Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 642

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1066061 15-Jun-2014 16:26

joker97: He said something like "you cannot hold up your own ball with your own hands, therefore downward pressure by the body counts".

I tried to search the laws of the game but gave up. Watching footy highlights

yes, I remember now, and, from memory, it was a try the all blacks scored.

Don't remember hearing much complaining about it back then... "Bloody good decision all round" was the general murmur of agreement from the Kiwis :P

Dingbatt

6744 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1066073 15-Jun-2014 16:49

From the IRB Website

Rule 22: The In Goal

There are two ways a player can ground the ball: (a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required. (b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive

Note: bolding done by me (cut and paste from pdf).

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1066076 15-Jun-2014 16:57

Dingbatt: From the IRB Website

Rule 22: The In Goal

There are two ways a player can ground the ball: (a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required. (b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive

Note: bolding done by me (cut and paste from pdf).

yeah, but there is what the law says, and how refs are taught to interpret it.

See: forward passing.
DEFINITION OF THROW FORWARD.
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

However we know that in reality we allow loads of passes where the ball goes forwards (i.e. towards the opposing teams dead ball line), and we allow it because of momentum and because his hands were pointing backwards, even though the law doesn't say that,

Batman

Mad Scientist
29727 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1066077 15-Jun-2014 17:00

can someone explain illegal wheeling of scrum? last night every time the scrum is turned around the defending team is penalised. if they want to do this surely you can just make it into a league scrum?

Dingbatt

6744 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1066079 15-Jun-2014 17:05

(2 up) No excuse for a TMO in either case really. Sitting in his cosy booth with the benefit of replays and slo-mo. I would have thought being an international ref would mean you could quote the rules chapter and verse, and apply them. The onfield officials are racing around and making decisions in real time, so can be expected to be less accurate.
The only plus side is that Mealamu was going the be penalised for a ruck infringement if the try was disallowed (and possibly binned going by some other decisions).

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1066089 15-Jun-2014 17:19

joker97: can someone explain illegal wheeling of scrum? last night every time the scrum is turned around the defending team is penalised. if they want to do this surely you can just make it into a league scrum?

wheeling the scrum gives the attacking team a huge advantage, so normally if it happens the attacking team is penalised.
However, if it is clear to the ref (somehow) that the defending team is doing it intentionally in order to get that decision, then the ref will award it the other way.

How the ref can tell who is actually at fault is part of the great mysteries of how the scrum works.

tdgeek

29659 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1066090 15-Jun-2014 17:20

Dingbatt: (2 up) No excuse for a TMO in either case really. Sitting in his cosy booth with the benefit of replays and slo-mo. I would have thought being an international ref would mean you could quote the rules chapter and verse, and apply them. The onfield officials are racing around and making decisions in real time, so can be expected to be less accurate.
The only plus side is that Mealamu was going the be penalised for a ruck infringement if the try was disallowed (and possibly binned going by some other decisions).

Yes. The ref asked if any reason not to award a try, he meant, was the ball grounded or not. The TMO, to my surprise, said that as the hand under the ball was the scorer, its a try. The ref re questioned. So the rule is you can ground the ball to ground, or via the scorers hands. Which has been confirmed elsewhere in this thread by another occurrence. Problem is, that is NOT the rule, which is a concern if the TMO feels it is

Mighty Ape

Shop now on Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1066114 15-Jun-2014 18:18

The violence shown by the "security guard" tackling the streaker was disturbing to me and lessened the experience.

Several children near us were visibily upset by it.

Police officer I spoke to said it that had happened on the street they would have arrested the guard for assault.

A.

Batwing

668 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1066119 15-Jun-2014 18:21

afe66: The violence shown by the "security guard" tackling the streaker was disturbing to me and lessened the experience.

Several children near us were visibily upset by it.

Police officer I spoke to said it that had happened on the street they would have arrested the guard for assault.

A.

I know stuff commentors are hardly a reasonable bunch, but the number of them that wholeheartedly support that violent response is downright scary.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29727 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1066121 15-Jun-2014 18:22

any link to a video clip?

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1066122 15-Jun-2014 18:24

afe66: The violence shown by the "security guard" tackling the streaker was disturbing to me and lessened the experience.

Several children near us were visibily upset by it.

Police officer I spoke to said it that had happened on the street they would have arrested the guard for assault.

A.

But not upset by a strange man running around naked in front of them, strange.

I say he got exactly what he deserved, and it was cause meet effect. If the guy hadn't been on the field in clear breach of both ground rules, and legal rules about nudity, he wouldn't have been tackled at all.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1066135 15-Jun-2014 18:49

networkn:
afe66: The violence shown by the "security guard" tackling the streaker was disturbing to me and lessened the experience.

Several children near us were visibily upset by it.

Police officer I spoke to said it that had happened on the street they would have arrested the guard for assault.

A.

But not upset by a strange man running around naked in front of them, strange.

Not strange at all. Nothing wrong with the naked body. It's not as if the man was doing anything sexual. In the context of a streaker, it's funny, not sexual.

If I had a choice between exposing my kids to a naked person (in a non-sexual way) vs having them witness unprovoked violence like that, I'd pick nudity every time.

I say he got exactly what he deserved, and it was cause meet effect. If the guy hadn't been on the field in clear breach of both ground rules, and legal rules about nudity, he wouldn't have been tackled at all.

And i suppose if the guard had pulled out a gun and shot him that would have been fine too?

The guard's response was ridiculous. there was absolutely no need for such a violent response. the guy was just walking along slowly, facing the other direction. The policeman should have arrested the guard anyway, don't see that it makes a difference.

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1066138 15-Jun-2014 18:53

NonprayingMantis:
networkn:
afe66: The violence shown by the "security guard" tackling the streaker was disturbing to me and lessened the experience.

Several children near us were visibily upset by it.

Police officer I spoke to said it that had happened on the street they would have arrested the guard for assault.

A.

But not upset by a strange man running around naked in front of them, strange.

Not strange at all. Nothing wrong with the naked body. It's not as if the man was doing anything sexual. In the context of a streaker, it's funny, not sexual.

I say he got exactly what he deserved, and it was cause meet effect. If the guy hadn't been on the field in clear breach of both ground rules, and legal rules about nudity, he wouldn't have been tackled at all.

And i suppose if the guard had pulled out a gun and shot him that would have been fine too?

The guard's response was ridiculous. there was absolutely no need for such a violent response. the guy was just walking along slowly, facing the other direction. The policeman should have arrested the guard anyway, don't see that it makes a difference.

What an extraordinarily strange reply. Of course it would not be suitable for him to shoot the man, but at the end of the day he tackled him. I have seen streakers do all sorts of nonsense you wouldn't want your kids seeing. Just cause YOU didn't perceive it as sexual, doesn't mean he wasn't about to do something else. They have protocols at the match for dealing with these clowns and AGAIN. had he not have been there, nothing would have happened to him.

I am surprised if you are offended by hard tackling, you would be at a test match, after all, tackling is something kids expect to see at Rugby, penises, not so much.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1066140 15-Jun-2014 19:01

networkn:
NonprayingMantis:
networkn:
afe66: The violence shown by the "security guard" tackling the streaker was disturbing to me and lessened the experience.

Several children near us were visibily upset by it.

Police officer I spoke to said it that had happened on the street they would have arrested the guard for assault.

A.

But not upset by a strange man running around naked in front of them, strange.

Not strange at all. Nothing wrong with the naked body. It's not as if the man was doing anything sexual. In the context of a streaker, it's funny, not sexual.

I say he got exactly what he deserved, and it was cause meet effect. If the guy hadn't been on the field in clear breach of both ground rules, and legal rules about nudity, he wouldn't have been tackled at all.

And i suppose if the guard had pulled out a gun and shot him that would have been fine too?

The guard's response was ridiculous. there was absolutely no need for such a violent response. the guy was just walking along slowly, facing the other direction. The policeman should have arrested the guard anyway, don't see that it makes a difference.

What an extraordinarily strange reply. Of course it would not be suitable for him to shoot the man, but at the end of the day he tackled him. I have seen streakers do all sorts of nonsense you wouldn't want your kids seeing. Just cause YOU didn't perceive it as sexual, doesn't mean he wasn't about to do something else. They have protocols at the match for dealing with these clowns and AGAIN. had he not have been there, nothing would have happened to him.

I am surprised if you are offended by hard tackling, you would be at a test match, after all, tackling is something kids expect to see at Rugby, penises, not so much.

there is a difference between a hard tackle on the ball carrier in a rugby game and what happened here.

In the rugby game, the ball carrier knows he can be tackled, almost always sees it coming, and can set his body to receive the tackle safely.
Furthermore, the players are strong and conditioned to be tackled through thousands of hours of practice. It's an even match up.

One of the first things you learn when playing rugby is how to tackle and be tackled safely.

What almost never happens in rugby is a tackle like this - a virtually stationary target, not expecting it, tackled from behind by a guy at full tilt. That sort of tackle is dangerous.

The guards and police have to use what is called 'reaosnable force' to subdue people. If the person is aggressive, violent etc, then a hard tackle like this may be appropriate.

For a guy sauntering along slowly waving at the crowd, it most certainly is not.

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1066142 15-Jun-2014 19:06

NonprayingMantis:
networkn:
NonprayingMantis:
networkn:
afe66: The violence shown by the "security guard" tackling the streaker was disturbing to me and lessened the experience.

Several children near us were visibily upset by it.

Police officer I spoke to said it that had happened on the street they would have arrested the guard for assault.

A.

But not upset by a strange man running around naked in front of them, strange.

Not strange at all. Nothing wrong with the naked body. It's not as if the man was doing anything sexual. In the context of a streaker, it's funny, not sexual.

I say he got exactly what he deserved, and it was cause meet effect. If the guy hadn't been on the field in clear breach of both ground rules, and legal rules about nudity, he wouldn't have been tackled at all.

And i suppose if the guard had pulled out a gun and shot him that would have been fine too?

The guard's response was ridiculous. there was absolutely no need for such a violent response. the guy was just walking along slowly, facing the other direction. The policeman should have arrested the guard anyway, don't see that it makes a difference.

What an extraordinarily strange reply. Of course it would not be suitable for him to shoot the man, but at the end of the day he tackled him. I have seen streakers do all sorts of nonsense you wouldn't want your kids seeing. Just cause YOU didn't perceive it as sexual, doesn't mean he wasn't about to do something else. They have protocols at the match for dealing with these clowns and AGAIN. had he not have been there, nothing would have happened to him.

I am surprised if you are offended by hard tackling, you would be at a test match, after all, tackling is something kids expect to see at Rugby, penises, not so much.

there is a difference between a hard tackle on the ball carrier in a rugby game and what happened here.

In the rugby game, the ball carrier knows he can be tackled, almost always sees it coming, and can set his body to receive the tackle safely.
Furthermore, the players are strong and conditioned to be tackled through thousands of hours of practice. It's an even match up.

One of the first things you learn when playing rugby is how to tackle and be tackled safely.

What almost never happens in rugby is a tackle like this - a virtually stationary target, not expecting it, tackled from behind by a guy at full tilt. That sort of tackle is dangerous.

The guards and police have to use what is called 'reaosnable force' to subdue people. If the person is aggressive, violent etc, then a hard tackle like this may be appropriate.

For a guy sauntering along slowly waving at the crowd, it most certainly is not.

The guy went knowingly onto a Rugby field. If you think he wasn't expecting a response from security you are quite wrong. He would have been expecting to be tackled. The fact he didn't see it coming, well that's just tough. He had the brains to plan, and execute getting past security to expose
himself to 25000 people, you'd think he'd have the brains to watch his flank. There is no scenario by which he didn't create this situation himself, and I have been at matches where the streaker has run rampant due to the security not being tough enough.

He was an idiot and deserved what he got.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 642