Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
2021 British & Irish Lions Tour
British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="smartcooky" data-source="post: 866879" data-attributes="member: 20605"><p>Is it hypocritical though?</p><p></p><p>I see the Faumuina tackle as a completely different scenario. In his case, he is committed to a tackle, and then when Sinkler jumps unexpectedly, he has absolutely no time react and pull out. Its more a like a late tackle. We all understand (I hope) that a tackler must commit to a tackle, or his chances of injuring himself will skyrocket - anyone who doesn't understand that hasn't played the game. As referees, we accept that if a player is hit fractionally late, and we are satisfied that the tackler was committed and could not have pulled out, we call play on.</p><p></p><p>However, with the Owens case, and the coat-hangar tackle scenario, we have a situation where the player did had time to react, and when he did, his reaction was to commit an infringement. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, this is a different subject, but for some time, I have been of the firm belief that WR should try doing away with allowing for the scoring of points from Technical Infringements, so that kicks at goal would only be allowed for infringements of Dangerous Play and Foul Play, i.e. anything covered by Law 10.</p><p></p><p>This would require a change in the Law either to allow for Free Kicks to have a gain in ground without the throw in, or the introduction of a new class of sanction (which I call an Indirect Penalty Kick) which would have all the rights of a Penalty Kick (gain in ground, throw in to the line out, take a scrum option etc) but would not be allowed to be kicked at goal, so</p><p></p><p>► All current Penalty Kicks for Dangerous play or Foul Play (Law 10) remain Penalty kicks - note that infringements such as collapsing the scrum, ruck or maul are also listed in Law 10.4 (k)</p><p>► All current Free Kicks for minor infringements remain Free Kicks</p><p>► All current Penalty Kicks for Technical Infringements such as offside, hands in the ruck, not releasing/rolling away, side entry at the tackle etc) become Indirect Penalty Kicks</p><p></p><p>Some people have criticized this idea as being a <em>"cheat's charter"</em>, but I do not believe it would be. The term <em>"cheat's charter"</em> implies players repeatedly infringing knowing that they won't give away a kickable opportunity. Remember that repeat infringements are covered by Law 10.2, so teams that do so are going to find their sanctions escalated very quickly. They are also going to find themselves disadvantaged by giving up a lot of field position... and you can't keep giving away field position without eventually giving up scoring opportunities as well.</p><p></p><p>I certainly believe something like this is worth a trial.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smartcooky, post: 866879, member: 20605"] Is it hypocritical though? I see the Faumuina tackle as a completely different scenario. In his case, he is committed to a tackle, and then when Sinkler jumps unexpectedly, he has absolutely no time react and pull out. Its more a like a late tackle. We all understand (I hope) that a tackler must commit to a tackle, or his chances of injuring himself will skyrocket - anyone who doesn't understand that hasn't played the game. As referees, we accept that if a player is hit fractionally late, and we are satisfied that the tackler was committed and could not have pulled out, we call play on. However, with the Owens case, and the coat-hangar tackle scenario, we have a situation where the player did had time to react, and when he did, his reaction was to commit an infringement. Well, this is a different subject, but for some time, I have been of the firm belief that WR should try doing away with allowing for the scoring of points from Technical Infringements, so that kicks at goal would only be allowed for infringements of Dangerous Play and Foul Play, i.e. anything covered by Law 10. This would require a change in the Law either to allow for Free Kicks to have a gain in ground without the throw in, or the introduction of a new class of sanction (which I call an Indirect Penalty Kick) which would have all the rights of a Penalty Kick (gain in ground, throw in to the line out, take a scrum option etc) but would not be allowed to be kicked at goal, so ► All current Penalty Kicks for Dangerous play or Foul Play (Law 10) remain Penalty kicks - note that infringements such as collapsing the scrum, ruck or maul are also listed in Law 10.4 (k) ► All current Free Kicks for minor infringements remain Free Kicks ► All current Penalty Kicks for Technical Infringements such as offside, hands in the ruck, not releasing/rolling away, side entry at the tackle etc) become Indirect Penalty Kicks Some people have criticized this idea as being a [I]"cheat's charter"[/I], but I do not believe it would be. The term [I]"cheat's charter"[/I] implies players repeatedly infringing knowing that they won't give away a kickable opportunity. Remember that repeat infringements are covered by Law 10.2, so teams that do so are going to find their sanctions escalated very quickly. They are also going to find themselves disadvantaged by giving up a lot of field position... and you can't keep giving away field position without eventually giving up scoring opportunities as well. I certainly believe something like this is worth a trial. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
2021 British & Irish Lions Tour
British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat
Top