Baxter on the Beeb website

[Rossm]

The 2 yellows make a red rule, is nonsensical (IMO) as Tim Payne will testify. A player can cop an 'accumulative' yellow for the team and just be unlucky. A second yellow and he's off.

[jamestaylor002]

As a separate issue classing that as tackling a man on the ground could also be debatable. How do you stop someone who dives for the line 5 or 10 meters out when its wet?

Seen this commented on quite a bit on social media, which is also the only place I've seen the footage. Have to say I agree. Had Woodburn dived on top of Ashton I'd have had no issue with the yellow that became a red as the way some players, and Chiefs are one of the worst for this, dive on top of try scorers is dangerous and at times quite cowardly, we have seen players have to go off after a post try tackle.

In this case Woodburn slides in from the side to try and stop the try and get under the ball, and only ended up on top of Ashton as the tackle progressed.

Lots of people stating the laws which say you can't tackle a player on the ground, in a similar vein when a player is on the ground he should release the ball, the momentum thing is what allows players to slide in from a distance, especially in the wet. We could end up seeing players slide from 10m out as soon as they get close and all the defending team can do is stand there and let it happen.


Although, the fact it was Karl Dickson with the cards says a lot as well.

Don't see anything wrong with players sliding in from 10m. It's called playing the conditions and something teams should be able to adapt to like playing with/into a strong wind.

I don't think that's the point Andermt is trying to make. The point being made with the 10m sliding try is that, within the current framework, there are extremely fine lines between making a successful try line defense and getting sent off. This can apply to any scenario really.

I don't think it would get this far, but imagine a 10m sliding try did happen and the defensive team just watched it happen - because they knew trying to stop it could result in a red card if it went wrong - could there be an argument that the defending team has been disadvantaged, as they are not able to reasonably defend that attack within the framework, and the try should not stand?

I know that going low into tackles, as an attacking player, isn't abnormal but we have seen instances where defending players have got as low as possible and still found that they've made head contact. Do players now have to think harder about whether they can safely make a tackle and, if not, just let the attacking player go by and say "sorry, couldn't get low enough". What would happen if that resulted in a try?

In all instances above, I'm talking about genuine "rugby incidents" not obvious acts of foul play.

[Rossm]

I've always thought that it is better to concede a try on the touch line (5 points + 2, with a difficult conversion) rather than get a player yellowed and a penalty try awarded (7 points).

[BlackAndGoldSunglasses]

The 2 yellows make a red rule, is nonsensical (IMO) as Tim Payne will testify. A player can cop an 'accumulative' yellow for the team and just be unlucky. A second yellow and he's off.

Agree this makes less sense these days than "back in the day". I think with the 10 mins in the bin, the card should count as "served" and reset. Pre-sin-bin (when did that come in? c.2000 I think) it made sense that you could accrue cumulative cards.

 

[BlackAndGoldSunglasses]

I see Jack Nowell has been charged by the RFU for comments deemed prejudicial to the interests of the Union and the game following his tweet on the Woodburn tackle.

I can't recall seeing it, but I've certainly see others like Joe Marler and Nick Auterac comment via twitter. Why Nowell?

Also, per Auterac's tweet: if it's acknowledged that we want more personalities in rugby, then why slap them with a disciplinary as soon as someone shows some.. personality?

[MarleyWasp]

I see Jack Nowell has been charged by the RFU for comments deemed prejudicial to the interests of the Union and the game following his tweet on the Woodburn tackle.

Luke Cowan-Dickie replied to Exeter's tweet about this calling it a bit of a joke.

[baldpaul101]

From whats been reports Nowell criticised the Referee, rather than the decision. Which I think is whats got him onto trouble.

IMO the second yellow was absolute nonsense.
Every weekend we get a ridiculous card impacting on critical games. This is not helping Rugby in any way!!
Something needs to change otherwise the World Cup is going to be won by the team that manages to get the least ridiculous cards.

[Heathen]

A player can cop an 'accumulative' yellow for the team and just be unlucky. A second yellow and he's off.

Should play to the laws of the game and there won't be a problem.

The Tim Payne scenario was predictable. We were not competent at LH at scrum time against those opponents. The laws are quite clear.

[Brandnewtorugby]

I think stooping into a tackle should be treated like jumping a tackle, then enforced.

[baldpaul101]

Should play to the laws of the game and there won't be a problem.

Really?
So the Steward & Mercer red cards. Which laws of the game did they not play to?
The very fact that both cards have been rescinded would indicate that they had done nothing wrong, yet two high profile games were ruined. That's the sort of nonsense people want to see fixed!

[andermt]

As a separate issue classing that as tackling a man on the ground could also be debatable. How do you stop someone who dives for the line 5 or 10 meters out when its wet?

Seen this commented on quite a bit on social media, which is also the only place I've seen the footage. Have to say I agree. Had Woodburn dived on top of Ashton I'd have had no issue with the yellow that became a red as the way some players, and Chiefs are one of the worst for this, dive on top of try scorers is dangerous and at times quite cowardly, we have seen players have to go off after a post try tackle.

In this case Woodburn slides in from the side to try and stop the try and get under the ball, and only ended up on top of Ashton as the tackle progressed.

Lots of people stating the laws which say you can't tackle a player on the ground, in a similar vein when a player is on the ground he should release the ball, the momentum thing is what allows players to slide in from a distance, especially in the wet. We could end up seeing players slide from 10m out as soon as they get close and all the defending team can do is stand there and let it happen.


Although, the fact it was Karl Dickson with the cards says a lot as well.

Don't see anything wrong with players sliding in from 10m. It's called playing the conditions and something teams should be able to adapt to like playing with/into a strong wind.

I don't think that's the point Andermt is trying to make. The point being made with the 10m sliding try is that, within the current framework, there are extremely fine lines between making a successful try line defense and getting sent off. This can apply to any scenario really.

I don't think it would get this far, but imagine a 10m sliding try did happen and the defensive team just watched it happen - because they knew trying to stop it could result in a red card if it went wrong - could there be an argument that the defending team has been disadvantaged, as they are not able to reasonably defend that attack within the framework, and the try should not stand?

I know that going low into tackles, as an attacking player, isn't abnormal but we have seen instances where defending players have got as low as possible and still found that they've made head contact. Do players now have to think harder about whether they can safely make a tackle and, if not, just let the attacking player go by and say "sorry, couldn't get low enough". What would happen if that resulted in a try?

In all instances above, I'm talking about genuine "rugby incidents" not obvious acts of foul play.

Exactly, it?s the potential risk of cards by trying to prevent a try.