Ulster vs. Leinster, Saturday 6th March, 19.35 (Eir Sport 1)

molloyjh

Some of the commentary here about the IRFU wanting to keep Ulster down and referees and the laws conspiring against Ulster is actually pretty cringey. There always seems to be someone else to blame. Heaven forbid some acknowledge that Warwick committed a pretty clear act of foul plat that World Rugby clarified years ago has to be a red.

Stockdale got a yellow in 2018 for something very similar. World Rugby subsequently clarified should have been a red. See below article.

https://www-the42-ie.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.the42.ie/red-card-leading-elbow-ball-carriers-4277211-Oct2018/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&amp=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16151563060117&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.the42.ie%2Fred-card-leading-elbow-ball-carriers-4277211-Oct2018%2F

Warwicks actually doesn't fall under the same high tackle directive at all as it isnt a tackle. It is 100% a red card. Has been for years. So any chance we can all acknowledge that it was a red and move the f*** on?

connemara man

Shane Delahunt got a red card for the same thing
https://twitter.com/eirSport/status/1300090108725678080?s=19

Random Bloke

awec wrote: »

McCloskey couldn't run past Ruddock because Ruddock decided to tackle McCloskey.

He could. But instead he decided to run into Ruddock.

Ardillaun

A ref at this level would need to be fairly pachydermatous.

molloyjh

Ardillaun wrote: »

A ref at this level would need to be fairly pachydermatous.

I'm not going to lie. I had to look that one up...but yes, they would.

Dubinusa

I've rewatched it. Definitely a mess of cards and penalties. I think the laws have changed so much, that the players are not keeping up. I wouldn't have red carded JOB. Definitely foul play but a yellow was probably fair. Warwick too, I would have given a yellow. I don't think there was intent, but Murphy probably did what he had too. Toners yellow was probably justified.
There were a couple of seat belt tackles that were not reviewed either. Plus one missile type launch of a clearout that also wasn't reviewed. I don't know who the player was, but to me it looked dangerous.
Bizarre game as a spectacle. Stop start and repeat.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

Some of the commentary here about the IRFU wanting to keep Ulster down and referees and the laws conspiring against Ulster is actually pretty cringey. There always seems to be someone else to blame. Heaven forbid some acknowledge that Warwick committed a pretty clear act of foul plat that World Rugby clarified years ago has to be a red.

Stockdale got a yellow in 2018 for something very similar. World Rugby subsequently clarified should have been a red. See below article.

https://www-the42-ie.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.the42.ie/red-card-leading-elbow-ball-carriers-4277211-Oct2018/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&amp=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16151563060117&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.the42.ie%2Fred-card-leading-elbow-ball-carriers-4277211-Oct2018%2F

Warwicks actually doesn't fall under the same high tackle directive at all as it isnt a tackle. It is 100% a red card. Has been for years. So any chance we can all acknowledge that it was a red and move the f*** on?

Sure, it's a red.

So was O'Brien's in that case. O'Brien's was the most dangerous incident of the day. Heaven forbid someone acknowledge that the referee got that one wrong and it had a significant material impact on the game.

The problem is inconsistency with decisions. Every week it's a total lottery. If people weren't in such a rush to try and defend what are obviously bad decisions they'd realise that. Next week, JOB could do the exact same thing and he could get a red. Warwick could do the same thing and get a yellow. The standard of refereeing is appalling, and we seem to constantly be bearing a significant chunk of the crap luck in this fixture.

sebdavis

awec wrote: »

Sure, it's a red.

So was O'Brien's in that case. O'Brien's was the most dangerous incident of the day. Heaven forbid someone acknowledge that the referee got that one wrong and it had a significant material impact on the game.

The problem is inconsistency with decisions. Every week it's a total lottery. If people weren't in such a rush to try and defend what are obviously bad decisions they'd realise that.

It wasn't a red for O'Brien.
No intent
No real force from what I could see
It was an accidental collision.

If that was a red they might as well just stop playing rugby just in case players hit each other.

If we look at the recent red cards
Warwick: he is running at a defending players, he makes the choice to put his arm up high to hit the player on the neck. Red card
POM: Player is in the ruck, POM can see players in ruck, comes from a distance and goes in with his "chicken arm" straight to hit the player. Ok the players head was wrong way but still player made a decision to tackle like that. Red card.

In my eyes and plenty more the ref didn't get it wrong.

aloooof

Little bit surprised at Drico's reaction to the Ed Byrne clear out on Cooney. (I think the original take RE: cheap shot isn't accurate either, mind).

https://twitter.com/BrianODriscoll/status/1368485813437218817

Thought that was the most egregious decision of the night, tbh, looked so obvious in real time.

AdamD

It was egregious because it was so obvious, but it's just a penalty.

sydthebeat

aloooof wrote: »

Little bit surprised at Drico's reaction to the Ed Byrne clear out on Cooney. (I think the original take RE: cheap shot isn't accurate either, mind).

https://twitter.com/BrianODriscoll/status/1368485813437218817

Thought that was the most egregious decision of the night, tbh, looked so obvious in real time.

wayne barnes spoke about this last week on the rugby pod.

basically it boils down to the ruck area not being reffed in a way that stops players diving in, and until world rugby comes out with a directive to ref it that way... its will still be allowed to dive into a ruck to clean out... even though it patently against the laws.

Dave_The_Sheep

At the time and from watching it back, I thought that clearout was a case of Cooney being there, and Byrne had him lined up to smash him out of the ruck area. Cooney realised this and backed off, then Byrne did his superman impression over the top instead of what would have been a big clearout otherwise.

Penalty eight days a week, but I have no idea where the calls for more are coming from, unless Cooney cops a knee on the other side of the camera. I'll look up the downloaded game and see if I can find more at some point.

awec

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

At the time and from watching it back, I thought that clearout was a case of Cooney being there, and Byrne had him lined up to smash him out of the ruck area. Cooney realised this and backed off, then Byrne did his superman impression over the top instead of what would have been a big clearout otherwise.

Penalty eight days a week, but I have no idea where the calls for more are coming from, unless Cooney cops a knee on the other side of the camera. I'll look up the downloaded game and see if I can find more at some point.

There was nothing else. It was just a penalty for diving over the ruck and / or playing the 9.

aloooof

sydthebeat wrote: »

wayne barnes spoke about this last week on the rugby pod.

basically it boils down to the ruck area not being reffed in a way that stops players diving in, and until world rugby comes out with a directive to ref it that way... its will still be allowed to dive into a ruck to clean out... even though it patently against the laws.

I think this is the kinda thing that just annoys fans tho; we shouldn't need a directive to enforce the laws. Cheers for the pod tip tho, will give it a listen, always find Barnes pretty good.

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

At the time and from watching it back, I thought that clearout was a case of Cooney being there, and Byrne had him lined up to smash him out of the ruck area. Cooney realised this and backed off, then Byrne did his superman impression over the top instead of what would have been a big clearout otherwise.

Penalty eight days a week, but I have no idea where the calls for more are coming from, unless Cooney cops a knee on the other side of the camera. I'll look up the downloaded game and see if I can find more at some point.

I defo don't think it was more than a pen either, fwiw. I seem to remember Dupont doing something similar (if a lot more subtle) with CJ giving away a penalty for far less in the France game. In comparison to this, there was nothing in it. Will try find the clip later on.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Sure, it's a red.

So was O'Brien's in that case. O'Brien's was the most dangerous incident of the day. Heaven forbid someone acknowledge that the referee got that one wrong and it had a significant material impact on the game.

The problem is inconsistency with decisions. Every week it's a total lottery. If people weren't in such a rush to try and defend what are obviously bad decisions they'd realise that. Next week, JOB could do the exact same thing and he could get a red. Warwick could do the same thing and get a yellow. The standard of refereeing is appalling, and we seem to constantly be bearing a significant chunk of the crap luck in this fixture.

The JOB collision wasn't that bad, at least from memory. Maybe I need to watch it back. I did have a 3 year old climbing all over me during the replays of it. But you've been exaggerating it already, calling it "effectively a headbutt" so I'm not sure you're capable of being objective on this one tbh.

Warwicks was a red card all day. We saw Delahunt red carded for it recently too. Have you any recent examples of that kind of incident only getting a yellow? Because if you don't then you can't moan about inconsistency when there's no evidence of any. It isnt a high tackle so you can't compare it to one. It's a totally different law.

yerrahbah

aloooof wrote: »

Little bit surprised at Drico's reaction to the Ed Byrne clear out on Cooney. (I think the original take RE: cheap shot isn't accurate either, mind).

https://twitter.com/BrianODriscoll/status/1368485813437218817

Thought that was the most egregious decision of the night, tbh, looked so obvious in real time.

https://twitter.com/offtheball/status/1338540825094053888

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

wayne barnes spoke about this last week on the rugby pod.

basically it boils down to the ruck area not being reffed in a way that stops players diving in, and until world rugby comes out with a directive to ref it that way... its will still be allowed to dive into a ruck to clean out... even though it patently against the laws.

This.

*rant coming*

Also, when you could ruck with your feet there was a lot less collision-related concussion issues arising from breakdown. Not unrelated to the fact that the ball came back faster, but also, frankly, players didn't fancy getting trampled and were not motivated to get into risky positions for it. As the game got more popular and televised more widely rucking became unacceptable.

Too savage/visceral/whatever, ill-informed spectators/pundits hated the look of it (IRB was especially concerned to "clean the game up" so you would not have numbers at age-grade falling due to concerned parents) - ironically getting rucked or even stamped up and down the body and legs was not going to cause chronic brain injury of the sort now arising from "surviving" too many clear outs. Even the odd stray boot wouldn't do that to you.

Look what we have now. "Jackals" coached to get into "poaching" positions which are by definition unsafe (shoulders below hips anyone - seriously, there are reasons why this is deemed an unsafe position in law) and being "cleared out" with unbelievably heavy hits which are by strict definition illegal (re the way in the which you can legally join a ruck) and even if those positions wern't illegal (they are, for a reason) they are guaranteed to expose both players to serious injury both chronic over time (concussion/attrition related) and acute (lower limb from being braced when smashed).

I honestly think this era is existential for the game and it's very hard to work out how to get through it.

*rant over*

crossman47

ecoli3136 wrote: »

This.

*rant coming*

Also, when you could ruck with your feet there was a lot less collision-related concussion issues arising from breakdown. Not unrelated to the fact that the ball came back faster, but also, frankly, players didn't fancy getting trampled and were not motivated to get into risky positions for it. As the game got more popular and televised more widely rucking became unacceptable.

Too savage/visceral/whatever, ill-informed spectators/pundits hated the look of it (IRB was especially concerned to "clean the game up" so you would not have numbers at age-grade falling due to concerned parents) - ironically getting rucked or even stamped up and down the body and legs was not going to cause chronic brain injury of the sort now arising from "surviving" too many clear outs. Even the odd stray boot wouldn't do that to you.

Look what we have now. "Jackals" coached to get into "poaching" positions which are by definition unsafe (shoulders below hips anyone - seriously, there are reasons why this is deemed an unsafe position in law) and being "cleared out" with unbelievably heavy hits which are by strict definition illegal (re the way in the which you can legally join a ruck) and even if those positions wern't illegal (they are, for a reason) they are guaranteed to expose both players to serious injury both chronic over time (concussion/attrition related) and acute (lower limb from being braced when smashed).

I honestly think this era is existential for the game and it's very hard to work out how to get through it.

*rant over*

Your rant is correct. I can't understand the refs. Most "clearouts" are illegal and should be penalised. Refs should not need a directive.

sydthebeat

the crock roll is easily the most patently illegal action on a rugby field which happens most frequently and absolutely never whistled.

irishbucsfan

I don’t think the removal of the feet from the ruck has anything to do with it tbh, just my opinion from playing before and after that change. It had already become very rare that the ball was being played with the feet and it was almost always done by the defensive team disruptively and had very little positive effect on the game.

The danger at the ruck is happening when players are entering and is very very difficult to solve. The croc roll is a good example of something that could be fixed immediately though, they should increase the penalty for it and get citations going for it.

crossman47

crossman47 wrote: »

Your rant is correct. I can't understand the refs. Most "clearouts" are illegal and should be penalised. Refs should not need a directive.

Thanks.


It's asking a lot of a ref to stand up and do it completely contrary to how he's been trained, directed and instructed though isn't it. They'd simply be ditched.


Change has to be led from the top down.


A rhetorical question: what happens to a contact sport when the changes you have introduced to the game, how it's played, and the players who play it at an elite level taken together make that sport inherently unsafe unless you penalise contact, regardless of intent? Meanwhile many unsafe actions which are against the rules of the game (ok, "the laws") are not penalised.


Is that a farce?


Seems like a farce.

awec

They've done a lot to address issues at the tackle, cause that's easy.

The breakdown they don't really seem to have any ideas. Hard to see how you can make poaching safer.

arsebiscuits1

Gif here


Tom O'Toole a lucky boy not to get a red

lotmc

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Gif here


Tom O'Toole a lucky boy not to get a red

That was the most dangerous "tackle" of the game, bar none. He even managed to give himself a busted lip doing it.

awec

Carbon copy of the JOB incident, so it's a red card.

There is no consistency whatsoever. Not even penalised if I remember right?

pickarooney

aloooof wrote: »

Little bit surprised at Drico's reaction to the Ed Byrne clear out on Cooney. (I think the original take RE: cheap shot isn't accurate either, mind).

https://twitter.com/BrianODriscoll/status/1368485813437218817

Thought that was the most egregious decision of the night, tbh, looked so obvious in real time.

BoD has no credibility on this kind of thing. He espouses the 'rugby gone soft' or 'think of the children' mantra whenever it suits him and then usually rows back when called out on.

Former Former Former

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Gif here


Tom O'Toole a lucky boy not to get a red

Yep.

So despite getting slated by all and sundry for ruining the game with so many cards, it now looks as though Murphy should have dished out one if not two more.

arsebiscuits1

awec wrote: »

Carbon copy of the JOB incident, so it's a red card.

There is no consistency whatsoever. Not even penalised if I remember right?

Arguably worse as there was much less dynamic movement directly before. Directly in front of the ref and missed by the TMO who was happy to raise an incident 90 seconds prior in the case of JOB.

pickarooney

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Thanks.


It's asking a lot of a ref to stand up and do it completely contrary to how he's been trained, directed and instructed though isn't it. They'd simply be ditched.


Change has to be led from the top down.


A rhetorical question: what happens to a contact sport when the changes you have introduced to the game, how it's played, and the players who play it at an elite level taken together make that sport inherently unsafe unless you penalise contact, regardless of intent? Meanwhile many unsafe actions which are against the rules of the game (ok, "the laws") are not penalised.


Is that a farce?


Seems like a farce.

Would they ditch Barnes? The game is in dire need of good refs. If the top ones say that they're going to agree to apply the rules as they are, for player safety, World Rugby couldn't afford to ditch them. It would be a disaster on all levels.

AbusesToilets

awec wrote: »

They've done a lot to address issues at the tackle, cause that's easy.

The breakdown they don't really seem to have any ideas. Hard to see how you can make poaching safer.

Get rid of it? It's a blight on the game.

awec

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Get rid of it? It's a blight on the game.

Then how do you turn over possession? Counter rucking only?

The poach is the main way possession changes right now, get rid of it and they'd need to ensure that defensive teams can get the ball back someway other than just waiting for the attacking team to score.

Bazzo

awec wrote: »

Then how do you turn over possession? Counter rucking only?

The poach is the main way possession changes right now, get rid of it and they'd need to ensure that defensive teams can get the ball back someway other than just waiting for the attacking team to score.

What if you had a certain number of phases to use the ball and if you failed the possession turned over to the other team? :pac:

Former Former Former

Bazzo wrote: »

What if you had a certain number of phases to use the ball and if you failed the possession turned over to the other team? :pac:

Good idea.

You'd need to reduce the number of players on the field though. Somewhere between 12 and 14 per side.

AdamD

Former Former Former wrote: »

Yep.

So despite getting slated by all and sundry for ruining the game with so many cards, it now looks as though Murphy should have dished out one if not two more.

Both teams could easily have had more yellows for infringements in their own 22s too, the discipline on display was pretty awful.

sydthebeat

awec wrote: »

Then how do you turn over possession? Counter rucking only?

The poach is the main way possession changes right now, get rid of it and they'd need to ensure that defensive teams can get the ball back someway other than just waiting for the attacking team to score.

one thing that really bugs me is the jackler actually leaning over the defender whos down protecting the ball in order to get on it and win a penalt

its literally impossible to to be legal, as its only the first defending arrival that can use hands 'before' a ruck is formed. Once theres a protector there, the moment the defender comes and makes contact, thats a ruck, therefore hands cannot be used.

another that pisses me off is where theres a protector over the ball, ruck formed, then a defender comes in and wrestles him to the ground deliberately. "No one on their feet" is called and the second or third defender can come in a use hands on the ball. Thats why Bundees looked so weird the other night. he argued there was no one on their feet but him so he should have been allowed to pick it up, but the ref (correctly) argued that as he joined the ruck and was part of the ruck, he couldnt use his hands but could only push the offside line more forward. You see very often refs allowing the second or third man in to use hands when either they or a team mate has deliberately pulled the ball protector to the deck.

mfceiling

Former Former Former wrote: »

Good idea.

You'd need to reduce the number of players on the field though. Somewhere between 12 and 14 per side.

You'd have to have certain figure in mind that after a particular amount of phases you either kick the ball away or give up possession.

Maybe 6 phases?

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

What if you had a certain number of phases to use the ball

If you listen very carefully you can hear Joe Schmidt screaming all the way from New Zealand.

Boscoirl

Deleted User wrote: »

If you listen very carefully you can hear Joe Schmidt screaming all the way from New Zealand.

meet him half way? 27 phases?

awec

awec wrote: »

Then how do you turn over possession? Counter rucking only?

The poach is the main way possession changes right now, get rid of it and they'd need to ensure that defensive teams can get the ball back someway other than just waiting for the attacking team to score.

For me it's a matter of addressing the body position the poacher is adopting as a key element of making positive changes.

Penalise the player who folds over the breakdown as they currently do. Shoulders below hips in a ruck is penalty kick anyway (ok, I accept that be letter of law its not a ruck when they go in as first man but the reason for that PK is player safety). Also this position is typically availing of illegally supporting oneself by hands/upper harms, even momentarily (I accept this law breach is being clamped down on as of very recently).

The correct poaching position should be to get into an athletic squat type position roughly over the ball, i.e. stride in and over, dip the arse right down to go for the ball. You'd try to get side-on ish to oncoming traffic as a matter of technique but the key is how is the player getting down over the ball? Drop the hips, or fold the body over.

If you take contact in that position it will lend itself to a shoulder on shoulder-or-lower hit. Also ou should be driven backwards (with/without ball), if the contact is enough to remove you rather than being braced to remain immobile in the face of heavy contact, exposing you to acute injury to lower limbs if you get hit from the wrong angle, and of course increasing the concussive force of hits to the upper body while leaving your head in a far more difficult (lower) danger-zone.

That would be a legal poaching position.

Obviously players still need to be protected from high shots but that's feasible.

So essentially penalise this folded over braced position that has become the norm.

btw my earlier reference to rucking with feet was not a reference to playing the ball with feet therefore speeding up possession (thought that was obvious) it was a reference to playing opposing players with your feet (or creating the risk that would happen) as a way to speed up possession). It worked, and was safer than the "clear outs" you now have to "survive" albeit you do get the occasional incident that can look very unattractive. This not, by the way, a charter for stamping. That always was and should remain illegal.

bilston

Former Former Former wrote: »

Yep.

So despite getting slated by all and sundry for ruining the game with so many cards, it now looks as though Murphy should have dished out one if not two more.

Where is the first contact, looks like the back to me.

At the time I thought O'Loughlin did a bit of a Ronaldo to be honest.

arsebiscuits1

bilston wrote: »

Where is the first contact, looks like the back to me.

At the time I thought O'Loughlin did a bit of a Ronaldo to be honest.

First contact is clearly the head

dub_skav

awec wrote: »

Then how do you turn over possession? Counter rucking only?

The poach is the main way possession changes right now, get rid of it and they'd need to ensure that defensive teams can get the ball back someway other than just waiting for the attacking team to score.

I've never really understood why a jackler needs to "survive" the clearout.
If defender is first player there and gets hands on, it should be their ball.

Essentially then it becomes first player to the tackle wins the ball for their team and then the pushing of ruck / counter-ruck takes place.

What they're saying now is - if jackler is first player there AND gets hands on ball AND survives high sped impacts from multiple players, then they can win the ball.

awec

dub_skav wrote: »

I've never really understood why a jackler needs to "survive" the clearout.
If defender is first player there and gets hands on, it should be their ball.

Essentially then it becomes first player to the tackle wins the ball for their team and then the pushing of ruck / counter-ruck takes place.

What they're saying now is - if jackler is first player there AND gets hands on ball AND survives high sped impacts from multiple players, then they can win the ball.

I don't think that surviving the clearout thing is true any more.

These days it seems that once the defender gets on the ball it's a penalty straight away. The issue is when they have to go fishing for it a bit, they are in the jackle position and get cleared out.

Yeah_Right

I don't understand why accidental head clashes are being penalised. I understand if someone goes flying in leading with their head but in the case JOB and Madigan or TOT and ROL they look like legitimate tackles and there is an accidental head clash. What happens if 2 tacklers clash heads? Is it a penalty? Two opposing players try to catch the ball and bang heads, who gets penalised? Can the ball carrier be penalised for leading with their head?

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I don't understand why accidental head clashes are being penalised. I understand if someone goes flying in leading with their head but in the case JOB and Madigan or TOT and ROL they look like legitimate tackles and there is an accidental head clash. What happens if 2 tacklers clash heads? Is it a penalty? Two opposing players try to catch the ball and bang heads, who gets penalised? Can the ball carrier be penalised for leading with their head?

aren't they trying to encourage tacklers to go lower? but to your point that can also mean 2 tacklers clash.

if they changed the rule regarding choke tackles then there would be less incentive for tacklers to go in high to hold the ball up.

jacothelad

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don’t think the removal of the feet from the ruck has anything to do with it tbh, just my opinion from playing before and after that change. It had already become very rare that the ball was being played with the feet and it was almost always done by the defensive team disruptively and had very little positive effect on the game.

The danger at the ruck is happening when players are entering and is very very difficult to solve. The croc roll is a good example of something that could be fixed immediately though, they should increase the penalty for it and get citations going for it.

What about if the law was tweaked so that a player entering the ruck must do so from a stationary position. I.E. They must clearly stop and enter the ruck then with arms in front of their body, head above waist. No more Exocet clear outs.

crisco10

jacothelad wrote: »

What about if the law was tweaked so that a player entering the ruck must do so from a stationary position. I.E. They must clearly stop and enter the ruck then with arms in front of their body, head above waist. No more Exocet clear outs.

The Jonah lomu rugby on PS1 rucking approach!

awec

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I don't understand why accidental head clashes are being penalised. I understand if someone goes flying in leading with their head but in the case JOB and Madigan or TOT and ROL they look like legitimate tackles and there is an accidental head clash. What happens if 2 tacklers clash heads? Is it a penalty? Two opposing players try to catch the ball and bang heads, who gets penalised? Can the ball carrier be penalised for leading with their head?

If 2 players accidentally clash heads with neither player committing an offence I would imagine there'd be no action. I think this is what they mean when they say a "rugby collision".

But if 2 players accidentally clash heads when one of them tackles high, or someone leads with their head it's when they get will get penalized.

pickarooney

dub_skav wrote: »

I've never really understood why a jackler needs to "survive" the clearout.
If defender is first player there and gets hands on, it should be their ball.

Essentially then it becomes first player to the tackle wins the ball for their team and then the pushing of ruck / counter-ruck takes place.

What they're saying now is - if jackler is first player there AND gets hands on ball AND survives high sped impacts from multiple players, then they can win the ball.

Completely and utterly agree. Defender in first? Tough ****, support runners, you missed out. Let him have the ball and tackle him legally as there's now no ruck.
This assumes the defender decides to play the ball and not ruck over it, protecting it and allowing a teammate to play it.

BUT - forget this crap of the poacher pushing the ball down or against the carrier to win a penalty AND the carrier has to have the right to actually place the ball once tackled. Pulling the ball from a player who's trying to place it shouldn't be a penalty.

This gives a very narrow window for a poacher to take a live ball but the turnover is still possible by rucking over it instead.

Just get rid of this crap of lads diving in to clear out defenders. Jackalers shouldn't have to stay there with their head down exposed to flying bodies. It's a quick smash and grab job to take the ball or a low-impact wrestle to ruck over it

awec

awec wrote: »

If 2 players accidentally clash heads with neither player committing an offence I would imagine there'd be no action. I think this is what they mean when they say a "rugby collision".

But if 2 players accidentally clash heads when one of them tackles high, or someone leads with their head it's when they get will get penalized.

Unless you play for Ulster, as the screenshot above clearly tells us.