By dinogyro
#37203
Not even on balance, I thoroughly enjoyed that game. What an atmosphere!

For the Danny Care try (OMG, I really dislike him, sorry) I am sure I saw Curtis Langdon immediately urging players to take up a defensive position. At least one player was alive to the threat.

Thanks for the report and for the time you take to do it.
User avatar
By Major Bloodnok
#37208
Danny Care is, like so many scrum-halves, a gobby, irritating little git. He is also – annoyingly – bloody good.

I think Bev was the only one close enough to get hands on him, but he was going backwards because he seemed unsure whether or not he was onside.
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#37212
Thank you, sir. Top job again. My thoughts on Mr Foley synchronise almost perfectly with yours. He still guesses at what's going on in the scrum though. Re: taking the kicks for goal instead of going for the line, I blame @Olyy, he's been harping on so long about the one against Glaws, I reckon Alex caved :mrgreen:
By H's D
#37238
A superb summary.

One additional thing came from the game for me: imho the way some refs interpret the foul play rule needs amending.
The last desperate tackle to stop Raffi scoring was high and consisted of a hand around the neck with full bodyweight force applied, and pulled him up short, but R's immediate stretch out got the ball to the line.
Had the tackler actually stopped Raffi from scoring it would have rightfully been a penalty try according to the lawbook.
So why wasn't a penalty try awarded anyway?
Until such things are thought of, foul play will persist in such situations endangering players unnecessarily. That better decision would have left Quins with nothing from the game. The loss of the losing bonus point a reason to not do it next time...
Image
By Clutch
#37254
It’s a weird and baffling one for me.

You can cheat but ineffectively with it resulting in a try in the corner with a tough conversion. Or you can cheat more effectively and it’s a yellow and an auto 7 points. Why not allow a conversion in front if their is foul play where a pen try would have resulted had a team not scored.
User avatar
By Flumpty
#37259
Given the angle that the ref and the AR's were at, they wouldn't have been able to see the attempted decaptitation of Raffi. So it would be down to the TMO to spot (potential) foul play.

Friday nights TMO was Ian Tempest. The prosecution rests its case :yes: :hug:
By H's D
#37278
DaveAitch wrote:Why not just have touch walking-rugby? Far safer, and no arguments on a tackle if an LED lights up on contact with another player.
Why not just go back to 'Shrove Tuesday' rules, or play Harpastum (in which use of the Gladius was said to be permitted) for proper blood sport? Mind you I really wouldn't put it past Emperor Boris or Rishi to reintroduce Colisseums & Gladiatorial games to try and maintain the ruling junta's waning popularity....and i think we could all guess who they would use in place of Christians...... :nottalking: :sad:

The laws of foul play in rugby are fine as they are ; we just need consistency in interpretation. That picture alone is evidence enough to result in careful re-assessment and a citing if the laws are applied consistently.
Last edited by H's D on Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By H's D
#37289
Please show me that in the laws. It's possible mitigation only, particularly against the severest of sanctions, is it not?
Mitigation only applies after laws are broken. There was no sudden dropping down by Raffi, he merely went low driving towards the line, the tackler still has an obligation to go just as low himself.

As the linked article indicates, the way laws are being interpreted currently around head/neck isn't it more of a discussion/decision about red/yellow rather than yellow/no foul? Hence one can't defend Ross's yellow. The fact that his was a reflex high tackle mitigated the potential red card offence. A forceful swinging arm and Ross would have been red-carded.
Surely the tackle on Raffi was an illegal (foul) tackle worthy of a yellow and penalty try if successfully executed.
Flumpty liked this
By Clutch
#37303
When he’s that low it tends to be put down to rugby incident. Referring to the laws hardly ever works as an argument ironically. The high tackle framework isn’t in the law book I assume? We will never know anyway as he scored the try.
By DaveAitch
#37309
The linked article constantly refers to "rules" and is dated 2018. It is a blog: someone's interpretation of the laws.
The actual Laws are available but are ignored in large part by the 'powers' as the interpretation is changed to suit the mood. There are as many laws that are bent, or even ignored, than there are those that are adhered to, and all with the blessing of the 'powers'.

Edited to add an "are".
Last edited by DaveAitch on Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
By ageinghoody
#37315
Looking at the replay, that hand first made contact on Raffi's shoulder and only slid up to the position in the photo as a result of his downward motion. Not direct to the head and minimal force.

I'd certainly have been severely dischuffed if even a penalty had been given against us for something like that, much less a card.
By H's D
#37335
One certainly wouldn't like it, but the laws are in fact fairly prescriptive and clear.
2021 World Rugby laws of the game download
Law 9 Foul play: Dangerous tackling
13. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.
(my bold) and
Law 8 Scoring: Penalty try
3. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.
Guidance for Refereeing interpretation has been stipulating that there should be less mitigation for circumstance and lack of intent for some time....all driven by concerns for player welfare. Player safety is paramount and avoiding dangerous play is the responsibility of the tackler.
Many supporters don't like it , but even more don't like it when this new era of law interpretation is applied thoughtlessly or inconsistently. Which is what my first post was all about.....
User avatar
By Yareet
#37336
H's D wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:58 pm
One certainly wouldn't like it, but the laws are in fact fairly prescriptive and clear.
2021 World Rugby laws of the game download
Law 9 Foul play: Dangerous tackling
13. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.
(my bold) and
Law 8 Scoring: Penalty try
3. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.
Guidance for Refereeing interpretation has been stipulating that there should be less mitigation for circumstance and lack of intent for some time....all driven by concerns for player welfare. Player safety is paramount and avoiding dangerous play is the responsibility of the tackler.
Many supporters don't like it , but even more don't like it when this new era of law interpretation is applied thoughtlessly or inconsistently. Which is what my first post was all about.....
I may be missing something (I’m a simple prop) but that description would seem to indicate that we couldn’t be awarded a penalty try.

Raffi scored so Quins’ actions manifestly didn’t prevent a try being scored. Similarly, Raffi was already diving for the line, I fear it would be hard to argue that he would probably have scored in a more advantageous position.

The image would also appear to show that Riley (?) is about 18” off the floor. Nobody could argue he has started high/upright and stayed there. What impact did the Quins tackle/Raffi’s dive have on Raffi’s height once Riley was committed?
By H's D
#37338
ageinghoody wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:19 am
Looking at the replay, that hand first made contact on Raffi's shoulder and only slid up to the position in the photo as a result of his downward motion. Not direct to the head and minimal force.

I'd certainly have been severely dischuffed if even a penalty had been given against us for something like that, much less a card.
An interesting view of "minimal force"! Both from the photo and clip I got the impression he was still applying 'as much force as he could' to stop Raffi's drive, even after his hand slid up. Unless of ocurse you meant 'the minimum to stop him short of the line', which he, of course, did!
The 'slid up' defence is specifically excluded in both law 13 and guidance for referees these days in dangerous play decisions , but is certainly still used in mitigation against a straight red card, thank god!
By H's D
#37339
.........I fear it would be hard to argue that he would probably have scored in a more advantageous position..........
Agreed, unless you discount Riley's presence completely and rule out any form of tackle by him. Virtually untouched by Riley, Raffi might then have been able to delay grounding the ball and scoot round nearer the posts.
Under current laws and intepretations i find it difficult to see how Riley, or anyone else, could have legally tackled him, with any material effect, driving that fast and low, so close to the line.

I suppose it's more about the penalty try requirement that a try is successfully prevented by foul play. I see no logical reason why any act of dangerous foul play committed in an attempt to prevent scoring, as the score is made, doesn't result in exactly the same penalty. IF it's all to make the game safer....
#37340
I see plenty of try scorers getting fouled during / after the act of scoring to be honest.

lots of late and reckless hits as defenders fly in to try to stop the grounding. seems to get ignored compared to if it happened elsewhere on the pitch.
User avatar
By Flumpty
#37343
Shaftesbury Shark wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:59 pm
I see plenty of try scorers getting fouled during / after the act of scoring to be honest.

lots of late and reckless hits as defenders fly in to try to stop the grounding. seems to get ignored compared to if it happened elsewhere on the pitch.
Manu got a red in 2020 whilst playing for England, for a "last ditch" tackle.

On a similar vein, how many players should be carded for an serious/team indiscretion in open play, for the card to be "forgtotten about", when a try gets scored immediately afterwards.

My 2p worth, was it a high tackle that would have been treated as a penalty offence anywhere else on the pitch - yes.
If Raffi hadn't grounded the ball clearly, would it have been referred to the TMO - yes.
Would the TMO have seen that Raffi was prevented from grounding the ball because an oppo player was giving him a neck cuddle whilst pulling him backwards - yes.
Penalty.
Did the foul play prevent a probable try being scored - yes. Penalty try and yellow card.

p.s. seatbelt tackles aren't being pinged as much as last season
By DaveAitch
#37345
Law 9.17

A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground.


This law means: a person who is walking can always be tackled. Running, however, has a float phase when both feet are off the ground. This float phase lengthens as speed increases. So a running player can not be tackled a percentage of the time. Also if a player dives for the line in the air he can not be tackled.
I'm just wondering why that isn't being quoted with all the other laws.
By DaveAitch
#37348
dinogyro wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:29 pm
But we see quite a lot of players diving for the corner and being tackled whilst in the air and the ref never looks for foul play by the tackler.
That's the problem. There are the Laws, so beloved by some, and then there are the interpretation of them, which is what actually matters. There is a law that states about the ball being put in straight. Never applied, unless it's too embarrassing not to. Early on there was a Sale throw-in that was way off-line. The Quins forward had to go across the line to attempt to take the ball. Who did the ref penalise? Why Quins, of course. If that incident had been refereed by the law book the the Raffi incident wouldn't have happened.
User avatar
By Flumpty
#37349
dinogyro wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:29 pm
But we see quite a lot of players diving for the corner and being tackled whilst in the air and the ref never looks for foul play by the tackler.
Then there are players who jump into tackle and miss getting pinged as well..........
By H's D
#37354
Flumpty/Shaftsbury, we concur! :lol :joy:
As Clutch indicated, weird and baffling, even if one applies commonsense.
Whereas DaveAitch prefers pedantry...
User avatar
By Flumpty
#37355
Shaftesbury Shark wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:59 pm
I see plenty of try scorers getting fouled during / after the act of scoring to be honest.
lots of late and reckless hits as defenders fly in to try to stop the grounding. seems to get ignored compared to if it happened elsewhere on the pitch.
& dropping your arm/knee onto the back of the try scorer after the ball has been grounded.
By DaveAitch
#37356
Flumpty wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:47 pm
who'd be a ref !?!!?!?!

Been there, done that, wore lots of T-shirts etc, etc.
Exactly..and then Back-Room lawyers hours poring over what it says, or doesn't say, in the laws to prove a point.

Anyway, one always knows when the point has been won when one is accused of pedantry.
By SimonG
#37359
DaveAitch wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:54 pm
Flumpty wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:47 pm
who'd be a ref !?!!?!?!

Been there, done that, wore lots of T-shirts etc, etc.
Exactly..and then Back-Room lawyers hours poring over what it says, or doesn't say, in the laws to prove a point.
....
To be fair they do prove a point but not the one they think they are proving!
By H's D
#37361
This discussion has ALWAYS been about consistency in the current refereeing interpretation of the 'dangerous play' laws as seen in the climax of that match Daveaitch, but to do that you are obliged to at least start from 'the basic framework' of the laws themselves. One or two early responders didn't seem to know the relevant law, which was my only reason to post a link to the current laws and to quote them, having also been criticised for merely posting a link to a blog article about the progressive tightening of foul play law interpretation, which i reckon commenced around 2018.
IF the driving force behind the recent refereeing edicts, and the focus on cutting dangerous play (reducing head and neck injuries in particular), is primarily about improving player safety, then location on the pitch, or the efficacy of the intent of the dangerous play, shouldn't really be significant factors. Obviously they currently are....so there's really no need to try and turn it into a point-scoring contest.....(hence pedantry.)

Yes, of course, many other inconsistencies also exist/persist in the interpretation of the laws of the game, but I didn't see any of them particularly in the climax of this match, and as there is so much emphasis on reducing "dangerous play" these days, perhaps that's where there should be primary focus in improving consistency. :rockon:
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#37370
For decades the No. 1 ask of players and supporters has been consistency in decisions. Unfortunately, the whole point of interpretation is to allow inconsistency. If consistency is the aim then laws have to be applied rather than interpreted. There will always be some level of interpretation, ref can only give decisions as he sees them, be that live or now with TMO assistance. The problem with drawing the proverbial line in the sand and rigidly applying the laws is that in the short to medium term the game becomes unwatchable, probably unplayable and absolutely unenjoyable for all concerned.
By Clutch
#37375
A player is allowed to dive for the line though so won’t get pinged for jumping into a tackle in that instant. Whether that’s in the law I don’t know but I find the law book somewhat pointless.
By H's D
#37381
At last, Poynters....well said!
Can't argue with that approach and rationale. The elephant in the room exposed. :clap:
The inconsistencies do indeed make the game playable and more enjoyable.
We all complain about them, but they are essential. :lol
By DaveAitch
#37383
The Law Book is just a vague framework for people to interpret how they will. That interpretation ebbs and flows almost as often as the tide. Any call for consistency is a nonsense as there is not a definitive definition of many/most/all terms used. For instance, at what point does 'with force' kick in, or where does the neck actually start.
The citing system, which was started to highlight serious foul play, has almost now become a witch-hunt, at least amongst supporters of the 'aggrieved' side.
I was always brought up to respect the referees' decisions, right or wrong. We seem now to have reached a point when most decisions, or lack of them, are taken to task and law 279.56 quoted to prove the point.
SixNineOne liked this
User avatar
By Flumpty
#37390
DaveAitch wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:44 am

I was always brought up to respect the referees' decisions, right or wrong
. We seem now to have reached a point when most decisions, or lack of them, are taken to task and law 279.56 quoted to prove the point.
I wish people still did respect the referees decisions, right or wrong. Have a trip to a grassroots club on a Sunday and you won't be long before you'll here players, coaches parents and spectators gobbing off at the ref.
By DaveAitch
#37403
Flumpty, I recall about 10 years ago an incident in junior rugby when Caldy scored a try highly contested by the opposition parents. "He didn't touch it down over the line, nowhere near". I happened to have a photograph with the ball on the line, which I duly showed to them. Even then I'm not sure some were convinced. Now, had they complained about double movement, they might have had a point.
Flumpty liked this
By Clutch
#37411
Flumpty wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:58 am
Clutch wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:28 am
Whether that’s in the law I don’t know but I find the law book somewhat pointless.
Oh dear. Rugby without laws/rules.
The point is whenever I check the law book I find it totally vague and unhelpful. I get its importance but for for someone who already knows the majority of the laws it’s all about the interpretation and that isn’t written down anywhere. So I have to interpret the interpretations myself which is a right rabbit hole!!
The law book is often something that you see Nigel Owens quoting on his channel as what feels like oneupmanship at times. Any sentence that starts “the law clearly states” means I switch off. I don’t care what the law says as it’s irrelevant in most cases.
DaveAitch liked this
User avatar
By Flumpty
#37419
Clutch wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:28 pm
I don’t care what the law says as it’s irrelevant in most cases.
If you want rugby to end up something like Uppies and Downies, I agree with you completely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2cbX64fm4Y

Without laws/rules and someone to interpret them, the game has no structure and would cease to exist

p.s I'm surprised that you find the law book vague and unhelpful. Since they added pictures to it, it helped me enormously (unless its offside in fron of teh kicker, in which case I'm still stuffed :hug: )
By Clutch
#37420
Without explanation it doesn’t really tell me what I’d need to know. It’s not vague as such. Wrong word possibly.

One example is knock on. All that nonsense with LRZ for Wales knocking on or not mentioned in the knock on law. Forward pass also is a nonsense. It’s no use for me personally to refer to the laws coming from a position of a strong base knowledge.

Not entirely sure what point I’m trying to make, truth be told.
User avatar
By Flumpty
#37423
Clutch wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:23 pm

Not entirely sure what point I’m trying to make, truth be told.
no worries . we're running the risk of going round and round in circles.

I wish that the powers that be would somehow make the game easier to referee, without dumbing it down. At lower levels it wouldn't make to much of a difference, but at an elite level, when everyone is trying to fing the extra "edge", it would be a licence to take the mickey/cheat at every opportunity !
By Clutch
#37426
Or for new prospective fans. So confusing.

Law (paraphrasing)You can’t enter the ruck in the side.

Interpretation. You can if you are attacking, bar occasionally random times when the ref gives it generally when the attacking team is going backwards a and or under pressure from a jackel.

New fan 🤷🏾‍♂️
User avatar
By Flumpty
#37429
In a ruck situation, as an attacking player you can't fly over the ruck, sealing off the ball to prevent the defending team from challenging for the ball...............................

...........................Unless you are Exeter

p.s. lets not mention the offside line at a ruck or maul, as I'm sure that I've seen Shale Sarks creeping over that line by an inch or two, a couple of times or so in the last little while.
By ageinghoody
#37430
It doesn't help when the identical word appears to have different "interpretations" in different Laws!

The meaning of "forward" is clearly different for a knock-on or a forward pass.
To me, "forward" means the ball travels in the direction of the opposition's try-line, simples! That is indeed the case for the former, with no exceptions, but when it's the latter officials are expected to "interpret" the position and movement of hands. That's just a recipe for the inconsistency we repeatedly complain about.

Would it have such a detrimental effect on the game to rule that a pass must not be received nearer the opposing try-line than it was thrown?

OK, different debate, but we were talking about inconsistency.
DaveAitch liked this
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#37431
H's D wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:40 am
At last, Poynters....well said!
Can't argue with that approach and rationale. The elephant in the room exposed. :clap:
The inconsistencies do indeed make the game playable and more enjoyable.
We all complain about them, but they are essential. :lol
That's not quite what I said. I don't believe it to be the interpretations that make the game enjoyable, but their removal now would make it unenjoyable, for a time, probably too long of a time for a professional game to exist. My preference would be for laws to to written more explicitly, and for them to be applied.
DaveAitch liked this
By dinogyro
#37436
ageinghoody wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:57 pm

Would it have such a detrimental effect on the game to rule that a pass must not be received nearer the opposing try-line than it was thrown?

OK, different debate, but we were talking about inconsistency.
I don't think you can do that as the ball has its own momentum (inertia?) so any ball thrown, will always travel forward in relation to the opposing try line? Or something like that.
By DaveAitch
#37440
dinogyro wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:24 pm
ageinghoody wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:57 pm

Would it have such a detrimental effect on the game to rule that a pass must not be received nearer the opposing try-line than it was thrown?

OK, different debate, but we were talking about inconsistency.
I don't think you can do that as the ball has its own momentum (inertia?) so any ball thrown, will always travel forward in relation to the opposing try line? Or something like that.
I'm with Ageing: it it's forwards, it's forwards. "End of", as they say. The ball can be passed at a faster speed than a human can run so it must be possible to pass a ball that doesn't go forwards.
Ospreys

Some info from Osprey supporters club via an excel[…]

Esperanto

Quins (A)

Agree with MW that the second one was pretty margi[…]

Fixture list

Thanks Ted, Ive subscribed