Former Former Former wrote: » The ref didn't see a contact with the head, that's why he awarded nothing.
Kraftwerk wrote: » How do you know he didn't see it? He referenced the attempted wrap which in the footage is the arm that hits VDF in the face. If he sees an attempt to wrap he seen the contact with the player he's attempting to grab. There's also no way he's missed VDF recoiling holding his face or Byrne shouting and pointing about VDF getting hit in the face and is somehow oblivious to the fact there was head contact. Unless we're dealing with the most clueless ref that ever set foot on a pitch he was aware of the head contact.
Former Former Former wrote: » He called it a "good cleanout". You can't make contact with the head. Attempting to wrap doesn't excuse contact with the head. If he saw the contact with the head and still thinks it's a good cleanout, then he definitely is the most clueless ref ever. His only excuse for not even awarding a penalty is that he saw it wrong.
Kraftwerk wrote: » BOD and Hartley in the commentary clearly see the head contact yet still say its a good clean out as he can't get any lower and can't avoid the head. BOD says it's the only target he left for Wood so how can Wood avoid hitting it. Its a similar view with Quinlan and others. Clear head contact but can't be avoided, **** happens, Wood did everything right etc etc. I just don't see how the ref is the only person on the planet who can't see head contact while getting a close enough look to determine Wood wrapped in the clear out while VDF goes flying holding his face. I think he sees it as BOD does. Attempted wrap, inadvertently hits the face but its a "rugby incident" not foul play.
Former Former Former wrote: » If the only thing left for Wood to hit is the head, then he shouldn't make the hit. That's the bottom line.
UAEguy2020 wrote: » Are people still trying to justify what happened to VDF yesterday and the end result were okay?
theVersatile wrote: » Of course if the laws surrounding shoulders not dipping below hips were employed more strictly, situations like this would happen less often.
Yeah_Right wrote: » What law is this? The only time I have ever heard of shoulders below hips being penalised, is in the scrum. Is it illegal in rucks too?
Dog Botherer wrote: » i get why people feel the need to defend refs, they get a hard rub of it and it’s not an easy job, especially at pro level. but yer man has clearly ****ed that decision. not everything has to be defended with paragraphs and paragraphs of ifs and buts. he has ****ed that call.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I'm not trying to defend the ref tbh. He made a couple of errors in the game that I'm more than happy to call (and did in earlier in the thread in relation to a turnover which Feris also thought was fine) - it's more that there has been a degree of dissent on the issue from informed commentators that makes me inclined to be cautious. I thought it was a clear cut yellow with scope for red. I still think that - I'm just open to the possibility that I'm wrong for some reason outside of my window of perspective!
The Lost Sheep wrote: » https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15 FORMING A RUCK A ruck can take place only in the field of play. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground. Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.
Yeah_Right wrote: » What about jackling after the tackle? Are the shoulders allowed to be below the hips?
irishbucsfan wrote: » No. Very rarely enforced however
Kraftwerk wrote: » It's a mistake that a ref thought a shoulder to the head wasn't foul play?
Tim Robbins wrote: » No-one said that.
ButtersSuki wrote: » From reading the thread it certainly appears so.
Kraftwerk wrote: » Yes they did. They even answered that post with "yes its a mistake"...
realhorrorshow wrote: » What is your basis for saying jackaling is illegal?
Tim Robbins wrote: » I think you are intent on arguing rather than trying to understand where people are coming from. If you are an expert, you are wasting your time on the internet. The game needs more coaches, refs and an assessors.
UAEguy2020 wrote: » No need to modify anything BOD, just don’t try take someone’s head off at a ruck just because you were late. Apparently it should be brought down to a yellow because here was no target...**** me on a stick...
Burkie1203 wrote: » BOD needs to go for a HIA.
UAEguy2020 wrote: » BOD still can’t admit he was wrong about the VDF hit...
UAEguy2020 wrote: » I’m watching it live on BT sport right now in their highlight show, hopefully it will pop up later.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Sorry, you're right that ONLY jackaling with your head below your hips is legal. And if no ruck comes out of that situation then of course it is because the law only applies to rucks. However, the question is about the law for rucks. In theory, if you're jackaling with your head below your hips and a ruck is formed on you (which almost always is exactly what happens), you are illegal and it should be a penalty against you. I've never seen that given at any level, I think its pretty much unenforceable. They could really do with reviewing/rewording that law. Under the law trials in 2017 jackaling with your head below your hips WAS actually illegal (I think? Can't remember if they kept that clause during that trial, I think they did), became inadvertently so when a single player was needed to form a ruck. It wasn't even pinged then. So its a dead letter law.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
