RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A)
-
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Tim said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
Was that a shoulder to the face?
Ref called it a late tackle.
How can it be a tackle when he jumped for a charge down and made no attempt to tackle the player. 🤔
Because he must have known when he jumped that he would land, and when he landed he would probably take out the kicker.
Sorry, but I do not accept that it is an excuse that he jumped before the kick.
Should we ban all charge downs because in theory one must be in front of the kicker to charge the ball down?
-
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
I am happy with that. Players who jump in the air know that they will land eventually. It was very foreseeable that he would probably land and make contact with the kicker. PK is correct IMO.
I think we need to take another look at this stuff. While you're clearly right that there was a chance that he might make contact on his way down, that impact to me is entirely within the spirit of rugby. Any possible collision was NEVER going to cause a significant injury.
Compare that with a charge down attempt where you dive at a players legs or take out his landing area, where the potential for injury is so much worse. That's where penalties should be awarded for mine.
-
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Tim said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
Was that a shoulder to the face?
Ref called it a late tackle.
How can it be a tackle when he jumped for a charge down and made no attempt to tackle the player. 🤔
Because he must have known when he jumped that he would land, and when he landed he would probably take out the kicker.
Sorry, but I do not accept that it is an excuse that he jumped before the kick.
Should we ban all charge downs because in theory one must be in front of the kicker to charge the ball down?
No, but if someone attempts a chargedown which is reckless to the safety of the kicker, and then the kicker is taken out, then that is a PK (at least).
-
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Tim said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
Was that a shoulder to the face?
Ref called it a late tackle.
How can it be a tackle when he jumped for a charge down and made no attempt to tackle the player. 🤔
Because he must have known when he jumped that he would land, and when he landed he would probably take out the kicker.
Sorry, but I do not accept that it is an excuse that he jumped before the kick.
Should we ban all charge downs because in theory one must be in front of the kicker to charge the ball down?
No, but if someone attempts a chargedown which is reckless to the safety of the kicker, and then the kicker is taken out, then that is a PK (at least).
I think this hits it - "reckless to the safety".
You're going to get hit in rugby whether you choose to run it up the guts or kick for touch. The important thing is whether the hit is sa"e and "non-reckless"
To me, a charge down attempt like that is pretty "un-reckless"
-
@voodoo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
I am happy with that. Players who jump in the air know that they will land eventually. It was very foreseeable that he would probably land and make contact with the kicker. PK is correct IMO.
I think we need to take another look at this stuff. While you're clearly right that there was a chance that he might make contact on his way down, that impact to me is entirely within the spirit of rugby. Any possible collision was NEVER going to cause a significant injury.
Compare that with a charge down attempt where you dive at a players legs or take out his landing area, where the potential for injury is so much worse. That's where penalties should be awarded for mine.
I don't buy that. A kicker after he has just kicked is extremely vulnerable. After kicking the player cannot brace for an impact because he is focussing on the kick. There was another one in the England game earlier.
The shoulder didn't miss the head by much.
Both of the types you describe are dangerous.
-
-
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@voodoo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
I am happy with that. Players who jump in the air know that they will land eventually. It was very foreseeable that he would probably land and make contact with the kicker. PK is correct IMO.
I think we need to take another look at this stuff. While you're clearly right that there was a chance that he might make contact on his way down, that impact to me is entirely within the spirit of rugby. Any possible collision was NEVER going to cause a significant injury.
Compare that with a charge down attempt where you dive at a players legs or take out his landing area, where the potential for injury is so much worse. That's where penalties should be awarded for mine.
I don't buy that. A kicker after he has just kicked is extremely vulnerable. After kicking the player cannot brace for an impact because he is focussing on the kick. There was another one in the England game earlier.
The shoulder didn't miss the head by much.
Both of the types you describe are dangerous.
Same as a player passing in contact! Unless you brace for an aggressive carry, you're vulnerable. That's not the defenders fault?
-
@voodoo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Tim said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
Was that a shoulder to the face?
Ref called it a late tackle.
How can it be a tackle when he jumped for a charge down and made no attempt to tackle the player. 🤔
Because he must have known when he jumped that he would land, and when he landed he would probably take out the kicker.
Sorry, but I do not accept that it is an excuse that he jumped before the kick.
Should we ban all charge downs because in theory one must be in front of the kicker to charge the ball down?
No, but if someone attempts a chargedown which is reckless to the safety of the kicker, and then the kicker is taken out, then that is a PK (at least).
I think this hits it - "reckless to the safety".
You're going to get hit in rugby whether you choose to run it up the guts or kick for touch. The important thing is whether the hit is sa"e and "non-reckless"
To me, a charge down attempt like that is pretty "un-reckless"
Is your position that a chargedown which results in contact can never be foul play - so long as the player is trying to charge down the ball?
If so, I strongly disagree.
-
@Damo what’s the ruling around ball strips? I see variable rulings on this.
Take that last one where a Samoan player rips it out of Matushima’s hands and Peyper rules a knock on against Japan.
Whereas I’ve seen it ruled as play on because it was the defensive player that takes it out of the hands of the attacking one.
-
-
-
@Stargazer said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
Maybe shag was onto something with McKenzie and Weber, probably hoping to get the odd yellow or red for high tackles on them.
Reece, Mo'unga ...
Savea?
-
-
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@voodoo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Tim said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
Was that a shoulder to the face?
Ref called it a late tackle.
How can it be a tackle when he jumped for a charge down and made no attempt to tackle the player. 🤔
Because he must have known when he jumped that he would land, and when he landed he would probably take out the kicker.
Sorry, but I do not accept that it is an excuse that he jumped before the kick.
Should we ban all charge downs because in theory one must be in front of the kicker to charge the ball down?
No, but if someone attempts a chargedown which is reckless to the safety of the kicker, and then the kicker is taken out, then that is a PK (at least).
I think this hits it - "reckless to the safety".
You're going to get hit in rugby whether you choose to run it up the guts or kick for touch. The important thing is whether the hit is sa"e and "non-reckless"
To me, a charge down attempt like that is pretty "un-reckless"
Is your position that a chargedown which results in contact can never be foul play - so long as the player is trying to charge down the ball?
If so, I strongly disagree.
That's a well-posed question. I think if you're not late into the attempt, i.e. you had a legitimate crack at the ball, then that's the first point.
I'd say the 2nd is your point of impact, meaning even if you're not late, if you're targeting the legs or landing zone, then you're still dangerous.
So i guess the answer to your question is No, trying for a charge down doesn't automatically absolve you of your responsibilities as a defender.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@Damo what’s the ruling around ball strips? I see variable rulings on this.
Take that last one where a Samoan player rips it out of Matushima’s hands and Peyper rules a knock on against Japan.
Whereas I’ve seen it ruled as play on because it was the defensive player that takes it out of the hands of the attacking one.
My view is that a strip backwards shouldn't be a knock on unless the last hands it touches is the ball carriers.
-
@Damo said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
@chimoaus said in RWC: Japan v Samoa (Pool A):
Kind of sad each match thread is dominated by the laws and not the game itself.
Ordinarily yes, but this is an interesting point. And the discussion has been civil and thoughtful.
I dont bring much value to this forum, but I'll claim this :face_with_stuck-out_tongue:
