[2013/14 Pro12] Round 21

[Amiga500]

First of all even BBC guys said Courts was a red and it was so don't know why and if the 2 lads can't bring him down safe then that is there problem not the refs.

If the tackled player contorts himself to get hands on the ground quickly (for the two reasons I mentioned above), then as a tackler, your faced with a virtually impossible task of keeping him from landing hands/chest first.

People ***** and moan about ref but he wasnt decisive factor

Wasn't a decisive factor? :huh:

What part of playing for 65 mins with 14 men (excluding yellows) is not decisive in a 2 point game?

 

[munstermuffin]

If the referee is unable to realise that Toner is looking to get the ball to ground to (1) avoid the choke tackle and (2) set up quick ball for the scrum-half; then he has no business near a pitch.

Sorry - but being able to read the laws in a rule book does not make you capable of interpreting them in the context of the game correctly.


Same with the pundits. Saying "Oh, yeah, he has went beyond the horizontal there, has to be a red", without having the wit to recognise that the ball carrier is looking to get to ground quickly to recycle so has dived beyond the horizontal does not make you correct.

But it's clear Ulster player didn't bring him to ground safely. When they take that chance that's the risk. Everyone knows it and I think even Ulster accept they made mistake so blaming ref. he was correct and maybe someone like you should read laws before commenting if that's your views on ref not being near field or better again take it up.

If Toner is looking to get to ground Court shouldn't have committed.
I said ref wasn't decisive as he didn't get calls wrong. He wasn't out of order. So how was he decisive. I explained from a refs view on all yellows too which he was correct. (I'm not ref but got clarification from an official in Rabo ranks).

And
"being able to read the laws in a rule book does not make you capable of interpreting them in the context of the game correctly."
Don't understand it but ref knew the rules and did apply them correctly so maybe you'd point out how he didn't? It's clear Court drove him down. It probably wasn't intentional or done with am alive but that doesn't matter to the ref

 

[Amiga500]

But it's clear Ulster player didn't bring him to ground safely. When they take that chance that's the risk. Everyone knows it and I think even Ulster accept they made mistake so blaming ref. he was correct and maybe someone like you should read laws before commenting if that's your views on ref not being near field or better again take it up.

I already feel I am wasting my time, but I'll try again.

If the player you are tacking twists and turns during your tackle to get their upper body closer to the ground to get the ball to the ground is it then your fault their body position goes beyond the horizontal?

If the onus remains 100% on the tackler, then what is to stop players deliberately seeking to twist themselves to get the opposition sent off?


Its a complete can of worms - you cannot legislate it in rules, the referee has to be allowed to interpret whose actions are decisive - reading the laws then applying them to the letter is completely and utterly the wrong thing to do.

If Toner is looking to get to ground Court shouldn't have committed.

So let him run through the line?

F__k me man. At least try and make a reasonable argument eh?



If you (and the rest that think this is a justified red) want to hide behind the wording in the rule book, go ahead. But in a couple of years you stop and wonder where on earth it all went wrong in the game, you've only yourselves to blame for not having the sense to apply the spirit of the law, if not the words.


Sure, for another example of the complete stupidity of the IRB and its "clarifications"; when yellow carding Rhy Ruddock, Pearce said "he landed on his side, and that is why it is only yellow".

Stop and consider that for a minute please. We now have the severity of the outcome being a factor in the sanction with both control over the outcome and intent to initiate the action being irrelevant.

The rules and their implementation are a complete f__king mess.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Personally I don't think Toner would have dived neck first onto the ground, but hey, that's just me. Second of all, why bother lifting him above horizontal? It's a risky tackle technique when you can drive a man backwards just as effectively and keep him relatively vertical.

 

[Peat]

Toner was using his hands/arms to break his fall. Was hardly a dive and ended up being pretty controlled and safe on his side.

By the laws that was probably a yellow card but by the protocols issued to refs it was a red card and we do know that protocol exists. Don't like it but it was a red. No point griping anyway.

Annoyed that ESPN haven't added the stats for this match yet.


Anyway, positive note - nice to see Paul Marshall resembling a real scrum-half again rather than the Ulster Road Runner.

 

[munstermuffin]

I already feel I am wasting my time, but I'll try again.

If the player you are tacking twists and turns during your tackle to get their upper body closer to the ground to get the ball to the ground is it then your fault their body position goes beyond the horizontal?

If the onus remains 100% on the tackler, then what is to stop players deliberately seeking to twist themselves to get the opposition sent off?


Its a complete can of worms - you cannot legislate it in rules, the referee has to be allowed to interpret whose actions are decisive - reading the laws then applying them to the letter is completely and utterly the wrong thing to do.




So let him run through the line?

F__k me man. At least try and make a reasonable argument eh?



If you (and the rest that think this is a justified red) want to hide behind the wording in the rule book, go ahead. But in a couple of years you stop and wonder where on earth it all went wrong in the game, you've only yourselves to blame for not having the sense to apply the spirit of the law, if not the words.


Sure, for another example of the complete stupidity of the IRB and its "clarifications"; when yellow carding Rhy Ruddock, Pearce said "he landed on his side, and that is why it is only yellow".

Stop and consider that for a minute please. We now have the severity of the outcome being a factor in the sanction with both control over the outcome and intent to initiate the action being irrelevant.

The rules and their implementation are a complete f__king mess.

Well simply put as was said by Feic. Why did Court bother go so high. And my point again what did the ref (that you've slated) do that was so wrong. Big difference too between side and head. But again your argument about ref is ridiculous especially when you say he's wrong but by law he's not. So why not say how? If laws are stupid that's not refs fault he's there to enforce laws which he did correctly so again how was ref so wrong?

 

[Amiga500]

Personally I don't think Toner would have dived neck first onto the ground, but hey, that's just me.

Toner adjusted his position in the air looking to get the ball back to ground for his scrum-half. He overtwisted and thus came down awkwardly.

Second of all, why bother lifting him above horizontal?

As you know, you look to lift anyone off their feet to eliminate their leg drive. If that player then starts moving around in your arms, its can be very hard to prevent them dominating their body position as the tackle concludes.

It's a risky tackle technique when you can drive a man backwards just as effectively and keep him relatively vertical.

No its not.

You try to eliminate their feet and bring them to ground it means a new phase which is much slower than leaving them standing to either drive on, set up a maul, or get a quick off load.

 

[Amiga500]

Toner was using his hands/arms to break his fall

At the conclusion of the tackle, Toner was indeed using his arms to break his fall:

But earlier in the tackle:


Tackle made, 5 men involved in one way or another (Dev Toner, Marty Moore, Shane Jennings, Tom Court and Rob Herring)



Toner CLEARLY ducks his head and shoulders down, wanting to get to ground. Not also the lack of legs, indicating Toner is hinging about his waist.


Still no legs bar a few toes, still hinging about his waist.


Finally, long past the vertical and the feet/ankles appear, but note they are way short of where they should be, indicating bent knees and still hinged waist.


Now the face plant.



So, in conclusion, if big Dev is not wanting to get to ground ASAP why stoop his head shoulders in pic 3 and why continue to hinge his waist?

Surely by:
- not giving the tacklers leverage (i.e. straightened legs) and
- by moving his centre of gravity well up his chest by tucking his legs

Dev bears some responsibility for how he landed. Certainly, in terms of physics, beyond pic 2, his body position in the remaining part of the tackle dominated the attitude at which he hit the ground.


I am NOT saying Tom Court did not bear some responsibility, and I am NOT saying it didn't deserve some form of sanction. But, if the laws put the onus entirely on the tackler despite any actions of the tackled, then the law is an ass.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Toner adjusted his position in the air looking to get the ball back to ground for his scrum-half. He overtwisted and thus came down awkwardly.

Responsibility lies with the tackler to put the man down safely. Court didn't do that, it hardly matters what Toner was doing.

As you know, you look to lift anyone off their feet to eliminate their leg drive. If that player then starts moving around in your arms, its can be very hard to prevent them dominating their body position as the tackle concludes.

You can lift someone off their feet without going over the horizontal.

No its not.

You don't think that lifting someone beyond the horizontal and then putting them down head/shoulder/neck first is risky technique?

Even aside from the risk of injury, it risks the tackler getting sent off. Which is what happened. So yes, risky.

You try to eliminate their feet and bring them to ground it means a new phase which is much slower than leaving them standing to either drive on, set up a maul, or get a quick off load.

I'm aware of why he tried to do it, his execution was poor.

 

[Amiga500]

Responsibility lies with the tackler to put the man down safely. Court didn't do that, it hardly matters what Toner was doing.

It very much matters what Toner is doing!

You can lift someone off their feet without going over the horizontal.

You don't think that lifting someone beyond the horizontal and then putting them down head/shoulder/neck first is risky technique?

I'll start again as I've not been clear in the original reply.

Lifting someone off the ground is a very effective way of removing their power. They aren't gonna leg pump a few more metres or get ruck momentum if they can't actually touch the ground.

Removing any approach to lift the tackled player off the ground no matter the scenario is gonna be detrimental to your overall tackling ability.

If they then twist in a manner not conducive to a horizontal set down, that is not solely the fault of the the tackler.

I would also say, look at Court's shoulders and elbows in the above series of pics. The shoulders stay at a fairly consistent height throughout the tackle and the elbows never come up.

He did not lift Toner much beyond the initial impact and nor did he try to twist Toner in the air.

I'm aware of why he tried to do it, his execution was poor.

Toner did not help. At all.


At some point in the scale of it, onus must pass from the tackling player to the tackled player. The rules don't acknowledge it, nor do they leave scope for the referee to acknowledge it either. Which is just plain wrong.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I'm sorry, but you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law in question. Section 10.4 (j) of the laws of the game state:

"Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play."

Note that there's no mention of the tackled player having any responsibility. Toner does not have to help. The onus is on the guy who lifts him off the ground to put him down safely. That isn't what happened and as such Court bears the responsibility.

 

[munstermuffin]

Amiga do you actually know laws? Serious question

 

[Amiga500]

I'm sorry, but you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law in question. Section 10.4 (j) of the laws of the game state:

Which is of course why I said earlier:

The rules as they are are too specific, the referees now cannot apply, or seemingly don't possess, any common sense. You cannot legislate for everything in the rule book, so don't try!

 

[Amiga500]

Amiga do you actually know laws? Serious question

Nah, no. Can't read. Totally illiterate. My typing of this post is a minor miracle.


But, on the plus side, I'm not a sheep that makes himself a slave to a few sentences on a bit of paper and do try and think for myself to determine if something was deserved or not.


If the PRL haven't already f__ked the game long term, this attitude of "letter of the law" will definitely do it. It'll not be long before you've got the clowns on TV saying "ohh, definite contact there, he had to go". Nothing more sickening.

 

[munstermuffin]

Nah, no. Can't read. Totally illiterate. My typing of this post is a minor miracle.


But, on the plus side, I'm not a sheep that makes himself a slave to a few sentences on a bit of paper and do try and think for myself to determine if something was deserved or not.


If the PRL haven't already f__ked the game long term, this attitude of "letter of the law" will definitely do it. It'll not be long before you've got the clowns on TV saying "ohh, definite contact there, he had to go". Nothing more sickening.

No sheep just simply asking which part of game did ref get wrong per laws of game?
Like simply put:
Did Court lift player above horizonal? Yes
Did he bring player down safe? No
Did he know risk?
Yes as every player does
Does it matter how Toner wiggles (per laws)?
No

So can you answer how ref was wrong. Not what you think as ref doesn't go by the "what Amiga thinks laws" but IRB laws.

Maybe if you knew enough you'd know there's big difference between spear/tip tackle and contact. I've seen someone loose use of their left arm from 1 so maybe that's why I support safety of guys.