TMO vs. Quins

[Old Hob]

10 disallowed trys in the Bristol game last night. Mostly by TMO intervention.

[ourla]

10 disallowed trys in the Bristol game last night. Mostly by TMO intervention.

Were the decision correct?

[TigerFeetSteve]

10 disallowed trys in the Bristol game last night. Mostly by TMO intervention.

Were the decision correct?

All of the ones I saw (8) were. Putting the kids to bed I missed two of them.

The most debatable was probably the Earl knock on in a ruck was the only one I thought "could" have been given the other way.

[BrightonTiger]

Hilarious that people are still arguing the law when I’ve posted a link that comprehensively tells you that it wasn’t a yellow! Are people just doing it to wind me up,or maybe they can’t read,I’m not sure!
Was there head contact? Yes
Was there foul play involved? There wasn’t and Pearce initially said there wasn’t. Play on.
Would people like to me post the link again?!
Here it is again just in case!
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Did you just look at the pretty chart or actually read the whole article?

20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.

a. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding on to another player.

b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.

Genge wasn't bound to the Quins player and he made contact above the line of the shoulder, so by the letter of the law it was foul play.

[Scott1]

Hilarious that people are still arguing the law when I’ve posted a link that comprehensively tells you that it wasn’t a yellow! Are people just doing it to wind me up,or maybe they can’t read,I’m not sure!
Was there head contact? Yes
Was there foul play involved? There wasn’t and Pearce initially said there wasn’t. Play on.
Would people like to me post the link again?!
Here it is again just in case!
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Did you just look at the pretty chart or actually read the whole article?

20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.

a. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding on to another player.

b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.

Genge wasn't bound to the Quins player and he made contact above the line of the shoulder, so by the letter of the law it was foul play.

Yes I clicked on dangerous clean out,same process. And watch your lip too ,"pretty chart"!

[ourla]

10 disallowed trys in the Bristol game last night. Mostly by TMO intervention.

Were the decision correct?

All of the ones I saw (8) were. Putting the kids to bed I missed two of them.

The most debatable was probably the Earl knock on in a ruck was the only one I thought "could" have been given the other way.

Yeah, I saw the Earl one - probably technically correct but really harsh. If I'd been the TMO I wouldn't have said owt. But I'm a big softy.

[JP14]

In my opinion, Earl was always in control of the ball and the try should have stood.

[Noggs]

Hilarious that people are still arguing the law when I’ve posted a link that comprehensively tells you that it wasn’t a yellow! Are people just doing it to wind me up,or maybe they can’t read,I’m not sure!
Was there head contact? Yes
Was there foul play involved? There wasn’t and Pearce initially said there wasn’t. Play on.
Would people like to me post the link again?!
Here it is again just in case!
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Did you just look at the pretty chart or actually read the whole article?

20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.

a. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding on to another player.

b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.

Genge wasn't bound to the Quins player and he made contact above the line of the shoulder, so by the letter of the law it was foul play.

Genge was wrapping with both arms and all of the officials agree that there was no foul play with respect to the clear out itself. It was only the nature of the head contact that was in question.

[daktari]

Hilarious that people are still arguing the law when I’ve posted a link that comprehensively tells you that it wasn’t a yellow! Are people just doing it to wind me up,or maybe they can’t read,I’m not sure!
Was there head contact? Yes
Was there foul play involved? There wasn’t and Pearce initially said there wasn’t. Play on.
Would people like to me post the link again?!
Here it is again just in case!
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Did you just look at the pretty chart or actually read the whole article?

20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.

a. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding on to another player.

b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.

Genge wasn't bound to the Quins player and he made contact above the line of the shoulder, so by the letter of the law it was foul play.

Genge was wrapping with both arms and all of the officials agree that there was no foul play with respect to the clear out itself. It was only the nature of the head contact that was in question.

How does that work for scrums if the shoulder itself is off limits? I think it does actually mean above and not on. He does bind on, you could see it in the replay.

[Noggs]

In hitting the shoulder there does seem to have been glancing contact with the head but the contact was such that it had no noticeable effect on the player in question. Pearce saw it as a 'rugby incident' but Fowley and Barns persuaded him it was head contact and that it warranted a yellow. I don't agree with their interpretation and believe Pearce (who was responsible for the decision) should have stuck with his first decision.

[Tigerbeat]

In hitting the shoulder there does seem to have been glancing contact with the head but the contact was such that it had no noticeable effect on the player in question. Pearce saw it as a 'rugby incident' but Fowley and Barns persuaded him it was head contact and that it warranted a yellow. I don't agree with their interpretation and believe Pearce (who was responsible for the decision) should have stuck with his first decision.

Not all contacts with the head will have a impact on the player but any contact with the head is trying to be eliminated from the game, reduction of risk. Genge made contact with the head and was yellow carded. TMO had visual evidence to support the contact. Players will eventually learn that they need to be careful when charging into rucks and mauls, likewise tackling lower. In my opinion, the decision was the correct one.

[BrightonTiger]

Hilarious that people are still arguing the law when I’ve posted a link that comprehensively tells you that it wasn’t a yellow! Are people just doing it to wind me up,or maybe they can’t read,I’m not sure!
Was there head contact? Yes
Was there foul play involved? There wasn’t and Pearce initially said there wasn’t. Play on.
Would people like to me post the link again?!
Here it is again just in case!
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Did you just look at the pretty chart or actually read the whole article?

20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.

a. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding on to another player.

b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.

Genge wasn't bound to the Quins player and he made contact above the line of the shoulder, so by the letter of the law it was foul play.

Genge was wrapping with both arms and all of the officials agree that there was no foul play with respect to the clear out itself. It was only the nature of the head contact that was in question.

I don't believe it was a yellow card either and the same thing happens 10 times a game.

The original post implied that people were being stupid and couldn't read for debating it whilst ironically he clearly didn't read the full article he posted.