Reds v Tahs : Opening game of the season

[Lee Grant]

1. Can we consider Turner as actually 'tackled' considering he was still moving forward at a reasonable rate?
2. Did A Fainga actually fall on or over him? It appaeared to me that he actually pushed him from the side and into touch.
3. If we start using your interpretation, the game will change significantly and the balance will move too far towards the attacking team.

1. He was tackled as Biffo explained; no interpretation is needed, just application of the law. Hynes tackled Turner and still held him when they both went into touch. Yes he was actually tackled. The question of whether players are moving across the ground, or not, does not arise from the laws which are silent on the matter.

2. You can't have it both ways. Either Fainga'a fell on Turner in grabbing him, or Fainga'a went to ground just before he grabbed him so that the his momentum and direction of run forced the grabbed Turner out. Either action is illegal: on the one hand you can't fall on a player on the ground and on the other you can't grab people after you have gone to ground yourself. Again, the question of whether people are moving on the ground, or not, does not arise.

3. Again, not a cogent argument; it's either a correct application of the law as it is, or not. There has been too much talk about interpretations. For example: referees who allow tacklers to hold onto the player they tackled and swing themselves up without releasing, are not interpreting the law that states the tackled player has to be released. They are ignoring it. The actions of the referees this weekend in penalising tacklers who did this are not interpreting the law differently, they are just applying it for a change.

And so on and so on. Mind you, you are in good company. Most of the commentators are mentioning interpretation also, though Phil Kearns, and Tony Johnson IIRR, put the others right.


Scotty

I have questioned the referees in the past many times when the Tahs or Australia have been advantaged and our opponents disadvantaged. Don't make out my discussion of the Turner incident a NSW/Queensland thingo. I certainly would have written about the Genia penalty try had it not been awarded.

 

[TOCC]

i cant belive there are people seriously questioning the Turner tackle...

If a person hasnt been held properly in a tackle they are allowed to get up and keep going, if Hynes had of released Turner as some of you suggest there would have been nothing stopping him from jumping up and diving for the line considering he was still in motion.

absolutely ludicrous

 

[Lee Grant]

i cant belive there are people seriously questioning the Turner tackle...

If a person hasnt been held properly in a tackle they are allowed to get up and keep going, if Hynes had of released Turner as some of you suggest there would have been nothing stopping him from jumping up and diving for the line considering he was still in motion.

absolutely ludicrous

So did you think it should have been a penalty try - or not? It is not clear.

It was more the illegal fall on Turner that was the point. Without it a try would probably have been scored IMO. What is your opinion?

 

[Scotty]

Ok, so we are not discussing interpretation of the laws, but more likely application of the laws.

The fact is that the law in that particular instance is never, or a least hardly ever applied to its strict definition. I'm sure even Lee and Biffo can't argue that.

My main point is that if the laws were applied strictly in that instance, then the game would be changed, and favour the attacking player too much.

 

[TOCC]

i cant belive there are people seriously questioning the Turner tackle...

If a person hasnt been held properly in a tackle they are allowed to get up and keep going, if Hynes had of released Turner as some of you suggest there would have been nothing stopping him from jumping up and diving for the line considering he was still in motion.

absolutely ludicrous

So did you think it should have been a penalty try - or not? It is not clear.

It was more the illegal fall on Turner that was the point. Without it a try would probably have been scored IMO. What is your opinion?

No, i dont think it was illegal at all, the moment we start considering acts like that illegal is the day the game is truly screwed, teams would exploit the rule if it were the case.

For example, the forards have a ruck close to the line, one of the props goes to do a pick and drive and he just dives straight at the line, the defending player pretty much falls on him in the process of trying to stop him(much akin to Fainga'a), do we consider this a penalty try?

yes we have rules, but we also have common sense

 

[Epi]

i cant belive there are people seriously questioning the Turner tackle...

If a person hasnt been held properly in a tackle they are allowed to get up and keep going, if Hynes had of released Turner as some of you suggest there would have been nothing stopping him from jumping up and diving for the line considering he was still in motion.

absolutely ludicrous

So did you think it should have been a penalty try - or not? It is not clear.

It was more the illegal fall on Turner that was the point. Without it a try would probably have been scored IMO. What is your opinion?

No, i dont think it was illegal at all, the moment we start considering acts like that illegal is the day the game is truly screwed, teams would exploit the rule if it were the case.

For example, the forards have a ruck close to the line, one of the props goes to do a pick and drive and he just dives straight at the line, the defending player pretty much falls on him in the process of trying to stop him(much akin to Fainga'a), do we consider this a penalty try?

yes we have rules, but we also have common sense

Spot on. Still trying to work out how this is a point of contention? :nta:

 

[Lee Grant]

Good I'm glad we got that sorted.

So you thought it should have been a penalty try accordingly to the law but that the law is rarely invoked. I already said it was a rare thing; so we agree. Sorted.


As for My main point is that if the laws were applied strictly in that instance, then the game would be changed, and favour the attacking player too much ...... in your first response you said I have never ever ever seen anything like that given as a penalty try. Take the eye patches off.

I though that was your main point - that we thought a penalty try should be given according to the law and you thought it was bullshit.

I wouldn't worry too much about such application of the law as written affecting the game in a negative way. The referees are already doing it. The game changed lot when the refs decided to apply the laws strictly on the tackle/ruck on the weekend and the advancing in front of the kicker like league players. There was also a bit of pinging players for not being behind last feet and acting as pillars - and even a bit (but not enough) of players leaving their feet.

This strict application of laws on the weekend as they are written, and not ignoring them, affected our sport in a positive way. The rugby sky did not fall. Strict application of the law which should have led to a penalty try in Brisbane would not have changed the dynamic in any way.

I've got nothing more to say to you on the matter.

No, i dont think it was illegal at all

You are wrong, literally, it's a transgression of the law which means it was illegal.

You want to move away from the Turner situation to a discussion on what happens to the grunters on the goal line. I don't. If you care enough about it start another thread and I might even join you.

I don't have anything more to say on the matter to you here as I will be saying the same things and you will just be taking over from Scotty. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[TOCC]

Good I'm glad we got that sorted.

So you thought it should have been a penalty try accordingly to the law but that the law is rarely invoked. I already said it was a rare thing; so we agree. Sorted.


As for My main point is that if the laws were applied strictly in that instance, then the game would be changed, and favour the attacking player too much ...... in your first response you said I have never ever ever seen anything like that given as a penalty try. Take the eye patches off.

I though that was your main point - that we thought a penalty try should be given according to the law and you thought it was bullshit.

I wouldn't worry too much about such application of the law as written affecting the game in a negative way. The referees are already doing it. The game changed lot when the refs decided to apply the laws strictly on the tackle/ruck on the weekend and the advancing in front of the kicker like league players. There was also a bit of pinging players for not being behind last feet and acting as pillars - and even a bit (but not enough) of players leaving their feet.

This strict application of laws on the weekend as they are written, and not ignoring them, affected our sport in a positive way. The rugby sky did not fall. Strict application of the law which should have led to a penalty try in Brisbane would not have changed the dynamic in any way.

I've got nothing more to say to you on the matter.

No, i dont think it was illegal at all

You are wrong, literally, it's a transgression of the law which means it was illegal.

You want to move away from the Turner situation to a discussion on what happens to the grunters on the goal line. I don't. If you care enough about it start another thread and I might even join you.

I don't have anything more to say on the matter to you here as I will be saying the same things and you will just be taking over from Scotty. We will have to agree to disagree.

im not literally wrong because its a interpretation of the law, and thankfully up to now it has been use in line with commonsense, reason why is that i dont believe that he was a 'tackled' player at the time, you can debate the technicalities of this part all you want but the way the law is presented allows for interpration. A tackle is defined as:

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.


however,

A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has
not taken place.

The interpration factor is whether Turner was to be considered 'held', the fact that he was still moving would indicate he wasnt held. Now what this means, that if he was not a tackled player then A.Fainga'a had every right to come in and tackle turner into touch.

 

[Biffo]

For example, the forards have a ruck close to the line, one of the props goes to do a pick and drive and he just dives straight at the line, the defending player pretty much falls on him in the process of trying to stop him(much akin to Fainga'a), do we consider this a penalty try?

Read the effing Law. In your case study and according to your wording, the ball carrier has not been tackled.

Again, the Laws do not differentiate between what happens "outside" and what happens next to a ruck in front of the posts.

Try reading the Laws of the game. They are interesting.

I'm with LG. Enough.

 

[Epi]

C'mon... FFS.. whatever the rules say, if that was given as a penalty try it would be the joke of the year. He was bundled into touch - end of story.

Isn't the code struggling enough as it is?

 

[Scotty]

Lee,

You have proven to me that in the letter of the law Fainga transgressed, and according to the same laws it appears it should have been a penalty try. You clearly have a greater knowledge of the laws than I do, which I would expect considering the relative amounts of time we spend watching and learning about rugby.

However, I do feel that your knowledge of the laws may have clouded your view in this case. From your post that I took issue with, you were clearly of the opinion that it should have been a penalty try (although you did say 'probably' at the end'). This may be correct according to the letter of the law, but it is most definately not correct according to the normal application of the law (you yourself admitted that you have hardly ever seen this circumstance penalised or had a penalty try awarded from it).

Surely there is more importance in this sport (in fact in any sport) of applying the laws evenly rather than applying the laws strictly. Most, if not all rugby fans would be happy with consistency in application of laws rather than strict, letter of the law application (because we all know that could lead to the most boring game on the planet).

So, in my opinion Joubert did the correct thing in not considering that incidence as a transgression, as it would have lead to an inconsistent application of the law.

 

[Scotty]

The interpration factor is whether Turner was to be considered 'held', the fact that he was still moving wouldnt indicate he wasnt held. Now what this means, that if he was not a tackled player then A.Fainga'a had every right to come in and tackle turner into touch.

This is a good point by TOCC. What is the definition of 'held'. The law does not appear to say 'held by', but rather held, and TOCC is correct in saying that an interpretation of 'held' could be that the player would have be stopped.

And before Biffo decides there is no such thing as interpretation of law, I'll say this - of course there is. Just as there is in the interpretation of criminal law, and on a more basic level, just as there is with the interpretation of individual words. The world isn't black and white. There is plenty of grey.

 

[Biffo]

This is a good point by TOCC. What is the definition of 'held'. The law does not appear to say 'held by', but rather held, and TOCC is correct in saying that an interpretation of 'held' could be that the player would have be stopped.

And before Biffo decides there is no such thing as interpretation of law, I'll say this - of course there is. Just as there is in the interpretation of criminal law, and on a more basic level, just as there is with the interpretation of individual words. The world isn't black and white. There is plenty of grey.

Read the quote from the definitions for Law 15 I put up a few posts back:

"HELD BY ONE OR MORE OPPONENTS"

You can find the definition of "held" in any reasonable dictionary.

Please, stop throwing irrelevancies into the discussion. The discussion here is about a simple law, with its included definitions, for the game of rugby. It has nothing to do with the wide field of criminal law.

If you care to read the Laws of rugby, you will find that they are "black and white" in almost every instance.

 

[Scotty]

1. He was tackled as Biffo explained; no interpretation is needed, just application of the law. Hynes tackled Turner and still held him when they both went into touch. Yes he was actually tackled. The question of whether players are moving across the ground, or not, does not arise from the laws which are silent on the matter.[/quote]

So if the laws are silent on the matter, how can you discount the issue that he may not have been considered tackled. The word 'held' comes up a bit in your and Biffos quoation of the laws. There is no doubt that Hynes was 'holding onto' Turner, but can we say because of that, that Turner was 'held'. Does 'held' refer to the act of holding onto, or also does it refer to the state of the ball carrier. Surely there is a very definite requirement for interpretation?

I've got nothing more to say to you on the matter.

Lee, I know you don't often have your views called into question, but there is no need to be condescending.

 

[louie]

god this forum is awesome. i feel no need to say anything. just reading is enough. you boys rule

 

[Scotty]

Ok, Biffo, here is your black and white from the dictionary definition of held (or hold in this case).

1.To cause to remain in a given situation, position, or relation, within certain limits, or the like; to prevent from falling or escaping; to sustain; to restrain; to keep in the grasp; to retain.
[1913 Webster]

4.To impose restraint upon; to limit in motion or action; to bind legally or morally; to confine; to restrain.
[1913 Webster]

As stubborn as you are, surely even you can see that there is more than one interpretation for 'held' in this instance and application?

 

[Scotty]

god this forum is awesome. i feel no need to say anything. just reading is enough. you boys rule

Yes, the next dicussion will center around the solution for global warming, followed shortly after by world peace.

 

[Epi]

To me as a player, when I'm held, I'm looking to play/release the ball.
This discussion is hilarious.

 

[louie]

god this forum is awesome. i feel no need to say anything. just reading is enough. you boys rule

Yes, the next dicussion will center around the solution for global warming, followed shortly after by world peace.

Scotty it's good to know we're getting the most importent subjects done first...

 

[Biffo]

god this forum is awesome. i feel no need to say anything. just reading is enough. you boys rule

:thumb