|
|
 |
[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
sw
|
Mon, 19 May 08 10:10 GMT
|
HighsideUK - Agree with your sentiment (re showbiz refereeing) from previous post - frustrating isn't it!
I despair at times at what we see on telly, but I tend to find that players at my level (10) expect similar management. It's a constant challenge to reach a 'happy medium', but the anticipation of what teams expect on Saturdays keeps it interesting eh?
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Wed, 14 May 08 23:29 GMT
|
anthonyran:
"...would have found it difficult to dive over and get to the SH in the first place..."
No. You need to read the thread.
sw tells us "..the player was on his feet...was coming through the middle of the ruck..."
In any case diving over a ruck to get at the SH is deemed illegal under Law 16.3 d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck.
So where players have their hips and shoulders is neither here nore there.
|
|
|
anthonyran
|
Wed, 14 May 08 15:59 GMT
|
I agree the Ref probably did not make the best decision but this is all a consequence of not managing a "proper" ruck, i.e hips no lower than shoulders etc then the defence would have found it difficult to dive over and get to the SH in the first place and the game would have continued at a decent pace, players would not feel unfairly penalised etc
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Wed, 14 May 08 12:50 GMT
|
"Disappointing for Scarlets fans perhaps, but the impartial observer would no doubt be content with this sentiment."
No, no, no, no, NO!
Blinking pro-refs making their own blinking rules just to make the game "flow". It is terrible. If we need to protect the scrum half to this extent, then let the law makers draft a law so we all know what it is.
It's not the referee's job to protect anyone from legal tackles!
Think about the poor sap that is gasping for breath and fighting tooth and nail and yet has still patiently waited for the ruck to be over so that he can legally tackle the s/half. The Irish pack were simply not doing their job if they let him do this or maybe he made a superhuman effort to get to the s/half, or maybe the s/half was asleep.
Either way, the referee should not penalising what you have described.
I hope and pray the ref just thought the player came from an offside position or made some other honest mistake. In which case... no problem... that's just the luck of the Irish!
This message edited on Wed, 14 May 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
sw
|
Wed, 14 May 08 07:46 GMT
|
Thank you Gents.
As the player was on his feet, did not bat the ball (deliberate knock-on),was coming through the middle of the ruck and actually grabbed the arm of the SH who had stepped away and was in possession, I'm not sure an offence took place.
I suspect that it is down to protecting the scrum half in the interests of a flowing, entertaining game that applied here.
Disappointing for Scarlets fans perhaps, but the impartial observer would no doubt be content with this sentiment.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 13 May 08 21:54 GMT
|
Or perhaps the player was off his feet and thus should have remained out of the game. There are many possibilities. However, in general:
Ruck exists, ball remains in ruck. All players in the ruck must maintain a full bind, and stay on their feet (except in pro rugby, when being on your feet is so exceptional it's probably worth penalising because it "looks wrong"). No-one can play the ball with their hands.
SH puts hands on the ball, and attempts to pull it clear of a tangle of legs. Most refs will have indicated to both sides during pre-match brief that the SH is protected until he's in a position to distribute the ball. Same applies as previous paragraph.
SH has got the ball clear of the ruck. Ruck is now over, and open play laws apply. Batting the ball out of SH hands likely to lead to PK against for deliberate knock-on, even if apparently straight down (it only has to go 1mm forward, and the ref judges that. Most refs prefer the game to flow, rather than get bogged down in a series of conflicts at the base of rucks/mauls/scrums). Players on the deck (i.e. not supporting their own weight with their legs alone) are out of the game.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
steve johnson
- sehjohnson@hotmail.com
|
Tue, 13 May 08 15:40 GMT
|
Didn't see it, but is there a chance the defending player was on his way through the ruck while it was still in progress? Then the offence would be not binding?
|
-------------------------
SteveJinJapan |
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 12 May 08 15:12 GMT
|
It is difficult to second-guess a referee even with slomo. With a verbal description is it virtually impossible.
Maybe the player was offside before the ruck ended. Maybe he actually knocked the ball forward. Maybe ... etc.
|
|
|
sw
|
Mon, 12 May 08 14:26 GMT
|
Think it was Scarlets v Munster (Magners).
Ruck formed - Munster SH picks up ball from base and steps back to deliver pass - ruck over.
Scarlets player who came through middle of ruck (since ended) reaches out and spoils SH pass be grabbing his arm - penalty awarded.
Can anyone advise on what exactly has he done wrong? Pretty important decision actually, as penalty was converted for late win!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
