RugbyRebels

Quite ... Exeter literally do it all the time.

Banquo wrote:Good shout on Simmonds, didn't see a lot of the ball in truth, but everything he did had purpose.

Noticed Daily Mail had him in their ‘team of the weekend’.....at 15

Timbo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:What the hell was LNBD talking about that "tackle not completed" whilst he's literally crawling on all fours with Priestland on his back

He’s an imbecile.

Joseph looking very sharp.

Was Woodburn tackled by Priestland? My view is Priestland simply dived onto a player on the ground, so there was no tackle attempted let alone completed.

Digby wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:What the hell was LNBD talking about that "tackle not completed" whilst he's literally crawling on all fours with Priestland on his back

He’s an imbecile.

Joseph looking very sharp.

Was Woodburn tackled by Priestland? My view is Priestland simply dived onto a player on the ground, so there was no tackle attempted let alone completed.

So does that mean, next time I play, the j stand I get my hand son the ball, I can hit the ground, and just crawl my way to the try line because no-ones allowed to tackle me?

If it was a tackle then it was complete.
If it wasn't, it was because Woodburn refused to give Rhys the chance to tackle him, by crawling along the floor illegally.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Timbo wrote:
He’s an imbecile.

Joseph looking very sharp.

Was Woodburn tackled by Priestland? My view is Priestland simply dived onto a player on the ground, so there was no tackle attempted let alone completed.

So does that mean, next time I play, the j stand I get my hand son the ball, I can hit the ground, and just crawl my way to the try line because no-ones allowed to tackle me?

If it was a tackle then it was complete.
If it wasn't, it was because Woodburn refused to give Rhys the chance to tackle him, by crawling along the floor illegally.

It's a fair query about whether the ball was available to play. My recollection is Rhys wasn't trying to play the ball and just flopped onto the player, but my recollection could be bollocks and the pen should be for holding on

If he’s on the floor you can still place your hands on him and make it a tackle situation.

Again my recollection is Priestland flopped on top of Woodburn rather than trying to effect a tackle or keep to his feet and play the ball. Perhaps that recollection is wrong, perhaps he was even only knocked off his feet by Woodburn crawling along

IMO, He was tackled, but not held by Homer; Priestland then only has to touch him for it to be tackle completed and Woodburn has to stop moving.
You're right in that Rhys didn't complete the tackle that way, scamper round onside and compete for the ball - because he was busy trying to make sure that Woodburn knew he'd been tackled, as he just wasn't stopping.
He must have crawled a full 5m on hands and knees wearing a Priestland backpack!

I didn't realise you could complete a tackle by falling atop the player on the ground. Though I should probably watch again and see what actually happened

Happens all the time - knocked down by the first tackle, next man just pushes you down.
If you're knee (or higher) is on the floor, and an oponent is touching you - you're tackled and not allowed to move beyond momentum (or being dragged by a team mate)

Yes, but my thinking was it's a game to be played by people on their feet and you don't get to complete a tackle by flopping onto a player on the floor. That's to say to complete the tackle or contest the ball he should have kept his feet.

Again my recollection of him going off his feet coming first might be a false recollection, and I don't know how the refs would want to list the offences in order and consider materiality

Mostly I was just amused Priestland approached the tackle and/or breakdown with all the skill, gumption and wit for which fly halfs are rightly famed

Personally, I'd be in favour of the old laws whereby it's tackle complete if your ball carrying hand or both knees touch the ground.

I hate the current situation where you can fully tackle someone, release immediately and roll away, only for them to spring up and the ref shout "Not completed!" It encourages tacklers to hold on and is part of why rucks are a mess. Have it so if you're grounded you're tackled, enforce immediate rolling away and I'll bet the game speeds up.

Puja

Puja wrote:Personally, I'd be in favour of the old laws whereby it's tackle complete if your ball carrying hand or both knees touch the ground.

I hate the current situation where you can fully tackle someone, release immediately and roll away, only for them to spring up and the ref shout "Not completed!" It encourages tacklers to hold on and is part of why rucks are a mess. Have it so if you're grounded you're tackled, enforce immediate rolling away and I'll bet the game speeds up.

Puja

If I could be bothered to dig up the brand, I would do that right now...

Digby wrote:Yes, but my thinking was it's a game to be played by people on their feet and you don't get to complete a tackle by flopping onto a player on the floor. That's to say to complete the tackle or contest the ball he should have kept his feet.

Again my recollection of him going off his feet coming first might be a false recollection, and I don't know how the refs would want to list the offences in order and consider materiality

Mostly I was just amused Priestland approached the tackle and/or breakdown with all the skill, gumption and wit for which fly halfs are rightly famed

When in a hole, normally better to stop digging. Though that's not stopped you before.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Yes, but my thinking was it's a game to be played by people on their feet and you don't get to complete a tackle by flopping onto a player on the floor. That's to say to complete the tackle or contest the ball he should have kept his feet.

Again my recollection of him going off his feet coming first might be a false recollection, and I don't know how the refs would want to list the offences in order and consider materiality

Mostly I was just amused Priestland approached the tackle and/or breakdown with all the skill, gumption and wit for which fly halfs are rightly famed

When in a hole, normally better to stop digging. Though that's not stopped you before.

So to clarify despite not being allowed to simply drop on a player on the ground you can simply drop on a player on the ground to complete a tackle if the player wasn't held?

And I am actually asking beyond simply the incident at the weekend as it wasn't my understanding

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Yes, but my thinking was it's a game to be played by people on their feet and you don't get to complete a tackle by flopping onto a player on the floor. That's to say to complete the tackle or contest the ball he should have kept his feet.

Again my recollection of him going off his feet coming first might be a false recollection, and I don't know how the refs would want to list the offences in order and consider materiality

Mostly I was just amused Priestland approached the tackle and/or breakdown with all the skill, gumption and wit for which fly halfs are rightly famed

When in a hole, normally better to stop digging. Though that's not stopped you before.

So to clarify despite not being allowed to simply drop on a player on the ground you can simply drop on a player on the ground to complete a tackle if the player wasn't held?

And I am actually asking beyond simply the incident at the weekend as it wasn't my understanding

Well no-one can say I didn't try.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:
When in a hole, normally better to stop digging. Though that's not stopped you before.

So to clarify despite not being allowed to simply drop on a player on the ground you can simply drop on a player on the ground to complete a tackle if the player wasn't held?

And I am actually asking beyond simply the incident at the weekend as it wasn't my understanding

Well no-one can say I didn't try.

Save in the sense there's no clarification there

I may be looking at this incorrectly as my instinct is to look first for offences from defence before worrying about what attack does. But the possible offences are Woodburn crawling on the floor, Priestland going off his feet to contest the ball or more likely complete a tackle, and if one is being really harsh a high arm around the neck from Priestland

Which leaves an open query for me as to which offence should be judged first and perhaps the most material? I suppose there's also the old idea about what does a given picture look like to a referee, but that's certainly not the same as wondering how the laws should be applied

Whether anyone cares to address this is seemingly unlikely at this point, and yes there'd be no need if Priestland had kept his feet but he didn't, and there'd perhaps be no need if the laws didn’t explicitly say you cannot just fall on a player on the floor, but they do

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
So to clarify despite not being allowed to simply drop on a player on the ground you can simply drop on a player on the ground to complete a tackle if the player wasn't held?

And I am actually asking beyond simply the incident at the weekend as it wasn't my understanding

Well no-one can say I didn't try.

Save in the sense there's no clarification there

I may be looking at this incorrectly as my instinct is to look first for offences from defence before worrying about what attack does. But the possible offences are Woodburn crawling on the floor, Priestland going off his feet to contest the ball or more likely complete a tackle, and if one is being really harsh a high arm around the neck from Priestland

Which leaves an open query for me as to which offence should be judged first and perhaps the most material? I suppose there's also the old idea about what does a given picture look like to a referee, but that's certainly not the same as wondering how the laws should be applied

Whether anyone cares to address this is seemingly unlikely at this point, and yes there'd be no need if Priestland had kept his feet but he didn't, and there'd perhaps be no need if the laws didn’t explicitly say you cannot just fall on a player on the floor, but they do

I'm trying to avoid another tedious and pointless argument, where you want the laws of the game changed or explained to your personal benefit. Life's too fcking short.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Well no-one can say I didn't try.

Save in the sense there's no clarification there

I may be looking at this incorrectly as my instinct is to look first for offences from defence before worrying about what attack does. But the possible offences are Woodburn crawling on the floor, Priestland going off his feet to contest the ball or more likely complete a tackle, and if one is being really harsh a high arm around the neck from Priestland

Which leaves an open query for me as to which offence should be judged first and perhaps the most material? I suppose there's also the old idea about what does a given picture look like to a referee, but that's certainly not the same as wondering how the laws should be applied

Whether anyone cares to address this is seemingly unlikely at this point, and yes there'd be no need if Priestland had kept his feet but he didn't, and there'd perhaps be no need if the laws didn’t explicitly say you cannot just fall on a player on the floor, but they do

I'm trying to avoid another tedious and pointless argument

You came to the wrong website, buddy.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Save in the sense there's no clarification there

I may be looking at this incorrectly as my instinct is to look first for offences from defence before worrying about what attack does. But the possible offences are Woodburn crawling on the floor, Priestland going off his feet to contest the ball or more likely complete a tackle, and if one is being really harsh a high arm around the neck from Priestland

Which leaves an open query for me as to which offence should be judged first and perhaps the most material? I suppose there's also the old idea about what does a given picture look like to a referee, but that's certainly not the same as wondering how the laws should be applied

Whether anyone cares to address this is seemingly unlikely at this point, and yes there'd be no need if Priestland had kept his feet but he didn't, and there'd perhaps be no need if the laws didn’t explicitly say you cannot just fall on a player on the floor, but they do

I'm trying to avoid another tedious and pointless argument

You came to the wrong website, buddy.

What was I thinking.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Well no-one can say I didn't try.

Save in the sense there's no clarification there

I may be looking at this incorrectly as my instinct is to look first for offences from defence before worrying about what attack does. But the possible offences are Woodburn crawling on the floor, Priestland going off his feet to contest the ball or more likely complete a tackle, and if one is being really harsh a high arm around the neck from Priestland

Which leaves an open query for me as to which offence should be judged first and perhaps the most material? I suppose there's also the old idea about what does a given picture look like to a referee, but that's certainly not the same as wondering how the laws should be applied

Whether anyone cares to address this is seemingly unlikely at this point, and yes there'd be no need if Priestland had kept his feet but he didn't, and there'd perhaps be no need if the laws didn’t explicitly say you cannot just fall on a player on the floor, but they do

I'm trying to avoid another tedious and pointless argument, where you want the laws of the game changed or explained to your personal benefit. Life's too fcking short.

I shall resolve in future to only raise a query around a decision in a rugby game in an appropriate forum, my apologies

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Save in the sense there's no clarification there

I may be looking at this incorrectly as my instinct is to look first for offences from defence before worrying about what attack does. But the possible offences are Woodburn crawling on the floor, Priestland going off his feet to contest the ball or more likely complete a tackle, and if one is being really harsh a high arm around the neck from Priestland

Which leaves an open query for me as to which offence should be judged first and perhaps the most material? I suppose there's also the old idea about what does a given picture look like to a referee, but that's certainly not the same as wondering how the laws should be applied

Whether anyone cares to address this is seemingly unlikely at this point, and yes there'd be no need if Priestland had kept his feet but he didn't, and there'd perhaps be no need if the laws didn’t explicitly say you cannot just fall on a player on the floor, but they do

I'm trying to avoid another tedious and pointless argument, where you want the laws of the game changed or explained to your personal benefit. Life's too fcking short.

I shall resolve in future to only raise a query around a decision in a rugby game in an appropriate forum, my apologies

You've missed the point, its not the what, but the how. And carry on, its only my opinion, thus obviously can be ignored.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'm trying to avoid another tedious and pointless argument, where you want the laws of the game changed or explained to your personal benefit. Life's too fcking short.

I shall resolve in future to only raise a query around a decision in a rugby game in an appropriate forum, my apologies

You've missed the point, its not the what, but the how. And carry on, its only my opinion, thus obviously can be ignored.

Then I have indeed missed the point as I don't follow even with it being brought to my attention

It's actually something I find interesting as I'd think in part we find the game pitting a sense of natural justice against some specifically prohibited actions to wrangle an outcome. So I'd look at the Priestland Vs Woodburn incident and conclude no try as Woodburn is off his feet, but penalty against Priestland because he too goes off his feet and I'd ping defence before attack. I'd then need to accept what something is doesn’t always equate twith how it looks to the officials, as for instance we saw with Billy being incorrectly pinged against Wales for playing a ball still in a ruck

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I shall resolve in future to only raise a query around a decision in a rugby game in an appropriate forum, my apologies

You've missed the point, its not the what, but the how. And carry on, its only my opinion, thus obviously can be ignored.

Then I have indeed missed the point as I don't follow even with it being brought to my attention

It's actually something I find interesting as I'd think in part we find the game pitting a sense of natural justice against some specifically prohibited actions to wrangle an outcome. So I'd look at the Priestland Vs Woodburn incident and conclude no try as Woodburn is off his feet, but penalty against Priestland because he too goes off his feet and I'd ping defence before attack. I'd then need to accept what something is doesn’t always equate twith how it looks to the officials, as for instance we saw with Billy being incorrectly pinged against Wales for playing a ball still in a ruck

To stop being semi-subtle then- I can't be bothered to engage with such long winded and convoluted statements about something relatively rare that is history, and where I agreed with the outcome, even if marginal on re-watch (that's long winded and convoluted but hey!). But that's just me!

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: You've missed the point, its not the what, but the how. And carry on, its only my opinion, thus obviously can be ignored.

Then I have indeed missed the point as I don't follow even with it being brought to my attention

It's actually something I find interesting as I'd think in part we find the game pitting a sense of natural justice against some specifically prohibited actions to wrangle an outcome. So I'd look at the Priestland Vs Woodburn incident and conclude no try as Woodburn is off his feet, but penalty against Priestland because he too goes off his feet and I'd ping defence before attack. I'd then need to accept what something is doesn’t always equate twith how it looks to the officials, as for instance we saw with Billy being incorrectly pinged against Wales for playing a ball still in a ruck

To stop being semi-subtle then- I can't be bothered to engage with such long winded and convoluted statements about something relatively rare that is history, and where I agreed with the outcome, even if marginal on re-watch (that's long winded and convoluted but hey!). But that's just me!

Ah, then I'd suggest rather than telling me I'm digging a hole which to me invites inquiry as to how the law has and should function that you'd do better telling me I'm less interesting than Vogon poetry and should bugger off to a referee forum