Rassie's latest attempts at law-fuckery

[Puja]

Personally I hate both of them. The first one is poor refereeing because, while Esterhuizen being ahead of the kicker from a kick-off is technically a scrum only offence, it's also clearly a deliberate offence (as is the kick not going 10), so should've been a penalty. But I also hate the arrogance that goes into the decision to cede territory and possession because you're so cocky about your scrum that you think you're guaranteed a penalty even on the opposition feed. Thankfully Italy got a free-kick from that scrum, so it backfired - hopefully not to be seen again.

The second one is legal, but I don't like it because it's killing competition - it deliberately puts the catcher in a position where he is untackleable while he catches it and several seconds after that, by which point a phalanx has formed. No problem with setting a maul in open play, but I think lineout lifting is taking the piss and going against the spirit of the game, plus it's inviting injury and buying cheap penalties by creating a situation where a player is taken out in the air by a back that doesn't have the first clue what's going on.

Don't exactly know what law you could change to outlaw it though. Maybe that lifting is only legal at a lineout or while collecting possession from an opposition kick?

Puja

[Danno]

He's such a skank

[Banquo]

He's such a skank

All coaches and players look to bend the laws and find loopholes at this level. But he does remove any ‘spirit of the game’ . Bit of a psycho tbh.

[Lizard]

Absolutely right that the first one is a deliberate infringement and should have been a penalty (Law 9.7(a)). This came up at my referee's association meeting tonight and we all agreed on that.

The second one is really no different to lifting a catcher to take a kick-off, except that the maul was predetermined and an attempted tackle was much more likely. World Rugby Law Clarification 3-2022 (issued after Johnny May hurdled a tackler) says "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." So if the referee thinks the lift was to avoid a tackle, they would be on good ground to penalise that as dangerous play.

[Danno]

He's such a skank

All coaches and players look to bend the laws and find loopholes at this level. But he does remove any ‘spirit of the game’ . Bit of a psycho tbh.

And then when people rightly call him out for it he plays the victim card

[paddy no 11]

He's such a skank

Post of the year

[Lizard]

Absolutely right that the first one is a deliberate infringement and should have been a penalty (Law 9.7(a)). This came up at my referee's association meeting tonight and we all agreed on that.

The second one is really no different to lifting a catcher to take a kick-off, except that the maul was predetermined and an attempted tackle was much more likely. World Rugby Law Clarification 3-2022 (issued after Johnny May hurdled a tackler) says "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." So if the referee thinks the lift was to avoid a tackle, they would be on good ground to penalise that as dangerous play.

WR has issued a Law Clarification confirming that the kick off stunt should have been penalised as a deliberate infringement.

[Cameo]

Absolutely right that the first one is a deliberate infringement and should have been a penalty (Law 9.7(a)). This came up at my referee's association meeting tonight and we all agreed on that.

The second one is really no different to lifting a catcher to take a kick-off, except that the maul was predetermined and an attempted tackle was much more likely. World Rugby Law Clarification 3-2022 (issued after Johnny May hurdled a tackler) says "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." So if the referee thinks the lift was to avoid a tackle, they would be on good ground to penalise that as dangerous play.

WR has issued a Law Clarification confirming that the kick off stunt should have been penalised as a deliberate infringement.

I'm surprised the ref didn't call that at the time. I've not examined the law book in any detail but I thought immediately that any deliberate offence must be a penalty.

Good thinking on the second one. Maybe they don't need a law variation, but if they did, it should be along those lines. There is a difference between getting lifted to get to a high ball, and getting lifted and putting the ball up high solely so you can't be tackled.

Having said that, I wouldn't mind them banning lifting at kickoffs. In fact, I'd be interested by what would happen if they banned lifting altogether - though they never will because they prefer everything neat and tidy.

[canta_brian]

If these “tactics” are deliberate offences a yellow card or two should soon sort them out.

[Danno]

If these “tactics” are deliberate offences a yellow card or two should soon sort them out.

Have to hope they're picked up by the officials first.