2ND. TEST

[Oakboy]

Yep. It’s just so unclear. We’re supposed to promoting tackling low, but there’s an undefinable point on the pitch where suddenly tackling low means that’s it’s legal for a player to jump straight over the top of you.

I’m not saying it was technically wrong, but it certainly didn’t feel right to me either.

I take it the new pre-latching law (as practised here) was binned off several months back?
Was there an announcement? I may have missed it.

The interpretation of the jumper in the tackle is certainly lt variable. Blair Murray was penalised. A Scottish women’s player vs wales did pretty much the same thing a few weeks later and that was apparently fine. Does diving to score a try count here as technically the player can’t be tackled.

Are players lying on the floor as blockers legal? He could have been stopped if one big prop had stood in the way theoretically perhaps? Or, as in the case of a winger diving to tuck it inside the corner flag, he could have been tackled from the side?

Let's face it, whatever the letter of the law, some smartass will get round it. I'd have thought the incident was a classic example of what should come at the referees' review panel for future clarification.

[Puja]

I take it the new pre-latching law (as practised here) was binned off several months back?
Was there an announcement? I may have missed it.

The interpretation of the jumper in the tackle is certainly lt variable. Blair Murray was penalised. A Scottish women’s player vs wales did pretty much the same thing a few weeks later and that was apparently fine. Does diving to score a try count here as technically the player can’t be tackled.

Are players lying on the floor as blockers legal? He could have been stopped if one big prop had stood in the way theoretically perhaps? Or, as in the case of a winger diving to tuck it inside the corner flag, he could have been tackled from the side?

Let's face it, whatever the letter of the law, some smartass will get round it. I'd have thought the incident was a classic example of what should come at the referees' review panel for future clarification.

Felt like a stonewall penalty to me - seemed very clear that his jump was very deliberately about avoiding tacklers and therefore really should be illegal, but it's a hard one by the letter of the law.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

The interpretation of the jumper in the tackle is certainly lt variable. Blair Murray was penalised. A Scottish women’s player vs wales did pretty much the same thing a few weeks later and that was apparently fine. Does diving to score a try count here as technically the player can’t be tackled.

Are players lying on the floor as blockers legal? He could have been stopped if one big prop had stood in the way theoretically perhaps? Or, as in the case of a winger diving to tuck it inside the corner flag, he could have been tackled from the side?

Let's face it, whatever the letter of the law, some smartass will get round it. I'd have thought the incident was a classic example of what should come at the referees' review panel for future clarification.

Felt like a stonewall penalty to me - seemed very clear that his jump was very deliberately about avoiding tacklers and therefore really should be illegal, but it's a hard one by the letter of the law.

Puja

If I were Australian I would be more annoyed by that try than the final one.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

It was a mistake to not start Genge (as a lot of us thought). His absence from the pace/impact equation was a factor. McCarthy was missed too.

I really think Genge was tactical, once Valentini and Skelton were off and he came on there was almost no-one left to stop him. If that is the case it's pretty shrewd management

Shrewd or lucky as it turned out? As ever, saving a player for bench impact means something like 55-60 with the lesser player and 20-25 with the better one. With Aus always going to have a re-surge and with physical guys returning from injury, that decision was so close to mis-firing, IMO. For the neutral, it made for a better game, I suppose.

If you plan something and it turns out exactly as you planned and you win I'm not sure that can be determined to be luck. You talk like Genge turned the game around but the Lions resurgence happened when Porter was still playing. On the tour so far Genge was probably marginally the better player. But it seemed to me, having watched the first test, highly likely that Porter would be better for grinding away at the start and Genge coming on and emptying the tanks to finish. That seemed very likely to be the optimal use of those 2 players. It was interesting hearing ROG say that as a coach he quite likes to finish with his strongest side because the end is the most important. I don't agree but it was clear that Farrell wanted to stack his bench with a bit more leadership

[Eugene Wrayburn]

What was wrong with the Sheehan try? Diving over a tackler is illegal in general play, but apparently it is not illegal when you're diving for the try line. I'm sure Oz would have enjoyed scoring one like that too.

It’s a huge grey area. Diving to score isn’t illegal but there’s no clarity at all on how far you can dive from or whether you can flat out jump over a tackler or just over an arm. I would at the Sheehan try definitely goes against any intention of how the law is meant to be reffed. Interesting to see if it becomes common place.

I would say if you end up over the line, then you're diving in the act of scoring, no? If Sheehan's dive was out on the wing i don't think this would be much of a conversation.

This. It happens literally once a match without complaint. Same as Jac Morgan's clearout (though that would be significantly more than once a match).

[Puja]

It’s a huge grey area. Diving to score isn’t illegal but there’s no clarity at all on how far you can dive from or whether you can flat out jump over a tackler or just over an arm. I would at the Sheehan try definitely goes against any intention of how the law is meant to be reffed. Interesting to see if it becomes common place.

I would say if you end up over the line, then you're diving in the act of scoring, no? If Sheehan's dive was out on the wing i don't think this would be much of a conversation.

This. It happens literally once a match without complaint. Same as Jac Morgan's clearout (though that would be significantly more than once a match).

I think the difference is that on the wing, you're diving to get to the line faster, whereas Sheehan's dive was to go over the top of a tackler in front of him.

Puja

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I would say if you end up over the line, then you're diving in the act of scoring, no? If Sheehan's dive was out on the wing i don't think this would be much of a conversation.

This. It happens literally once a match without complaint. Same as Jac Morgan's clearout (though that would be significantly more than once a match).

I think the difference is that on the wing, you're diving to get to the line faster, whereas Sheehan's dive was to go over the top of a tackler in front of him.

Puja

Or you're diving to avoid the cover defence. Just as Sheehan did. It's not faster to dive. Which is why sprinters don't dive for the line.

[Oakboy]

This. It happens literally once a match without complaint. Same as Jac Morgan's clearout (though that would be significantly more than once a match).

I think the difference is that on the wing, you're diving to get to the line faster, whereas Sheehan's dive was to go over the top of a tackler in front of him.

Puja

Or you're diving to avoid the cover defence. Just as Sheehan did. It's not faster to dive. Which is why sprinters don't dive for the line.

Surely, all diving for the line is to avoid being tackled.

[Which Tyler]

Surely, all diving for the line is to avoid being tackled.

Chris Ashton would like a word.

Generally though, I'm with Adam & EW - if you dive, and score a try, then you're diving in the act of scoring.

I don't like it, as I think that for a head-on tackle, it's dangerous; but I'm not sure I would want to be the one clarifying a law that says "head-on then dangerous play, side on then all is good" and I certainly wouldn't want to ban wingers diving in at the corner.

As for speed - diving isn't quicker than running - obviously; but it is a quicker way of getting the ball to the ground before a defender gets underneath the ball, or hits you and pushed you back across the line - plenty of occasions where it's not so much to avoid the tackle, but to ensure the grounding (I guess you could call this "avoiding the tackler" though).
Surely I'm not the only one to have dived from 5m out and aquaplaned over the line in sodden conditions?

[Banquo]

I really think Genge was tactical, once Valentini and Skelton were off and he came on there was almost no-one left to stop him. If that is the case it's pretty shrewd management

Shrewd or lucky as it turned out? As ever, saving a player for bench impact means something like 55-60 with the lesser player and 20-25 with the better one. With Aus always going to have a re-surge and with physical guys returning from injury, that decision was so close to mis-firing, IMO. For the neutral, it made for a better game, I suppose.

If you plan something and it turns out exactly as you planned and you win I'm not sure that can be determined to be luck. You talk like Genge turned the game around but the Lions resurgence happened when Porter was still playing. On the tour so far Genge was probably marginally the better player. But it seemed to me, having watched the first test, highly likely that Porter would be better for grinding away at the start and Genge coming on and emptying the tanks to finish. That seemed very likely to be the optimal use of those 2 players. It was interesting hearing ROG say that as a coach he quite likes to finish with his strongest side because the end is the most important. I don't agree but it was clear that Farrell wanted to stack his bench with a bit more leadership

Yup. Element of rope a dope I think. He knew Skelton can’t do more than 45 at this level, and Valetini barely fit. So gambled a little and it paid off, look at the result

[Banquo]

This. It happens literally once a match without complaint. Same as Jac Morgan's clearout (though that would be significantly more than once a match).

I think the difference is that on the wing, you're diving to get to the line faster, whereas Sheehan's dive was to go over the top of a tackler in front of him.

Puja

Or you're diving to avoid the cover defence. Just as Sheehan did. It's not faster to dive. Which is why sprinters don't dive for the line.

Agreed again, I don’t get the fuss.

[Puja]

This. It happens literally once a match without complaint. Same as Jac Morgan's clearout (though that would be significantly more than once a match).

I think the difference is that on the wing, you're diving to get to the line faster, whereas Sheehan's dive was to go over the top of a tackler in front of him.

Puja

Or you're diving to avoid the cover defence. Just as Sheehan did. It's not faster to dive. Which is why sprinters don't dive for the line.

If you're running without stopping, then sure. If you're going for a spot on the ground, then diving is very definitely quicker - that's why cricketers dive when they're close to being run out.

Generally though, I'm with Adam & EW - if you dive, and score a try, then you're diving in the act of scoring.

I don't like it, as I think that for a head-on tackle, it's dangerous; but I'm not sure I would want to be the one clarifying a law that says "head-on then dangerous play, side on then all is good" and I certainly wouldn't want to ban wingers diving in at the corner.

I would say my objection is that it shouldn't be "diving in the act of scoring a try" but "diving to score a try". He has clearly deliberately hurdled a tackler there and the fact that his hurdle has ended with the ball being grounded should not be a special exception. It should be the same down the wing - if you're diving to get the ball down, that's one thing, but if you're leaping up and over a defender (a la Jonny May) then it should be a penalty.

Just looked up the IRB's clarification on the issue in 2022 and it would seem to agree with me: "In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted. If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.”

Interesting analysis of it here: https://www.planetrugby.com/news/law-di ... right-call which does end up with the very pertinent point of, "While this was an incredibly tight call, one has to remember law 6.5a, which states: “The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match.""

I think there should be more clarification on the law by the IRB though, cause I can see why Piardi gave the try based on those criteria, even though I wouldn't've (and, had I been the ref (heavens forfend), I would've given a penalty try for the Australian blatant offside that led to the tap penalty, so it would've been moot). It seems like ambiguity in the laws that Erasmus would be looking at and licking his lips - fully expect to see him pull out something stupid like a lock assisting a scrumhalf's "dive for the line" if it's not nailed down.

Puja

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I think the difference is that on the wing, you're diving to get to the line faster, whereas Sheehan's dive was to go over the top of a tackler in front of him.

Puja

Or you're diving to avoid the cover defence. Just as Sheehan did. It's not faster to dive. Which is why sprinters don't dive for the line.

If you're running without stopping, then sure. If you're going for a spot on the ground, then diving is very definitely quicker - that's why cricketers dive when they're close to being run out.

Generally though, I'm with Adam & EW - if you dive, and score a try, then you're diving in the act of scoring.

I don't like it, as I think that for a head-on tackle, it's dangerous; but I'm not sure I would want to be the one clarifying a law that says "head-on then dangerous play, side on then all is good" and I certainly wouldn't want to ban wingers diving in at the corner.

I would say my objection is that it shouldn't be "diving in the act of scoring a try" but "diving to score a try". He has clearly deliberately hurdled a tackler there and the fact that his hurdle has ended with the ball being grounded should not be a special exception. It should be the same down the wing - if you're diving to get the ball down, that's one thing, but if you're leaping up and over a defender (a la Jonny May) then it should be a penalty.

Just looked up the IRB's clarification on the issue in 2022 and it would seem to agree with me: "In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted. If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.”

Interesting analysis of it here: https://www.planetrugby.com/news/law-di ... right-call which does end up with the very pertinent point of, "While this was an incredibly tight call, one has to remember law 6.5a, which states: “The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match.""

I think there should be more clarification on the law by the IRB though, cause I can see why Piardi gave the try based on those criteria, even though I wouldn't've (and, had I been the ref (heavens forfend), I would've given a penalty try for the Australian blatant offside that led to the tap penalty, so it would've been moot). It seems like ambiguity in the laws that Erasmus would be looking at and licking his lips - fully expect to see him pull out something stupid like a lock assisting a scrumhalf's "dive for the line" if it's not nailed down.

Puja

If cricketers are diving they're foolish because it's slower (even on your analysis they aren't looking for a particular spot but to cross the line). More likely they're falling over because of the unnatural running position.

Honestly the referee should determine whether what in fact was done was dangerous. Rugby's laws are complicated enough. Distinguishing between "diving in the act of scoring a try" and "diving to score a try" is the sort of thing which brings the law into disrepute. The clarification seems fair enough. If you're diving forward to score that's fine.That's what Sheehan was doing. There's an appreciable difference between that and jumping or hurdling opponents. They slightly muddy the waters with "left the ground to avoid a tackle".

[Mikey Brown]

I guess I don’t think the comparison with a touchline dive is quite right because they’re basically all side-on tackle attempts, to try and push the player in to touch. I can’t really think of a non-dangerous way for a defender to tackle a player that is leaping head-first towards them.

[Danno]

I guess I don’t think the comparison with a touchline dive is quite right because they’re basically all side-on tackle attempts, to try and push the player in to touch. I can’t really think of a non-dangerous way for a defender to tackle a player that is leaping head-first towards them.

Agreed. I've no idea how you craft a law that still allows wingers to do their thing while stopping more dynamic forwards from vaulting a pile of bodies though

[Puja]

Or you're diving to avoid the cover defence. Just as Sheehan did. It's not faster to dive. Which is why sprinters don't dive for the line.

If you're running without stopping, then sure. If you're going for a spot on the ground, then diving is very definitely quicker - that's why cricketers dive when they're close to being run out.

If cricketers are diving they're foolish because it's slower (even on your analysis they aren't looking for a particular spot but to cross the line). More likely they're falling over because of the unnatural running position.

...it's very definitely not that they're accidentally falling over! It's universally acknowledged that putting in a dive to reach the line is quicker than just running forward - players are coached to do it and commentators bemoan if a player is run out without putting one in.

Running from a-b is faster upright, especially if the measure of "have you crossed the line" is your chest, like sprinters, but if you're looking to finish with a piece of sporting equipment touching the ground, you definitely get a speed advantage by propelling yourself horizontal and reaching out.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Surely diving for the line in cricket isn't about speed of movement, but extending reach.

Wingers rarely dive in order to extend their reach (though it allows leeway sideways, as they can hit the flag, and cross the line of touch, but still get the ball down in the field of play) - Sheehan certainly wasn't extending his reach as he kept the ball to his chest.
Of course, rugby players also don't have an extra 90cm of reach beyond their hands, significantly magnifying the increased reach of diving.

[Puja]

Surely diving for the line in cricket isn't about speed of movement, but extending reach

Same thing isn't it? About getting the bat over the line in the fastest way possible?

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Surely diving for the line in cricket isn't about speed of movement, but extending reach

Same thing isn't it? About getting the bat over the line in the fastest way possible?

Puja

Yes, but not in a way that's applicable to rugby

Diving doesn't get you shoulder further forwards (probably the opposite, as it's a step you didn't take), but it does get it closer to the ground, reducing the height of the right-angle triangle; whilst the hypotenuse (arm+bat ~140cm) remains the same, so the length of said triangle must increase.

If you're standing upright, the foot of the bat doesn't touch the ground (unless you're a short-arse), so the triangle isn't even complete, let alone having any length.
If you're flat on the ground, the length is ~140cm
If you're crouched, the length depends on how deeply crouched you are

[Banquo]

peak RR once more.

[Which Tyler]

peak RR once more.

And that was before you saw my edit!

[Numbers]

Surely diving for the line in cricket isn't about speed of movement, but extending reach.

Wingers rarely dive in order to extend their reach (though it allows leeway sideways, as they can hit the flag, and cross the line of touch, but still get the ball down in the field of play) - Sheehan certainly wasn't extending his reach as he kept the ball to his chest.
Of course, rugby players also don't have an extra 90cm of reach beyond their hands, significantly magnifying the increased reach of diving.

As a former winger I can categorically state that this is wrong, I used to dive all the time to extend my reach and make myself more difficult to tackle in the process.

[Numbers]

I suppose to put it simply the shortest distance between two points, if you are upright and you need to put the ball on the ground the quickest method isn't to run upright and then put it down vertically it's to dive giiving you a more of a diagnol trajectory.

[Puja]

Surely diving for the line in cricket isn't about speed of movement, but extending reach

Same thing isn't it? About getting the bat over the line in the fastest way possible?

Puja

Yes, but not in a way that's applicable to rugby

Isn't it? A lot of dives into the corner have the ball held out at arms' length in front of them - that's extending the reach by 70cm in a way that's not possible when a player is vertical.

Even if the ball is not being held in outstretched arms, there's a speed advantage - while it is objectively faster to run upright over a line, it is slower to run upright and then bend over to put the ball down (not to mention the risk of a Freddie Burns vs Toulouse moment).

This is a complete tangent from the discussion on the Sheehan try - I'm just baffled by the fact that it's apparently not a truism on here that diving is faster when it comes to grounding something in your hands.

Puja

[Puja]

peak RR once more.

I couldn't even post about it being a complete tangent because the replies over that tangent were coming so furiously!

Puja