Scotland vs France | Auld Alliance Trophy

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:The sage that is Nigel Owens said not high, as not targeting the neck.

Another new directive to refs.

Agree it would have been deemed high not that long ago.

Seat belt tackles are not a foul then as none target the neck? Not how the law is written and I'm fairly certain you will see a lot of examples of that being a foul the rest of the season.

Also it wasn't even a seat belt tackle as it started above the shoulder line.

Nige was very clear that the refs had been given a directive that unless the neck was targeted it wasn't a high tackle any more.

Guess we won't see any pens for seatbelts then...

Guess you weren't watching the Ireland/Italy U20s where a very similar tackle was also not penalised and the commentators talked about the new interpretation.

Not saying either is right or wrong but shouldn't they just stop changing things, particularly mid season?

Unclear wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:The sage that is Nigel Owens said not high, as not targeting the neck.

Another new directive to refs.

Agree it would have been deemed high not that long ago.

Seat belt tackles are not a foul then as none target the neck? Not how the law is written and I'm fairly certain you will see a lot of examples of that being a foul the rest of the season.

Also it wasn't even a seat belt tackle as it started above the shoulder line.

Nige was very clear that the refs had been given a directive that unless the neck was targeted it wasn't a high tackle any more.

Guess we won't see any pens for seatbelts then...

Guess you weren't watching the Ireland/Italy U20s where a very similar tackle was also not penalised and the commentators talked about the new interpretation.

Not saying either is right or wrong but shouldn't they just stop changing things, particularly mid season?

The sarcasm and exasperation in Martin Johnson's voice when he questioned Nige about future seatbelt tackle penalties or presumably lack of them for the rest of the season, was very clear. In what is an already complicated game, rugby is in danger of becoming a game for referees run by referees.

He's making a case for why I should vote for him...





Wonder what he thought about the Australia game 2015

Dangerous to agree with The Donald

- but on this occasion!

EWT Spoons wrote:

Heaf wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

Heaf wrote:Hmm not sure - how does he pick it up if he's not over it?  Yet another rugby laws grey area maybe?

No, it's actually fairly clear, I'm just making a terrible job of explaining it.  I would recommend looking at the link I sent, if I knew how to post a picture here, then I would, to show the graphic from World Rugby's site as it would probably clear all this up.

He has to form a ruck to create an offside line, all he's done in this instance is pick up a loose ball.  He if left the ball and formed a ruck, for a separate player to come in, and duhan was ahead of the player on the ground (which he was), then yes absolutely he would have been offside.  However there was no ruck, therefore no offside line, therefore Duhan was onside.

To be clear I'm not sure Duhan was that aware of what was happening and it was potentially more fluke than anything that he was able to be involved in play from where he was, but he was fine to do what he did.

Not trying to be awkward just really trying to understand the laws which are as usual ambiguous.  You don't need a ruck now for offside lines to be created, just a tackle, the ball on the ground and a player from either side over it.  I guess the grey area is what does 'over it' mean.  For me though I suspect if a Scotland player had come from directly behind the French player that picked the ball up and grabbed him nobody would have been surprised if he'd been pinged.  I'm pretty sure there's also something about approaching the tackle area (which I believe is normally interpreted as within 1m of the tackle) from your own side?

7.5 says Nige said it was offside - I didn't hear that bit though tbh.

No worries pal, I think I've worked out how to post a picture

This is what World rugby class as over the ball, the French player was never 'over' the ball, purely beside it picking it up

Yep see what you're saying here. I guess it just feels like it should be a pen as if Duhan had tried to pick the ball up or tackled the French player from that position it would definitely have been a pen (as in both those situations the player must arrive from the direction of their own goal line) so it seems odd an intercept should be allowed.

Just saw Matt Giteau make a very good point re the disallowed try on his rugby pod called KOKO.....if refs are unsure then they should not have to make an on-field decision and then the ref & TMO can then make the best decision they can based on the video evidence. This means you won't need 100% conclusive proof to over turn a decision that is probably just a guess from a ref. Far better to go with the balance of probability having watched all the replays. In this instance you would think that the balance of probability would say Scotland scored that try and therefore award it.

The ref should only make on-field decisions if they are sure.

Heaf wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

Heaf wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

Heaf wrote:Hmm not sure - how does he pick it up if he's not over it?  Yet another rugby laws grey area maybe?

No, it's actually fairly clear, I'm just making a terrible job of explaining it.  I would recommend looking at the link I sent, if I knew how to post a picture here, then I would, to show the graphic from World Rugby's site as it would probably clear all this up.

He has to form a ruck to create an offside line, all he's done in this instance is pick up a loose ball.  He if left the ball and formed a ruck, for a separate player to come in, and duhan was ahead of the player on the ground (which he was), then yes absolutely he would have been offside.  However there was no ruck, therefore no offside line, therefore Duhan was onside.

To be clear I'm not sure Duhan was that aware of what was happening and it was potentially more fluke than anything that he was able to be involved in play from where he was, but he was fine to do what he did.

Not trying to be awkward just really trying to understand the laws which are as usual ambiguous.  You don't need a ruck now for offside lines to be created, just a tackle, the ball on the ground and a player from either side over it.  I guess the grey area is what does 'over it' mean.  For me though I suspect if a Scotland player had come from directly behind the French player that picked the ball up and grabbed him nobody would have been surprised if he'd been pinged.  I'm pretty sure there's also something about approaching the tackle area (which I believe is normally interpreted as within 1m of the tackle) from your own side?

7.5 says Nige said it was offside - I didn't hear that bit though tbh.

No worries pal, I think I've worked out how to post a picture

This is what World rugby class as over the ball, the French player was never 'over' the ball, purely beside it picking it up

Yep see what you're saying here.  I guess it just feels like it should be a pen as if Duhan had tried to pick the ball up or tackled the French player from that position it would definitely have been a pen (as in both those situations the player must arrive from the direction of their own goal line) so it seems odd an intercept should be allowed.

I’m really sorry to do this, but he wouldn’t.

I think the rules absolutely used to be that Duhan would have needed to be behind the tackled player, but that isn’t the case now.

I’ve learnt from previous mistakes on trying to explain these things though, so got Bard/Gemini (which is what it apparently is now called) involved.  I’ve typed in the scenario as it was with Duhan, and Bard has outlined the laws.  I really hope this makes sense as this is a combination of laws which I really don’t think I could face having to dig out.

• Tackler (Team A): Already on their feet after tackling Player 1 (Team B). (Duhan)
• Player 1 (Team B): Initially tackled, now releases the ball without being on their feet.
• Player 2 (Team B): Newly arrives and tries to pick up the loose ball.

In this specific case, the tackler (Team A) does not need to get behind Player 1 (Team B) before challenging for the ball or tackling Player 2 (Team B). Here's why:

1. No Ruck Formation: Since Player 1 releases the ball immediately and doesn't contest it while on the ground, there's no ruck formation.
2. Offside Line Applicability: With just three players, offside lines technically exist, but in this situation, they become practically irrelevant. The tackler's initial offside line based on the original tackle no longer dictates their positioning, as there are no teammates from the initial tackle remaining involved.
3. Fair Play and Safety: While the offside line doesn't strictly apply, remember ethical sportsmanship. Don't unfairly obstruct Player 2 or make a dangerous tackle.
4. Referee Judgment: As always, the referee has the final say on legality and safety, even if the situation seems clear-cut.

Summary:
The tackler can legally challenge Player 2 for the ball or tackle them without needing to get behind Player 1. However, prioritize fair play, safety, and be mindful of the referee's potential judgment.

You do need to be behind the back foot so he is offside.

hugehandoff wrote:Just saw Matt Giteau make a very good point re the disallowed try on his rugby pod called KOKO.....if refs are unsure then they should not have to make an on-field decision and then the ref & TMO can then make the best decision they can based on the video evidence. This means you won't need 100% conclusive proof to over turn a decision that is probably just a guess from a ref. Far better to go with the balance of probability having watched all the replays. In this instance you would think that the balance of probability would say Scotland scored that try and therefore award it.

The ref should only make on-field decisions if they are sure.

It ignores the fact we're all human though and especially on the pitch you can be certain. And wrong.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You do need to be behind the back foot so he is offside.

He doesn't, the thing I just posted explains that

Well 1 doesn't matter at all sp we can ignore that.
2. Tackle is made so offside lines are now drawn at the hindmost foot to vdm has to get behind the hindmost foot which he doesn't do.
3. There are offside lines now.
4. Yeah fair enough so every mistakes is technically correct.

Summary you can't just ignore offside lines.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well 1 doesn't matter at all sp we can ignore that.
2. Tackle is made so offside lines are now drawn at the hindmost foot to vdm has to get behind the hindmost foot which he doesn't do.
3. There are offside lines now.
4. Yeah fair enough so every mistakes is technically correct.

Summary you can't just ignore offside lines.

Have you just ignored all the parts where it says the offside line doesn't apply to suit your point?

Just to help clear it up -

Offside Line Applicability: With just three players, offside lines technically exist, but in this situation, they become practically irrelevant. The tackler's initial offside line based on the original tackle no longer dictates their positioning, as there are no teammates from the initial tackle remaining involved.

Didn't ignore it as such. Where do you believe the offside line is in this situation then?not the hindmost foot?

Prior to the arrival of the 2nd French player there isn’t an offside line as such for Duhan, as he is the tackler and there isn’t anyone else involved at this stage. There are certain dynamic situations he must adhere to, which aren’t relevant for this example as they did not occur, but once the tackle is complete and he is on his feet, he is allowed to contest for the ball from whatever position he wants. That is, until the 2nd French player arrives, at which point a new offside line is drawn from their (the 2nd French player’s) hindmost foot, as long as Duhan is not ahead of that point he remains onside and is able to contest for the ball, tackle the newly arrived 2nd French player (assuming he has the ball obviously) or intercept a pass.

At no point other than after the intercept was Duhan ahead of the hindmost foot of the 2nd French player, therefore he was onside.

Ah I hadn't looked at the tackle again and was going off remembering seeing Duhan intercept from the side and hadn't spotted he was the original tackler so that makes a difference ...

However in terms of whether he'd be pinged for picking the ball up or tackling the French player from that position I still think he would based on these sections?

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.

Any player who gains possession of the ball:
...
May be tackled, provided the tackler does so from the direction of their own goal line.


Basically the laws are a minefield ...

No when Luca arrives he's offside and never puts himself back on.

14.14 on the clock Luca is there with his hands on the ball. Vdm is next to the French player on the floor and still has his knee on the floor.

Where do you believe the offside line to be? As Duhan having a knee on the floor makes no difference to any of this.

Behind the hindmost player. And the knee on the floor is very important as he's not back in the game until he's on his feet.

So the hindmost foot of the arriving French player?

His knee being on the ground doesn't change the offside line

No. The guy on the floor.

Even if you count it as Luca he's still ahead of him when he gets up so it's still offside.


High tackle or not? Johnson and ex-ref Owens go head-to-head - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/68262777

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. The guy on the floor.

The guy on the floor is irrelevant once the tackle is complete, as there are no other players involved once he and ball are released. I've pointed this out in World Rugby's laws earlier in this chat

If that case he's still not back on from Luca when he gets to his feet. Provided the clip to help. Where you can hear Nige say neck isn't high before saying its offside.

How do Scotland get the ball back BTW for that late tmo decision?

No 7&1/2 wrote:If that case he's still not back on from Luca when he gets to his feet. Provided the clip to help. Where you can hear Nige say neck isn't high before saying its offside.

I can’t see the clip, but that could easily be a system issue my end.

However, from the picture I’ve attached here, as Luca is picking up the ball, it looks like Duhan is behind his front foot.  Granted it’s eye wateringly close and I wouldn’t have been outraged had it been called back, but to me it looks like he’s behind, and therefore onside.  I do have a clip which shows the whole event and from the angle he looks onside throughout, hence my insistence, but if you have a different angle that shows otherwise fair enough.

Also I have only just worked out how to post a picture, I’ve no chance of posting a clip hence why I’ve not included it.

Lol. I have no clue with the pics. The link is just from the bbc TV feed sp from the side. And includes Owens comments as there was a question on that earlier.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:Just saw Matt Giteau make a very good point re the disallowed try on his rugby pod called KOKO.....if refs are unsure then they should not have to make an on-field decision and then the ref & TMO can then make the best decision they can based on the video evidence. This means you won't need 100% conclusive proof to over turn a decision that is probably just a guess from a ref. Far better to go with the balance of probability having watched all the replays. In this instance you would think that the balance of probability would say Scotland scored that try and therefore award it.

The ref should only make on-field decisions if they are sure.

It ignores the fact we're all human though and especially on the pitch you can be certain. And wrong.

I suspect a lot of the time the refs are under pressure to make their on-field decision, as that is the process, and then they just make their best guess, which then takes 100% proof to overturn. If they are uncertain then they just need to say so...."not sure if a try is scored and the ball was grounded so let's review this please?" Seems a logical way forward.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/feb/11/scotland-france-try-rugby-union-six-nations

Good summary of the weekend’s debacle from Robert Kitson

Anyone else remember playing amateur rugby and in the event of a 50/50 call the “benefit of the doubt” went to the attacking team? I miss those days

tigertattie wrote:Anyone else remember playing amateur rugby and in the event of a 50/50 call the “benefit of the doubt” went to the attacking team? I miss those days

That try was a bit more than 50/50!

BigGee wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Anyone else remember playing amateur rugby and in the event of a 50/50 call the “benefit of the doubt” went to the attacking team? I miss those days

That try was a bit more than 50/50!

When I was reffing tag rugby that’s how we called most decisions. That was based on rugby league rather than union. I think that’s why it was so popular as an after work sport compared with touch rugby.

Forgetting that France conceded a multiple of penalties at the end there, I think world rugby need to make two rule changes.

1. Held up over the line goes back to a scrum 5
2. Held up over the line after time ends is treated like a penalty after time and play will continue.