Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Laws Question? Ask here!

14243454748115

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,072 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    ScareGilly wrote: »
    I don't see the problem with it... Gear just 'bounced' him..

    Whats a "bounce" ?

    I see a forearm to the head, if thats now legal we are in for a lot of broken noses next season, you cant attack a persons head in that manner its not a hand off.


  • Registered Users Posts: 723 ✭✭✭ScareGilly


    Boshed him?

    Exact same as that in my book, just Earl's poor attempt of a tackle...


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,815 ✭✭✭✭emmet02


    yup, he just got done. Tackle lower in future.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    ScareGilly wrote: »
    Boshed him?

    Exact same as that in my book, just Earl's poor attempt of a tackle...

    You could argue that the actions (and even intent) of both ball carriers are similar, but the fact is that one incident was dangerous and one was not. That being the case, it warrants a look from a citing officer, who is better placed than us to decide on whether there might be a case to answer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    emmet02 wrote: »
    yup, he just got done. Tackle lower in future.
    I'm assuming that his intent in going in upright was to wrap and prevent the offload? While he's not the most technical by any means, I'd have said that Earls is perfectly capable of making a proper tackle.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 723 ✭✭✭ScareGilly


    You could argue that the actions (and even intent) of both ball carriers are similar, but the fact is that one incident was dangerous and one was not. That being the case, it warrants a look from a citing officer, who is better placed than us to decide on whether there might be a case to answer.

    I'd be the complete opposite and say to me, it's not dangerous at all, it's completely Earls' fault, had his head in the wrong place...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,072 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    ScareGilly wrote: »
    I'd be the complete opposite and say to me, it's not dangerous at all, it's completely Earls' fault, had his head in the wrong place...

    Aaah will you stop scaregilly, If a player wants to wrap you to prevent an off load, even if its not a technically good tackle, you cant just smash your forearm into a players face, its extremely dangerous.

    Red card for me all day long!


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,815 ✭✭✭✭emmet02


    Shelflife wrote: »
    Aaah will you stop scaregilly, If a player wants to wrap you to prevent an off load, even if its not a technically good tackle, you cant just smash your forearm into a players face, its extremely dangerous.

    Red card for me all day long!

    Does North go for the exact same thing in the above video?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,072 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    emmet02 wrote: »
    Does North go for the exact same thing in the above video?

    For me, no he doesnt, as Dave said its a similar technique and when is across the chest or shoulders its fine, when you thrust your forearm/elbow into a players face at speed its simply dangerous and warrants a red.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    Its an area of the game thats completely overlooked.

    Someone runs fingers across someones face when in a pile on the ground and they get cited and likely banned for contact with the face area.

    Someone running around sticks out an elbow and nails someone in the face and thats not considered contact with the face area.....boggles the mind.

    Similar to an issue I raised before.

    In open play throw your body at a guy without arms and its a penalty for not wrapping. Do the same but hit a ruck and its all good???


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,815 ✭✭✭✭emmet02


    Shelflife wrote: »
    For me, no he doesnt, as Dave said its a similar technique and when is across the chest or shoulders its fine, when you thrust your forearm/elbow into a players face at speed its simply dangerous and warrants a red.

    So if I go to make a tackle at chest height, perfectly legally, and the player ducks into the tackle and I end up crunching his head, I should be sent off?

    It's just the reverse of that situation.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    emmet02 wrote: »
    So if I go to make a tackle at chest height, perfectly legally, and the player ducks into the tackle and I end up crunching his head, I should be sent off?

    It's just the reverse of that situation.

    I disagree on that.

    If you aim to go head to head then yes its dangerous play.
    If however your protecting yourself and theres an accidental clash then no.

    Sticking your elbow towards someone cannot be deemed a reasonable attempt to protect yourself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,282 ✭✭✭MyKeyG


    Here's another perspective. What if Earls had decided the best way to tackle him would have been to push him in the face out over the line? Instant penalty right? An illegal strike, high tackle, possible contact with the eye area take your pick.

    I don't think a ball carrier should be permitted any action that is illegal to the tackler. And I certainly think hand offs to the face should be illegal for the reason that it may result in a gouge.

    Incidentally that Earls head was low is immaterial. We see high tackles given all the time even though the head was low.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,009 ✭✭✭blindsider


    I'm surprised that people are comparing North's legal hand-off with Gear's elbow/fore-arm.

    As the Laws stand, North was legal, Gear wasn't.

    It DOES NOT MATTER if Earls' tackling technique wasn't 'textbook' - he (Earls) didn't do anything illegal - Gear did. You can't argue that Earls was wrong - he wasn't - if Sean O'Brien or Stepehn Ferris (I know he didn't play, that doesn't matter) effected that tackle would you say it was wrong?

    It wasn't picked up etc by the Citing Commisioner (should have been), but that doesn't mean it was legal - it wasn't!

    10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
    (a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
    the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
    Sanction: Penalty kick


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Nothing wrong in what Gear did to me. Gears never uses his elbow and all the contact is through his hands/lower arm against Earls's chest. It's not Gear's fault that Earls has run face first into him!

    Awful tackle attempt from Earls. It's not the first time he's led with the head, he did a similar thing to Roberts in the RWC QF against Wales.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,009 ✭✭✭blindsider


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Nothing wrong in what Gear did to me. Gears never uses his elbow and all the contact is through his hands/lower arm against Earls's chest. It's not Gear's fault that Earls has run face first into him!

    Awful tackle attempt from Earls. It's not the first time he's led with the head, he did a similar thing to Roberts in the RWC QF against Wales.

    Pause this clip at 1:35:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBk6PjwsILA

    Which part of the hand/lower arm can you see making contact? His upper arm/shoulder is deliberately used to fend Earls off - that is in contravention of Law 10.4 as I have quoted it above.

    This is not about opinions, it's about the Laws of the game.



    I'll say it again - Earls technique may have been awful, but it was LEGAL!


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 34,942 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Looks like Earls struck Gear with his shoulder which is apparently against rule 10.4 :D


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    blindsider wrote: »
    Pause this clip at 1:35:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBk6PjwsILA

    Which part of the hand/lower arm can you see making contact? His upper arm/shoulder is deliberately used to fend Earls off - that is in contravention of Law 10.4 as I have quoted it above.

    This is not about opinions, it's about the Laws of the game.



    I'll say it again - Earls technique may have been awful, but it was LEGAL!

    When you see the fend off from the other side, around 1min 30 on the clip, Gears hand/lower arm is always in contact with Earls. Even at the section of teh clip around 1min 35 it's Gears lower arm that makes contact with Earls first.

    Earls technique was legal but when you put your head in the wrong position when making a tackle it's your own fault.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,009 ✭✭✭blindsider


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    When you see the fend off from the other side, around 1min 30 on the clip, Gears hand/lower arm is always in contact with Earls. Even at the section of teh clip around 1min 35 it's Gears lower arm that makes contact with Earls first.

    Earls technique was legal but when you put your head in the wrong position when making a tackle it's your own fault.

    Tell you what..go ask a referee you know - or even your coach when you start back to pre-season.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,815 ✭✭✭✭emmet02


    blindsider wrote: »
    Tell you what..go ask a referee you know - or even your coach when you start back to pre-season.

    there's plenty of referees that post in this forum/thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,009 ✭✭✭blindsider


    I know - I'm hoping that someone he(?) knows might take the time to explain the realities of the situation - what Gear did was illegal, what Earls did was silly/poor technique.


    Gear should have been penalised, Earls needs a tackling session or two


  • Registered Users Posts: 2 Bless45


    randomer wrote: »
    Is it possible to score an Own Drop Goal?
    A drop goal cannot be scored in open play by punting the ball, and instead must be scored by drop kicking the ball over the crossbar and between the uprights.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    blindsider wrote: »
    I know - I'm hoping that someone he(?) knows might take the time to explain the realities of the situation - what Gear did was illegal, what Earls did was silly/poor technique.


    Gear should have been penalised, Earls needs a tackling session or two

    How far do you want get into the "realities of the situation"?

    According to rule 10.4 Earls should have been penalised!

    10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
    (a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
    the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    Earls was steaming across the pitch at full tilt and leads with the head.

    You can analyse the situation over and over if you like but there's nothing in it. Even Quinlan, who'd be carrying on the whole series as if Ireland were whooping the All Blacks, didn't see anything in it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,072 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    blindsider wrote: »
    I know - I'm hoping that someone he(?) knows might take the time to explain the realities of the situation - what Gear did was illegal, what Earls did was silly/poor technique.


    Gear should have been penalised, Earls needs a tackling session or two

    How far do you want get into the "realities of the situation"?

    According to rule 10.4 Earls should have been penalised!

    10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
    (a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
    the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    Earls was steaming across the pitch at full tilt and leads with the head.

    You can analyse the situation over and over if you like but there's nothing in it. Even Quinlan, who'd be carrying on the whole series as if Ireland were whooping the All Blacks, didn't see anything in it.

    If you want to be pedantic about it , nearly every text book tackle leads with the head, but the head isnt used to make the tackle, the arms or shoulder make contact with the body.

    As a ref what I look for us that players tackle in a manner that is not dangerous to his opponent.
    And that the opponent doesn't defend the tackle in a dangerous manner either, the safety of the players is foremost in my mind.
    Earls did not endanger gear, but gear IMO did endanger and injure earls with a deliberate forearm/elbow/shoulder directly into his face .

    Had that happened in a game I was reffing I'd be looking at a min yellow and seriously considering a red .


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Shelflife wrote: »
    If you want to be pedantic about it , nearly every text book tackle leads with the head, but the head isnt used to make the tackle, the arms or shoulder make contact with the body.

    As a ref what I look for us that players tackle in a manner that is not dangerous to his opponent.
    And that the opponent doesn't defend the tackle in a dangerous manner either, the safety of the players is foremost in my mind.
    Earls did not endanger gear, but gear IMO did endanger and injure earls with a deliberate forearm/elbow/shoulder directly into his face .

    Had that happened in a game I was reffing I'd be looking at a min yellow and seriously considering a red .

    I was being pedantic on purpose as I don't see anything in what Gear did.

    What do you do when guys take a crash ball into a crowded midfield? A lot of the time their actions are the same as what Gear did (no straight arm hand offs but hand offs starting with hands in close and pushing out)

    Text book tackles don't have you making contact with your head to the guy you're meant to be tackling, look at how McFadden tackled Gear.

    Earls didn't endanger Gear but he did endanger himself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,009 ✭✭✭blindsider


    CFH - I'm going to be direct now.

    You are determined to see Earls as being wrong here. If A Rolland came on here and told you otherwise you still wouldn't believe him - that's your choice -you're entiteld to your opinions.

    What I have a problem with, is you trying to convert your opinion into fact - you're not entitled to do that.

    The Laws of rugby are clear - posters like Shelflife have already taken the time to explain this, as I have - on Rugby referee fora there is no debate about this - it's taken as read that M Poite missed this incident.

    So continue to argue if you like, but you won't change the Laws of Rugby to make your self right.

    I doubt I'll bother to contribute to this again.

    PS - I haven't seen anyone comment on Earls blinding pace to get back to be in a great position to make an awful tackle - he covered a huge amount of ground and had no right to be there...but he was..and he messed it up!:o


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    blindsider wrote: »

    I doubt I'll bother to contribute to this again.

    You're entitled to that :pac:


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue




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


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,282 ✭✭✭MyKeyG


    blindsider wrote: »
    CFH - I'm going to be direct now.

    You are determined to see Earls as being wrong here. If A Rolland came on here and told you otherwise you still wouldn't believe him - that's your choice -you're entiteld to your opinions.

    What I have a problem with, is you trying to convert your opinion into fact - you're not entitled to do that.

    The Laws of rugby are clear - posters like Shelflife have already taken the time to explain this, as I have - on Rugby referee fora there is no debate about this - it's taken as read that M Poite missed this incident.

    So continue to argue if you like, but you won't change the Laws of Rugby to make your self right.

    I doubt I'll bother to contribute to this again.

    PS - I haven't seen anyone comment on Earls blinding pace to get back to be in a great position to make an awful tackle - he covered a huge amount of ground and had no right to be there...but he was..and he messed it up!:o
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    MyKeyG wrote: »
    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 :pac:


Advertisement