Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
They didn't discuss whether it was a shoulder charge or not. The ref simply said that Swinton lead with his arm. Again, it quite easy to see how the refs came to the decision they did when you follow the framework.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Yes they did without saying those words. They discuss whether he raised his right arm or led with the shoulder and ended up with "the player is never legal because he leads with his arm by his side directly into the contact".
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Again, there was no discussion about it. It was simply stated as a fact. It’s what happened. They don’t debate it or discuss.
The discussion is about whether the contact is simultaneous.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying they didn't deal with the matter as a shoulder charge because they didn't discuss it.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
You’re the second person today who has misunderstood me so it’s probably me LOL
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
It look like the (IMHO) the stupid line drop out rule has finally got the treatment and may need to be changed.
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
Lesson is don't kick it straight up the park to someone with a bigger dropkick than you
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Or put it high and get your chase sorted. Either way it's still better than a bunch of reset scrums on the try line eventually leading to a penalty.
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Something I been saying for a few years Jimmy, makes sense to me.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Is the current law a problem though? It's not like there's an epidemic of drop goals spoiling games. Attempting a droppie is already high risk.
I don't see this as being a bad thing.
I like the goal line dropout law. It gives the defending team a reward for holding a player up in goal (which you should get rewarded for in my view) and discourages players from touching the ball down in goal unless they are under pressure (keeps the game flowing).
I like the goal line dropout law. It gives the defending team a reward for holding a player up in goal (which you should get rewarded for in my view) and discourages players from touching the ball down in goal unless they are under pressure (keeps the game flowing).
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Are you taking about 2 different Law areas? I thought they were saying that a missed drop goal should have the option for the defending team of 22 or Scrum not just a 22.
I'm not sure if this was aimed at me but I wasn't addressing that. I have no issue with the current laws. If the missed drop goal goes dead it's a 22 and if it doesn't, you can place it for another goal line drop out or kick for touch etc.
I'm not big on adding another option for a scrum when we don't need to in order to restart play.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Sorry yes it was aimed at you as I thought you were replying to Rob42 who was talking about a different scenario IMO.
I wouldn't like another scrum option either as I think it would also have the potential outcome of a scrum PK becoming 3 points. I also agree on the reward for the hold up in goal.
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
I've always been unsure why there is a difference for a general play kick and a dropped goal (in terms of outcome if it goes dead). Streamline it and just have the same law.
It first really noticed the law in 2007 when Steyn kicked two against us.
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
No issue with the new law. I've just always seen it as an anomaly.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
the reason I don't like the current law is if you kick the ball dead from outside the 22 you go back for scrum, but you can do exactly the same thing by saying it a drop kick and you don't go back to where it kicked from.