Ulster v Glasgow
Moderator: Moderators
- John_e_boy
- Squire
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:14 pm
Ulster v Glasgow
I guess everyone is at Ravers... lucky youse.
This is frustrating, but tue Hulme yellow an PT was correct, unfortunately
This is frustrating, but tue Hulme yellow an PT was correct, unfortunately
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
How are you supposed to stop someone scoring in that situation then or are you supposed to just let someone score? Maybe by letter of law correct but I thought he placed his knee in front of the Glasgow player to stop him scoring then rolled him out.
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
Yup. Was Hume just to let the score go uncontested? I can’t imagine a better tackle on those circumstances
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
Ref said he landed on top of him, which is an absolute lie. If the refs are telling lies like this the game has no credible future.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
Just watched it back, ref said tackle was complete and he dived on him. First of all the tackle from stockdale was not complete as he didn't hold him on the ground at all. Next they said he dived on him, again not true he dived in front of him and rolled him over touch.
Barclay on commentary said you have to let him get to his feet, however that close to the line the Glasgow doesn't have to get to his feet he can just reach out. It was an utterly nonsense decision once again by TMO Ian Davies who is an utter numpty and Whitehouse, well what can u say about him.
Barclay on commentary said you have to let him get to his feet, however that close to the line the Glasgow doesn't have to get to his feet he can just reach out. It was an utterly nonsense decision once again by TMO Ian Davies who is an utter numpty and Whitehouse, well what can u say about him.
- Cap'n Grumpy
- Rí na Cúige Uladh
- Posts: 15647
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
- Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
I believe that the only legal way to prevent the player scoring was to try to remove the ball from his hands while still on his (Hume's) feet. He may not try to kick the ball from the opponent's hands.
I'm assuming (cos I haven't heard the ref/TMO's reasoning) that the offence was in trying to wrestle the ball from the Weegie player's hands, while he (Hume) was not on his feet. That is the offence which justifies a penalty try.
I presume the yellow card was for some perceived dangerous play, but as I haven't heard the ref/TMOs interaction, I may be wrong in that ....
... or they were!
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
I'm just explaining why I'm right
- Cap'n Grumpy
- Rí na Cúige Uladh
- Posts: 15647
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
- Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
Which means he was off his (Hume's) feet when he rolled him. Unfortunately that is what made the "tackle" illegal. Had he stayed on his feet and wrestled him into touch, that would have been fine ... just about impossible, but legal.mea97mb wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:28 pm Just watched it back, ref said tackle was complete and he dived on him. First of all the tackle from stockdale was not complete as he didn't hold him on the ground at all. Next they said he dived on him, again not true he dived in front of him and rolled him over touch.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
I'm just explaining why I'm right
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
Yeah that makes sense, however the refs reasoning was that Stockdale tackle was complete in which case even if Hume lifted him into touch while on his feet it would also have been illegal. As you said the only legal way to stop it was to stay on feet and try to play the ball.Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:27 amWhich means he was off his (Hume's) feet when he rolled him. Unfortunately that is what made the "tackle" illegal. Had he stayed on his feet and wrestled him into touch, that would have been fine ... just about impossible, but legal.mea97mb wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:28 pm Just watched it back, ref said tackle was complete and he dived on him. First of all the tackle from stockdale was not complete as he didn't hold him on the ground at all. Next they said he dived on him, again not true he dived in front of him and rolled him over touch.
I would guess however if the weegie had got back up and placed the ball down the ref would have deemed Stockdales tackle incomplete and allowed the try.
-
- Chancellor to the King
- Posts: 3093
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:03 pm
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
Stockdale had made the tackle and had slipped off him, and not for the first time. The Glasgow player was entitled to place the ball from the ground or get to his feet as he wasn't held. Hume sliding in prevented both, it was instinctive and staying on his feet wouldn't have stopped the try being scored. PT and yellow card was correct call as much as it seemed to punish a valiant effort.
- John_e_boy
- Squire
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:14 pm
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
The only way to prevent the try is for the tackler to stay on his feet and try to rip tye ball.
Reverse the scenario: Hulme twisting for the corner and a weedgie player does the same: we'd be screaming blue murder!
Reverse the scenario: Hulme twisting for the corner and a weedgie player does the same: we'd be screaming blue murder!
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
I agree Grumps. Although the YC is automatic for anyone committing a PT offence. No dangerous play required.Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:20 amI believe that the only legal way to prevent the player scoring was to try to remove the ball from his hands while still on his (Hume's) feet. He may not try to kick the ball from the opponent's hands.
I'm assuming (cos I haven't heard the ref/TMO's reasoning) that the offence was in trying to wrestle the ball from the Weegie player's hands, while he (Hume) was not on his feet. That is the offence which justifies a penalty try.
I presume the yellow card was for some perceived dangerous play, but as I haven't heard the ref/TMOs interaction, I may be wrong in that ....
... or they were!
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
I'd say the Stockdale tackle was complete (and so did the ref reportedly) - so he couldn't have got up, but you can't stop him placing the ball, which is all he needed to do to score.jean valjean wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:17 am Stockdale had made the tackle and had slipped off him, and not for the first time. The Glasgow player was entitled to place the ball from the ground or get to his feet as he wasn't held. Hume sliding in prevented both, it was instinctive and staying on his feet wouldn't have stopped the try being scored. PT and yellow card was correct call as much as it seemed to punish a valiant effort.
- big mervyn
- Rí na Cúige Uladh
- Posts: 14361
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:22 pm
- Location: Overlooking the pitch (til they built the old new stand)
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
What's all this about the "flegw@nkers" (my daughter's term not mine) getting hassle from Eventsec?
...and are we still sans band?
...and are we still sans band?
Volunteer at an animal sanctuary; it will fill you with joy , despair, but most of all love, unconditional love of the animals.
Big Neville Southall
Big Neville Southall
- Snipe Watson
- Rí na Cúige Uladh
- Posts: 23443
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
The Penalty try and yellow card were both correct as others have said the laws are clear. The only debatable point is whether the tackle was completed. I don't think it was, but I'd like to see it again.
Re: Ulster v Glasgow
Will wait and see, but for me - the only way I can see that not being a tackle was if Stockdale hit h illegally. Therefore justice done.Snipe Watson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:26 pm The Penalty try and yellow card were both correct as others have said the laws are clear. The only debatable point is whether the tackle was completed. I don't think it was, but I'd like to see it again.