Ben Whites try saving tackle WAS by law a seatbelt tackle therefore we were lucky not to concede a penalty try. White grabbed on top of the shoulder when Kibirige was still in possession,
I don’t think the term ‘seat belt tackle’ is in the law. The term though refers to when the arm goes over the shoulder in front of the neck, like a seatbelt. Grabbing the shoulder is fine. Are you Lol in disguise?
Point taken, so change ‘seatbelt’ to ‘high’ ie contact on or above the shoulder, which includes grabbing and is still penalised as a high tackle. Dickson didn’t call it because he (incorrectly) thought the ball was knocked on before the high tackle was made, nor did he refer to the TMO.
TMO reviewed it. I thought it was a common sense decision. White's hands are on the shoulders then slip away. At no point does any part of White's tackle attempt touch (or nearly touch) the Wasps player's neck or head. Had White's left hand slipped over the shoulder causing his forearm to come across into the neck or face then Dayglo would have been correct but it didn't so his whining was pointless.
The new interpretation of the laws is all about protecting against contact with the neck and head. There was none here so play on.
Given sir missed a couple of arm round neck ones in some of the attempted choke tackles by both sides it would have been an odd decision to make.
I don’t think the term ‘seat belt tackle’ is in the law. The term though refers to when the arm goes over the shoulder in front of the neck, like a seatbelt. Grabbing the shoulder is fine. Are you Lol in disguise?
Point taken, so change ‘seatbelt’ to ‘high’ ie contact on or above the shoulder, which includes grabbing and is still penalised as a high tackle. Dickson didn’t call it because he (incorrectly) thought the ball was knocked on before the high tackle was made, nor did he refer to the TMO.
TMO reviewed it. I thought it was a common sense decision. White's hands are on the shoulders then slip away. At no point does any part of White's tackle attempt touch (or nearly touch) the Wasps player's neck or head. Had White's left hand slipped over the shoulder causing his forearm to come across into the neck or face then Dayglo would have been correct but it didn't so his whining was pointless.
The new interpretation of the laws is all about protecting against contact with the neck and head. There was none here so play on.
Given sir missed a couple of arm round neck ones in some of the attempted choke tackles by both sides it would have been an odd decision to make.
And the laws define a high tackle as above the line of the shoulders. White's tackle was on, not above
Ben Whites try saving tackle WAS by law a seatbelt tackle therefore we were lucky not to concede a penalty try. White grabbed on top of the shoulder when Kibirige was still in possession,
I don’t think the term ‘seat belt tackle’ is in the law. The term though refers to when the arm goes over the shoulder in front of the neck, like a seatbelt. Grabbing the shoulder is fine. Are you Lol in disguise?
Point taken, so change ‘seatbelt’ to ‘high’ ie contact on or above the shoulder, which includes grabbing and is still penalised as a high tackle. Dickson didn’t call it because he (incorrectly) thought the ball was knocked on before the high tackle was made, nor did he refer to the TMO.
High tackle is defined as:
The specific provisions of Law 10.4(e) in relation to High Tackles are as follows:
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
and with in the card frame work:
An illegal tackle causing head contact, where head contact is identified by clear contact to ball carrier’s head/neck OR the head visibly moves backwards from the contact point OR the ball carrier requires an HIA
The tackle was legal, on the shoulder and no contact with the neck or head.
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
Big Dai wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:36 pm
Am I the only one who finds Lawrence irrtating
No
Not at all I normally give him the benefit of the doubt, but that try saving tackle he kept going on about it being a penalty blatantly a seat belt tackle, when you look he doesn't even touch the neck, both hands are on and stay on the shoulders
Watched it on the TV, one of my better decisions recently!
Great tackle by White, definitely not high, despite Dayglo's protests!
Thought the forwards showed real fight in the second half, we have the "bones" of a promising pack, but still desperately need a first class hooker, much as a love OTY, he is not the player he was regrettably, and TPN is also on his way down, and is a terrible chucker.
With no relegation threat now, we have some time to build the squad and get our identity back, hopefully before next season.
Soggypitch wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:15 am
Watched it on the TV, one of my better decisions recently!
Great tackle by White, definitely not high, despite Dayglo's protests!
Thought the forwards showed real fight in the second half, we have the "bones" of a promising pack, but still desperately need a first class hooker, much as a love OTY, he is not the player he was regrettably, and TPN is also on his way down, and is a terrible chucker.
With no relegation threat now, we have some time to build the squad and get our identity back, hopefully before next season.
I actually thought we had one - Jake Kerr.Obviously I/we do not see what goes on training wise at Oval Park but to me both our starting options tend to leave their form on the training ground.We desperately need a working lineout , so more than a little confused as to why Kerr is (in my eyes) neglected so consistently.
Seemingly heading rapidly toward senility .....Not long or far to go now , in fact, getting worse daily.....
I hope Jake Kerr doesn’t turn I into another Harry Thacker scenario. Furthermore, I hope Joe Hayes gets more time - I think he got about 5 mins off the bench at Bath.
‘If grow your own is the future, let’s bring them through at the top level.’
I don’t think the term ‘seat belt tackle’ is in the law. The term though refers to when the arm goes over the shoulder in front of the neck, like a seatbelt. Grabbing the shoulder is fine. Are you Lol in disguise?
Point taken, so change ‘seatbelt’ to ‘high’ ie contact on or above the shoulder, which includes grabbing and is still penalised as a high tackle. Dickson didn’t call it because he (incorrectly) thought the ball was knocked on before the high tackle was made, nor did he refer to the TMO.
High tackle is defined as:
The specific provisions of Law 10.4(e) in relation to High Tackles are as follows:
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
and with in the card frame work:
An illegal tackle causing head contact, where head contact is identified by clear contact to ball carrier’s head/neck OR the head visibly moves backwards from the contact point OR the ball carrier requires an HIA
The tackle was legal, on the shoulder and no contact with the neck or head.
On the shoulder is still penalised as high otherwise a seatbelt tackle wouldn't be illegal. I agree with sam16111986 that he grabbed high but also let go, so not necessarily material but another ref another day then possibly expect a sanction from any contact on top of the shoulder specifically when players are upright, that is why I originally stated we were lucky!
The left hand was only just on the left shoulder and quickly slid off backwards, never going over the shoulder as is the case with a 'seat belt'. The right hand brushed the shoulder but in sliding off also contacted and dislodged the ball. As such it was never foul play though may well have been if White had been half a second quicker.
Dayglo's comments were consistently one eyed throughout the game which is always the case when Wasps are involved.
Life can be unpredictable, so eat your pudding first!
I thought the ref applied some common sense to White's tackle.
Yes it started below the shoulder and went over the shoulder but he let go and it wasn't dangerous.
The winger should've easily slid in to finish it before that anyway.
Start penalising things like that and the game will be going to the TMO every few minutes.
There is a lot more head banging and neck twisting going on at the ruck if they really want to clean things up.
Chobbsy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:54 pm
Tom Youngs cited now thanks to Dayglo's constant moaning
Agreed. TV punditry is having far too much influence on what gets cited and what doesn"t. Barnes was an expert and Healey and Lol are really beginning to get on my extremities!
I would like a red button option that cuts the commentators drivel out totally.
That said it seemed to me that Tom did thump the guy..... But as been said elsewhere possibly as a result of cheap shots. Looking at Tom's bruised face afterwards, this would seem likely.
We never catch the cheap shot artists do we? The eye gouges, bag snatchers, wedgie givers. 0r even when they are seen they escape sanction. The penalty always falls on the retalliator. "Tut tut. What a lack of discipline".
It's never "Well you just pulled his undies up the crack in his bottom....... What did you expect?"
Come back Jules.... All is forgiven.
As for Lawrence, he was almost tolerable when commentating on the saints game. Maybe just cite him for bias and ban him from Wasps games?
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
Chobbsy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:54 pm
Tom Youngs cited now thanks to Dayglo's constant moaning
Agreed. TV punditry is having far too much influence on what gets cited and what doesn"t. Barnes was an expert and Healey and Lol are really beginning to get on my extremities!
I would like a red button option that cuts the commentators drivel out totally.
That said it seemed to me that Tom did thump the guy..... But as been said elsewhere possibly as a result of cheap shots. Looking at Tom's bruised face afterwards, this would seem likely.
We never catch the cheap shot artists do we? The eye gouges, bag snatchers, wedgie givers. 0r even when they are seen they escape sanction. The penalty always falls on the retalliator. "Tut tut. What a lack of discipline".
It's never "Well you just pulled his undies up the crack in his bottom....... What did you expect?"
Come back Jules.... All is forgiven.
As for Lawrence, he was almost tolerable when commentating on the saints game. Maybe just cite him for bias and ban him from Wasps games?
I didn't hear him complain when Brookes took Bateman out with a no arms charge and he never uttered a word when Shields did his neck roll, I am happy for ill discipline to be highlighted as long as it goes both ways.
Chobbsy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:54 pm
Tom Youngs cited now thanks to Dayglo's constant moaning
I think he was cited because he punched the guy in the eye. Rowlands moaned about it a lot at the time. It looked like Rowlands made sure he landed on Youngs late, bit of niggle to wind Youngs up probably (he has just been in camp with AWJ) and then didn't like what happened when Tom sorted him out.
Tom can tell his side and act all remorseful in the hearing. Be a week or two ban. We've got cover it'll be fine.
Chobbsy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:54 pm
Tom Youngs cited now thanks to Dayglo's constant moaning
Agreed. TV punditry is having far too much influence on what gets cited and what doesn"t. Barnes was an expert and Healey and Lol are really beginning to get on my extremities!
I would like a red button option that cuts the commentators drivel out totally.
That said it seemed to me that Tom did thump the guy..... But as been said elsewhere possibly as a result of cheap shots. Looking at Tom's bruised face afterwards, this would seem likely.
We never catch the cheap shot artists do we? The eye gouges, bag snatchers, wedgie givers. 0r even when they are seen they escape sanction. The penalty always falls on the retalliator. "Tut tut. What a lack of discipline".
It's never "Well you just pulled his undies up the crack in his bottom....... What did you expect?"
Come back Jules.... All is forgiven.
As for Lawrence, he was almost tolerable when commentating on the saints game. Maybe just cite him for bias and ban him from Wasps games?
He was better for the Bristol game in that he wasn't whining and outrageously one eyed. He still offered next to nothing in terms of insight into the game.