England v S Africa 3rd Nov Match thread

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At the point of impact, Farrell is leading with his shoulder and the arm attached to that shoulder is in a position where it physically can not wrap, it's completely by his side.

There was no realistic chance given Farrell's body position that he was going to be able to wrap and the contest did not at all resemble a tackle, it looks like a full force shoulder to the opposition player.

If you are satisfied that it is close enough to a tackle under the laws that's absolutely fine, but what I've copied below is just dismissive bullshít that doesn't really apply to anyone on here and does nothing for your argument.

The furore is on twitter, not here. You can calm down about that bit.

But saying the contest did not resemble a tackle or suggesting the wrap has to occur at the point of contact certainly gives pause for thought there.

Mookie Blaylock

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which ex refs?

It’s not about who I count, I’m irrelevant. I don’t hire referees, citing commissioners or judicial officers for world rugby. I also don’t make laws, I just save my anger for when the actual laws aren’t followed.

I'd say just about every one of them, according to Rob Debney

Squidgy Black

Rassie has taken the right approach in terms of fighting back against World Rugby because of the decision. If it's deemed legal, then make it seem like all his players are going to start doing it, and see how WR view it then. Rather than publicly criticising or shouting foul play.

At first glance, I thought it was a horrendous tackle, but watching it back it's borderline, and within centimetres of connecting with his chin. I think it's a good tackle. Could you deem it to be reckless? I guess so because the force used and how close it was to being a blatant foul makes it a reckless move. But within the laws it's a fair tackle. The issue is consistency from WR on where the line is drawn, at the moment it's a free for all.

prawnsambo

Well at least Rassie is taking it seriously.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The furore is on twitter, not here. You can calm down about that bit.
.

Ah right, I haven't been reading twitter about this, I've just been reading here and getting confused by the below posts because I haven't seen anything of the sort on this forum.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It’s just all become an excercise in pearl-clutching and opportunistic scapegoating of an unlikeable player (last part is his own fault).

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So the furore says more about the people reacting and the laws than the officials.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

People just don’t like Farrell and England, so the actual laws will get very little attention in all this.

irishbucsfan

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Rassie has taken the right approach in terms of fighting back against World Rugby because of the decision. If it's deemed legal, then make it seem like all his players are going to start doing it, and see how WR view it then. Rather than publicly criticising or shouting foul play.

At first glance, I thought it was a horrendous tackle, but watching it back it's borderline, and within centimetres of connecting with his chin. I think it's a good tackle. Could you deem it to be reckless? I guess so because the force used and how close it was to being a blatant foul makes it a reckless move. But within the laws it's a fair tackle. The issue is consistency from WR on where the line is drawn, at the moment it's a free for all.

It definitely looks like a tackle that should be illegal. That’s fairly important I think. The question is how you change the laws to make it illegal...

I would be interested to find out if you enforced a wrap with both arms would there be any unexpected side effects. There’s already a lot of tackles where that doesn’t happen today so it’d be a big change. Not sure what else you can do.

On a (semi) tangent, can anyone point me in the direction of what officially constitutes a tackle, and in particular reference to a 'wrap'? All I can see is that a player is held and brought to ground (which, of course, you'd probably need to wrap in order to do, but not necessarily).

My problem with Farrell's 'tackle' is that the player he is tackling never changes direction. He has a long time to line up the tackle and execute it correctly. You could say that he was coming in from an awkward angle, but there's really no excuse.

The Dagestani Eagle

Basil3 wrote: »

On a (semi) tangent, can anyone point me in the direction of what officially constitutes a tackle, and in particular reference to a 'wrap'? All I can see is that a player is held and brought to ground (which, of course, you'd probably need to wrap in order to do, but not necessarily).

My problem with Farrell's 'tackle' is that the player he is tackling never changes direction. He has a long time to line up the tackle and execute it correctly. You could say that he was coming in from an awkward angle, but there's really no excuse.

If it was SBW,a pacific islander , the 11th minute or a player from Canada he'd have been sat for 10 minutes.

That is the real tragedy.

The Dagestani Eagle

Tuirinui on this weeks podcast reckoned there was 6 penalty infringements in the last passage of play that Gardner just let go. Completely abandoned his post.

This included multiple offsides ( for which PSDT was penalised really harshly for earlier on) and a high shot on Jessie Kriel by Johnny May.

He reffed the clock and not the play. it is a dereliction of duty.

prawnsambo

Basil3 wrote: »

On a (semi) tangent, can anyone point me in the direction of what officially constitutes a tackle, and in particular reference to a 'wrap'? All I can see is that a player is held and brought to ground (which, of course, you'd probably need to wrap in order to do, but not necessarily).

It comes under dangerous play. Law 10.4:

(e) Dangerous tackling.
A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(g) Dangerous charging.
A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

It comes under dangerous play. Law 10.4:

Based on that, you can easily say that Farrell was trying to grasp the player. (h) refers to a ruck or maul, so not applicable here, I guess.

prawnsambo

Basil3 wrote: »

Based on that, you can easily say that Farrell was trying to grasp the player. (h) refers to a ruck or maul, so not applicable here, I guess.

Well I included it because both clauses used the word 'charging' and (h) expanded somewhat on what 'charging' meant. But this is essentially the law that the referee would have been referring to when assessing Farrell's tackle. And he concluded that there was some sort of attempt. Which, by the letter of the law, there was.

Synode

The reverse angle is worse in my opinion. Makes it look an even clearer shoulder charge. Is Gardener trying to say that just because Farrell's left arm moves he was trying to wrap? He doesn't even get his left hand on the player bar brushing him with a few fingers

Check out @w_ivvson’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/w_ivvson/status/1058766082675236864?s=09

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

He doesn't even get his left hand on the player bar brushing him with a few fingers

Right. Which is why the law doesn't say you have to wrap. It says you have to make an attempt. Which he clearly did with his left hand.

I don't know why this is so difficult once you've seen that angle? He clearly tries to grab the South African with that left arm.

Synode

So you can lead with a shoulder (right arm by side) and tackle legally as long as your left arm moves forward in any way

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Right. Which is why the law doesn't say you have to wrap. It says you have to make an attempt. Which he clearly did with his left hand.

I don't know why this is so difficult once you've seen that angle? He clearly tries to grab the South African with that left arm.

I think trying to argue he's attempting to wrap there is an exercise in dishonest symantics.

He brings one arm slightly up. If you vanished the South Africa player and I purely saw a person doing the same movement with no context I'd have no idea it was an attempted tackle.

Penalty, borderline yellow.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think trying to argue he's attempting to wrap there is an exercise in dishonest symantics.

He brings one arm slightly up. If you vanished the South Africa player and I purely saw a person doing the same movement with no context I'd have no idea it was an attempted tackle.

Penalty, borderline yellow.

He must have been trying to tickle him so

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He must have been trying to tickle him so

Ill just put it down to having a different opinion as to what constitutes an attempt!

Synode

If a tackle like that leaves any doubt as to what you can and can't do in a tackle then World Rugby need to start drawing pictures.

The safety of players is paramount. And tackles like that are not safe

Synode

Also, what's changed since the Lions NZ game when SBW got a red in a very similar situation

Synode

Synode wrote: »

Also, what's changed since the Lions NZ game when SBW got a red in a very similar situation

Sonny Bills was to the head.

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

Also, what's changed since the Lions NZ game when SBW got a red in a very similar situation

You're right, World Rugby do need to start drawing pictures, if people don't know the answer to this.

Synode

Basil3 wrote: »

Sonny Bills was to the head.

Farrells's shoulder goes up into Esterhuizen's chin and his head snaps back. Granted, SBW's was more clear cut as Watson's head position was lower but both tackles are very similar in my opinion. The tackler leads with their right shoulder and and brings their other arm around

Synode

Synode wrote: »

Farrells's shoulder goes up into Esterhuizen's chin and his head snaps back. Granted, SBW's was more clear cut as Watson's head position was lower but both tackles are very similar in my opinion. The tackler leads with their right shoulder and and brings their other arm around

It's a penalty for me and borderline yellow. Had he made contact with the chin it's a straight red regardless of whether lifting one arm a few inches constitutes an attempted tackle or not.

irishbucsfan

If he made contact with the head it would indeed have been a red card. He didn’t though. He was very very lucky in that regard.

stephen_n

So BOD has changed his mind on the tackle.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If he made contact with the head it would indeed have been a red card. He didn’t though. He was very very lucky in that regard.

stephen_n wrote: »

So BOD has changed his mind on the tackle.

shootermacg

stephen_n wrote: »

So BOD has changed his mind on the tackle.

I've actually put some posters on ignore after this. If someone thinks the decision was OK they are either blind, english or trolls. Either way I can't respect their opinion.

stephen_n

shootermacg wrote: »

I've actually put some posters on ignore after this. If someone thinks the decision was OK they are either blind, english or trolls. Either way I can't respect their opinion.

I can understand the decision Gardiner made based on the left arm. The question is though if an attempt to wrap with the non tackling shoulder is enough. I’m assuming by that piece, BOD got clarification from someone more versed in the laws than him or us.

irishbucsfan

If the tackling or non-tackling shoulder has any relevance then that’s fine, make it law.

It’s not law currently. No one who actually plays or adjudicates the game thinks it is. It’s fine.