16th man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:37 pm
You can see Dickson's point but its a bit of an abandonment of the principal of head contact is absolutely a no no.
He's absolutely correct by the laws - the first part of the protocol is "Was there foul play?" Usually with accidental contacts, the foul play is because someone's doing an upright tackle and therefore it's their fault, but in this case Petti was bent at the waist, entering a ruck situation with his arms out looking to bind, wasn't hurling himself out of control or off his feet, his shoulder was at waist height, he wasn't aiming for a stationary head or anything - he was the definition of performing a legal action. As such, the protocol ends there and it's irrelevant that there was head contact. Dickson's not gone off-piste or anything - he's just made a really good decision and applied the laws correctly.
I know, that last sentence sounds weird to me too.
Puja
I disagree (and you've forced me to look at this match again too, you swine ). It's foul play because it's dangerous play and infringes law 9.15 ie
Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.
The situation was a tackle. The ruck had not yet formed (the ball was not on the ground) hence the Argentinian could not charge Biggar and Tompkins because they did not have the ball. To do so is dangerous play.
(I think you could also argue that it's reckless play. His trajectory would have taken him into his teammate's head if his teammate hadn't fallen lower. The same fall that took his teammate out of the way took Tompkins into the path of his shoulder. He was always dangerously close to hitting someone's head. But anyway this is moot because of the above.)
That's a wild interpretation. Yes, technically it's not a ruck before he enters, but instantly on the point of his entry, it becomes a ruck. The ball being on the floor is irrelevant, because the referee had called tackle completed. He's not charging players, he's legally forming a ruck.
He's absolutely correct by the laws - the first part of the protocol is "Was there foul play?" Usually with accidental contacts, the foul play is because someone's doing an upright tackle and therefore it's their fault, but in this case Petti was bent at the waist, entering a ruck situation with his arms out looking to bind, wasn't hurling himself out of control or off his feet, his shoulder was at waist height, he wasn't aiming for a stationary head or anything - he was the definition of performing a legal action. As such, the protocol ends there and it's irrelevant that there was head contact. Dickson's not gone off-piste or anything - he's just made a really good decision and applied the laws correctly.
I know, that last sentence sounds weird to me too.
Puja
I disagree (and you've forced me to look at this match again too, you swine ). It's foul play because it's dangerous play and infringes law 9.15 ie
Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.
The situation was a tackle. The ruck had not yet formed (the ball was not on the ground) hence the Argentinian could not charge Biggar and Tompkins because they did not have the ball. To do so is dangerous play.
(I think you could also argue that it's reckless play. His trajectory would have taken him into his teammate's head if his teammate hadn't fallen lower. The same fall that took his teammate out of the way took Tompkins into the path of his shoulder. He was always dangerously close to hitting someone's head. But anyway this is moot because of the above.)
That's a wild interpretation. Yes, technically it's not a ruck before he enters, but instantly on the point of his entry, it becomes a ruck. The ball being on the floor is irrelevant, because the referee had called tackle completed. He's not charging players, he's legally forming a ruck.
Puja
No, it's not a ruck till the ball is on the ground. It's a tackle till then. Law 15.2
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 3:14 pm
I disagree (and you've forced me to look at this match again too, you swine ). It's foul play because it's dangerous play and infringes law 9.15 ie
The situation was a tackle. The ruck had not yet formed (the ball was not on the ground) hence the Argentinian could not charge Biggar and Tompkins because they did not have the ball. To do so is dangerous play.
(I think you could also argue that it's reckless play. His trajectory would have taken him into his teammate's head if his teammate hadn't fallen lower. The same fall that took his teammate out of the way took Tompkins into the path of his shoulder. He was always dangerously close to hitting someone's head. But anyway this is moot because of the above.)
That's a wild interpretation. Yes, technically it's not a ruck before he enters, but instantly on the point of his entry, it becomes a ruck. The ball being on the floor is irrelevant, because the referee had called tackle completed. He's not charging players, he's legally forming a ruck.
Puja
No, it's not a ruck till the ball is on the ground. It's a tackle till then. Law 15.2
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
That is an interpretation which no referee will ever consider, because it's an aberration caused by the previous "clarification" that a knee on the ground counts as tackle completed. That wording is clearly to differentiate between a ruck and a maul, rather than making it a penalty offence for any supporter to make any contact in the ruck area before the ball touches grass.
If we're adopting that interpretation of the laws, then I reckon I could pick out 5-10 penalties uncalled in any given game.
That's a wild interpretation. Yes, technically it's not a ruck before he enters, but instantly on the point of his entry, it becomes a ruck. The ball being on the floor is irrelevant, because the referee had called tackle completed. He's not charging players, he's legally forming a ruck.
Puja
No, it's not a ruck till the ball is on the ground. It's a tackle till then. Law 15.2
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
That is an interpretation which no referee will ever consider, because it's an aberration caused by the previous "clarification" that a knee on the ground counts as tackle completed. That wording is clearly to differentiate between a ruck and a maul, rather than making it a penalty offence for any supporter to make any contact in the ruck area before the ball touches grass.
If we're adopting that interpretation of the laws, then I reckon I could pick out 5-10 penalties uncalled in any given game.
Puja
It's not an 'interpretation', it's what the law explicitly states. Ball not on ground, no ruck. If anything else was the case law 15.2 should have been amended to mention knee on the ground as an alternative to ball on the ground.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 4:33 pm
No, it's not a ruck till the ball is on the ground. It's a tackle till then. Law 15.2
That is an interpretation which no referee will ever consider, because it's an aberration caused by the previous "clarification" that a knee on the ground counts as tackle completed. That wording is clearly to differentiate between a ruck and a maul, rather than making it a penalty offence for any supporter to make any contact in the ruck area before the ball touches grass.
If we're adopting that interpretation of the laws, then I reckon I could pick out 5-10 penalties uncalled in any given game.
Puja
It's not an 'interpretation', it's what the law explicitly states. Ball not on ground, no ruck. If anything else was the case law 15.2 should have been amended to mention knee on the ground as an alternative to ball on the ground.
The exact precise wording of how the laws are written and the way that games are refereed aren't the same thing. That is not a penalty that has ever been given at the top level.
That is an interpretation which no referee will ever consider, because it's an aberration caused by the previous "clarification" that a knee on the ground counts as tackle completed. That wording is clearly to differentiate between a ruck and a maul, rather than making it a penalty offence for any supporter to make any contact in the ruck area before the ball touches grass.
If we're adopting that interpretation of the laws, then I reckon I could pick out 5-10 penalties uncalled in any given game.
Puja
It's not an 'interpretation', it's what the law explicitly states. Ball not on ground, no ruck. If anything else was the case law 15.2 should have been amended to mention knee on the ground as an alternative to ball on the ground.
The exact precise wording of how the laws are written and the way that games are refereed aren't the same thing. That is not a penalty that has ever been given at the top level.
Puja
This is a joke. It's impossible to have a serious discussion about this sport. How can you take it seriously? This is the law, except when it isn't and we use a different, unwritten rule.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 5:09 pm
It's not an 'interpretation', it's what the law explicitly states. Ball not on ground, no ruck. If anything else was the case law 15.2 should have been amended to mention knee on the ground as an alternative to ball on the ground.
The exact precise wording of how the laws are written and the way that games are refereed aren't the same thing. That is not a penalty that has ever been given at the top level.
Puja
This is a joke. It's impossible to have a serious discussion about this sport. How can you take it seriously? This is the law, except when it isn't and we use a different, unwritten rule.
The exact precise wording of how the laws are written and the way that games are refereed aren't the same thing. That is not a penalty that has ever been given at the top level.
Puja
This is a joke. It's impossible to have a serious discussion about this sport. How can you take it seriously? This is the law, except when it isn't and we use a different, unwritten rule.
I mean, you're not wrong...
Puja
Maybe they should publish the law in Latin, stop me wasting time trying to make sense of it.
). It's foul play because it's dangerous play and infringes law 9.15 ie
The situation was a tackle. The ruck had not yet formed (the ball was not on the ground) hence the Argentinian could not charge Biggar and Tompkins because they did not have the ball. To do so is dangerous play.Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.