Hurricanes v Reds

[Dan54]

The law as applied is that if you touch the ball you can be tackled.

I agree IS, and because the contact stopped him catching the ball it is a knock on only, no foul play, no knock down !. Seems the TMO was actually the one who told him to check it, well according to Kafe and co on TV.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I agree IS, and because the contact stopped him catching the ball it is a knock on only, no foul play, no knock down !. Seems the TMO was actually the one who told him to check it, well according to Kafe and co on TV.

Maybe - I’m not getting into that because right or wrong it’s a bad look when the ref reverses because PJT talks longer and louder

 

[Shiggins]

The fact he had a look because tj said his mate caught it and then he didn't even catch it ! And stillthe yellow wasn't applied. If that's Aussie it's a yellow all day

Maybe - I’m not getting into that because right or wrong it’s a bad look when the ref reverses because PJT talks longer and louder

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[Grant NZ]

The reds were the better team. Once again all the calls went the canes way. Knock ons by the canes called red knock ons. Off the ball stuff in the first half went un penalised. Would be nice to see the whistle go Aussie way just once.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

Have a look at the massive forward pass that lead to the Reds 2nd try and Higgenbotham's turnover that lead to the third.

 

[Grant NZ]

The law as applied is that if you touch the ball you can be tackled.

So why was Jerry Collins penalised for a late tackle in that clip I posted?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So why was Jerry Collins penalised for a late tackle in that clip I posted?

Mate, I have enough trouble with explain8ng my own mistakes I’m not taking on the job of defending rugby refs

 

[Grant NZ]

Mate, I have enough trouble with explain8ng my own mistakes I’m not taking on the job of defending rugby refs

Here's my take on it - there's nothing written in the laws saying you can tackle a guy who is juggling the ball. It's just one of those things that gets accepted cause it'd be too harsh to ping them and often too hard to judge anyway. So refs will let it go - but only up to a point. That point is naturally going to vary between refs, but I suspect a case like this where the ball was clearly not in the guys possession and about 2m away floating to earth would be close to the margins.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Here's my take on it - there's nothing written in the laws saying you can tackle a guy who is juggling the ball. It's just one of those things that gets accepted cause it'd be too harsh to ping them and often too hard to judge anyway. So refs will let it go - but only up to a point. That point is naturally going to vary between refs, but I suspect a case like this where the ball was clearly not in the guys possession and about 2m away floating to earth would be close to the margins.

That’ll do me

 

[Brumby Runner]

The feeding the scrum rule has changed, I think? "Straight", but put in closer to the scrum half's own hooker.

I think that's right, but I also think it has to be fed parallel to the front row. Most scrumfeeds are directed
Towards the second row at an angle of around 10 to 15 degrees to the parallel.

 

[dru]

Don't get the attitude of "the Reds were the better team". They were without doubt competitive, a welcome relief. The more attacking rugby was from the canes throughout. Canes started better and finished with rugby nous (how often would an Aus team kick away possession in that last 3 minutes foolishly playing position but giving away the pill?)

The TJ chat is a bad look, but move on. The ref's interpretation has logical consistency, could have gone differently but didn't.

Well done Reds, and congrats Canes. Great game for a Red fan. Almost good enough.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree IS, and because the contact stopped him catching the ball it is a knock on only, no foul play, no knock down !. Seems the TMO was actually the one who told him to check it, well according to Kafe and co on TV.

I don't think that second bit matters. His first action was an intentional knock on that stopped a break. As no offence was committed in stopping him from catching it, it's his problem that he didn't complete the interception which is the only way to cancel out the intentional knock on (because obviously if he catches it there is no knock on).

I don't see how it is any different to say a player deliberately batting a ball towards the touch in goal line whilst under pressure. That's a yellow card and possibly penalty try if it goes into touch but if it is picked up by a teammate no offence occurs.

 

[Dan54]

I don't think that second bit matters. His first action was an intentional knock on that stopped a break. As no offence was committed in stopping him from catching it, it's his problem that he didn't complete the interception which is the only way to cancel out the intentional knock on (because obviously if he catches it there is no knock on).

I don't see how it is any different to say a player deliberately batting a ball towards the touch in goal line whilst under pressure. That's a yellow card and possibly penalty try if it goes into touch but if it is picked up by a teammate no offence occurs.

Ok BH, we will agree to disagree as I believe his first action was to knock the ball up, and he probably would of caught it without the contact, anyway we can all discuss it until the cows come home, but I think I am right (and I always am, you ask my missus) and you think you right so we'll leave it there.

 

[Braveheart81]

Ok BH, we will agree to disagree as I believe his first action was to knock the ball up, and he probably would of caught it without the contact, anyway we can all discuss it until the cows come home, but I think I am right (and I always am, you ask my missus) and you think you right so we'll leave it there.

I can't resist. One last go.

The law is: "A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm."

So whether or not they bat it upwards is immaterial. They've contravened the law if they don't complete the catch (thus making it not a knock-on).

 

[Derpus]

Such a dumb law though.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Such a dumb law though.

Why?

I find it strange people have a problem with this sort of professional foul that sometimes gets yellow carded but not a ton of others.

Players go for a low percentage intercept to shut down an attacking opportunity they can't stop through legal means.

 

[Shiggins]

Have a look at the massive forward pass that lead to the Reds 2nd try and Higgenbotham's turnover that lead to the third.

I remember the pass. Not forward
And the turn over from what I remember was fine. One handed while on his feet ?

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[Shiggins]

Here's my take on it - there's nothing written in the laws saying you can tackle a guy who is juggling the ball. It's just one of those things that gets accepted cause it'd be too harsh to ping them and often too hard to judge anyway. So refs will let it go - but only up to a point. That point is naturally going to vary between refs, but I suspect a case like this where the ball was clearly not in the guys possession and about 2m away floating to earth would be close to the margins.

It's simple. He is in possession of the ball when he touches it to when it hits the ground while he is trying to re gather. He can be smashed while doing this.

Collins is a shoulder tackle first of all. So that's a yellow anyway. And he hits him when the ball is on the ground and not in possession by anyone.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[Derpus]

Why?

I find it strange people have a problem with this sort of professional foul that sometimes gets yellow carded but not a ton of others.

Players go for a low percentage intercept to shut down an attacking opportunity they can't stop through legal means.

Because it's a) a disproportionate punishment and b) dull.

Yellow cards are always shit and are thrown around way too lightly. It also discourages intercept tries which are great. Having a crack at intercepting a pass isn't cynical. It's a calculated defensive move. Chances are if you miss you've conceded a try and if you don't you've scored one. I can't see why that should be discouraged.

Edit: having thought slightly harder you've answered the question yourself. Most people hate it. Isn't everything else irrelevant?

 

[Braveheart81]

Because it's a) a disproportionate punishment and b) dull.

Yellow cards are always shit and are thrown around way too lightly. It also discourages intercept tries which are great.

Edit: having thought slightly harder you've answered the question yourself. Most people hate it. Isn't everything else irrelevant?

It's great when someone makes a pilfer on their own try line to prevent a try. It's crap though when they go off their feet and kill the ball when the attacking team would have almost certainly scored.

I don't really see much of a difference.

It's a calculated risk because they can't stop the try in a legal manner. There is a low chance that the difficult or unlikely play they attempt will come off and therefore what they have done isn't illegal.

When refereed correctly I don't get how it is disproportionate punishment. In the Tahs game yesterday Jake Gordon probably scores a try if Aaron Smith doesn't block the pass.

The vast majority of intercept tries happen when someone picks it and catches the pass in two hands. I don't see how this sort of refereeing will get rid of it.

 

[Grant NZ]

I remember the pass. Not forward
And the turn over from what I remember was fine. One handed while on his feet ?

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

You reckon those hands are going backwards? It was miles forward. Higgenbotham came in from the side.

And as for the 'he's fair game as soon as he touches the ball'. Bollocks.

Collins may have used the shoulder, but Kaplan clearly says late tackle.