Well much more important then to learn draw and pass before anyone starts throwing long passes
Waratahs v Highlanders, semi-final, Saturday 27 June
- Thread starter Lindommer
- Start date
- Status
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
As with most arguments about the laws it becomes a question of fact.
The doubters, I think, do not accept as a question of fact that Potgeiter's contact was what stopped the try from being scored. That contact was substantially ineffectual is the view taken by doubters. No amount of referring to the laws as rules and looking at them will change the ways in which each school sees the facts.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
So correct me if I have this wrong, but if the contact, which did occur thus an established fact, irrespective if it was ineffectual or not, was foul play; and foul play of any sort while a player is in the act of attempting to score a try invites the question of if the act of foul play could have have influenced the try not being scored, and in considering any decision the benefit of the doubt is with the attacking team?
So then when considering the available facts, it would be logical to consider that the player, as observed by Joubert at the time, was millimetres from the line (fact), and removing the element of foul play being the contact from Potgeiter's tackle, being to the head and front of the player, which it would be fair to judge that removing the contact element from the head or front of the player changes the dynamics of the tackle (fact as the contact is the foul play), which presents a case of based on the available facts at the time, and the benefit of doubt gong to the attacking team, it is most likely that a try would have been scored.
In establishing the above it has been considered as fact that player has committed an act of foul play. Irrespective of where, how or when the act took place, it is punishable exclusive to the circumstances of the play at the time.
I'm the opposite view @fatprop. Jacpot is a bit of a cheapshot merchant and much of his usual game is on the edge of the Laws at the best of time. I think a yellow card was deserved for the swinging arm, but not a penalty try.
While somewhat controversial, the penalty try and Yellow Card wasn't the game changer many are making it out to be, and the Tahs were executing so poorly that they would have been beaten regardless. They were out thought, out enthused, out played, and out lasted by a team that was desperate to win, and thoroughly deserved their victory.
Borrowing from George Gregan, "Twenty more years folks". Let's hope not.
Grant NZ
Bill Watson (15)
I agree about that the card, while Joubert may have gotten it right by the laws, I don't think the tackle becomes worse just cause it was 1 foot from the line rather than 5m. Not really a fan of that mandatory card provision.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
The law says the sanction applies if the offence prevents a try.
The law is not enforced literally as I understand what refs are told to do: they are told to assume the offending player was not involved at all.
The law directs attention to whether the offence is the cause of the try not being scored whereas refs are told to rule on it as if the law read "the sanction applies if but for the presence of the player who committed the offence a try probably would have been scored".
But my view of the facts is that the player carrying the ball would not have scored whether Jacpot hit him or not. There's no point going over that issue because evidently we each see the facts differently.
However I agree with Hugh and would add that some of Jackpot's cheap shottedness seems to have rubbed off on Skelton.
The law is not enforced literally as I understand what refs are told to do: they are told to assume the offending player was not involved at all.
The law directs attention to whether the offence is the cause of the try not being scored whereas refs are told to rule on it as if the law read "the sanction applies if but for the presence of the player who committed the offence a try probably would have been scored".
But my view of the facts is that the player carrying the ball would not have scored whether Jacpot hit him or not. There's no point going over that issue because evidently we each see the facts differently.
However I agree with Hugh and would add that some of Jackpot's cheap shottedness seems to have rubbed off on Skelton.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Are you serious? Is Skelton 12 years old?
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
In real time I thought FnCs had scored because he had got good body position, had gone through the first tackler and the line was right there.
After watching several replays, it was clear to me that the force behind JacPots tackle had stunned FnCs enough preventing any momentum to the line. The swinging arm was a key factor in that.
We have seen many a player make a desperate lunge towards an opposing player to stop a try scoring opportunity. they have got their body in the way etc. but on this occasion JacPot wound up carelessly IMO to try and prevent a probable try being scored.
After watching several replays, it was clear to me that the force behind JacPots tackle had stunned FnCs enough preventing any momentum to the line. The swinging arm was a key factor in that.
We have seen many a player make a desperate lunge towards an opposing player to stop a try scoring opportunity. they have got their body in the way etc. but on this occasion JacPot wound up carelessly IMO to try and prevent a probable try being scored.
Can you explain the nickname?
Or is Patrick Osborne just a big fan of fried fish?
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
Fish n Chips. A few years ago he had packed on a bit of weight whilst at Canterbury playing in the ITM Cup. Had a reputation of not training hard etc. A few lads saw him down at the local FnCs and the name stuck.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Are we still talking about this shit? Jeezus some of you aren't even Tahs fans!
Lock the fucking thread. Let's bury this before it starts to stink, and re-open it when Joubert adds to his ledger of Crimes Against Consistency And Australians In General (first entry: penalising Al Baxter for shoving Woodcock's head up his arse).
Lock the fucking thread. Let's bury this before it starts to stink, and re-open it when Joubert adds to his ledger of Crimes Against Consistency And Australians In General (first entry: penalising Al Baxter for shoving Woodcock's head up his arse).
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
have a look at the evidence: his cheap shot on the GOAT was vintage Potgeiter.
someone (Cheika?) has told him he needs to HTFU. Unfortunately he's decided to use JacPOt as his role model.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Yep, I wondered if it was only me who noticed Skelton's cheap shots, I noticed in background on Saturday at one stage he just flopped on a Lander's player after ball had moved well away. I actually put a lot of it down to he was perceived as being a bit soft last year, and is maybe trying to show he is a bit harder than people thought. I hope it just an age thing, and he'll grow out of it!
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Wilson who? stu, jeff, Ross? Tuckey? Wilson Carozza? Wilson Catchpole? Wilsonone put this thread out of its misery?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I can play this game. I raise you a Wilson, Harrison and Noriega..
And when did any of them end a career or act in brutal premeditated thuggery as those two named. FFS Loe got a ban for eye gouging his own player!!
You could at least have tried Michael Brial and Duncan Mcrae. Brial as bad as it looked was ineffectual and was getting a square up for Bunce's previous go in an earlier game in any event. Mcrae was just a mungo through and through.
In any event I really could care less about the cries of outrage regarding alleged infringements against your national treasure.
- Status