It’s amazing how the concept of what is a dangerous challenge has changed SO much in a mere 7 days……
Are we talking Farrel? I believe I have been consistent.
Mind you seeing as how refs could only spot crooked feeds to the scrum for two weeks after they were told to its no surprise head contact only lasted a few weeks too.
I thought the ref was poor all game. He gave Wales a couple of early pens when the jackler was clearly the tackler and didnt release, then Pocock and Hooper joined in and the game was ****ed. Still at least we won even if we seem to have become more boring than Ireland to do it.
How about this one TJ. Its a welsh conspiracy I tell you!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1mQfun_HMLs
Ignore me! It WAS a red,
Firstly - Eng lost because the ref said so.
Now, with regard to the offside line, it is the foot of the last player in the ruck. Can anybody tell me when Lawes is ahead of “The last Foot”? Not the backside, or arm, but “Foot”.
Now, with regard to the offside line, it is the foot of the last player in the ruck. Can anybody tell me when Lawes is ahead of “The last Foot”? Not the backside, or arm, but “Foot”.
There's an all black player partially obscured over, and slightly ahead of the england player on the floor. His foot is just ahead of Lawes back foot. Lawes forward most foot is waaaay ahead of it and the NZ player is bound to by the one behind him
Here is on just before the ball is picked up and he's offside here too.
Im watching the Italy game . It sort of puts to bed any discussion about relegation or two tiers in the 6N. (So far anyway. I’m 50 minutes in and Georgia look about as good as the Dragons. Hopefully they don’t win after I type this. 😁 )
Ive just read “World Rugby” rules of the game. Each teams offside line at a ruck is the rear feet of your own player.
That assault is the reason I will never give Hogg any credit st all. I am sure he has sleepless nights over it but that was a really cheap shot. Scumbag
Dantsw, from your link.
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
So it wasnt a ruck, maybe The Hask can explain it to you!
https://www.ruck.co.uk/2018-six-nations-feature-range-new-law-amendments/
Ruck
5. Law 16
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.
This law will put an end to the no-ruck tactic employed by Italy in last year’s Six Nations when they caught England by surprise in the first half of their encounter at Twickenham.
Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.
I presume its still in the rules?
No, the ruck had formed, the England player had been bent over, but the offside line stays the same “back feet” until the ruck ends and either the ball is played or is deemed unplayable.
So was it or wasn't it a ruck a_a, if it wasn't a ruck where is the offside line then?
That rule doesn’t add that the NZ player creates Eng offside line?
Ive just read “World Rugby” rules of the game. Each teams offside line at a ruck is the rear feet of your own player.
Does that mean that we can have a replay of the Irish 6N game? Moriarty wasn’t offside, as I said at the time? 😁
The problem with Lawes is that he was ahead of his own defensive line. Defences don’t often allow enough room for a fellow player to be ahead of them.
IdleJon - my opening line was agreeing that the result should not change. I’m merely questioning AA’s assertion that Lawes was clearly offside. If my understanding of the rules is wrong, I’d like to be corrected by proof.
So was it or wasn’t it a ruck a_a
****ed if I know, everyone certainly seemed tonthink it was and the law amendment says it was but the link dan posted above says it wasnt....on balance, he's English so I reckon its a red card!
No but seriously, he was clearly offside in the way the refs currently ignore the rules
Yeah but the ruck in any game is a mess, and is barely refereed at all these days. Until a vital decision needs to be made when. I’m biased - I think the right decision was made. But I’d love the authorities to clean up rucks, which should make the game more competitive and faster. I’d guess there might be a few teams resisting that, though.
but the offside line stays the same “back feet”
That rule doesn’t add that the NZ player creates Eng offside line
This not correct as the England player is on the floor so he is not part of the ruck, he cannot ruck he's on the floor, when you are on the floor you are out of the game as my nan used to say!
That rule doesn’t add that the NZ player creates Eng offside line?
It does because if there are no English players in the ruck there must be an offside line for England or its not a ruck and it itvwas the feet of the English guy on the ground you'd see people lying down with their feet as far into the other teams side of the ruck as possible.
AA - one way to tell who is right the ref or you. Lets see if he is cited? all I am doing is explaining to you why the ref thought it not a penalty. It was not late, it was an accidental collision, thus no foul play
I also think the TMO has far too much input in this decision. The ref controls the offside line, the same way as he allows competition until he yells “ruck, hands off” Lawes looked to Garces for confirmation his line is fine, so he continues.
I actually think Lawes was textbook in this case.
All joking aside, did we agree that by the letter of the law, he was onside?
AA - have a read of those rules on when a ruck ends. The fact the England player goes off his feet doesn’t end it. Once formed(it already was) it doesn’t end until the ball is out or unplayable.
And if no ruck, there’s no offside line!
AA – one way to tell who is right the ref or you. Lets see if he is cited? all I am doing is explaining to you why the ref thought it not a penalty.
Again your limited understanding of the game does not line up with your love of a good argument. He can only be cited if it was a potential red card, not forca pen and/or yellow. Its not a clear red imo and the citing bods are usually pretty loath to come out against refs in tight calls.
Anyway you should read this, theres even a video to make it easy for you to understand.
https://www.world.rugby/news/213339?lang=en
AA – have a read of those rules on when a ruck ends. The fact the England player goes off his feet doesn’t end it.
Correct, it starts it. What you are having trouble understanding is the law change following The Hasks being confused by Italy makes the NZ players feet the offside line fir England as the ruck is formed when an NZ (or English but not in this case) is engaged over the ball irrespective of an opposition actions.
All joking aside, did we agree that by the letter of the law, he was onside?
If they were playing by the letter of the law then there would have been a penalty awarded at the disputed ruck, and Lawes position would have been irrelevant.
AA - if it was foul play leading to contact with the head as you suggest then its a red card. In which case if you are right its a citing and a ban. Or if the ref ( not me - I am merely explaining what the ref saw / did) then no citing.
It was posted on the last page TJ, reckless contact with head is minimum yellow so no citing is needed. No citing will not prove your point.
Can you explain how it is not reckless head contact?
A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling/ twisting around the head/ neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders.</p>
<p class=”penalty”><b>Minimum sanction:</b> Yellow card
Do they, I know Folau is a ****, but always thought SBW seemed like a good bloke.
Anyone who can p1ss off Dave Warner is alright in my book (what is it about AB's and toilet shenanigans?
AA - do you leave a link on the rules stating that? The world rugby site, including recent amendments is as I linked above.
I’ve just read the rule updates - it doesn’t change the definition of offside line for each team, just when a tackle is made.
’ve just read the rule updates – it doesn’t change the definition of offside line for each team
It must do because a ruck has an offside line for both teams that doesnt involve those on the floor. So if a ruck can be made up of 1 team over a tackled player of their team where the tackler rolled way where would the offside line be. It may not be written but its a matter of logic.
Lawes was clearly offside thats why the ref and the tmo pinged him having looked at the evidence.
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=20&language=EN
Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the ruck participants’ hindmost foot. If that foot is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.
Doesnt matter which teams foot!
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15
I’ve just read the clarification on that rule. The new amendment was purely to address the “no offside line in an uncontested tackle” incident
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarification_era=onward&clarlaw=15&clarification=1025
Once an opposing player arrives a ruck is formed, and the original rules of hindmost foot for each team” once again apply. The rules clearly state hindmost foot of your own team. It’s underneath Para 4 in your link above.
Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the ruck participants’ hindmost foot. If that foot is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.
Doesnt mention each teams hindmost foot. Say ruck participants hindmost foot, ie the NZ player who was in front of the offside Lawes.
Follow the link above, para4, then picture. Below the picture is clarification, and it says “Player on the same team” drawing 2 lines, 1 for each team.
England didn't lose because of Lawes being offside/not offside. They lost because, despite having a 15pt lead, favourable conditions and a full house behind them - they couldn't put the All Blacks away.
Can anyone explain why Hartley was subbed? He'd played well for the first 40. He's one of the best linout throwers in the game. Our lineout fell apart in the 2nd half. It's not all down to the thrower but a couple of lost ones definitely were.
This has happened before. Hartley throwing in perfectly and then the lineout failing apart after he's gone off.
Agreed re Hartley.....I'd go as far as saying he is the games best lineout thrower....and he was probably having his best game in 18 months. I said it at the time....we should have kicked the 3 points.
Hartley had a hand / thumb injury
Give Retalick ( sp) some credit - he red the throws well and got up high in front of the catcher
Namaste - I agree - as stated above , not questioning the result - it was merely a technically interesting discussion about the latest incarnations of the back foot law.
Give Retalick ( sp) some credit – he read the throws well and got up high in front of the catcher
Indeed. Probably the world's best player. Not dissing the AB's lineout, They obviously figured out England's lineout and capitalised but George definitely contributed too.
George’s throwing was irrelevant, the Times has a whole feature on how New Zealand jumpers cheated and the penalties England should have been given. And that is just in the second half. Biggest robbery since that nasty Welsh scrum cheated their way to a grand slam...Honestly; where does this come from?
