farewell warriors

[Oakboy]

I don't think Beirne had any intent to injure, and agree he shouldn't have been cited, but I don't think intent should be a determining factor for foul play. Reckless play is still worth discouraging.

The reason I don't think he should have been cited is that currently this approach to the breakdown is tolerated and I don't see a benefit to banning him due to the unfortunate outcome. I'd much prefer that World Rugby looked at changing the interpretations to stop the flying entries.

"Drive not dive

Arriving players must ‘Drive not dive’ to clear out an opponent. Shorten steps and bind, not dive off feet."

An exert from law application guidelines released three years ago...

I'm afraid the lack of policing of existing ruck laws (and many others...cough scrum cough) has continued for many years. Its really irritating as if properly enforced, the game would be way better, ditto scrum laws

Did you have particular scrum laws in mind?

[Banquo]

"Drive not dive

Arriving players must ‘Drive not dive’ to clear out an opponent. Shorten steps and bind, not dive off feet."

An exert from law application guidelines released three years ago...

I'm afraid the lack of policing of existing ruck laws (and many others...cough scrum cough) has continued for many years. Its really irritating as if properly enforced, the game would be way better, ditto scrum laws

Did you have particular scrum laws in mind?

I'll give you one guess...

[FKAS]

"Drive not dive

Arriving players must ‘Drive not dive’ to clear out an opponent. Shorten steps and bind, not dive off feet."

An exert from law application guidelines released three years ago...

Think it's fair to say that's not consistently enforced though?

#notatall

Unless you mean Tom O'Toole who just a month or so back for a ban for it or Charlie Ewels who got a red card last summer. See my earlier comment about consistency.

[Banquo]

Think it's fair to say that's not consistently enforced though?

#notatall

Unless you mean Tom O'Toole who just a month or so back for a ban for it or Charlie Ewels who got a red card last summer. See my earlier comment about consistency.

Ok mr picky . But that's a tiny number compared to the many many many times rucks are illegally entered every match. Can't remember the last time I saw any sort of 'binding'.

Also. O'Toole was banned for dropping his weight on an opponent, law 9.20 e. Is that the same law....genuine q?

[FKAS]

9.20Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.
a. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.
b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
c. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.
d. A player may remove the stealer/jackler from the tackle area by pushing/driving them backwards (including by grabbing the knee/leg), but must not roll, pull or twist an opponent.
e. A player must not drop their weight onto an opponent or target the lower limbs.

[Banquo]

9.20Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.
a. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.
b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
c. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.
d. A player may remove the stealer/jackler from the tackle area by pushing/driving them backwards (including by grabbing the knee/leg), but must not roll, pull or twist an opponent.
e. A player must not drop their weight onto an opponent or target the lower limbs.

aha, so a subset of the same law, so he was done under 9.20e, guidance you refer to was related 9.20a? Very very rarely do you see 9.20a actually enforced.

[Mellsblue]

Good to see you two bickering again after yesterday’s, frankly vomit inducing, agreement. Insert sick face emoji here.

[paddy no 11]

He fails on point a and e so probably should have been cited

[Banquo]

Good to see you two bickering again after yesterday’s, frankly vomit inducing, agreement. Insert sick face emoji here.

Yeah sorry, poor form

[p/d]

Good to see you two bickering again after yesterday’s, frankly vomit inducing, agreement. Insert sick face emoji here.

[Oakboy]

I'm afraid the lack of policing of existing ruck laws (and many others...cough scrum cough) has continued for many years. Its really irritating as if properly enforced, the game would be way better, ditto scrum laws

Did you have particular scrum laws in mind?

I'll give you one guess...

OK that will feed my interest.

Did you hear Flats on commentary the other day emphasising the point that no offence occurs just because one side is pushed backwards? My own pet hate linked to that is when referees order the SH to 'play it', effectively removing a team's establishment of superiority and, in many cases, denying a well-earned penalty. It seems to me to be a case of modern referees' directives over-ruling the laws.

[Banquo]

Did you have particular scrum laws in mind?

I'll give you one guess...

OK that will feed my interest.

Did you hear Flats on commentary the other day emphasising the point that no offence occurs just because one side is pushed backwards? My own pet hate linked to that is when referees order the SH to 'play it', effectively removing a team's establishment of superiority and, in many cases, denying a well-earned penalty. It seems to me to be a case of modern referees' directives over-ruling the laws.

It’s inconsistency across all areas that frustrates

[FKAS]

I'll give you one guess...

OK that will feed my interest.

Did you hear Flats on commentary the other day emphasising the point that no offence occurs just because one side is pushed backwards? My own pet hate linked to that is when referees order the SH to 'play it', effectively removing a team's establishment of superiority and, in many cases, denying a well-earned penalty. It seems to me to be a case of modern referees' directives over-ruling the laws.

It’s inconsistency across all areas that frustrates

I'd agree but Mells will be upset...

[Puja]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union ... vx1071py3o

Finally got round to seeing the slow-motion of this and frankly, can't understand why people say it's deliberate or reckless play. Beirne's not flying in out of control or diving in aiming for knees - he comes in at a normal speed, through the gate, but he's looking at Dupont and the French 5 who are both bending to address the ball and is aiming to connect between them and drive them both off. He is also looking to bind - his arm is aiming to hook inside Dupont's arm, to help with driving him off.

Unfortunately, in the split-second as Beirne's head goes down to engage, the French 5 pulls out of contesting the ruck (probably because he can see the robust clear-out coming and realises it's futile). At the same time, he misses his attempt to hook Dupont's arm, which leaves him expecting to engage and push against two people and instead facing no resistance at all. He's stumbling and off-balance - he tries to adapt to clear out Dupont anyway and tries to redirect into him, but he's already going past, so all he ends up doing is barging his shoulder and side as he goes through. The contact knocks Dupont sideways, reducing the resistance against Beirne even further, and unfortunately Dupont keeps his balance by planting his right leg with studs in the ground and knee extended. Porter drives into Beirne from behind, which makes everything worse, and Beirne loses what's left of his balance and falls forwards and sideways with his momentum, landing on the locked knee.

Horrible injury, but in no way targetted or reckless - just a rugby incident.

Puja

[Scrumhead]

100%. I get their annoyance over Ntamack’s ban but their reaction to this is massively out of step with what actually happened.