Ulster v Glasgow

[Dave]

The Glasgow player rolls himself into touch. Hume barely touches him. He doesn't lie on top of him nor does he tackle him. Hume does play the ball but the Glasgow player doesn't attempt to go for the line. He just rolls over. Should have been an Ulster lineout.



Shytehouse had a stinker.

[Snipe Watson]

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.

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.

Didn't see any illegality, but he wasn't held so could have got back up or reached to score. Not that it matters,

[rumncoke]

If the tackle was complete ???? then the glasonw player failed to release the ball after the tackle which would be a penalty to Ulster

The safest call to not look a w-nker was to say touch in goal -- try line drop out over analysis and your in sh-t.

arrived at by two simple questions was the ball grounded no
Was the player in touch in goal yes --

every other question then is an over an analysis .

KIss every time

[Snipe Watson]

For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents

Jacob didn't hold him at any point. He fell off him
Looks to me that he was trying to place the ball on the line when Hume came in, went off his feet and stopped him grounding the ball or getting up.

[Dave]

Knee on the ground. Tackle complete.

Screenshot_20210925-181115_Video Player.jpg (50.4 KiB) Viewed 927 times

[Snipe Watson]

Hume went off his feet.
That was the infringement.

[Dave]

Not unless there is a ruck. The ref said Hume lay on top of the player impeding him from scoring a try. That isn't what happened.

[Neill_M]

Full game on i player.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

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.

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.

[rumncoke]

I don't get "this Off his feet " sorry

Every tackler at some point could go off his feet -- if anything it could be a failure to release after the tackle -- accept the tackle was made to prevent a touch down and grounding of the ball and there is nothing in the Laws which says preventing a grounding of the ball is illegal.

The fact is that the tackle and prevention of grounding was a continuous event and not two separate events just as in the same way as the tackled player was tackled in the process of grounding and therefore release of the ball was not a required after the tackle because it is a continuous event. ( despite the fact the tackle is the field of play and not with the goal area )

i.e. if Hume is guilty of an offence Under law 14 -5 then the tackled player is equally guilty of an offence under 14.7 ( non release and playing the ball forward )

thus keep the decision simple was the ball grounded -- did the ball carrier end in touch or touch in goal

As stated the fact is if the " the penalty try was awarded " for Hume landing on the player then the still above shows clearly the decision was a A typical "Sh-tehouse" bit of "bull---T"

To many referees are over analysing try scoring situations or making the laws up as the go along it happen during the Saracens game as well it is not a one of occurrence .

[BR]

If the tackle was complete ???? then the glasonw player failed to release the ball after the tackle which would be a penalty to Ulster

The safest call to not look a w-nker was to say touch in goal -- try line drop out over analysis and your in sh-t.

arrived at by two simple questions was the ball grounded no
Was the player in touch in goal yes --

every other question then is an over an analysis .

KIss every time

The tackle was 'complete'; not the tackle was 'over'. In other words it was a tackle and tackle laws applied. Ref and I thought so, but folk here seem to disagree (screengrab above favours me and the ref). In a tackle he is still allowed to place the ball.

[rumncoke]

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 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.

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.

Law 14 actually says nothing other then the Tackled player must release the ball and play it in any direction except forward .

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

[Snipe Watson]

I don't get "this Off his feet " sorry

Every tackler at some point could go off his feet -- if anything it could be a failure to release after the tackle -- accept the tackle was made to prevent a touch down and grounding of the ball and there is nothing in the Laws which says preventing a grounding of the ball is illegal.

The fact is that the tackle and prevention of grounding was a continuous event and not two separate events just as in the same way as the tackled player was tackled in the process of grounding and therefore release of the ball was not a required after the tackle because it is a continuous event. ( despite the fact the tackle is the field of play and not with the goal area )

i.e. if Hume is guilty of an offence Under law 14 -5 then the tackled player is equally guilty of an offence under 14.7 ( non release and playing the ball forward )

thus keep the decision simple was the ball grounded -- did the ball carrier end in touch or touch in goal

As stated the fact is if the " the penalty try was awarded " for Hume landing on the player then the still above shows clearly the decision was a A typical "Sh-tehouse" bit of "bull---T"

To many referees are over analysing try scoring situations or making the laws up as the go along it happen during the Saracens game as well it is not a one of occurrence .

You cannot tackle a player who is already on the ground.

[rumncoke]

Snipe do you realise how stupid that statement is -- i am holding the ball and crawling from my 22 to the opponents 22 and nobody can tackle me .

I must allow a player who has gone dd ground to lift a ball the opportunity to get to his feet I can't belly flop on him which is a total different situation from a player who has been tackled but not held still moving forward he is not picking the ball up>

[Snipe Watson]

Snipe do you realise how stupid that statement is -- i am holding the ball and crawling from my 22 to the opponents 22 and nobody can tackle me .

I must allow a player who has gone dd ground to lift a ball the opportunity to get to his feet I can't belly flop on him which is a total different situation from a player who has been tackled but not held still moving forward he is not picking the ball up>

But he cannot crawl along the ground. Can he?