[CatFromHue]

Originally Posted by MyKeyG

Well said. It's one thing I've noticed about CFH. His opinion is fact in his own mind and the rest of us are wrong.

Lol why would I argue something that I think is wrong?

What's your opinion on what Tuilagi did to De Villiers in the clip above?

Another ref messing it up is it?

The conspiracy deepens

[MyKeyG]

Originally Posted by CatFromHue

Lol why would I argue something that I think is wrong?

What's your opinion on what Tuilagi did to De Villiers in the clip above?

Another ref messing it up is it?

The conspiracy deepens

Tuilagi did not EXTEND his arm AT ALL!!! He crashed into the tackle. Gear saw his target extended his arm into Earls.

[justsomebloke]

MyKeyG banned

[blindsider]

Did I miss sth here? Did he post sth which has been deleted, or was he banned for the comment re Tuilagi?

Thanks.

[ScareGilly]

Originally Posted by CatFromHue

What's everyones take on what Tuilagi does at 0.55 on the clip above?

Also JDV shoves his shoulder into Tuilagi's face at 0.22... Ref must've got that wrong too...

[justsomebloke]

Originally Posted by blindsider

Did I miss sth here? Did he post sth which has been deleted, or was he banned for the comment re Tuilagi?

Thanks.

his post has been edited by me to remove personal abuse

[justsomebloke]

Blindsider is now also banned with his posts deleted.

Please attack the post and not the poster. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion, if you feel the information someone is providing is incorrect, provide evidence in a CIVIL manner to the contrary. If you can't do it in a civil manner please don't post as you yourself will most likely end up infracted or banned

[castie]

At present in the game it is accepted.
This however doesnt make it right or within the laws of the game.

Similar to as I have already pointed out hitting a ruck with your shoulder and no arms.

It will take a directive to stamp it out but it will be very hard to interpret.
How far out does the hand have to be before its no longer protecting the ball carrier?

You would also need to take intent into it as a forearm to the chest may be okay but the head not.

Similar to a high tackle but in this case the tackler.
If the tackler drives his head towards an arm (similar to a ball carrier ducking a tackle) and gets hit then thats not a penalty.
If the ball carrier aims for the head directly then a penalty.

I think the above would be a nightmare for a ref to deal with.

The clips above de Villiers at 0:22 uses his forearm as a fend to keep the tackler away rather than a striking action. (Okay in my book)

The Tuilagi one is a hard one to call.
de Villiers and dropped down into a charge by Tuilagi who has led with the forearm. If someone ducks into a high tackle its not a penalty so can the same be applied here?? (I dont think its okay but present day game accepts it)

[Prick!]

Hi, I have a referees meeting tomorrow at 5.30 in the sportsground. Do I park in the actual ground or pay for parking just outside it?

[kensutz]

I'm sure if it's a ref meeting that you'll park in the ground.

[.ak]

Originally Posted by Prick!

Hi, I have a referees meeting tomorrow at 5.30 in the sportsground. Do I park in the actual ground or pay for parking just outside it?

Not exactly on topic - does not relate to laws of the game. In future don't be afraid of making a new thread on the forum if you have a question. If you have any questions you can PM the mods listed on the bottom of the forum.

[daveharnett]

So, one weekend into the pro12 and it looks like teams are already racing the ref to the "Set".

And refs are still berating scrumhalves for not getting the ball in, while both teams are blatantly driving through the engage.

Is this the IRB declaring the scrum a lost cause, or have I missed something?

[CatFromHue]

I don't see how bringing in the Set call will change much at all to be honest. There is still a big hit involved. Realistically until something is done with the hit we're going to have lots of problems i.e. take it out or defuse it big time!

Just on something else. In the Leinster game I saw Jennings a couple of times trying to get a maul going. He had the ball and was bound at the back of a couple players. Other players joining the maul though walked in front of him and he bound on them as opposed to binding on him and move the ball backwards. I presume this is illegal?

[Prick!]

I don't see why the 2 packs can't lean in and engage, then let the contest begin thus getting rid of the big hit. The hit is terrible imo, can only do damage.

Getting rid of the hit would mean less resets, and although there'd be less turnovers it would still work.

No turnovers isn't a bad thing as the scrum is only a way of restarting the game anyways and the team who knocks on etc shouldn't benefit unless they really earn it.

[daveharnett]

Originally Posted by CatFromHue

Just on something else. In the Leinster game I saw Jennings a couple of times trying to get a maul going. He had the ball and was bound at the back of a couple players. Other players joining the maul though walked in front of him and he bound on them as opposed to binding on him and move the ball backwards. I presume this is illegal?

Players entering can join alongside the hindmost player (Jennings here). In practice, provided the player is just looking to find a good position to slot in and drive, refs will live with the new player ending up marginally ahead of the hindmost.

If on the other hand the hindmost is hanging out of the back, effectively forming a new row then joining players shouldn't be wandering past him into the row in front.

As to binding-on vs being bound-onto, either is fine.

17.4(c) Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line