Just out of interest really as I was in a pub with no sound so might have misunderstood Ryan Wilson's point to the ref on Sunday.
As I understand it, Saracens were setting up for a box kick and had their blockers to the side of the ruck. As Wigglesworth was about to kick, Wilson drove these blockers back into him and was penalised. I think the referees explanation was that he came in at the side.
As I understand it, his argument was that if these blockers were bound however loosely (and that is the only explanation for them being allowed to be there), then they have widened the ruck and he can ruck them out as long as he comes at them from straight on.
If this is what he was saying, was he right?
Rules Question
Moderator: OptimisticJock
-
hugh_woatmeigh
- Posts: 4212
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:12 pm
Re: Rules Question
It looked perfectly legal to me and it was a clever bit of play from Wilson.
-
whatisthejava
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:13 pm
Re: Rules Question
At the time it looked blatently coming in from the side, but I didnt hear alot as i had the kids running around, based on your explanation it may have been OK
But lets be honest after the 6N the refs are struggling to deal with "interpretations" from players.
I like players trying this and think refs should generally be more open to teams trying new things, breakdowns feel a little stage managed, Hughes tried the offside trap again against Leinster and owens wasted no time in penalizing him, even though there was no ruck.
But lets be honest after the 6N the refs are struggling to deal with "interpretations" from players.
I like players trying this and think refs should generally be more open to teams trying new things, breakdowns feel a little stage managed, Hughes tried the offside trap again against Leinster and owens wasted no time in penalizing him, even though there was no ruck.