Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > ARE YOU BLIND REF.... OR ARE WE WRONG ???
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Collision leads to try...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2016 at 4:36pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

The "fuss" appears to me to be a genuine discussion on an interesting topic. The fact that it had no bearing on the final result has absolutely nothing to do with it. If that was the criteria for all topics this would be a pretty lonely & dull forum. 

I have to say at the time I thought the ref had made a mistake. However the better informed on here have pointed me in the right direction. Hopefully Holley, Tandy & co have also been suitably corrected. 

Yes - I thought so, which is why I posted the topic.

Now, if the law was applied correctly (I believe it was, and accept Scarletman's verdict on that), then if people are not happy, then they should ask the legislators to consider an adjustment to the law, along the lines of:

"If an accidental collision leads to a significant advantage to either team (such as a try), then play should be brought back and a scrum awarded to the team which did not gain an advantage".

That would prevent any cunning 'accidental-on-purpose' collisions, but the inclusion of the word 'significant' prevents this becoming a major part of the game.

Of course, such incidents are pretty rare, so my guess is the law-makers will leave well alone.

(FWIW, I do not think the Edinburgh player deliberately ran into Dan - it really looked as if he had his eye on the ball the whole time.)

A potentially huge can of worms being unleashed here. 

This puts more interpretation pressure on officials in an environment where instant decisions have to be made in an ever shrinking time frame.

The law for penalising "accidentally on purpose" collisions is already available for officials to manage out of the game (10.4.m)

"Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure."
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 11987
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2016 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

The "fuss" appears to me to be a genuine discussion on an interesting topic. The fact that it had no bearing on the final result has absolutely nothing to do with it. If that was the criteria for all topics this would be a pretty lonely & dull forum. 

I have to say at the time I thought the ref had made a mistake. However the better informed on here have pointed me in the right direction. Hopefully Holley, Tandy & co have also been suitably corrected. 

Yes - I thought so, which is why I posted the topic.

Now, if the law was applied correctly (I believe it was, and accept Scarletman's verdict on that), then if people are not happy, then they should ask the legislators to consider an adjustment to the law, along the lines of:

"If an accidental collision leads to a significant advantage to either team (such as a try), then play should be brought back and a scrum awarded to the team which did not gain an advantage".

That would prevent any cunning 'accidental-on-purpose' collisions, but the inclusion of the word 'significant' prevents this becoming a major part of the game.

Of course, such incidents are pretty rare, so my guess is the law-makers will leave well alone.

(FWIW, I do not think the Edinburgh player deliberately ran into Dan - it really looked as if he had his eye on the ball the whole time.)

A potentially huge can of worms being unleashed here. 

This puts more interpretation pressure on officials in an environment where instant decisions have to be made in an ever shrinking time frame.

The law for penalising "accidentally on purpose" collisions is already available for officials to manage out of the game (10.4.m)

"Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure."

Fair enough - I accept that it's very difficult to judge intent.

It was interesting in a recent TV programme that a former Wales player (Kingsley Jones, maybe?) said apropos an ambiguous situation - which I think was a player attempting a charge-down, catching the kicker slightly late - that he (KJ?) always knew what he was doing in those situations in his playing day - implying that so did the player concerned. The ref chose to believe that the late contact was accidental, and didn't wave a YC. On that occasion, I was with the former player - the guy could definitely have pulled out. But it's all a matter of opinion!
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.