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
International Test Matches
[June Tests 2018: 3rd Test] Australia vs. Ireland (23/06/2018)
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="RedruthRFC" data-source="post: 910235" data-attributes="member: 58362"><p>I'd have thought that would be many people's get reaction, it certainly was mine. I don't see how anyone could argue that this practice doesn't increase the danger in an already dangerous situation. However having thought it through, I think it would be a great shame if this had to happen. The fact that the attacking player is much more likely to be running on to the ball while the defender is much more likely to be static already tips the scales massively in the favour of the attacking player. The option to lift the defender redresses the balance somewhat.</p><p></p><p>The fact remains that as others have pointed out, if Folau hadn't played POM after failing to win the ball, POM wouldn't have hit the deck. I'm often quick to criticise the laws for providing sufficient guidance (including a few recent aerial contests), but in this situation, it seems to me that the existing laws are perfectly adequate and when applied to their letter deal with the situation perfectly well.</p><p></p><p>I suspect that we'll see more and more lifting of defenders in these situations, so the safety of doing so needs to be considered, but unfortunately it's something that's tough to do proactively. At the current time, I would say that reminding players of the laws as they stand, in particular reinforcing the attacking player's responsibility for their actions would be sufficient.</p><p></p><p>FWIW, looking at the reports on this, it appears that the "crime" was multiple incidents, one of which should have received a yellow at the time, hence the ban.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RedruthRFC, post: 910235, member: 58362"] I'd have thought that would be many people's get reaction, it certainly was mine. I don't see how anyone could argue that this practice doesn't increase the danger in an already dangerous situation. However having thought it through, I think it would be a great shame if this had to happen. The fact that the attacking player is much more likely to be running on to the ball while the defender is much more likely to be static already tips the scales massively in the favour of the attacking player. The option to lift the defender redresses the balance somewhat. The fact remains that as others have pointed out, if Folau hadn't played POM after failing to win the ball, POM wouldn't have hit the deck. I'm often quick to criticise the laws for providing sufficient guidance (including a few recent aerial contests), but in this situation, it seems to me that the existing laws are perfectly adequate and when applied to their letter deal with the situation perfectly well. I suspect that we'll see more and more lifting of defenders in these situations, so the safety of doing so needs to be considered, but unfortunately it's something that's tough to do proactively. At the current time, I would say that reminding players of the laws as they stand, in particular reinforcing the attacking player's responsibility for their actions would be sufficient. FWIW, looking at the reports on this, it appears that the "crime" was multiple incidents, one of which should have received a yellow at the time, hence the ban. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
[June Tests 2018: 3rd Test] Australia vs. Ireland (23/06/2018)
Top