Premiership Rugby Round 22 - it's all in the motion

First topic message reminder :

Today, 7:45pm
Bristol - Sale
Gloucester-Bath

Tomorrow, 3;00pm
Harlequins-Falcons
Saints-Saracens

The day after, 3;00pm
Leicester-Exeter

Why oh why are the Friday and Saturday games on at the same time?  Don't the people who run the Premiership know this hurts tv ratings?  Another reason we need a massive shake-up.  Top to bottom.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpPeQyT36Tg

No 7&1/2 wrote:So slide in, no ones allowed to touch you, guaranteed try every time. Or perhaps Dickson was wrong?

I think what KC is saying and I agree with is that technically being right doesn't necessarily mean that we should take it as a precedent.

I don't think anyone wants to see harmless challenges like this being pulled up in every game.

It also raises an important question in rugby of why do two yellows result in a red?

Red cards are meant to be for dangerous foul play. I've never understood why two yellows would result in that same penalty. The only rational for it would seem to be that other sports with yellow and red cards do this so rugby shall too.

Sorry was in response to your point Sam KC s hadn't appeared when I posted. Just a question for you guys then should Underhill have had a pen try against him in your view? If not why not?

And kc saying the match was already won is a bit of a stretch surely.

Presumably Underhill on Scott Williams? The difference there being that he hadn't already been tackled. Whereas Ashton had been tackled by Hogg. It's a selective application of the rules seemingly driven by Dickson getting flack at the refs review after the hit on Esterhuizen following McGinty's tap tackle earlier this season.

Had that exact same scenario happened under the posts with the try scored then it's not even looked at. It's not going to be a penalty to restart things on halfway for Tigers.

Rugby has a big issue with the selective application of the rules when the reffing of head contact has brought "by the letter of the law" into other applications.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry was in response to your point Sam KC s hadn't appeared when I posted. Just a question for you guys then should Underhill have had a pen try against him in your view? If not why not?

And kc saying the match was already won is a bit of a stretch surely.

Monye, Ashton and Care talk about this on the BBC pod. Care recalled a time when Quins played Bristol and Esterhuizen was tap-tackled short of the line. As he moved to score, a Bristol player flopped on top to stop him. There was no penalty try. In reply, Monye recalled that very incident being reviewed after the game, and everyone concluding it should have been penalty try.

They also mentioned the Underhill case. Underhill didn't flop on top of the player, or slide into him when he was already on the turf. He dived just as the Welsh player dived. Then he got his arm under his body at around hip level, and flipped him over.



This is the Esterhuizen incident:

https://twitter.com/BristolBears/status/1608062835614949376

The difference between those two and the one Dickson gave is that there isn't a completed tackle in either of them. Underhill makes a legal tackle on a player diving for the line. The one against Quins he looks like he's off his feet when he rips the ball which is playing the ball on the floor, if it's part of the tackle then you'd say it's legitimate on the basis that there isn't a tackle.

Woodburn falls foul of the fact a tackle has already been completed before he slides in. It's unlucky but we have seen players penalised for dragging players or assisting them into touch after a completed tackle this season. More so than in the past.

king_carlos wrote:It also raises an important question in rugby of why do two yellows result in a red?

Red cards are meant to be for dangerous foul play. I've never understood why two yellows would result in that same penalty. The only rational for it would seem to be that other sports with yellow and red cards do this so rugby shall too.

I was thinking that too, especially when it's easy to pick up a yellow for a deemed deliberate knock-on etc ...

formerly known as Sam wrote:The difference between those two and the one Dickson gave is that there isn't a completed tackle in either of them. Underhill makes a legal tackle on a player diving for the line. The one against Quins he looks like he's off his feet when he rips the ball which is playing the ball on the floor, if it's part of the tackle then you'd say it's legitimate on the basis that there isn't a tackle.

Woodburn falls foul of the fact a tackle has already been completed before he slides in. It's unlucky but we have seen players penalised for dragging players or assisting them into touch after a completed tackle this season. More so than in the past.

The law doesn't seem to stipulate about whether a completed tackle is relevant or not. It just says: "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."

Duty281 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The difference between those two and the one Dickson gave is that there isn't a completed tackle in either of them. Underhill makes a legal tackle on a player diving for the line. The one against Quins he looks like he's off his feet when he rips the ball which is playing the ball on the floor, if it's part of the tackle then you'd say it's legitimate on the basis that there isn't a tackle.

Woodburn falls foul of the fact a tackle has already been completed before he slides in. It's unlucky but we have seen players penalised for dragging players or assisting them into touch after a completed tackle this season. More so than in the past.

The law doesn't seem to stipulate about whether a completed tackle is relevant or not. It just says: "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."

Yes but you can't just drop to the floor and shout, can't be tackled in a run for the line. In order to advance with the ball in hand you must be on your feet. Part of the rationale of Dickson in the penalty against Woodburn was that a tackle had already been completed when he slid in.

king_carlos wrote:Presumably Underhill on Scott Williams? The difference there being that he hadn't already been tackled. Whereas Ashton had been tackled by Hogg. It's a selective application of the rules seemingly driven by Dickson getting flack at the refs review after the hit on Esterhuizen following McGinty's tap tackle earlier this season.

Had that exact same scenario happened under the posts with the try scored then it's not even looked at. It's not going to be a penalty to restart things on halfway for Tigers.

Rugby has a big issue with the selective application of the rules when the reffing of head contact has brought "by the letter of the law" into other applications.

So in your thoughts on this it's purely tackle has been completed and no other player os allowed to stop the momentum of a player after that point?

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry was in response to your point Sam KC s hadn't appeared when I posted. Just a question for you guys then should Underhill have had a pen try against him in your view? If not why not?

And kc saying the match was already won is a bit of a stretch surely.

Monye, Ashton and Care talk about this on the BBC pod. Care recalled a time when Quins played Bristol and Esterhuizen was tap-tackled short of the line. As he moved to score, a Bristol player flopped on top to stop him. There was no penalty try. In reply, Monye recalled that very incident being reviewed after the game, and everyone concluding it should have been penalty try.

They also mentioned the Underhill case. Underhill didn't flop on top of the player, or slide into him when he was already on the turf. He dived just as the Welsh player dived. Then he got his arm under his body at around hip level, and flipped him over.



This is the Esterhuizen incident:

https://twitter.com/BristolBears/status/1608062835614949376

So Woodburn would be in the second category in this case.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The difference between those two and the one Dickson gave is that there isn't a completed tackle in either of them. Underhill makes a legal tackle on a player diving for the line. The one against Quins he looks like he's off his feet when he rips the ball which is playing the ball on the floor, if it's part of the tackle then you'd say it's legitimate on the basis that there isn't a tackle.

Woodburn falls foul of the fact a tackle has already been completed before he slides in. It's unlucky but we have seen players penalised for dragging players or assisting them into touch after a completed tackle this season. More so than in the past.

The law doesn't seem to stipulate about whether a completed tackle is relevant or not. It just says: "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."

Yes but you can't just drop to the floor and shout, can't be tackled in a run for the line. In order to advance with the ball in hand you must be on your feet. Part of the rationale of Dickson in the penalty against Woodburn was that a tackle had already been completed when he slid in.

Was it? I've just rewatched it to check. Dickson asked for a replay as he felt Woodburn had dived on Ashton, which would be illegal. From the other angle then correctly says that Woodburn has dived on the floor and pushed him into touch. Right again so far. The only issue is he's allowed to do that.

https://twitter.com/btsportrugby/status/1647621158706069507?t=aX_xAuBPqbNXQJ2fMJGgqg&s=19

None of us agree that's how we want the laws interpreting. The laws do state you can't dive on a tackled player but it's a very harsh decision that no one was calling for at the time.

I think this is one of those really weird calls.  Ashton had just hit the ground, in the process of the tackle being finished by Hogg, when Woodburn joined.  Barely a split second later.  

In my opinion the tackle had not been completed.  Therefore, the decision was wrong at the outset.  And the subsequent interpretation based on an incorrect premise.  

I think the reason this call has legs is that no one wants to see a benign play like this impact a game, let alone any loss in game pay due to a suspension.  

Rob Baxter wrote:"We have a myriad of ways to destroy games of Rugby, don't we?"  

Yes, we do, Coach.

And the funny thing is this wouldn't have changed the final outcome or the final score, except by maybe removing one penalty try.

People are finding more examples of similar situations. This is from a Saracens-Bristol game.

https://twitter.com/19AndyN70/status/1647667337150050304

Journalists on the Times podcast think Dickson should have been more sympathetic to the game. However, by some accounts (mentioned by broadlandboy above), Dickson was given a negative review when he failed to award a penalty try in the Esterhuizen case. If that's true, then he was effectively instructed not to be sympathetic to the game, and so we got that decision.

However, we should know all this, rather than having to hear whispers and make guesses. If a review concluded Dickson was wrong in the Quins-Bristol match, and officials should rule differently, then that ought to have been made public, so we wouldn't have been so surprised to see it at the weekend.

It is a little concerning that we are finding contentious "letter of the law" decisions, which go against common rugby instincts, so close to the World Cup. The ITV presenters went straight into a discussion of the pros and cons of leaving it to the TMO to upgrade to red. That wouldn't have applied in Woodburn's case, as the immediate offence was only a yellow. As others have said, it's more a question of whether two yellows should make a red.

I'm fine with the 2 yellows to a red tbh. Just harsh when it's so badly wrong. I was watching BT and tbf Healey immediately went with it's fine. As Dickson said himself Woodburn dived on the floor not the man and was primarily looking to stop the grounding. If the RFU themselves have given the wrong 'advice' to Dickson previously then it's bad and I whole heatedly agree that these things should be out in the open. I made the point before that the blind backing of officials creates far more issues, simply come out and say that was the wrong decision this is what it should have been and move on. That said Dickson far too often comes out with incorrect rulings with time on his hands through the TMO and is only a prem ref because he used to be a player.

I see Nowell has avoided any punishment for his comments on Dickson: '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'

Dickson is an appalling referee worst in the league - he also needs to go to Specsavers.
He said that Woodburn dived on Ashton - utter nonsense.
Woodburn slid in trying to get his hand under the ball, he did make minor contact as they collided but nothing untowards.
Also penalty try  - dont think so Ashton was in touch anyway regardless of what Woodburn did.

Now it may well have been a penalty under the law (if so the law is an ass in this situation) but a cardable offense - your having a laugh!

Reminds me of an instance where an Ulster player was Red carded in Wales.
Sean Reidy has going in for a try saving tackle just short of the line near the corner.
His dived into the tackle, his entire body was below waist height.
The try score dived for the line and was also below waist  height.
They clashed heads - result Red card.

What was he to do?
If a player with the ball ducks low enough you cant tackle him?
Common sense from referees required

Dickson for one has none

doctor_grey wrote:I think this is one of those really weird calls.  Ashton had just hit the ground, in the process of the tackle being finished by Hogg, when Woodburn joined.  Barely a split second later.  

In my opinion the tackle had not been completed.  Therefore, the decision was wrong at the outset.  And the subsequent interpretation based on an incorrect premise.  

I think the reason this call has legs is that no one wants to see a benign play like this impact a game, let alone any loss in game pay due to a suspension.  

Rob Baxter wrote:"We have a myriad of ways to destroy games of Rugby, don't we?"  

Yes, we do, Coach.

And the funny thing is this wouldn't have changed the final outcome or the final score, except by maybe removing one penalty try.

Which importantly would have meant I would have kept my bonus point on Superbru

Nowell to face disciplinary committee for posting

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, who did not play in the Premiership game, called it "one of the worst decisions" he had ever seen.

He has been charged for conduct that prejudices the interests of the game.

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."

Nowell later deleted the tweet.

He will face an independent disciplinary panel on Wednesday.

Wrong the people who are ' conduct that prejudices the interests of the game.' are Dickson and those allowing him to ref at this level

If it was a genuine dive on Ashton (which it wasn't) they'd have a point. Nowell is right. And he's not exactly gone to the lengths of Rassie to say so.

Not going to be popular but in the Underhill & Bris sh tackles neither tackler were on top of the ball carrier. Woodburn, I doubt he intended, lands on Ashton. IMSHO (& Dicksons)

broadlandboy wrote:Not going to be popular but in the Underhill & Bris sh tackles neither tackler were on top of the ball carrier. Woodburn, I doubt he intended, lands on Ashton. IMSHO (& Dicksons)

Please watch the replay his knees hit the ground well before he got to Ashton he most definitely did not dive on him which is what Dickson claimed

Specsavers have a slot jsut after KD I suggest you take it

geoff999rugby wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Not going to be popular but in the Underhill & Bris sh tackles neither tackler were on top of the ball carrier. Woodburn, I doubt he intended, lands on Ashton. IMSHO (& Dicksons)

Please watch the replay his knees hit the ground well before he got to Ashton he most definitely did not dive on him which is what Dickson claimed

Specsavers have a slot jsut after KD I suggest you take it

Knee maybe down but upper body flops onto Ashton.

Look at all three clips. Which player is on top of who?

This reminds me of when a player is chasing back to get a kick and dives on the ball. He then can't be dived on, or tackled until he is standing. I don't know why this has caused so many pages of outrage. It was a great game of rugby and there are far better things to discuss like Ashtons record tries and celebration...

...Or Quins finally getting a win. And what a win! Or Saracens losing.

yappysnap wrote:This reminds me of when a player is chasing back to get a kick and dives on the ball. He then can't be dived on, or tackled until he is standing. I don't know why this has caused so many pages of outrage. It was a great game of rugby and there are far better things to discuss like Ashtons record tries and celebration...

...Or Quins finally getting a win. And what a win! Or Saracens losing.

Hasn't that changed now to say that a chasing player has to give the player on the ground sufficient opportunity to get up?

broadlandboy wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Not going to be popular but in the Underhill & Bris sh tackles neither tackler were on top of the ball carrier. Woodburn, I doubt he intended, lands on Ashton. IMSHO (& Dicksons)

Please watch the replay his knees hit the ground well before he got to Ashton he most definitely did not dive on him which is what Dickson claimed

Specsavers have a slot jsut after KD I suggest you take it

Knee maybe down but upper body flops onto Ashton.

Look at all three clips. Which player is on top of who?

So dived on has now becomes flops - not what Dickson said.
One more step and we will get to an accurate description - slid into and momentum lead to the softest contact you will see on a rugby pitch with zero risk of injury.
Should have been a penalty and no more - probably leading to a Tigers 5 meter line out

If you think it's a penalty....it should be a penalty try.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you think it's a penalty....it should be a penalty try.

Nope Ashton's foot would have, or already had, gone in touch regardless of any offence by Woodburn, thanks to the original tackle.

It hadn't. Bur fair enough if you felt he didn't affect play.

geoff999rugby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you think it's a penalty....it should be a penalty try.

Nope Ashton's foot would have, or already had, gone in touch regardless of any offence by Woodburn, thanks to the original tackle.

Ashton was still in play before Woodburn made contact. It was something that Dickson checked at the time.

As suspected, the disciplinary panel decided no further punishment for Woodburn, so he is clear to play. Jack Nowell may end up with heavier consequences for his tweet, than Woodburn for his on-field action.

10 grand fine for Nowell along with a refs course he needs to complete. Presumably sat next to Dickson.

RFU backed the ref saying that Woodburn fell on the player (didn't even by Dickson's acknowledgment) and that player must arrive at a tackle on their feet and from the direction of their own goalline....which is an interesting perspective from the point of players chasing back after a line break.

No 7&1/2 wrote:...RFU backed the ref saying that Woodburn fell on the player..

That's more specific than the statement. The RFU just said World Rugby have affirmed Dickson applied the law correctly.

“World Rugby have confirmed that professional match official, Karl Dickson, correctly applied the law during the game which saw the penalty try and a yellow card awarded. Law 13.4 is clear that players cannot fall on or over players on the ground and tackle law 14.8 says arriving players at a tackle must come from the direction of their own goal line and stay on their feet.”

The second point I made isn't relevant as the second law they quoted is for when a tackle is completed tbf and around the formation of rucks etc. So they're saying purely that Woodburn dived on the player...not the ground. So they disagree with Dickson that he dived on the floor on the first one but then see it as the formation of a ruck so as an attacker dive for the line and you can't be tackled.

No 7&1/2 wrote:...So they're saying purely that Woodburn dived on the player...not the ground...

Not really. It's not necessary to believe Woodburn dived on top of Ashton. It's enough that he went off his feet, and ended up on top of his opponent, which is consistent with the statement.

I'll happily sit back and note how little that is applied then.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The second point I made isn't relevant as the second law they quoted is for when a tackle is completed tbf and around the formation of rucks etc. So they're saying purely that Woodburn dived on the player...not the ground. So they disagree with Dickson that he dived on the floor on the first one but then see it as the formation of a ruck so as an attacker dive for the line and you can't be tackled.

Or they are saying the tackle by Hogg was completed?

They're saying it's both. Slide in and no one can drop on you. If you're tackled short of the line anyone dropping to the ground is illegal too.

As far as I was aware no one can drop on you under any circumstances?

Or indeed touch you at all according to this.

My understanding is that if you haven't already been tackled they can tackle you and if you have already been tackled they can try to take the ball as long as they are on their feet and come in from the right side?

Obviously it's quite tricky if the player is sliding in under momentum.  

Perhaps they should change the laws to get rid of sliding over the line and/or diving to avoid being tackled, but I'm not sure that would go down too well ...

You can't drop on a player though. Or drop to the ground either. So how can a tackle be made? The second Ashton had momentum game over. I guarantee that we will see players going to ground to try and stop groundings without penalties given this weekend.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You can't drop on a player though. Or drop to the ground either. So how can a tackle be made? The second Ashton had momentum game over. I guarantee that we will see players going to ground to try and stop groundings without penalties given this weekend.

Considering the comments from the citing commission it appears all you can do in that situation is slide in front of the tackled player and try to block the ball being placed on the try line. Player onside and not landing on top of the attacker.

But you can't do that either Sam. As Dickson said Woodburn dived on the floor and that's what the pen was given for. They've tied themselves in a bow trying to protect him.

I haven't read the judgement myself but this quote was posted above:

“World Rugby have confirmed that professional match official, Karl Dickson, correctly applied the law during the game which saw the penalty try and a yellow card awarded. Law 13.4 is clear that players cannot fall on or over players on the ground and tackle law 14.8 says arriving players at a tackle must come from the direction of their own goal line and stay on their feet.”

If this quote is accurate it doesn't say you can't go to ground to make a tackle in the first place?

They are saying you can't arrive at an already made tackle off your feet or from an offside position ... at least that's the way I read it - that's why he was penalised ...