Viewing comments for Gonzoman
Except if Marlon Yarde had been put onside by a team-mate, which is the case in this instance.
Admittedly, he was loitering; however, this only means that he cannot be put onside through the actions of an opposing player (run 5m, pass/kick, intentionally touch the ball). Yarde can still be put onside by teammates, in this case by having the ball carrier run ahead of him.
It can be a little confusing, because he WAS off-side at the ruck and he WAS loitering. Once the ball leaves the ruck he is still off-side and still loitering, but he can be put onside by the action of a teammate.
Apart from the laws, you could argue that it isn't fair because he's already in a prime position to support the ball carrier. Of course, you could also argue that if he wasn't receiving treatment he would be running in support anyways.
Fair play to Yarde for identifying an opportunity and sucking it up enough to get up and continue.
5 Months, 1 Week ago
Actually, a player is NOT put onside by the kick going out. The laws list specific ways for a player to be put onside: by the opposition (oppo runs 5m with ball, oppo passes or kicks; oppo deliberately touches the ball) and by a team-mate (ball carrier runs ahead of offside player; kicker or other onside player runs ahead of offside player, offside player retreats to onside position). The ball going out does not make anyone onside.
Now assuming that none of the above actions has occurred, the off-side player must be mindful of Law 11.9 (Loitering); essentially he or she can't hang about in an offside position. Any player who loiters cannot be put onside by the action of an opposing player.
In the case of a kick to touch presented above, the injured player is off-side and loitering in a technical sense. If he or she then gets up and prevents a quick throw-in, or participates in play following a quick throw-in without being put onside by a team-mate, he or she is liable to be penalized. If a team-mate has run ahead of the injured player, then the point is moot since the injured player is then onside.
5 Months, 1 Week ago
To those of you complaining about the citing commissioner banning James for an on-field yellow...
In this one instance, the judicial process has worked perfectly! The referee can only hand out punishment for what happens on the field during the match. In this instance, the high tackle was clumsy, reckless and demonstrated a lack of discipline. I personally don't think that it's red-card worthy; I tend to reserve red cards for things like punches, dangerous tip-tackles, and heinous swinging arms/shoulder charges. I'm happy with the yellow for the actual incident.
The citing commissioner has to take into account the pattern of a player's offenses. While what James did on the field is only a yellow IMHO, the pattern of his behaviour suggests that he generally lacks discipline and is prone to hot-headed moments. In this case, a more significant punishment for a player with a track record of boneheaded infringements is warranted.
For once, the IRB got it right.
7 Months, 4 Weeks ago
That is a fine display from both players: the tackler for obvious reasons, and the ball-carrier to make the off-load despite the missile in white hurtling towards him!
Full marks to both for commitment!
8 Months, 2 Weeks ago
Why would Youngs cheat in a scrum where his team had the put in, attacking options on both sides, and had clearly won and secured the ball?
9 Months, 1 Week ago
Of course he was emotional...he'd just been called into disrepute. As a referee, your integrity is pretty key: you make a living from being an unbiased judge of fact and law. To have a player accuse you of cheating is a pretty direct blow to the core of what you do.
Regardless of where Hartley was directing his venom, if the referee feels that he or she has been verbally abused in a way that is not tolerable, then the referee is well justified in taking the appropriate action.
Think of it this way: if you were at work and a colleague started slagging you off, that would be a gross breach of workplace etiquette and probably punishable under the HR code of conduct, would it not? This isn't all that different.
9 Months, 1 Week ago
Of course, it wasn't normal conditions. The clock ran out after the conclusion of the previous passage of play. That means that play must restart and end again to complete the first half. This prevents teams from deliberately taking a long time to restart in order to protect a lead.
So, the ball must come in to play before the half can end. The ball went directly into touch, therefore it was never in play. In the case of a penalty or free kick, the game is still "live", so there is no need for the ball to come back into play. For kick-offs and 22m restarts, the ball is not live until it is played from the restart, so kicking it directly out is considered an error in the execution of the restart and the option must be played.
9 Months, 1 Week ago
Yeesh, what a unit! Seems like a decent fellow, too.
9 Months, 3 Weeks ago
I can forgive the referee on this one...I get the feeling he was unsure about the validity of the whole thing but didn't know the exact law against it.
What I cannot do is forgive the TJ...the referee asked him not once but twice if the line-out was OK. The TJ said yes both times! He's got a very small percentage of the laws to be on top of, and that's one of them. Shocking.
I also agree that the TMO fluffed up. Clearly in touch when he caught the ball.
I propose the following to rectify the situation: the Heineken Cup should hire KJW as the referee, Cheyanqui as the touch judge, and Alasdairduncan3 for TMO!
10 Months, 2 Weeks ago
I agree with your first point, but I believe you are mistaken on the second. Botha is not held in the first tackle but he never regains his feet and instead crawls towards the line before two opponents jump on him. The law is pretty clear that if you are not on your feet you are not in the game. Botha should have regained his feet or released the ball, therefore the ref made the correct call.
10 Months, 3 Weeks ago