The UAFC

Referees have to decide are they refereeing an infringement first and the outcome second .

For example on Friday night Rory was taken out underneath the posts after the whistle had blown for a penalty ? To Glasgow — some handbags at dawn stuff .

Lacey still gave the penalty to Glasgow — question if the offense had been a punch would Lacey have reversed his decision ?

The only difference in the offense being the manner of delivery .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No idea how Ulster didn't get a penalty out of that, shows how much Glasgow went beyond what should be penalised and got away with it time and again. I think more and more the touch judges have to have more influence on what people get away with, the game is too fast for one man in the middle.

There was an incident a few phases before where rory was in on a jackal and the Glasgow player came across the pitch sideways to take him out. So far outside the gate lacey probably didnt even notice.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

jean valjean wrote:There was an incident a few phases before where rory was in on a jackal and the Glasgow player came across the pitch sideways to take him out. So far outside the gate lacey probably didnt even notice.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Was that the one which resulted in a slight kerfuffle afterwards?

Dave wrote:

jean valjean wrote:There was an incident a few phases before where rory was in on a jackal and the Glasgow player came across the pitch sideways to take him out. So far outside the gate lacey probably didnt even notice.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Was that the one which resulted in a slight kerfuffle afterwards?

Was a few mins before i think. Haven't watched back but was near end of first half

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

The “ handbags “ was when Rory was taken out / block tackled off the ball , after the whistle had blown to award Glasgow a penalty as Ulster in Lacey’s opinion were slow to roll away .

That offense seemed to be only infringement in the ruck that Lacey wanted to penalize .

This meant that the attacking side could come in from the side / over the top and off their feet and play the opposition beyond the ruck virtually at every break down .

The only offense the attacking side couldn’t commit ,without penalty was failure to release ,which provided the player was not isolated - seldom could happen due to freedom provided to the attacking side .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having read the article in 42ie what grinds is how the application of these decisions will reduce concussion.

World Rugby's research shows that 76 % of concussions occur in the tackle with , and here is the the ace in the hole, 72 % of those injuries to the TACKLER -- not the ball carrier yet every penalty is being applied to the tackler .

Why are tacklers being penalised when the ball carrier is allowed to straight arm into the chin of a would be tackler?

Players are allowed to bind unto the ball carrier before the tackle ?

Jump foot forward towards the face or body of an oncoming player ?

Run "knee upping" into a tackle .

What is happening is the face on tackler" going low" is getting chinned with players knees why because the public love to see the aggressive tackle with the ball carrier being carried backwards .( some even think this is suitable for every occasion and tackle ) but is actually only possible if a the tackler is heavier , lower and moving faster than the ball carrier at the time of contract .

The only way to reduce injuries to the tackler is make it complusory for the ball carrier to attempt to hand off the tackler .
Thus eliminating the Bull Rush charge of a ball carrier DELIBERATELY AT a would be tackler which is why so many would be tacklers go high.

Failure to attempt a hand would then be an offence if the ball carrier runs at a tackler (note only if he runs at a would be tackler) failure to attempt to hand off would not be an offence when trying to pass or run round a defender.

It is not that the suggested review of penalties is wrong -- nobody approves of shoulder charges - no arms tackles above the waist or high tackles it just that the changes don't and won't eliminate injuries to tacklers.