Sir Ruchie - is that you?It’s bending the rules, and I’m sure there are plenty of downsides but if it makes teams think twice about box kicking maybe it’s not all bad
He never bent the rules. It’s not his fault that the refs couldn’t see him though the cloak…Sir Ruchie - is that you?
I don't think gentlemen want a return to rucking, mountaineering is another matter!"Bring back rucking" is a gentleman rugby player's way of saying "Ruck with the feet on bodies".
I'm sure you knew that.
There is always that advantage Drew!! Suppose there always a positive!!!It’s bending the rules, and I’m sure there are plenty of downsides but if it makes teams think twice about box kicking maybe it’s not all bad
Agree with you 2 fellas so much. I really truly believe a 9 should be fair game as soon as his hands touch the ball, and Pfitzy's other points are all ones I agree with real strongly
Imagine the increased speed of the game if "use it" and "hands on the ball = in play" were both refereed strictly.Agree with you 2 fellas so much. I really truly believe a 9 should be fair game as soon as his hands touch the ball, and Pfitzy's other points are all ones I agree with real strongly
Actually saw Pearce reffing a Premiership game earlier in year, and he was getting the 9 to use it, but seemed to let it drift later in comp.Imagine the increased speed of the game if "use it" and "hands on the ball = in play" were both refereed strictly.
Even non-breakdown players would have to move quickly, just to get into position.
Obviously that's why NH officials don't want it to happen.
Maybe the rules should be about passing to a player who is behind you when the pass is made, similar to onside rule when a kick is made. As long as the receiver is behind you when the ball leaves your hands then let it go. It would not be hard to project a digital line on the field and have no argument in a shot amount of time if it is reviewed.NRL will be trialling technology to rule on forward passes this year:
![]()
The new technology that could end contentious forward pass calls
The forward pass remains the most contentious part of the game, but that could all change due to a revolutionary technology trial during NRL pre-season and NRLW premiership matches.www.smh.com.au
Can it determine "forward out of the hands"?
Yep unfortunately that would immediatley open to just tossing forward passes at will as long as it was to a pacey player.Maybe the rules should be about passing to a player who is behind you when the pass is made, similar to onside rule when a kick is made. As long as the receiver is behind you when the ball leaves your hands then let it go. It would not be hard to project a digital line on the field and have no argument in a shot amount of time if it is reviewed.
That does seem to be the way it's been ruled recently. Is there an alternative? I mean, how do you determine whether a try would "probably" have been scored without the professional foul, if the player had done the right thing?We’ve got to talk about the penalty try though. Is there a ruling whereby if there is a professional foul, then you take him out of the game when considering the penalty try? As in what would happen if he’s not there? Because that’s what people are suggesting and that seems ludicrous.
I not even sure why there any discussion, the English hooker leapt up and knocked the ball both forward and into touch, without seemingly making any attempt to catch the ball, there was noone else anywhere near the play to prevent a try. And yes RR that is the law, if you have commit a professional foul the Refs have to assume you are not there.We’ve got to talk about the penalty try though. Is there a ruling whereby if there is a professional foul, then you take him out of the game when considering the penalty try? As in what would happen if he’s not there? Because that’s what people are suggesting and that seems ludicrous.
That's like saying if someone makes a dangerous tackle to prevent a try, you couldn't award a PT because if he had tackled legally it wouldn't probably be a try. You would take PTs out of game altogether I think.That does seem to be the way it's been ruled recently. Is there an alternative? I mean, how do you determine whether a try would "probably" have been scored without the professional foul, if the player had done the right thing?
In this instance, the English hooker was, ironically, in a pretty good position to mark the ball. Even if he fumbles, he would have made it difficult for the Scottish player. So you could argue the "probable" outcome was no try without the foul play.
I not even sure why there any discussion, the English hooker leapt up and knocked the ball both forward and into touch, without seemingly making any attempt to catch the ball, there was noone else anywhere near the play to prevent a try. And yes RR that is the law, if you have commit a professional foul the Refs have to assume you are not there.
That's like saying if someone makes a dangerous tackle to prevent a try, you couldn't award a PT because if he had tackled legally it wouldn't probably be a try. You would take PTs out of game altogether I think.
Same as in 2017 when SBW slapped a ball back over deadball line, clearly if he had just fallen on it no try, but I think everyone on here agreed 100% that it was a PT because the ref had to assume he wasn't there because of the illegal act. It's pretty simple really!
Maybe the rules should be about passing to a player who is behind you when the pass is made, similar to onside rule when a kick is made. As long as the receiver is behind you when the ball leaves your hands then let it go. It would not be hard to project a digital line on the field and have no argument in a shot amount of time if it is reviewed.
So while it was a professional foul, the very fact the Pom got the ball and was able to control it into touch, surely that means there was no guarantee of the Scotsman scoring. I am in no doubt its a yellow card, but can't see how it is a penalty try. Unless there is this mystery 'invisible man' interpretation.
Same as in 2017 when SBW slapped a ball back over deadball line, clearly if he had just fallen on it no try, but I think everyone on here agreed 100% that it was a PT because the ref had to assume he wasn't there because of the illegal act. It's pretty simple really!
I think this is the key part here - it was specifically act of foul play that prevented the try being scored, so the question becomes "if he didn't commit that act of foul play (bat the ball away) would a try have been scored?" not "If he only acted in a legal way would a try have been scored?". It's a small difference but it does effectively mean the player who committed the foul is otherwise removed from consideration. Certainly he could've done something legal instead to prevent it, but that's the same as if it was a high tackle to prevent a try where a normal tackle would have also prevented it - something that I think most would agree should be a penalty try.Where does it say that? All I can find is the below:
A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.
So while it was a professional foul, the very fact the Pom got the ball and was able to control it into touch, surely that means there was no guarantee of the Scotsman scoring. I am in no doubt its a yellow card, but can't see how it is a penalty try. Unless there is this mystery 'invisible man' interpretation.