Noddy555 wrote:Strange normally we are at odds, me & sapajo, But I do agree with him, if the blow landed on his face or head the colour of the card should have been red. The rules are quite specific about this.
If they are so specific about this, you will - of course - be able to quote the relevant rule?
If you want to be really specific, maybe you should quote the law.
According to the website irblaws.com (which is linked to from the full irb.com site) the definition of a scrum - Law 20 - is
The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.]
If the referee has, as posted by Old Hob earlier, warned Sale about stepping away and dangerous play in the scrum, then they have clearly contravened the IRB's definition of a scrum.
Oh yes - it also seems to me that just because there isn't a specific law, written down, with a URL to it then it is, therefore, legal ( to those on this forum who demand quotes from relevant rules ). Does this mean that a fullback may use an AK47's to defend their try-line I certainly can't find anything in the laws of rugby that suggests that it's unlawful!
And before you answer that - I want it in triplicate, with appropriate reference and precedence ...... otherwise your comments will be deemed hogwash
The ref warning Sale about stepping away and dangous play seems to be at odds with Mr Moore's article in The Telegraph where he asserts that Cockerill was in correct in claiming Sale we're cheating at the scrum.
Mr Moore's claims that sides can step back at the point of engagement with out breaking The Scrum Laws.
The ref warning Sale about dangerous play appears to show he thought they were committing an offence.
He also calls for disciplinary action to be taken agains't Cockerill for claiming Sale we're cheating ?
I believe Cockerill has acted appropriately in this case. What do you think ?
Off Piste Tiger wrote:The ref warning Sale about stepping away and dangous play seems to be at odds with Mr Moore's article in The Telegraph where he asserts that Cockerill was in correct in claiming Sale we're cheating at the scrum.
Mr Moore's claims that sides can step back at the point of engagement with out breaking The Scrum Laws.
The ref warning Sale about dangerous play appears to show he thought they were committing an offence.
He also calls for disciplinary action to be taken agains't Cockerill for claiming Sale we're cheating ?
I believe Cockerill has acted appropriately in this case. What do you think ?
Exactly! This country is founded on the principles of free speech, Cockers only said it how he saw it. You and I could have the same discussion in the pub and say the same without fear of sanction, just because he has brought it into the public eye here we go again.
Moore doesn't like it because he has already nailed his colours to the post saying the new scrum rules should become law. It is looking more like the old rules as the season goes on, same old resets etc etc......
The referee is the sole arbiter of fact during the game. The referee decided that an offence had been committed. By implication the side committing the offence cheated. Therefore Cockers' assertion that Sale cheated is a statement of fact in line with the arbitration of the referee.
It doesn't actually matter whether an offence has been committed or not; what matters is whether the referee (correctly or incorrectly) decides that an offence has been committed.
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
Off Piste Tiger wrote:The ref warning Sale about stepping away and dangous play seems to be at odds with Mr Moore's article in The Telegraph where he asserts that Cockerill was in correct in claiming Sale we're cheating at the scrum.
Mr Moore's claims that sides can step back at the point of engagement with out breaking The Scrum Laws.
The ref warning Sale about dangerous play appears to show he thought they were committing an offence.
He also calls for disciplinary action to be taken agains't Cockerill for claiming Sale we're cheating ?
I believe Cockerill has acted appropriately in this case. What do you think ?
I think that deliberate action taken by a player(s) from one team which results in a scrum collapsing and players being put in danger is a penalty offence against said team. Sale committed this offence.
I will repeat a point that I have made many times. A spear tackle can cause a serious neck injury and is therefore at least a yellow card offence according to most referees even if accidental. Collapsing a scrum can cause a serious neck injury but doesn't appear to be a yellow card offence unless repeated a dozen times within a ten minute period. This is a dangerous way for referees to preside over the game.
I have just read all the replies to Moores article in the Telegraph, unless you have a very good control of your emotions DO NOT READ THE REPLIES in the comments.
Amongst the usual we hate the Tigers mob there were 1 or 2 so called Tigers fans who just could not handle the fact that Cockers was in charge.
If these "fans" are so upset about Cockers I would have like to hear there views about winning the title.
I am sorry if they feel like this but there are enough people in the rugby community ready to call Tigers cheats, bad losers etc. without our own joining in. Especially the gentleman who declared his family had lived in Leicester since 1600.
Regarding the rants in the Telegraph,by the alleged intellectually challenged Mr Moore. This person is in the legal profession that would like the tightest of controls on freedom of speech. It must be painful for him and his buddies in the legal profession, to see the relaxing of libel law's that come into force in the New Year.
Also just been looking through the Telegraph article by Moore and have responded to a few so as not to leave us undefended on there.
I'm surprised (I'm not obviously seen as it refers to Tigers) by Moores lack of interest in what was after all deemed to be dangerous play by the ref. Only interested in making the scrum a fair contest and safer if it doesn't suit Tigers apparently, makes you wonder if his entire campaign to abolish the hit was because we were so good at it.
He refers to Cockerill not been a fan of the rules and pats himself on the back by making the point that there have been no injuries in a scrum engagment this year with the new rules in play....it may well be my ignorance but I wasn't aware of any particular cases last year let alone a plethora under the old rules.
Just to be clear I am aware that there are accidents/injuries some very serious and everything should be done to restrict the likelihood of their occurrence but in this case surely he's confused as repeatedly dropping a scrum intentionally is I would have thought about the most dangerous thing you could do?
Just posted this on the Telegrapgh article feel free to vote it up
Should the RFU bring action agaisnt Brian Moore?
He appears to be suggesting that there was no offence committed by Sale in the scrum and given that the ref awarded a penalty try for repeated dangerous play by Sale amongst a host of other penalty's at the scrum against Sale given by the referee he is by extension accusing the referee of cheating by giving Leicester illegitimate penalties for offences that don't exist. Given this wild accusation against the ref should Moore be banned from ever speaking again!
or
Should he be forgiven as he's clearly just very bitter that Cockers has slightly more hair than him!! ;)
The new scrum laws are fine if you are a good front row player, the old hit has been reduced in impact and we can have a proper pushing contest between two good sets of front rows.
The new scrum laws are not fine if you are not so good at front row play and you will need to find new ways of playing the referee in order to avoid an honest pushing contest, this is where it becomes dangerous as the laws aren't made to accommodate cheating.
It's all clear and obvious and Moore had to get involved with his newspaper drivel yet again didn't he, it is all he has got, his mouth!
If he wasn't controversial what would happen? He would disappear!
According to the website irblaws.com (which is linked to from the full irb.com site) the definition of a scrum - Law 20 - is Quote:
The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.]
Nah that's the old law - the new IRB version states:
The purpose of the scrum is practice synchronised falling over in order to restart play after as long as possible or until one team has managed to con the ref into awarding a penalty or a free kick.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
Alex McNeil wrote:I have just read all the replies to Moores article in the Telegraph, unless you have a very good control of your emotions DO NOT READ THE REPLIES in the comments.
Amongst the usual we hate the Tigers mob there were 1 or 2 so called Tigers fans who just could not handle the fact that Cockers was in charge.
If these "fans" are so upset about Cockers I would have like to hear there views about winning the title.
I am sorry if they feel like this but there are enough people in the rugby community ready to call Tigers cheats, bad losers etc. without our own joining in. Especially the gentleman who declared his family had lived in Leicester since 1600.
But it's only 21:55 now so not too long then.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
I certainly can't find anything in the laws of rugby that suggests that it's unlawful!
