"in the act of scoring"

[smeagol]

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1jy3em9/connacht_vs_racing_red_card

I've never heard that turn of phrase used when deciding whether to award a PT.

 

[Decorily]

Who uses the phrase and when?
I can't hear it being said but I am on a noisy train!

 

[Decorily]

How useful was that AR?
Saw absolutely nothing!

 

[didds]

I cant actually see any head contact (that doesnt mean there wasn't any of course). I do see a very very clumsy and poor effort of a tackle - WTF is his head doing there anyway? I do see attempts to wrap both arms.

So it comes down to head contact - or not. And given the ref considers that a RC (fair enough) Id agree with the PT.

I didn't hear anyone saying "in the act of scoring" - ref said "it would probably have been a try" (I agree).

 

[smeagol]

I need to find a different clip - Piardi uses it when explaining to the Connacht captain why it's not a PT.

 

[didds]

You mean he overturned his original decision?

 

[Decorily]

I need to find a different clip - Piardi uses it when explaining to the Connacht captain why it's not a PT.

I think you are even more confused than I?

 

[smeagol]

...I posted the clip from the game where the right call was made, not the wrong one

Starts at about 1:20

 

[Decorily]

Might be better to post the clip you are actually referring to!

 

[smeagol]

Might be better to post the clip you are actually referring to!

I conflated the two - similar incidents happened in each game. One got it right, the other botched it.

 

[Decorily]

OK...so is there a question?

 

[smeagol]

Piardi told the non-offending captain that the BC "was not in the act of scoring," and thus did not meet the threshold for a PT. I've never heard that phrase heard in the context of awarding a PT, and am checking that I haven't missed a secret memo

 

[Decorily]

Maybe the terminology was 'lost' in translation....a bit like the question here.

 

[didds]

...I posted the clip from the game where the right call was made, not the wrong one

Starts at about 1:20

not available in my country it says...

 

[didds]

Ok. I'll admit it.

Im totally lost.

 

[Volun-selected]

Head contact may have been accidental, but was the tackler low enough to begin with?

If not, then foul play has stopped a try being scored and a PT seems in order.

 

[didds]

Head contact may have been accidental, but was the tackler low enough to begin with?

If not, then foul play has stopped a try being scored and a PT seems in order.

apparently that is not what is being discussed! LOL.

No, I dont get it either!

 

[tim White]

That looks like a text book "No Arms Tackle" to me; look as his initial right shoulder contact-any 'wrap' came as a consequence of his arms following -on from the initial contact. Agree Penalty try as a result is the easy bit.
Agree the TJ could have been more help -if he had been watching the tackle but he was focussed on the touchline I'm sure.

 

[Rich_NL]

Clear cut PT, no covering defence and he was a metre out. I presume Piardi had a momentary confusion with the guidance over diving for the line/jumping the tackle

 

[thepercy]

...I posted the clip from the game where the right call was made, not the wrong one

Starts at about 1:20

I think that he got that wrong. Both the judgement and law.