Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Moderator: Moderators
- Cap'n Grumpy
- Rí na Cúige Uladh
- Posts: 15702
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
- Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Not the most recent of discussions, neither does it go back 50 years to when I was playing, but an interesting read nonetheless.
Apparently I'm not tho only one who considered jumping a tackle as dangerous play, and that included referees.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-6934.html
Also this:
https://rugbyreferee.net/2017/09/07/law ... mp-tackle/
Apparently I'm not tho only one who considered jumping a tackle as dangerous play, and that included referees.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-6934.html
Also this:
https://rugbyreferee.net/2017/09/07/law ... mp-tackle/
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
I'm just explaining why I'm right
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Yet to see faddes play really well for a consistent period. A fit squad and he wouldn’t be in the 23 so what’s the point of a second rate NIQ
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Excellent in the first half but Leinster really turned it up and we fell away the second half. Thought Jordi was brilliant and McIlroy is a cracking player- and he's just going to get better. Disappointed we couldn't stay with them but plenty of positive moments.
- Cap'n Grumpy
- Rí na Cúige Uladh
- Posts: 15702
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
- Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Yes that was good, but later he spoke to him again and told him to stop appealing - not long after telling both teams that the next person to appeal would be penalised.
Ref did have a good game, so I'm not going to have a gripe over one thing, but why make the statement if he's not prepared to follow through on it?
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
I'm just explaining why I'm right
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
I get that but surely there is better value for money than this guy? He is awful.kingofthehill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:05 pmUlster can’t afford to have 3 world class NIQs.thecrouch wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:02 pmIt's not harsh kingofthehill. Faddes does not justify a NIQ spot.kingofthehill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:58 pmWe aren’t and you’re being harsh.
McIlroy is a cracker.
His stats tonight:
Carries: 0 (ZERO)
Metres made: 0 (ZERO)
Tackles completed: 0 (ZERO)
Tackles missed: 3 (THREE)
Hooked on 56 minutes for a young lad.
Complete mince.
NUCIFORA IS A BELLEND
- John_e_boy
- Squire
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:14 pm
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
So next time my assessor asks me why I gave certain decisions, I can qoute an internet forum quoting an internet forum whilst all agree the law doesn't allow referees to penalise their bugbear.Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:09 pm Not the most recent of discussions, neither does it go back 50 years to when I was playing, but an interesting read nonetheless.
Apparently I'm not tho only one who considered jumping a tackle as dangerous play, and that included referees.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-6934.html
Also this:
https://rugbyreferee.net/2017/09/07/law ... mp-tackle/
- kingofthehill
- Red Hand Ambassador
- Posts: 2691
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:43 am
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Not talking about just tonight. It’s taken time for carter and Faddes to find their feet.thecrouch wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:14 pmI get that but surely there is better value for money than this guy? He is awful.kingofthehill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:05 pmUlster can’t afford to have 3 world class NIQs.thecrouch wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:02 pmIt's not harsh kingofthehill. Faddes does not justify a NIQ spot.kingofthehill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:58 pmWe aren’t and you’re being harsh.
McIlroy is a cracker.
His stats tonight:
Carries: 0 (ZERO)
Metres made: 0 (ZERO)
Tackles completed: 0 (ZERO)
Tackles missed: 3 (THREE)
Hooked on 56 minutes for a young lad.
Complete mince.
The King is dead. Long live the King.
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Faddes still seems to be searching for his feet.kingofthehill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:22 pmNot talking about just tonight. It’s taken time for carter and Faddes to find their feet.
NUCIFORA IS A BELLEND
- Cap'n Grumpy
- Rí na Cúige Uladh
- Posts: 15702
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
- Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
That's not what I was suggesting.John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:18 pmSo next time my assessor asks me why I gave certain decisions, I can qoute an internet forum quoting an internet forum whilst all agree the law doesn't allow referees to penalise their bugbear.Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:09 pm Not the most recent of discussions, neither does it go back 50 years to when I was playing, but an interesting read nonetheless.
Apparently I'm not tho only one who considered jumping a tackle as dangerous play, and that included referees.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-6934.html
Also this:
https://rugbyreferee.net/2017/09/07/law ... mp-tackle/
I was simply saying that a lot of other people, including referees were also wrong.
It's good to be part of a large group - if you look foolish, at least you are only one of many.
But I would suggest that the laws do in certain circumstances allow the referee to penalise their bugbear - the bugbear may not be illegal in itself, but if the referee deems it to be dangerous, he should penalise it.
Setting aside the specifics of "jumping into a tackle", if you saw a player doing "something" which you considered dangerous, would you not penalise that?
What I am suggesting is that over the years, things have changed in what is considered dangerous. 40-50 years ago, jumping into a tackle was considered dangerous as it was considered that the tackler could easily end up with a mouthful of studs through no fault of his own.
I would point out that many years ago, players did tackle much lower, so there was always a risk of chewing studs. The old, "tackle round the hips and drop to the ankles" technique was in vogue for quite a time on the principle that the tackled player could not run with his both legs pinned. In those days too the tackled player had to release the ball immediately - no setting it back for teammates etc. The laws of the breakdown have evolved over the years too.
For all I know, they may well be the same as they were back then, but the interpretation is definitely much different.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
I'm just explaining why I'm right
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Thanks.John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:39 pmSo their defence caused us to knock the ball on 3 times from a decent pass?Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:30 pmI would suggest that a lot of that was because of their defence and our inability to puncture that.John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:28 pmI won't give the opposition credit for our mistakes. Our missed tackles. Our tom kite decision-making. Our tom kite box kicking. Our high tackles. Our sleeping defensively.Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:26 pmYou giving no credit to Leinster's defence?John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:19 pm Cooney
Burns
Faddes
Coetzee
Maybe McCloskey
They lost us this game tonight.
They're not one of the best teams in Europe simply because some opposition players in every match don't play to their potential.
Their defence caused us to field a kick in our own 22 and not call a mark?m
Their defence caused us to jump 1m out of line and miss a tackle against Dave "useless" Kearney ?
Their defence caused a homeward-bound Saffer to commit 3 high tackles?
Their defence caused our #12 to run arouns the pitch doing his best headless chicken impression?
Etc ad nauseam.
Must you wait until Ulster lose before you reward us with your valuable insight?
- John_e_boy
- Squire
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:14 pm
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Let's be clear and simple. What you've written is about personal interpretation, safety standards, evolution of the game etc but it's just an opinion.Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:31 pmThat's not what I was suggesting.John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:18 pmSo next time my assessor asks me why I gave certain decisions, I can qoute an internet forum quoting an internet forum whilst all agree the law doesn't allow referees to penalise their bugbear.Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:09 pm Not the most recent of discussions, neither does it go back 50 years to when I was playing, but an interesting read nonetheless.
Apparently I'm not tho only one who considered jumping a tackle as dangerous play, and that included referees.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-6934.html
Also this:
https://rugbyreferee.net/2017/09/07/law ... mp-tackle/
I was simply saying that a lot of other people, including referees were also wrong.
It's good to be part of a large group - if you look foolish, at least you are only one of many.
But I would suggest that the laws do in certain circumstances allow the referee to penalise their bugbear - the bugbear may not be illegal in itself, but if the referee deems it to be dangerous, he should penalise it.
Setting aside the specifics of "jumping into a tackle", if you saw a player doing "something" which you considered dangerous, would you not penalise that?
What I am suggesting is that over the years, things have changed in what is considered dangerous. 40-50 years ago, jumping into a tackle was considered dangerous as it was considered that the tackler could easily end up with a mouthful of studs through no fault of his own.
I would point out that many years ago, players did tackle much lower, so there was always a risk of chewing studs. The old, "tackle round the hips and drop to the ankles" technique was in vogue for quite a time on the principle that the tackled player could not run with his both legs pinned. In those days too the tackled player had to release the ball immediately - no setting it back for teammates etc. The laws of the breakdown have evolved over the years too.
For all I know, they may well be the same as they were back then, but the interpretation is definitely much different.
As a ref, I'm not allowed an opinion. I must use the laws as my absolute basis whilst allowing room for when and how I apply those laws.
The 2 things you mentioned - Gibson-Park ducking into contact and a ball carrier jumping into contact are not outlawed in our game. So I can't make up tom kite as I go along.
They are great discussion points, but they are not (yet?) punishable.
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Jumping into a tackle has been penalised in lots of matches I have played in and watched even up to English Championship level. It may not be in the laws?, but it does get whistled!John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:42 pmLet's be clear and simple. What you've written is about personal interpretation, safety standards, evolution of the game etc but it's just an opinion.Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:31 pmThat's not what I was suggesting.John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:18 pmSo next time my assessor asks me why I gave certain decisions, I can qoute an internet forum quoting an internet forum whilst all agree the law doesn't allow referees to penalise their bugbear.Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:09 pm Not the most recent of discussions, neither does it go back 50 years to when I was playing, but an interesting read nonetheless.
Apparently I'm not tho only one who considered jumping a tackle as dangerous play, and that included referees.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-6934.html
Also this:
https://rugbyreferee.net/2017/09/07/law ... mp-tackle/
I was simply saying that a lot of other people, including referees were also wrong.
It's good to be part of a large group - if you look foolish, at least you are only one of many.
But I would suggest that the laws do in certain circumstances allow the referee to penalise their bugbear - the bugbear may not be illegal in itself, but if the referee deems it to be dangerous, he should penalise it.
Setting aside the specifics of "jumping into a tackle", if you saw a player doing "something" which you considered dangerous, would you not penalise that?
What I am suggesting is that over the years, things have changed in what is considered dangerous. 40-50 years ago, jumping into a tackle was considered dangerous as it was considered that the tackler could easily end up with a mouthful of studs through no fault of his own.
I would point out that many years ago, players did tackle much lower, so there was always a risk of chewing studs. The old, "tackle round the hips and drop to the ankles" technique was in vogue for quite a time on the principle that the tackled player could not run with his both legs pinned. In those days too the tackled player had to release the ball immediately - no setting it back for teammates etc. The laws of the breakdown have evolved over the years too.
For all I know, they may well be the same as they were back then, but the interpretation is definitely much different.
As a ref, I'm not allowed an opinion. I must use the laws as my absolute basis whilst allowing room for when and how I apply those laws.
The 2 things you mentioned - Gibson-Park ducking into contact and a ball carrier jumping into contact are not outlawed in our game. So I can't make up tom kite as I go along.
They are great discussion points, but they are not (yet?) punishable.
Respect
A cavalier among pork swordsmen.
A cavalier among pork swordsmen.
- Cap'n Grumpy
- Rí na Cúige Uladh
- Posts: 15702
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
- Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Correct - I thought this place was somewhere where we are allowed to express opinions.John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:42 pm Let's be clear and simple. What you've written is about personal interpretation, safety standards, evolution of the game etc but it's just an opinion.
In other words, when you allow room for when and how I apply those laws, i.e. you are forming an opinion.John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:42 pm As a ref, I'm not allowed an opinion. I must use the laws as my absolute basis whilst allowing room for when and how I apply those laws.
I suspect rugby does not frame the laws in the same way as footy, but the same considerations come into play. In football, many laws start with or include the phrase, "in the opinion of the referee". I suggest even if the words are not written in rugby laws, they are implicit.
Correct, you are not allowed to act outside the laws of the game. As in footy (I suspect) you are there to administer the laws, not necessarily to agree with them or to decide which you will apply, or not apply. However, in (probably) every occasion you put your whistle to your mouth, or play on, you are basing that on an opinion - an opinion that you consider what has just happened, contravened the laws ... or didn't. Others might have a different opinion. Either because they have a different viewpoint and saw or didn't see exactly the same as you, or because they simply disagree that an offence occurred ... or didn't. That's why different referees give different outcomes, or disagree at times. They form opinions about what has just happened.
It's also how some referees are "better" than others - they form an opinion on how and when to penalise. If you go by the book, the games might just be penalty after penalty. Good refs do so in the spirit of and in sympathy with the game and form an opinion on which offences to penalise - hopefully evenhandedly. In general I have heard it said that you should only penalise an offence which has a meaningful effect on the play - but to do that requires an opinion.
I have already conceded that - in my first response if you care to go back and read it. My assertion was wrong, and I have explained why I thought what I did, and indeed why others have thought the same. I have also shown why I believe at one time, one of those "offences" was considered an actual offence and rigorously penalised - ie because it fell under an existing law about dangerous play. I have however acknowledged (and bowed to your better knowledge) that my opinion was no longer valid in the modern game. I will go further and say it probably hasn't been valid for quite some time, but I was unaware of that. Thank-you for enlightening me. Several times. I could probably do similar with the other perceived "offence", but life is too short...John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:42 pm The 2 things you mentioned - Gibson-Park ducking into contact and a ball carrier jumping into contact are not outlawed in our game. So I can't make up tom kite as I go along.
I think we've covered that one - not yet punishable, nor currently punishable, but at one time were sometimes punishable ... not as specific offences in their own right, but in contravention of the laws of dangerous play and good sportsmanship based on how the game was played at that time. Because they were rigorously punished, "jumping a tackle" did go out of the game for quite some time. Obviously it has come back, but is no longer deemed dangerous because the rest of the game has moved on too.John_e_boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:42 pm They are great discussion points, but they are not (yet?) punishable.
Based on how you have now enlightened me, I would now disagree though that these are no longer great discussion points as I think we've covered them sufficiently. If others want to continue the discussion, that is of course up to them.
Happy New Year.
Oh, sorry - I forgot. several Ulster players have ruined that for you. Enough to bring you out of hiding to comment on it anyway.
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: 15702
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
- Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
Referees concerned are clearly idiots then.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
I'm just explaining why I'm right
Re: Leinster v Ulster Fri Jan 8th 7:35pm KO
OK Faddes is staying. Carter and Mathewson? Carter needed imo, if Doak jnr is the real deal then maybe Mathewson not renewing?kingofthehill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:58 pmWe aren’t and you’re being harsh.
McIlroy is a cracker.