his legs in the clash, and thus the law was applied and Garratt Williamson was correct.

Edit: Is that not a tackle in the air? Arms wrapped around Hayward and all.

View attachment 4609
Click to expand...
I must rush to my own defence here. I would never base any belief of mine on something Marto said. I have a new baby so now watch the Rugby with the volume down to the point that I can't hear it so I have no idea what Marto said. This is a good thing I find! ;-)

In response to your first point though, see my reply to dabiged above.
In response to your second point, a tackle is a defined event. It is defined so that laws that refer to it are applied to specific events. It is done to avoid laws being applied to situations that aren't intended to be covered by them.

In the still, his arms are wrapped around Hayward because Hayward is where Placid would've expected the ball to be. His arms were coming up to catch the ball. At least that's what it looked like to me. If that's his tackling technique he should've never made it past U7's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hawko

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
Scoey said:
No worries for the font. I'm on my phone so it all comes across the same size anyway. ;-)

(i) as the title suggests refers to a tackle situation. I agree he collided with a players legs who was in the air but I don't think this section applies as it's clear to me that it's meant to be applies in a tackle or attempted tackle.

10.4 (a) says a player must not strike another player with their (amongst other things) knees. Hayward clearly did this with sufficent force that that player could take no further part in the game but that law wasn't applied in this instance. Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The heading says "Tackling the jumper in the air." When someone jumps up for the ball, either at the lineout or to field a kick in play, they are protected from being tackled. The law says "the player must not tackle NOR TAP, PUSH OR PULL THE FEET." Nowhere does it say that pushing by the body on the feet is allowed. Placid's body pushed the feet of the player jumping for the ball. So it was a penalty, end of story.

Jumping for the ball in the air and jumping for the lineout are the only two places this applies. The law calls this a tackle and hence your confusion. In a normal tackle situation a player is not allowed to jump in the air to claim a penalty, that's considered dangerous play and has been penalised occasionally in the past.

The alternative is to allow tunneling or fake jumping into a player in the air. If you allow that then Izzy won't last a season before he's crippled by someone. Some years ago the Saffers were doing this and using the "I was contesting for the ball sir" defence. Mercifully, they seem to have put that technique in the cupboard, probably because the refs started penalising it.
 
Scoey

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
Hawko said:
The heading says "Tackling the jumper in the air." When someone jumps up for the ball, either at the lineout or to field a kick in play, they are protected from being tackled. The law says "the player must not tackle NOR TAP, PUSH OR PULL THE FEET." Nowhere does it say that pushing by the body on the feet is allowed. Placid's body pushed the feet of the player jumping for the ball. So it was a penalty, end of story.

Jumping for the ball in the air and jumping for the lineout are the only two places this applies. The law calls this a tackle and hence your confusion. In a normal tackle situation a player is not allowed to jump in the air to claim a penalty, that's considered dangerous play and has been penalised occasionally in the past.
Click to expand...

The word tackle is defined once. It doesn't have different meanings in different sections of the laws.

Using your interpretation, almost every time that two players contest a ball in the air, one or both is guilty of this offence. If they go into the air and their feet are tapped, it is an attempted tackle and then it is a penalty. Absolutely ludicrous!

But if you want to interpret the laws literally then Hayward is guilty of striking also and probably should be cited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EatSleepDrinkRuck

EatSleepDrinkRuck

Larry Dwyer (12)
Ok, to get to 100+ pages:

  1. Quade defended at fullback for a single phase of play - He is the worst defender in the game.
  2. Genia kicked the ball more than once and didn't score a single try - He should be replaced in the Wallabie
  3. Weren't the commentators Just the worst this weekend.
  4. Anyone remember a happier time before the force were in the comp?
  5. How do we destroy the NRL and steal all of their precious meatheads for our forward packs?
  6. Wouldn't Clive Palmer and Gina Reinhardt make a great tight and loosehead combination?
  7. Ugh, referees. Double Ugh South African Refs - We know you're planning something when you talk to the saffers in Afro-dutch, you sneaky sneaky bastards...
Discuss...


N.B. Harvard Referencing, maximum 5,000 words, footnotes excluded, due by the next time the reds win a game.
 
Scoey

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
Pride cometh before a fall. There is a return fixture in July. I wouldn't get too far ahead of yourself. ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
M

Moono75

Guest
Scoey said:
Pride cometh before a fall. There is a return fixture in July. I wouldn't get too far ahead of yourself. ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Reds should of learnt that lesson
 
farva

farva

Vay Wilson (31)
Not wanting to get ahead of things, but are the Western Force now rated as the best team in the competition by a country mile, and we should just about assume that they will dominate the Wallabies when the squad is announced?

I think the answer is a resounding yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top