The Official English Rugby Thread

[ASMO]

You want yellow cards to go away too? And we're just going to ignore all the games where a red didn't significantly alter things?

I think there is a case that for a second yellow player gets sent off and can be replaced after 20 mins.

[inactionman]

I've just caught a clip of the tackle, it's utterly routine and I can't see how it warranted a card. Although I can see a line of reasoning that he had to give a card if he gave a penalty, as it was (in his judgment) foul play that prevented a score.

Maybe we just need to give the directive to refs to use cards more sparingly, for clear, obvious and exceptional acts - not ones that are not even called penalties in 95% of cases.

On that note, I'd really prefer to see fewer scrum cards (and, indeed, penalties), it shouldn't be a sanctionable offence to just be beaten by a better team/player. Losing binds or dropping is generally an effect of being beaten, it's not actually the offence.

[Torquemada 1420]

Exeter ruined it by capitulating, we've all seen games with red cards, earlier ones even, where the team on the receiving end make a far better fist of things than that and sometimes even go on to win.

Red cards tend to only make that much of a difference when the receiving team is significantly inferior to the other or when they react poorly.

This seems to be something you and jmk are adamant about. I haven’t seen stats for it but it instinctively feels utter bollocks. Reds ruin games

Because we keep getting example after example of the card not ruining games.

Here's a stat though, prior to today

That's a damning indictment of how little space there is in rugby and how poorly players manage the extra man. I'm a little surprised those numbers are quite as "bad" as that in England. In T14, we regularly see sides lose with the man advantage because their use of space is not just abysmal, but the reverse i.e. with the extra man, they go into truck-to-ruck mode which makes defending even easier than when the penalised side had 15 men

[Torquemada 1420]

I want to see a game with 15 v 15.

15 v 14 is a match ruined. It compromises the team a player down massively and fatigues the rest of the remaining players who often get further sin-bin sanctions placing further strain on fitness.

It's bullshit and it's not working.

No. It does not. If we didn't have infinite, rolling subs then yes, you'd be right. But that, coupled with the ease of ability for the reduced side to slow the game down at every opportunity (interminable scrums, crawling to lineouts etc) means it's nowhere near as tiring as it ought to be.

[Paddington Bear]

I've just caught a clip of the tackle, it's utterly routine and I can't see how it warranted a card. Although I can see a line of reasoning that he had to give a card if he gave a penalty, as it was (in his judgment) foul play that prevented a score.

Maybe we just need to give the directive to refs to use cards more sparingly, for clear, obvious and exceptional acts - not ones that are not even called penalties in 95% of cases.

On that note, I'd really prefer to see fewer scrum cards (and, indeed, penalties), it shouldn't be a sanctionable offence to just be beaten by a better team/player. Losing binds or dropping is generally an effect of being beaten, it's not actually the offence.

A challenge of a sport like rugby is that reffing it does require the application of common sense, and we've seen a number of incidents recently where refs have singularly failed to do so. This one was, to give some mitigation to Dickson, complicated by the fact Woodburn was already on a yellow (completely correct decision).

[Slick]

Exeter ruined it by capitulating, we've all seen games with red cards, earlier ones even, where the team on the receiving end make a far better fist of things than that and sometimes even go on to win.

Red cards tend to only make that much of a difference when the receiving team is significantly inferior to the other or when they react poorly.

This seems to be something you and jmk are adamant about. I haven’t seen stats for it but it instinctively feels utter bollocks. Reds ruin games

Because we keep getting example after example of the card not ruining games.

Here's a stat though, prior to today

I'm not sure that's very convincing. Isn't it just really showing that teams can organise and hold out for a while but eventually capitulate. Apart from a couple of outliers it's showing that teams who get a 1st half red will eventually lose but those near the end of the game can hold out? Plus most of the one's that do hold out are the big teams against the smaller ones? I may be reading it wrong.

The wider point is that it is having a massive impact on people following the game. The chat before almost every game I attend is "i hope we don't get a red and ruin the game". Social media is full of people saying they are turning off the TV after a red because there is no point in watching. It's a crazy place for our game to be.

[ASMO]

I've just caught a clip of the tackle, it's utterly routine and I can't see how it warranted a card. Although I can see a line of reasoning that he had to give a card if he gave a penalty, as it was (in his judgment) foul play that prevented a score.

Maybe we just need to give the directive to refs to use cards more sparingly, for clear, obvious and exceptional acts - not ones that are not even called penalties in 95% of cases.

On that note, I'd really prefer to see fewer scrum cards (and, indeed, penalties), it shouldn't be a sanctionable offence to just be beaten by a better team/player. Losing binds or dropping is generally an effect of being beaten, it's not actually the offence.

The contrary view to that though is that it will then encourage teams who are clearly getting bested in the scrum to use that to their advantage.

[JM2K6]

This seems to be something you and jmk are adamant about. I haven’t seen stats for it but it instinctively feels utter bollocks. Reds ruin games

Because we keep getting example after example of the card not ruining games.

Here's a stat though, prior to today

I'm not sure that's very convincing. Isn't it just really showing that teams can organise and hold out for a while but eventually capitulate. Apart from a couple of outliers it's showing that teams who get a 1st half red will eventually lose but those near the end of the game can hold out? Plus most of the one's that do hold out are the big teams against the smaller ones? I may be reading it wrong.

The wider point is that it is having a massive impact on people following the game. The chat before almost every game I attend is "i hope we don't get a red and ruin the game". Social media is full of people saying they are turning off the TV after a red because there is no point in watching. It's a crazy place for our game to be.

It's not showing that at all, Slick. It's showing that the impact of the red is variable and the overall change in the direction of the match is minimal in most cases. You have five instances of the team suffering the red card doing better after the card than before it, relative score-wise, and 7 of the reverse. The worst - prior to the Woodburn call - is a 9 point swing. That used to be around the impact of a yellow card. It's not a huge amount. But the point being made here is that games aren't obviously being ruined by red cards - it's still very much a contest and a blow-out happening in a game with a red card is rarely some massive turnaround in fortunes.

Obviously if people have convinced themselves that red cards ruin the game regardless then that's that. What can you do to please those people except remove red cards from the game? Nothing - it doesn't matter that we've seen loads of high quality games featuring red cards, or that there's very few matches where it becomes a pointless exercise after a red when it wasn't already a one-sided contest. I understand it's an emotional response.

If you turn off after a red, you miss a lot of really good games of rugby. If it was the case that a red card was reliably a death sentence and that games inevitably become blowouts then I'd probably be of the same mind. Football, for example, is heavily impacted by reds. Rugby isn't; not least because there's far less space, far more players, no easy way to bypass them, and teams are very experienced at playing a man down thanks to yellow cards being a thing.

[inactionman]

I've just caught a clip of the tackle, it's utterly routine and I can't see how it warranted a card. Although I can see a line of reasoning that he had to give a card if he gave a penalty, as it was (in his judgment) foul play that prevented a score.

Maybe we just need to give the directive to refs to use cards more sparingly, for clear, obvious and exceptional acts - not ones that are not even called penalties in 95% of cases.

On that note, I'd really prefer to see fewer scrum cards (and, indeed, penalties), it shouldn't be a sanctionable offence to just be beaten by a better team/player. Losing binds or dropping is generally an effect of being beaten, it's not actually the offence.

The contrary view to that though is that it will then encourage teams who are clearly getting bested in the scrum to use that to their advantage.

Agree that it gives leeway for a bested team to just collapse, but there could be other outcomes than a penalty - a collapsing team loses head and feed (if it was their ball) or the scrum is reset further down the pitch and territory is conceded. The easiest, of course, is just to award a free kick, and one that the receiving team can always take immediately from anywhere adjacent to the mark (noting the mark will likely be under a pile of fatties) - let them run at a team with their pack on their arses.

I recall the pain of watching England Wales as 'reffed' by Steve Walsh. At every scrum he had the whistle to his lips and his arm half-raised towards Wales before the ball was even in. Adam Jones just wheeled his huge arse outwards and milked the penalties.

(I appreciate that Jones was a great scrummager and didn't need much assistance, but Walsh just let them away with anything and it was just so tedious to watch)

[JM2K6]

You want yellow cards to go away too? And we're just going to ignore all the games where a red didn't significantly alter things?

I think there is a case that for a second yellow player gets sent off and can be replaced after 20 mins.

Sure. Second yellows are really, really rare in rugby so I don't really care what people do to legislate for it. I'd even say it doesn't deserve a red. 20 mins of them being off the field is probably enough.

It's such a howler of a decision, even down to the fact that it's technically correct in a world where that sort of decision is never made for incredibly obvious reasons.

[ASMO]

You want yellow cards to go away too? And we're just going to ignore all the games where a red didn't significantly alter things?

I think there is a case that for a second yellow player gets sent off and can be replaced after 20 mins.

Sure. Second yellows are really, really rare in rugby so I don't really care what people do to legislate for it. I'd even say it doesn't deserve a red. 20 mins of them being off the field is probably enough.

It's such a howler of a decision, even down to the fact that it's technically correct in a world where that sort of decision is never made for incredibly obvious reasons.

Would it have been a yellow if it had not of prevented a trying being scored? i think that is what triggered it to be more than just a penalty.

[JM2K6]

I think there is a case that for a second yellow player gets sent off and can be replaced after 20 mins.

Sure. Second yellows are really, really rare in rugby so I don't really care what people do to legislate for it. I'd even say it doesn't deserve a red. 20 mins of them being off the field is probably enough.

It's such a howler of a decision, even down to the fact that it's technically correct in a world where that sort of decision is never made for incredibly obvious reasons.

Would it have been a yellow if it had not of prevented a trying being scored? i think that is what triggered it to be more than just a penalty.

Exactly, it's just a penalty offence if it occurs anywhere else on the field. It's only a yellow because Dickson decided that was his moment to prove he'd read the law book, and as soon as it was a PT it demanded a yellow, which therefore demanded a red. Just a clusterfuck.

I have a little bit of sympathy for him as I do not like the lawbook being thrown out of the window whenever it comes to acts committed to score/stop tries but this wasn't dangerous and was a skill executed well that we've seen many many times and it's been penalised zero times. I'm sure there's many instances of illegal play by the book that Dickson let pass during the match.

[Torquemada 1420]

Obviously if people have convinced themselves that red cards ruin the game regardless then that's that. What can you do to please those people except remove red cards from the game? Nothing - it doesn't matter that we've seen loads of high quality games featuring red cards, or that there's very few matches where it becomes a pointless exercise after a red when it wasn't already a one-sided contest. I understand it's an emotional response.

All of which is irrelevant really. If players continue to behave dimly, then they need to accept the consequences. If refs are getting it wrong, get rid of those refs. It's not the cards ruining the games but players and refs.

[Slick]

Obviously if people have convinced themselves that red cards ruin the game regardless then that's that. What can you do to please those people except remove red cards from the game? Nothing - it doesn't matter that we've seen loads of high quality games featuring red cards, or that there's very few matches where it becomes a pointless exercise after a red when it wasn't already a one-sided contest. I understand it's an emotional response.

All of which is irrelevant really. If players continue to behave dimly, then they need to accept the consequences. If refs are getting it wrong, get rid of those refs. It's not the cards ruining the games but players and refs.

Well, that statement might be true if refs weren't getting directed to within an inch of their lives by above.

Not in the case of this ridiculous situation at the weekend of course. Or at least we think not.

[Brazil]

Obviously if people have convinced themselves that red cards ruin the game regardless then that's that. What can you do to please those people except remove red cards from the game? Nothing - it doesn't matter that we've seen loads of high quality games featuring red cards, or that there's very few matches where it becomes a pointless exercise after a red when it wasn't already a one-sided contest. I understand it's an emotional response.

All of which is irrelevant really. If players continue to behave dimly, then they need to accept the consequences. If refs are getting it wrong, get rid of those refs. It's not the cards ruining the games but players and refs.

Well, that statement might be true if refs weren't getting directed to within an inch of their lives by above.

Not in the case of this ridiculous situation at the weekend of course. Or at least we think not.

If anything the problem is that refs have too much latitude in their interpretations, meaning we end up with uneven application of the laws. I didn't see it, but apparently Genge should have seen red on Friday night for a high shot, but it was mitigated down because "reasons". Dickson's fuck up would have been acceptable if it was being consistently applied across all the matches, as it's technically correct, but it isn't, and so it's an outlier. Even then it didn't really affect the outcome as Exeter were so understrength anyway.

I don't get where this insistence that there have to be equal numbers on the pitch comes from. It's a team game and if one of your team fucks up to the extent he gets sent off, then you as a team either suffer or adapt. I also don't buy it ruins it as a spectacle either, supporting a team that decided it'd be great fun to play with 13 players for a good chunk of most matches from time to time has ensured I've enjoyed some great games of rugby.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I've just caught a clip of the tackle, it's utterly routine and I can't see how it warranted a card. Although I can see a line of reasoning that he had to give a card if he gave a penalty, as it was (in his judgment) foul play that prevented a score.

I could understand wanting to see it being penalised more often. But he's diving on a player on the floor mere inches from the try line, and in driving the player on the floor into touch prevents a try. Really the ref got it right

[sockwithaticket]

I've just caught a clip of the tackle, it's utterly routine and I can't see how it warranted a card. Although I can see a line of reasoning that he had to give a card if he gave a penalty, as it was (in his judgment) foul play that prevented a score.

I could understand wanting to see it being penalised more often. But he's diving on a player on the floor mere inches from the try line, and in driving the player on the floor into touch prevents a try. Really the ref got it right

As written, perhaps. However, laws and their enforcement are as much about precedent and convention as what's scribbled on a page. I hesitate to say that Dickson's decision was unique as my memory simply isn't good enough to recall the 20 years I've been watching rugby with 100% accuracy, but I can't say I can recall ever having seen that law be used in the manner that he chose to apply it.

Referees unilaterally bucking convention and causing on pitch controversy in the process is not a good look for the sport. Officiating is often contentious enough without this sort of incident.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I've just caught a clip of the tackle, it's utterly routine and I can't see how it warranted a card. Although I can see a line of reasoning that he had to give a card if he gave a penalty, as it was (in his judgment) foul play that prevented a score.

I could understand wanting to see it being penalised more often. But he's diving on a player on the floor mere inches from the try line, and in driving the player on the floor into touch prevents a try. Really the ref got it right

As written, perhaps. However, laws and their enforcement are as much about precedent and convention as what's scribbled on a page. I hesitate to say that Dickson's decision was unique as my memory simply isn't good enough to recall the 20 years I've been watching rugby with 100% accuracy, but I can't say I can recall ever having seen that law be used in the manner that he chose to apply it.

Referees unilaterally bucking convention and causing on pitch controversy in the process is not a good look for the sport. Officiating is often contentious enough without this sort of incident.

We don't often see a player dragged into touch by illegal play preventing a try.

But we see all the time a player getting a yellow card for illegal play on your try line that's cynical and prevents a try.

So it depends what you're considering precedent. Myself I'm very happy to see a cheating player trying to illegally prevent a try get a yellow card.

Woodburn might make a case he thought he was just diving off feet onto a player on the floor and didn't realise he'd help push Ashton out, but when your defence is I didn't realise I was doing anything too wrong with my cheating, well it's questionable

[inactionman]

I could understand wanting to see it being penalised more often. But he's diving on a player on the floor mere inches from the try line, and in driving the player on the floor into touch prevents a try. Really the ref got it right

As written, perhaps. However, laws and their enforcement are as much about precedent and convention as what's scribbled on a page. I hesitate to say that Dickson's decision was unique as my memory simply isn't good enough to recall the 20 years I've been watching rugby with 100% accuracy, but I can't say I can recall ever having seen that law be used in the manner that he chose to apply it.

Referees unilaterally bucking convention and causing on pitch controversy in the process is not a good look for the sport. Officiating is often contentious enough without this sort of incident.

We don't often see a player dragged into touch by illegal play preventing a try.

But we see all the time a player getting a yellow card for illegal play on your try line that's cynical and prevents a try.

So it depends what you're considering precedent. Myself I'm very happy to see a cheating player trying to illegally prevent a try get a yellow card.

Woodburn might make a case he thought he was just diving off feet onto a player on the floor and didn't realise he'd help push Ashton out, but when your defence is I didn't realise I was doing anything too wrong with my cheating, well it's questionable

You're seeing a very different picture to me.

I'd be interested in how you can tackle a player who is still in the field of play, still not over the tryline, but is sliding for the tryline.

I'm no fan of laws or interpretations which remove competition. If Ashton is in the process of trying to score a try, it is fair game to try to stop him - with exceptions only in the case of player safety, which Woodburn did not exceed here. c.f. Liam Williams sconing the saffa a few years back, he attempted something similar but just walloped the attacker in the head. That was a penalty try as it was a clearly illegal - and dangerous - act that has always been legislated and interpreted as illegal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtYc-P ... uddyDarter

The driving of Ashton into touch is a bit of a red herring - it's perfectly legal to tackle someone into touch, the question is whether you can join a tackle when the attacker is sliding. As far as I follow, written law appears to say one thing, case law another.

[Torquemada 1420]

Obviously if people have convinced themselves that red cards ruin the game regardless then that's that. What can you do to please those people except remove red cards from the game? Nothing - it doesn't matter that we've seen loads of high quality games featuring red cards, or that there's very few matches where it becomes a pointless exercise after a red when it wasn't already a one-sided contest. I understand it's an emotional response.

All of which is irrelevant really. If players continue to behave dimly, then they need to accept the consequences. If refs are getting it wrong, get rid of those refs. It's not the cards ruining the games but players and refs.

Well, that statement might be true if refs weren't getting directed to within an inch of their lives by above.

Not in the case of this ridiculous situation at the weekend of course. Or at least we think not.

I've only just seen that incident and it falls firmly into the "get rid of those refs" category. Dickson is awful. Not quite Adamson bad but I think only Ayoub plunged those depths of incompetence.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

As written, perhaps. However, laws and their enforcement are as much about precedent and convention as what's scribbled on a page. I hesitate to say that Dickson's decision was unique as my memory simply isn't good enough to recall the 20 years I've been watching rugby with 100% accuracy, but I can't say I can recall ever having seen that law be used in the manner that he chose to apply it.

Referees unilaterally bucking convention and causing on pitch controversy in the process is not a good look for the sport. Officiating is often contentious enough without this sort of incident.

We don't often see a player dragged into touch by illegal play preventing a try.

But we see all the time a player getting a yellow card for illegal play on your try line that's cynical and prevents a try.

So it depends what you're considering precedent. Myself I'm very happy to see a cheating player trying to illegally prevent a try get a yellow card.

Woodburn might make a case he thought he was just diving off feet onto a player on the floor and didn't realise he'd help push Ashton out, but when your defence is I didn't realise I was doing anything too wrong with my cheating, well it's questionable

You're seeing a very different picture to me.

I'd be interested in how you can tackle a player who is still in the field of play, still not over the tryline, but is sliding for the tryline.

I'm no fan of laws or interpretations which remove competition. If Ashton is in the process of trying to score a try, it is fair game to try to stop him - with exceptions only in the case of player safety, which Woodburn did not exceed here. c.f. Liam Williams sconing the saffa a few years back, he attempted something similar but just walloped the attacker in the head. That was a penalty try as it was a clearly illegal act that has always been legislated and interpreted as illegal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtYc-P ... uddyDarter

The driving of Ashton into touch is a bit of a red herring - it's perfectly legal to tackle someone into touch, the question is whether you can join a tackle when the attacker is sliding. As far as I follow, written law appears to say one thing, case law another.

Rugby is a game for players on their feet.

And too rugby would be better if players weren't allowed/encouraged to throw themselves into contact points without consideration as to what happens next because they just want to halt momentum in the moment.

If Woodburn isn't in position to play legally then don't play, not claim you didn't have a choice but to play illegally. Or, if you do act illegally at least have the stones to accept what you've done

[sockwithaticket]

I could understand wanting to see it being penalised more often. But he's diving on a player on the floor mere inches from the try line, and in driving the player on the floor into touch prevents a try. Really the ref got it right

As written, perhaps. However, laws and their enforcement are as much about precedent and convention as what's scribbled on a page. I hesitate to say that Dickson's decision was unique as my memory simply isn't good enough to recall the 20 years I've been watching rugby with 100% accuracy, but I can't say I can recall ever having seen that law be used in the manner that he chose to apply it.

Referees unilaterally bucking convention and causing on pitch controversy in the process is not a good look for the sport. Officiating is often contentious enough without this sort of incident.

We don't often see a player dragged into touch by illegal play preventing a try.

But we see all the time a player getting a yellow card for illegal play on your try line that's cynical and prevents a try.

So it depends what you're considering precedent. Myself I'm very happy to see a cheating player trying to illegally prevent a try get a yellow card.

Woodburn might make a case he thought he was just diving off feet onto a player on the floor and didn't realise he'd help push Ashton out, but when your defence is I didn't realise I was doing anything too wrong with my cheating, well it's questionable

I feel like we see what Woodburn did in almost every single game, so if that's deemed illegal then yes we do.

We also constantly see players who are ostensibly tackled, but still somewhat in motion being dived on by players not involved in the tackle to arrest momentum.

The precedent is these actions not typically being penalised. If that's to start being penalised then fine, but it needs some kind of announcement from the powers that be rather than the unilateral decision of a ref in a random Prem game.

[inactionman]

We don't often see a player dragged into touch by illegal play preventing a try.

But we see all the time a player getting a yellow card for illegal play on your try line that's cynical and prevents a try.

So it depends what you're considering precedent. Myself I'm very happy to see a cheating player trying to illegally prevent a try get a yellow card.

Woodburn might make a case he thought he was just diving off feet onto a player on the floor and didn't realise he'd help push Ashton out, but when your defence is I didn't realise I was doing anything too wrong with my cheating, well it's questionable

You're seeing a very different picture to me.

I'd be interested in how you can tackle a player who is still in the field of play, still not over the tryline, but is sliding for the tryline.

I'm no fan of laws or interpretations which remove competition. If Ashton is in the process of trying to score a try, it is fair game to try to stop him - with exceptions only in the case of player safety, which Woodburn did not exceed here. c.f. Liam Williams sconing the saffa a few years back, he attempted something similar but just walloped the attacker in the head. That was a penalty try as it was a clearly illegal act that has always been legislated and interpreted as illegal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtYc-P ... uddyDarter

The driving of Ashton into touch is a bit of a red herring - it's perfectly legal to tackle someone into touch, the question is whether you can join a tackle when the attacker is sliding. As far as I follow, written law appears to say one thing, case law another.

Rugby is a game for players on their feet.

And too rugby would be better if players weren't allowed/encouraged to throw themselves into contact points without consideration as to what happens next because they just want to halt momentum in the moment.

If Woodburn isn't in position to play legally then don't play, not claim you didn't have a choice but to play illegally. Or, if you do act illegally at least have the stones to accept what you've done

The problem is, as far as I can see, what Ashton is doing is - by the Laws I'm aware of - strictly speaking illegal.

If Ashton had dived, with no tackler then Law 13 would be relevant:

Players, who go to ground to gather the ball or who go to ground with the ball, must immediately:
Get up with the ball; or
Play (but not kick) the ball; or
Release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty.

Once the ball is played or released, players on the ground must immediately either move away from the ball or get up. Sanction: Penalty.

A player on the ground in the field of play, without the ball is out of the game and must:
Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
Not play the ball.
Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty.

Players on their feet and without the ball must not fall on or over players on the ground who have the ball or who are near it. Sanction: Penalty.

As he was being tackled, it's more Law 14:

Requirements for a tackle

For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.
Players in a tackle

Players in a tackle are:
Tackled player.
Tackler(s).
Others:
Player(s) who hold the ball-carrier during a tackle but do not go to ground.
Player(s) who arrive to contest possession in the tackle.
Player(s) who are already on the ground.
Player responsibilities

Tacklers must:

Immediately release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground.

Immediately move away from the tackled player and from the ball or get up.

Be on their feet before attempting to play the ball.

Allow the tackled player to release or play the ball.

Allow the tackled player to move away from the ball.
Sanction: Penalty.
Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.
Tackled players must immediately:

Make the ball available so that play can continue by releasing, passing or pushing the ball in any direction except forward. They may place the ball in any direction.

Move away from the ball or get up.

Ensure that they do not lie on, over or near the ball to prevent opposition players from gaining possession of it.
Sanction: Penalty.

He was tackled in the field of play - when he hits the ground with a tackler bound. He held onto the ball whilst he slid over the tryline. That is not immediately releasing.

(I'd expect there's an interpretation guideline somewhere that deals with sliding or being driven by a forming ruck, but I can't find it)

We play a game that attempts to be objective in its laws but can't cater in letter for every eventuality - we typically rely upon precedence, and an understanding of the spirit of the law.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I think if you want a player like Ashton to have already released the ball that makes things very tricky for attack generally, but fair enough it's a point of view. Still myself even if I was going to award a penalty against Ashton for not releasing I'd still look at defence before the attack and award a penalty against Woodburn for going off his feet and diving onto a tackled player making it hard for the carrier to allow a contest, it'd still be a yellow for me given it's cynical that close to the line, but if you want to say it's not a penalty try because the carrier should be making the ball available as a contest not slide over then okay, I wouldn't because again I think that skews things practically too far against attack all over the pitch given the timeframe here, but you could be logically consistent and take a different view

[inactionman]

I think if you want a player like Ashton to have already released the ball that makes things very tricky for attack generally, but fair enough it's a point of view. Still myself even if I was going to award a penalty against Ashton for not releasing I'd still look at defence before the attack and award a penalty against Woodburn for going off his feet and diving onto a tackled player making it hard for the carrier to allow a contest, it'd still be a yellow for me given it's cynical that close to the line, but if you want to say it's not a penalty try because the carrier should be making the ball available as a contest not slide over then okay, I wouldn't because again I think that skews things practically too far against attack all over the pitch given the timeframe here, but you could be logically consistent and take a different view

I'm not saying that. I'm saying a literal take on the laws (at least, as far as I read them) would state that. I'd say what Ashton was doing is completely acceptable, and has been interpreted that way for as long as I've played and watched rugby. I also think what Woodburn did is completely acceptable, and has also been interpreted that way for as long as I've played and watched the game, despite also not meeting the Laws of the game as strictly written.

[GogLais]

Too lazy to try and find it but did Woodburn slide into Ashton as opposed to diving onto him? If so, what difference would it make?

[inactionman]

Too lazy to try and find it but did Woodburn slide into Ashton as opposed to diving onto him? If so, what difference would it make?

Slide. He didn't flop, high-shot or cheap-shot, or try to prevent playing of the ball, just drive Ashton out (which, to be honest, he at least successfully contributed to that outcome)

Here 'tis:
https://www.bt.com/sport/watch/video/cl ... n-sent-off

[Rhubarb & Custard]

If he's sliding he's off he's feet and out of the game, but it's a defence he didn't dive atop a tackled player.

Probably people do tend to get away with it, he didn't. And as ever, if you give the referee a chance to ping you and the ref pings you, it's your fault

[Kawazaki]

We don't often see a player dragged into touch by illegal play preventing a try.

But we see all the time a player getting a yellow card for illegal play on your try line that's cynical and prevents a try.

So it depends what you're considering precedent. Myself I'm very happy to see a cheating player trying to illegally prevent a try get a yellow card.

Woodburn might make a case he thought he was just diving off feet onto a player on the floor and didn't realise he'd help push Ashton out, but when your defence is I didn't realise I was doing anything too wrong with my cheating, well it's questionable

You're seeing a very different picture to me.

I'd be interested in how you can tackle a player who is still in the field of play, still not over the tryline, but is sliding for the tryline.

I'm no fan of laws or interpretations which remove competition. If Ashton is in the process of trying to score a try, it is fair game to try to stop him - with exceptions only in the case of player safety, which Woodburn did not exceed here. c.f. Liam Williams sconing the saffa a few years back, he attempted something similar but just walloped the attacker in the head. That was a penalty try as it was a clearly illegal act that has always been legislated and interpreted as illegal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtYc-P ... uddyDarter

The driving of Ashton into touch is a bit of a red herring - it's perfectly legal to tackle someone into touch, the question is whether you can join a tackle when the attacker is sliding. As far as I follow, written law appears to say one thing, case law another.

Rugby is a game for players on their feet.

And too rugby would be better if players weren't allowed/encouraged to throw themselves into contact points without consideration as to what happens next because they just want to halt momentum in the moment.

If Woodburn isn't in position to play legally then don't play, not claim you didn't have a choice but to play illegally. Or, if you do act illegally at least have the stones to accept what you've done

So a player who voluntarily slides in to score a try can't be touched by a defender?

Just listen to yourselves then give yourself an uppercut.

[JM2K6]

I think if you want a player like Ashton to have already released the ball that makes things very tricky for attack generally, but fair enough it's a point of view. Still myself even if I was going to award a penalty against Ashton for not releasing I'd still look at defence before the attack and award a penalty against Woodburn for going off his feet and diving onto a tackled player making it hard for the carrier to allow a contest, it'd still be a yellow for me given it's cynical that close to the line, but if you want to say it's not a penalty try because the carrier should be making the ball available as a contest not slide over then okay, I wouldn't because again I think that skews things practically too far against attack all over the pitch given the timeframe here, but you could be logically consistent and take a different view

I'm not saying that. I'm saying a literal take on the laws (at least, as far as I read them) would state that. I'd say what Ashton was doing is completely acceptable, and has been interpreted that way for as long as I've played and watched rugby. I also think what Woodburn did is completely acceptable, and has also been interpreted that way for as long as I've played and watched the game, despite also not meeting the Laws of the game as strictly written.

Exactly. We're into "if you referee by the letter of the law the game becomes immediately unworkable" territory here.

[inactionman]

It's been known for a while, however Thomas Du Toit now confirmed to Bath:

https://www.bathrugby.com/news/springbo ... ath-rugby/

[SaintK]

Jack Nowell in trouble for saying what we all thought!

England and Exeter winger Jack Nowell has been charged by the Rugby Football Union for criticising a refereeing decision in a Twitter post.
The 30-year-old made the comments about referee Karl Dickson following team-mate Olly Woodburn's red card during Sunday's thumping by Leicester Tigers.
Nowell tweeted his 61,000 followers: "I'm actually in shock, like shock shocked. What the hell is happening? That's one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. EVER."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65312583

[Margin__Walker]

Limited sympathy really. Regardless of the decision, if you're going to insist on going at it on social media, be a bit more abstract rather than it clearly being directed at the ref.

[Slick]

Limited sympathy really. Regardless of the decision, if you're going to insist on going at it on social media, be a bit more abstract rather than it clearly being directed at the ref.

Yeah, agreed. We also hear from loads of players about the negative effect of social media on them but they are happy to call out refs on it.

We are getting into a very worrying position with refs IMO.

[sockwithaticket]

I've always thought it's one thing for supporters to have a moan amongst in person mates or in anonymous chat spaces like this or reddit threads, but to do it publicly is another. That goes double for professional players.

He shouldn't need it explaining to him why it's a bad look for the sport and bad for general culture around ref respect for players to be going in on ref decisions via their social media accounts.

[inactionman]

Yep - we just cannot have players calling out refs, it's not only a really poor look but it also has real-world consequences, with the normalising of criticism (and worse) of refs at amateur and kid's levels.

There's always an issue with 'heat of moment' social media posting, wondering if it wouldn't be a good plan for players to keep their phones turned off for a while after a match. I appreciate they're all grown adults, but they're representing the club who could stipulate no social media use around match times.

[sockwithaticket]

Yep - we just cannot have players calling out refs, it's not only a really poor look but it also has real-world consequences, with the normalising of criticism (and worse) of refs at amateur and kid's levels.

There's always an issue with 'heat of moment' social media posting, wondering if it wouldn't be a good plan for players to keep their phones turned off for a while after a match. I appreciate they're all grown adults, but they're representing the club who could stipulate no social media use around match times.

I had my first jobs as a teen when Myspace was basically the only form of social media, but by the time I joined the workforce as an adult Facebook and Twitter were in full swing. Consequently, every employer I've ever had has included clauses about social media use in the contract and/or code of conduct usually focused on ensuring that I don't in any way besmirch the company's reputation via my online activity.

[Paddington Bear]

Yep no sympathy and don't get caught up in 'you're denying Nowell a farewell at Sandy Park'. Dickson is a poor ref but that's no excuse for opening him up to even more grief.

[Margin__Walker]

Always find it amusing that it's the same club generally that just doesn't have it's players under control when it comes to this stuff. It just seems to be Joe Marler and Exeter.

Lots of other teams find themselves hard done by at various times, but their players STFU on social media and manage to avoid going full Rassie

[Paddington Bear]

Yep - we just cannot have players calling out refs, it's not only a really poor look but it also has real-world consequences, with the normalising of criticism (and worse) of refs at amateur and kid's levels.

There's always an issue with 'heat of moment' social media posting, wondering if it wouldn't be a good plan for players to keep their phones turned off for a while after a match. I appreciate they're all grown adults, but they're representing the club who could stipulate no social media use around match times.

I had my first jobs as a teen when Myspace was basically the only form of social media, but by the time I joined the workforce as an adult Facebook and Twitter were in full swing. Consequently, every employer I've ever had has included clauses about social media use in the contract and/or code of conduct usually focused on ensuring that I don't in any way besmirch the company's reputation via my online activity.

Pretty much.
There's ways of handling this. To me, group chats are a virtual equivalent to the kind of rubbish you can fire off with your mates about in the pub. Nowell sticking a message in to some of the England guys privately going 'can you believe that? Dickson is a fucking clown' etc is completely fine IMO, even if it later got leaked. Doing so publicly is unprofessional and only really designed to give the ref stick.