Red cards
-
@Billy-Webb said in Red cards:
@Rembrandt said in Red cards:
Genuine question for those pro the yellow cards on the kiwi props as my rugby career ended before my balls dropped.
How does someone defend a try-line when an attacker is diving in leading with their head and you are camped on that line? (Or worse are a couple metres away and have to act fast)
Maybe I'm not understanding the concept of 'swinging arm' but I would have thought that if you didn't use your arm and instead braced with your bodyweight that that could be classified as a no-arms tackle.I tried to do a youtube search for great prop tries..but the highlights are all just overweight outside backs
Arms out in front of you. Take him onto your body, wrap man and ball and hold him up. Not so hard.
This is fine if the attacking player is already lower than the defending player. But what about when he suddenly drops, like what happened min the cases of Nepo and Ofa?
Ah.
Well in that case the defender should knee him in the head, followed by a short-arm jab just behind the ear and if at all feasible, finish off with a kung-fu round-house kick to the nuts.Sheesh. Let's accept that it is incumbent on the defender to make every reasonable effort to tackle within the laws of the game. Sometimes you're going to get unlucky despite your best efforts. Refs will use a degree of discretion if they are any good.
If I recall in the case of Nepo and Ofa, at least one or both of them were actually blown as much for the swinging arm as anything else. And I believe I've made my view perfectly clear on the latter elsewhere on this thread / board.
-
-
-
So if you don't use your arms, it's a shoulder charge and you get a card. And if you do use your arms, then they're in motion, which is also called "swinging", and you get a card. Sweet.
You rich buggers are all up in the swinging eh.
I'm interested, tell me more
-
@junior OK sure, I'm the one being obtuse. It's just not fair eh.
So if your answer is "no of course not" then what is the answer? Why can't they pull down a maul?
I can’t believe I’m actually bothering to answer this, but... it’s because (a) there is an element of AVOIDABLE danger in collapsing a maul and (b) you can stop a maul by legally pushing it back, which is what makes the danger avoidable.
Compare and contrast that with the situation I’ve described above and you will see we’re not talking apples v apples here. In the tackle situation I’ve described above, the danger / illegality is completely UNAVOIDABLE given current directives around the tackle area. The only thing a tackler can realistically do in that situation is to not tackle.
-
@junior OK sure, I'm the one being obtuse. It's just not fair eh.
So if your answer is "no of course not" then what is the answer? Why can't they pull down a maul?
I can’t believe I’m actually bothering to answer this, but... it’s because (a) there is an element of AVOIDABLE danger in collapsing a maul and (b) you can stop a maul by legally pushing it back, which is what makes the danger avoidable.
Compare and contrast that with the situation I’ve described above and you will see we’re not talking apples v apples here. In the tackle situation I’ve described above, the danger / illegality is completely UNAVOIDABLE given current directives around the tackle area. The only thing a tackler can realistically do in that situation is to not tackle.
Haha! Oh of course in the situation you don't like it's UNAVOIDABLE.
Why are you being so obtuse? I already said that the team hasn't been able to stop the maul legally. So they should be allowed to collapse it right? Because otherwise that's not fair!
-
@junior OK sure, I'm the one being obtuse. It's just not fair eh.
So if your answer is "no of course not" then what is the answer? Why can't they pull down a maul?
I can’t believe I’m actually bothering to answer this, but... it’s because (a) there is an element of AVOIDABLE danger in collapsing a maul and (b) you can stop a maul by legally pushing it back, which is what makes the danger avoidable.
Compare and contrast that with the situation I’ve described above and you will see we’re not talking apples v apples here. In the tackle situation I’ve described above, the danger / illegality is completely UNAVOIDABLE given current directives around the tackle area. The only thing a tackler can realistically do in that situation is to not tackle.
Haha! Oh of course in the situation you don't like it's UNAVOIDABLE.
Why are you being so obtuse? I already said that the team hasn't been able to stop the maul legally. So they should be allowed to collapse it right? Because otherwise that's not fair!
If you can't see that's not the point me and many other posters are making, you are even harder of thinking that you look (I'm assuming you resemble the nutter in your avi.)
And, for the record, a maul can be stopped legally - it happens all the time and indeed several times in most matches. Again, your point about the mauls makes absolutely no sense.
-
@mariner4life said in Red cards:
So if you don't use your arms, it's a shoulder charge and you get a card. And if you do use your arms, then they're in motion, which is also called "swinging", and you get a card. Sweet.
You rich buggers are all up in the swinging eh.
I'm interested, tell me more
-
@junior OK sure, I'm the one being obtuse. It's just not fair eh.
So if your answer is "no of course not" then what is the answer? Why can't they pull down a maul?
I can’t believe I’m actually bothering to answer this, but... it’s because (a) there is an element of AVOIDABLE danger in collapsing a maul and (b) you can stop a maul by legally pushing it back, which is what makes the danger avoidable.
Compare and contrast that with the situation I’ve described above and you will see we’re not talking apples v apples here. In the tackle situation I’ve described above, the danger / illegality is completely UNAVOIDABLE given current directives around the tackle area. The only thing a tackler can realistically do in that situation is to not tackle.
Haha! Oh of course in the situation you don't like it's UNAVOIDABLE.
Why are you being so obtuse? I already said that the team hasn't been able to stop the maul legally. So they should be allowed to collapse it right? Because otherwise that's not fair!
If you can't see that's not the point me and many other posters are making, you are even harder of thinking that you look (I'm assuming you resemble the nutter in your avi.)
And, for the record, a maul can be stopped legally - it happens all the time and indeed several times in most matches. Again, your point about the mauls makes absolutely no sense.
Right, so go back and replace the word "maul" with the word "player" in your last paragraph.
