Aviva Premiership 2017/18 Round 19

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

God find Grayson voice so grating.

Flats is made for punditry but can't say the same for Grayson.

 

[Which Tyler]

We're really not to convince each other here. To the point that I'm not even sure we're talking about the same incident.
The law absolutely states that you have to wrap your arms in a tackle. Not doing so isn't allowed, regardless of excuses.
ETA:
You may not care for the laws. But they're still the laws, and when discussing if something is within or without the laws, then the laws matter.

You are absolutely free o disagree with the laws, but then talk about disagreeing with the laws, not that the laws weren't broken

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

If this is a try then what a finish!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

So close, that would've been an insane try

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Unfortunate...

 

[ratsapprentice]

We're really not to convince each other here. To the point that I'm not even sure we're talking about the same incident.
The law absolutely states that you have to wrap your arms in a tackle. Not doing so isn't allowed, regardless of excuses.
ETA:
You may not care for the laws. But they're still the laws, and when discussing if something is within or without the laws, then the laws matter.

You are absolutely free o disagree with the laws, but then talk about disagreeing with the laws, not that the laws weren't broken

Only one arm wrapped, contact was on the ball.

That tackle occurs probably tens of times every game.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

.

Only one arm wrapped, contact was on the ball.

That tackle occurs probably tens of times every game.

Trouble tends to be only the PI players who get picked up on it by refs on the whole.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

HAHAHAH Charteris looks like a giant on channel 5

 

[Which Tyler]

Only one arm wrapped, contact was on the ball.

That tackle occurs probably tens of times every game.

They happen frequently, that doesn't make them legal. People also go in off their feet a lot, or run around offside, or any number of illegal acts.

I don't even know what your argument is anymore, it seems to be simultaneously that he did wrap, that he didn't wrap, that he didn't wrap because of safety, that it was legal, that it was illegal but shouldn't be, and that its legal because it happens a lot.

 

[Which Tyler]

.


Trouble tends to be only the PI players who get picked up on it by refs on the whole.

Now that is a perfectly valid complaint ,though I'd also suggest that the PI players have historically earned their reputation, it shouldn't affect the decision making occasion by occasion

 

[ratsapprentice]

He wrapped with one arm.

He didn't wrap with both because doing so necessarily pushed his face into a dangerous position.

 

[Fuzzy du Plessis]

Bath are playing well but I'm more disappointed with that half from Tigers than I have been for a while. The transformation over the last 3 months came from playing simple rugby close to the ruck, but today it's reverted back to shovelling the ball behind totally unconvincing decoy pods and running diagonally across the pitch. Even with the 2 man advantage Thompstone's try came 50cm away from the corner flag, such was the lack of space created. Big turnaround needed, luckily the scrums have kept the scoreboard much closer than it otherwise would've been.

 

[RugbyMarvel]

He wrapped with one arm.

He didn't wrap with both because doing so necessarily pushed his face into a dangerous position.

And that's why it should have been a penalty.

The law states you have to wrap your arms.

He shouldn't have been making the hit if he couldn't do so.

 

[Which Tyler]

He wrapped with one arm.

He didn't wrap with both because doing so necessarily pushed his face into a dangerous position.

Ok, I disagree, I think his left arm was tucked in nicely to harden up the point of his shoulder, with his right arm arriving too late to be called part of the tackle but just about enough to give Barnes a decision to make. I think it was illegal, but im pretty sanguine about it.

I absolutely disagree that that's why he didn't wrap. He didn't wrap because he wanted to hit the ball with a hard shoulder and dislodge the ball. I also disagree that using his left arm have put his head in dangers way, and a I further disagree that that would be relevant in deciding legality or otherwise of the tackle. I further disagree that anything he did was necessary to tackle, as the tackle had already been made (which he wouldn't know at the point of commitment)

 

[ratsapprentice]

Of course he was trying to harden the point of his shoulder, if you think that should be illegal then I think you should also say doing anything to increase power in the contact by a carrier is also illegal. You're calling for enforcing passive tackling.

If you think it should be illegal to be a second man into a tackle then fair enough... but I doubt you are.

 

[Which Tyler]

Nope, I've said nothing of the sort.

Read the post, and you'll have an idea of what I'm saying

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Are these really abnormally long penalty advantages?

Seems normal length to me, but might be remembering wrong.

 

[Which Tyler]

Are these really abnormally long penalty advantages?

Seems normal length to me, but might be remembering wrong.

I think the first one or two were, but then it's more the commentators than the ref

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Are these really abnormally long penalty advantages?

Seems normal length to me, but might be remembering wrong.

Normal to me as well
Maybe comms keep thinking they're knock on advantages or something

 

[ratsapprentice]

Nope, I've said nothing of the sort.

Read the post, and you'll have an idea of what I'm saying

You absolutely have, you're suggesting it's wrong that he's attempted to put himself in a position where his shoulder is actually applying enough force to counteract the carrier's own power.

We disagree about the result of him bringing in his other arm.

If you aren't taking issue with him being the second man in then it's irrellevant.