Rnd 8: Reds v Kings

[TSR]

MST, I have to disagree on the Higgers' incident. To my eye, he was clearly tackled (though I don't think it was a no-arms concern as some do). To suggest he was coming into the ruck is attributing intent on his part that simply cannot be certain. I am certain though that he was tackled without the ball and should have earned a penalty.

I do agree about Simmons though. While there is no gate, as mentioned by someone, he came from on side, but again was only concerned with taking a defender out behind the breakdown which could conceivably have caused a gap to be created to be exploited by a quick pick and go. That type of action also should earn a penalty against him in my opinion.

It happens 100 times a game, by every team. If they start penalising it every time I am fine with that, but ever team does it and since it is not being penalised every team will continue doing it.

 

[TOCC]

I do agree about Simmons though. While there is no gate, as mentioned by someone, he came from on side, but again was only concerned with taking a defender out behind the breakdown which could conceivably have caused a gap to be created to be exploited by a quick pick and go. That type of action also should earn a penalty against him in my opinion.

So you don't think the Kings player was involved in the ruck and competing for the ball?

 

[mst]

MST, I have to disagree on the Higgers' incident. To my eye, he was clearly tackled (though I don't think it was a no-arms concern as some do). To suggest he was coming into the ruck is attributing intent on his part that simply cannot be certain. I am certain though that he was tackled without the ball and should have earned a penalty.

I do agree about Simmons though. While there is no gate, as mentioned by someone, he came from on side, but again was only concerned with taking a defender out behind the breakdown which could conceivably have caused a gap to be created to be exploited by a quick pick and go. That type of action also should earn a penalty against him in my opinion.

No problem BR. As I said originally, its what I think was in the referees mind and why he didn't have a second look at it. I also think, based on where the referee was positioned (side on), it would have looked (out of his peripheral vision) like there was insufficient gap for Higger's to get through which most likely would have suggested collision and because of the angle may have made the timing look odd; especially with the both the Kings players propping, then the inside player tackling to his left almost late and ending up facing the opposite way. I would love to see another angle of it to better see how far across (if any) the player moves to make contact with him. It also begs the question of the lack of TMO intervention if it was foul play.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Great for the Reds to get the win - well done.

Thought QC (Quade Cooper) had his best game for 5 years. Actually did some of his magic. Higgers, Smith and Hunt very good.

Shit Kerevi has the ball skills... no he has NO ball skills at all. Plus I think he missed a crucial tackle out there.

Very impressed with Mafi at hooker , Thought he was replaced a little early. Moore SHOULD finfd it difficult to make the 23 from now on.

So happy for Stiles. Now we have a week off and be ready for the Tahs

And the result only got better when the Rebels beat the Brumbies

 

[Brumby Runner]

So you don't think the Kings player was involved in the ruck and competing for the ball?

Looking at it again TOCC, I don't think a ruck had actually formed. No opposing players over the ball - tackled player and tackler on the ground. The Kings player Simmons took out was attempting to pick the ball up, and therefore it looks like a tackle of a player not in possession to me. Still a penalty against Simmons in my impartial book. However, the infringement on Higgers occurred first, so first penalty to the Reds.

 

[TOCC]

Looking at it again TOCC, I don't think a ruck had actually formed. No opposing players over the ball - tackled player and tackler on the ground. The Kings player Simmons took out was attempting to pick the ball up, and therefore it looks like a tackle of a player not in possession to me. Still a penalty against Simmons in my impartial book. However, the infringement on Higgers occurred first, so first penalty to the Reds.

Rugby has never been officiated as you suggest.. and there are dozens of examples of this in every single Super Rugby game, brumbies included.

If as you say the Kings player was over the ball and looking to pick it up, then by the very definition it becomes a ruck when Simmons make contact with him, and as long as Simmons makes contact with his arms then it's considered a ruck and completely legal. This is different to your original comment where you said he was a defender, if he were a defender, then he wouldn't be over the tackled player looking to pick the ball up..

in the GIF above you can clearly see the halfback is the sweeper defender, and he has achieved that by staying seperate from the ruck, if Simmons cleared him out then yes I agree it would have been penalty.