That's a helluva pass ...

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#43
Its only a passion or a necessity that ever seems to prompt involvement in any walk of life.

No room in the world for the silent majority it seems.

And with social media, you gravitate to media that is more likely to match or be discussing your agenda.

That's my thinking and, yes, it's based on anecdotal evidence only.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#46
Camquin got there first.

I am disagreeing. "No surprise there!", I hear everybody cry.

Running with the ball, diving for the line are legitimate actions and legal. When a tackling opponent makes legitimate contact such that the ball is lost forwards turns these into infringements called against the attacker.

How might you be seeing those instances?

A bit too much being read into this one for me on this occasion. Sorry.
And on this one, rereading my post and then taking into account subsequent posts, I see it might have been seen as patronising which was not my intent. If there has been a level of debate about this in the past, there is clearly more to this than meets the eye.

I cannot usefully contribute anything new or enlightening but I am comfortable that I see nothing sufficient to make me have cause for concern that I would not be applying a reasonably prescribed view of the laws in a match situation .
 
Last edited:

OB..

, Advises in England
#47
You've raised this view several times in the past so obviously strongly held.

It is not a view that I share. By attempting to kick the ball the kicker takes an option that has some inherent risk to it. For instance, he may miss the ball completely with his boot. If he attempts a kick and fails (for whatever reason) then knock on for me.
We will continue to disagree.

Similar to a forward pass. If he's all alone and throws it forward - forward pass. If his arm is jolted by an opponent and throws it forward - forward pass (ie an oppenent has turned a legal act into an infringement).
No. He may well have been attempting something legal, but he failed. The contact with the opponent occurred BEFORE he released the ball. He could, at least in theory, change his mind and hold on to the ball.

In the case of an attempted kick, the contact takes place AFTER he has released the ball, so he can do nothing about it.

If the law actually said "Releasing the ball forward to effect a kick in not a throw-forward" (which is what we all play), there would be no problem.
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
#48
You asserted that people don't post out of fear.

You haven't stood that up at all. Here's a general rule for place like here: you make an assertion, it's for you to justify it, not for us to disprove it.
I have spoken to both French and Irish referees who no longer contribute on here. They have said the mobbing was a factor in their no longer posting.
I have not asked yankinoz her reasons, but I do remember a particularly unsavory public lynchage, at the time. So I do suspect that may have something to do with why she no longer posts on here. If I recall correctly ATTR (aka account deleted) got tired of all the bickering too. Dismiss it as being too small a sample if you chose, but those certainly contributed to forming my opinion on the subject.
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#49
We will continue to disagree.
Fair enough. You have attracted sufficient "likes" (didds, Ian Cook, et al) to suggest that I might be in the minority but I'm assuming a "like" means agreement and not just "bravo, a well worded argument".

I have never seen your application at any kind of elite level.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#51
Fair enough. You have attracted sufficient "likes" (didds, Ian Cook, et al) to suggest that I might be in the minority but I'm assuming a "like" means agreement and not just "bravo, a well worded argument".

I have never seen your application at any kind of elite level.
I am hoping it is the other way round. I thought it was a well worded argument to be appreciated and not agreement.

If not then I'm a bit stuffed!