Ulster v Glasgow

Talk about the men in white, and everything Ulster!!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 18579
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by BR »

From the other thread.



14.8 Other players must:

...

b. Remain on their feet when they play the ball.

c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.

...
Can I come out from behind the sofa yet?
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 18579
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by BR »

rumncoke wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:46 pm If I tackle a player and hold his legs and pull into touch when is the tackle over

when the play goes to ground or when I get him into touch or when the tackled player ceases to move
The tackle is over when the ball or player with the ball is in touch. Everything is over, because it's in touch.
and in my book the tackle is only complete when the tackled player ceases to move, if he his moving then the tackler has the right to hold on as the tackle can not be considered complete.
When they say 'complete' they mean the tackle has been made. The BC has been brought to ground and held. Up until that point, it wasn't a tackle (it may alarm you, but a tap tackle isn't a tackle). A tackle being complete is the beginning of a tackle and is very different from a tackle being 'over' which is the end of a tackle.
Sorry Br the call was over analysis, if he his allowed to ground then the Tackler is allowed to prevent the grounding of the ball.
The tackler is specifically not allowed to prevent the grounding of the ball. (Law 14.5d)
Law 14 actually says nothing other then the Tackled player must release the ball and play it in any direction except forward
Balleex!

What law says otherwise -- it was exactly for that reason, grounding before the line the tackler could not lift the ball and ground again .
14.7a

Jesus, Rumn read the feckin law, would ye.
Can I come out from behind the sofa yet?
www.stoutboys.co.uk
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by rumncoke »

!4-5 d is about allowing the tackled player to release the ball

Law 13 1 c states any player who goes to ground as the Glasgow player had done after Stockdale's tackle with out hold must release the ball failure to do so Penalty

As I have said the situation was one were the simplest questions come up with the fairest answer

The situation is not covered under foul play Law 9

And I suggest you read the law 14-7 a
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by rumncoke »

logically

For the Glasgow player to legally score a try he must have regained his feet after going to ground in contact with Stockdale and therefore Hume had every right to tackle him - Follow me so far Agreed -yes

Then the next thing to be considered is -- AT WHAT POINT IS A TACKLE OVER/COMPLETE --- ONE AND THE SAMETHING

LOGICALLY it is that point where the tackled player must be judged to have to release the ball

At which point the tackler must release the player he has tackled and allow him to release the ball and if still on the ground not play the ball until he has regained his feet

Since the Glasgow player was attempting to score and not release the ball the Tackle is still incomplete and play continues until that point the tackler is not preventing release the tackler does not need to release the player and still has the right to play the ball.

Over analysis the situation looking for a reason to penalise--- is bad refereeing -- Penalise the obvious not the obscure --a referee should remember in the coarse of game he will fail to penalise more offences that those he penalises -- in the field of play decision and advantage is with the attacking team -- in the goal area the decision goes to the defending team with advantage to the attacking team -- the ball is held up the defending team kick possession to the attacking team the attacking regain possession.

And the penalty against Hume is definitely an obscure decision and not obvious offence.
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
User avatar
Loki
Warrior Assassin
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: At the Prom(s)

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by Loki »

Cap'n Grumpy wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:31 am My take on it was that the Stockcube tackle wasn't complete - he didn't "complete" the tackle, he failed to hold on to him (or he slid off him rather than releasing him - same difference).

In the heat of the moment how many of us (in our younger day, of course) would have done exactly the same as Hume though? It wasn't cynical, it was just a rush of blood to the head doing what he thought necessary to attempt to prevent an otherwise certain try. Always assuming we were anywhere near enough to do so, of course. :lol:

Among the readers of this esteemed forum I doubt I would be the only one, that in that split second, would not have been thinking about staying on my feet. I'm not even sure how many other professional rugby players would have been thinking about staying on their feet either.

None of that in any way changes the fact that Hume's actions, stemming from laudable intentions, were illegal.

The one positive in the YC and PT was that the great rose-tinted spectacle wearers of Ravenspan mostly thought we had been unfairly treated by officialdom, and it spurred them into making some noise to spur the team on. For a while anyway.

Nothing like a little bit of controversy and feeling hard done by, to whip the supporters into raising their collective voice.
Very much enjoying the back-and-forth on the various rules but this neatly sums up my take on the whole thing. As a confessed myopic and self-prescribed rose-tinted spoogs wearer I enjoyed a good bit of cathartic pantomime boo'ing of Whitehouse for my sins. The legality of Hume's challenge wasn't uppermost in mind, as I thought his valorous efforts deserved the applause of officialdom rather than censure for the petty crime of mere rule-breaking. But hey ho. :lol:

Lost in the general discussion are, again, Stockdale's fairly useless efforts at impacting the game defensively, which continue to be a cause for concern.
Silverstu
Initiate
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by Silverstu »

Have I missed it or do we know what Cooney's injury was? Doak did really well when he came on so slightly less of an issue.
germcevoy
Initiate
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2020 1:13 am

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by germcevoy »

Coney took a hit about five minutes before and was nursing his collarbone for a while before being subbed. Hopefully just precautionary.
User avatar
Loki
Warrior Assassin
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: At the Prom(s)

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by Loki »

He had ice on the hamstring pretty rapidly too.
justinr73
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 5676
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by justinr73 »

A hamstring issue.
Bobbievee
Warrior
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:36 pm

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by Bobbievee »

justinr73 wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:36 am A hamstring issue.
and once again congrats to our strength and conditioning team!!??
justinr73
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 5676
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by justinr73 »

Yes. I thought the way our lads defended their line for the last ten minutes showed plenty of strength and stamina.
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 18579
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by BR »

rumncoke wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:45 am logically

For the Glasgow player to legally score a try he must have regained his feet after going to ground in contact with Stockdale and therefore Hume had every right to tackle him - Follow me so far Agreed -yes

Then the next thing to be considered is -- AT WHAT POINT IS A TACKLE OVER/COMPLETE --- ONE AND THE SAMETHING

LOGICALLY it is that point where the tackled player must be judged to have to release the ball

At which point the tackler must release the player he has tackled and allow him to release the ball and if still on the ground not play the ball until he has regained his feet

Since the Glasgow player was attempting to score and not release the ball the Tackle is still incomplete and play continues until that point the tackler is not preventing release the tackler does not need to release the player and still has the right to play the ball.

Over analysis the situation looking for a reason to penalise--- is bad refereeing -- Penalise the obvious not the obscure --a referee should remember in the coarse of game he will fail to penalise more offences that those he penalises -- in the field of play decision and advantage is with the attacking team -- in the goal area the decision goes to the defending team with advantage to the attacking team -- the ball is held up the defending team kick possession to the attacking team the attacking regain possession.

And the penalty against Hume is definitely an obscure decision and not obvious offence.
Jesus read law 14 ffs, theres a whole section defining when a tackle is over and its not what we refer to it as complete. But it's not relevant to this. All we have to accept is it was a tackle (by JS), therefore law 14 applied.

Also read the bit about the player releasing, passing or placing the ball. That includes placing it in goal (like in 8.2d).
Can I come out from behind the sofa yet?
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 24527
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by Dave »

Hume needs a pair of goalie gloves.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by rumncoke »

Except it wasn’t a tackle by JS because the player wasn’t held - - touch tip is not a tackle the player brought to ground doesn’t have release the ball but he must get to his feet immediately with the ball .

Did the player regain his feet or not after going to ground when JS failed to hold him if he did then J Hume had the right to tackle if not then the Glasgow player committed an offence moving to score after going to ground because failed to get to his feet immediately

The point is BR the reason and the offence where totally obscure to 90% of the spectators and the players that the referee then considered a player should be carded in those circumstances defies common sense it ranks on a power with the red given to Payne for an offence he never committed ie he never attempted to tackle

As I have said referees fail to penalise many obvious offence and then suddenly look for some obscure offence which is neither clear or obvious .
The fact that many at the game ahadn’t a clue why the penalty was awarded is ample proof of that fact.

I am sure the “ offence “ happens frequently but to be honest I have never seen a referee penalise it .
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 23443
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: Ulster v Glasgow

Post by Snipe Watson »

rumncoke wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 8:12 pm Except it wasn’t a tackle by JS because the player wasn’t held - - touch tip is not a tackle the player brought to ground doesn’t have release the ball but he must get to his feet immediately with the ball .

Did the player regain his feet or not after going to ground when JS failed to hold him if he did then J Hume had the right to tackle if not then the Glasgow player committed an offence moving to score after going to ground because failed to get to his feet immediately

The point is BR the reason and the offence where totally obscure to 90% of the spectators and the players that the referee then considered a player should be carded in those circumstances defies common sense it ranks on a power with the red given to Payne for an offence he never committed ie he never attempted to tackle

As I have said referees fail to penalise many obvious offence and then suddenly look for some obscure offence which is neither clear or obvious .
The fact that many at the game ahadn’t a clue why the penalty was awarded is ample proof of that fact.

I am sure the “ offence “ happens frequently but to be honest I have never seen a referee penalise it .
>flog
You're incorrigible Rumn
Post Reply