Ireland v France match thread

[CM11]

Also, as a french fan you would want the try awarded as otherwise it is probably a PT and a YC.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/c ... on/2022/3/

So the more likely position is pen against Lowe for jumping into the tackle.

Except that's not what the clarification says at all. Even more so than May, Lowe was clearly diving for the line and not jumping over Penaud. Penaud was well within his rights by that clarification to tackle Lowe in the air. He didn't though. He just shouldered him.

I doubt a pen try would have been given but it'd be certainly a lot more likely than your interpretation.

[MrJonno]

Also, as a french fan you would want the try awarded as otherwise it is probably a PT and a YC.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/c ... on/2022/3/

So the more likely position is pen against Lowe for jumping into the tackle.

But he didn't jump into the tackle, he was running away from the tackler not into him and he dived for the line. Besides that he wasn't tackled, he was in the air and barged into. No law you have quoted supports your position no matter how many times you say they do.

[Torquemada 1420]

Also, as a french fan you would want the try awarded as otherwise it is probably a PT and a YC.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/c ... on/2022/3/

So the more likely position is pen against Lowe for jumping into the tackle.

Except that's not what the clarification says at all. Even more so than May, Lowe was clearly diving for the line and not jumping over Penaud. Penaud was well within his rights by that clarification to tackle Lowe in the air. He didn't though. He just shouldered him.

I doubt a pen try would have been given but it'd be certainly a lot more likely than your interpretation.

Except that's a nonsense interpretation (italics) and utterly trivial to disprove. Remove Penaud and what does Lowe do?
a) Run over and touch down normally?
b) Repeat the same and be accused of unnecessary showboating?

And going back to the original discussion, it's nigh impossible to legitimately tackle a ball carrier in that scenario which is why all the fuss was created to extract the clarification I linked to i.e. an attacker doing that under the letter of the laws cannot be tackled.
Law 9.17.
A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground

[MrJonno]

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/c ... on/2022/3/

So the more likely position is pen against Lowe for jumping into the tackle.

Except that's not what the clarification says at all. Even more so than May, Lowe was clearly diving for the line and not jumping over Penaud. Penaud was well within his rights by that clarification to tackle Lowe in the air. He didn't though. He just shouldered him.

I doubt a pen try would have been given but it'd be certainly a lot more likely than your interpretation.

Except that's a nonsense interpretation (italics) and utterly trivial to disprove. Remove Penaud and what does Lowe do?
a) Run over and touch down normally?
b) Repeat the same and be accused of unnecessary showboating?

And going back to the original discussion, it's nigh impossible to legitimately tackle a ball carrier in that scenario which is why all the fuss was created to extract the clarification I linked to i.e. an attacker doing that under the letter of the laws cannot be tackled.
Law 9.17.
A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground

From your link

A.2 A ball carrier may dive with the ball in order to score a try, and we all agree that should be allowed. From an equity perspective, if they do so, a defender may attempt to make a safe and legal tackle on that player. As we have said above, jumping to avoid a tackle should be regarded as dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly,even if no contact is made.

So Lowe diving for the line is fine and it would have been legitimate to attempt a legal tackle, but that isn't what was attempted

[CM11]

Torque, the law clarification you yourself posted clarifies that you can tackle a player in the air if they're diving for the line.

Penaud didn't attempt to do so though. Which is why there are calls for the PT. Not because of the tackle in the air.

[Torquemada 1420]

Also, as a french fan you would want the try awarded as otherwise it is probably a PT and a YC.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/c ... on/2022/3/

So the more likely position is pen against Lowe for jumping into the tackle.

But he didn't jump into the tackle, he was running away from the tackler not into him and he dived for the line. Besides that he wasn't tackled, he was in the air and barged into. No law you have quoted supports your position no matter how many times you say they do.

I think you really need to read what the Law makers wrote rather than trying to bend what we all saw to suit your preferred interpretation. Here's what World Rugby said
"Jonny May scored by leaping/diving over a covering tackler and scoring in the corner. His dive/leap and twist allowed him to score directly in one movement."

You are getting hung up on "into" whereas what the clarification is stating includes "into" or "over". Explain how Lowe's effort differs from May's in the context.

[Torquemada 1420]

FFS, READ the friggin' link before posting

If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

f**king end of.

[Biffer]

Fucking hell, as expected, as soon as the Irish turn up it turns into a shit show on here. Cunts.

[MrJonno]

FFS, READ the friggin' link before posting

If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

f**king end of.

He is simply not jumping over the tackler no matter how many times you say he is and the clarification explicitly says he is allowed to dive for the line. You're just being obtuse and you've chosen a particularly stupid cross to hang on

[Torquemada 1420]

FFS, READ the friggin' link before posting

If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

f**king end of.

He is simply not jumping over the tackler no matter how many times you say he is and the clarification explicitly says he is allowed to dive for the line. You're just being obtuse and you've chosen a particularly stupid cross to hang on

Kerrrist, are YOU deliberately being obtuse or suddenly developed dementia?

What part of the bit in red above are you struggling with? As I explained, which should have been unnecessary for someone of your intelligence, is the clarification covers any act of leaving the ground to evade a tackler and your hanging desperately on to a narrowing to the words "jump into/over" is irrelevant.

[CM11]

Fucking hell, as expected, as soon as the Irish turn up it turns into a shit show on here. Cunts.

Seriously? That's your interpretation of Torque going off on one and us calmly pointing out his own link proves him wrong?

Ffs.

[CM11]

FFS, READ the friggin' link before posting

If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

f**king end of.

He is simply not jumping over the tackler no matter how many times you say he is and the clarification explicitly says he is allowed to dive for the line. You're just being obtuse and you've chosen a particularly stupid cross to hang on

Kerrrist, are YOU deliberately being obtuse or suddenly developed dementia?

What part of the bit in red above are you struggling with? As I explained, which should have been unnecessary for someone of your intelligence, is the clarification covers any act of leaving the ground to evade a tackler and your hanging desperately on to a narrowing to the words "jump into/over" is irrelevant.

Did you actually look at the two examples in your link?

The first one sees a player hurdle another player. That was deemed illegal.

The second was much more of a jump rather than a dive and much closer to what Lowe did and was not deemed illegal. Indeed in that clarification it clearly stated a player is allowed dive for the line and a defender is allowed tackle in the air. The second clarification specifically deals with your opinion and proves it incorrect.

I should have known better than to argue with you though because this isn't the first time you've argued the earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Torquemada 1420]

He is simply not jumping over the tackler no matter how many times you say he is and the clarification explicitly says he is allowed to dive for the line. You're just being obtuse and you've chosen a particularly stupid cross to hang on

Kerrrist, are YOU deliberately being obtuse or suddenly developed dementia?

What part of the bit in red above are you struggling with? As I explained, which should have been unnecessary for someone of your intelligence, is the clarification covers any act of leaving the ground to evade a tackler and your hanging desperately on to a narrowing to the words "jump into/over" is irrelevant.

Did you actually look at the two examples in your link?

The first one sees a player hurdle another player. That was deemed illegal.

The second was much more of a jump rather than a dive and much closer to what Lowe did and was not deemed illegal. Indeed in that clarification it clearly stated a player is allowed dive for the line and a defender is allowed tackle in the air. The second clarification specifically deals with your opinion and proves it incorrect.

I should have known better than to argue with you though because this isn't the first time you've argued the earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary.

Maybe I'll help you here with how a deductive process works. You provide a postulate, some examples, discuss and then arrive at the conclusion. The conclusion is all that matters subsequently unless a situation arises that is not described by the conclusion.

Here is the conclusion
If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle

a) How is Lowe's action not encompassed here?
b) Where TF does it say May's action was not illegal? At best, WR simply passes the buck on this one but does not proffer a judgement on the specific incident. You simply went all Irish and read what you wanted to see.

The trouble here is, as I pointed out in my OP on this whole issue (and clearly most of you Irish had no idea what the Laws were before yabbering on about PTs), the Law makers made this mess with 9.17 and then got into a pickle of
- not wanting a position where tackling was indeed impossible (which the Keewees took issue with)
- not wanting to look like killjoys over a piece of incredible skill/dexterity/entertainment
- player safety

[JM2K6]

Lowe's dive for the line is the sort of thing we see week-in, week-out. It's not a penalty. May's one was far more arguable.

It's also not a penalty try and claiming it's a shoulder charge or whatever is silly. The defender clearly tries to use both arms to grab him - they're just under the body. No-one calls it a shoulder charge when players are muscled away like that while on their feet near the try/touchlines.

[CM11]

Torque, it is very clear what World Rugby mean. You are being contrary just for the sake of it. Every dive for the line is an attempt to evade a tackle. There have been thousands of tries scored like Lowe's. The only reason May's is included is because he performed a hurdling action in his dive as opposed to a propel forward dive. And if we're looking at exactly what World Rugby said, that refs need to use their judgement as to whether it was dangerous then clearly they'd conclude Lowe's wasn't any danger to Penaud because his legs arc away from Penaud with no risk of making contact with the latter.

Whether you use common sense or the law clarification or the many, many similar tries given as precedent you are wrong. I cannot fathom how you have managed to construct an argument in your head where you're right.

And we're the ones accused of trolling. Go figure.

[Biffer]

Lowe's dive for the line is the sort of thing we see week-in, week-out. It's not a penalty. May's one was far more arguable.

It's also not a penalty try and claiming it's a shoulder charge or whatever is silly. The defender clearly tries to use both arms to grab him - they're just under the body. No-one calls it a shoulder charge when players are muscled away like that while on their feet near the try/touchlines.

Exactly.

[Biffer]

Fucking hell, as expected, as soon as the Irish turn up it turns into a shit show on here. Cunts.

Seriously? That's your interpretation of Torque going off on one and us calmly pointing out his own link proves him wrong?

Ffs.

You’re being equally ridiculous with this pish about a no arms tackle. Typical Irish bullshit, do fuck off.

[CM11]

Lowe's dive for the line is the sort of thing we see week-in, week-out. It's not a penalty. May's one was far more arguable.

It's also not a penalty try and claiming it's a shoulder charge or whatever is silly. The defender clearly tries to use both arms to grab him - they're just under the body. No-one calls it a shoulder charge when players are muscled away like that while on their feet near the try/touchlines.

I retract my view above that it was a shoulder charge. I focused on a slo mo replay as the tackle was being completed and missed that initally his right arm was on Lowe's belly. Legit attempted dive and tackle.

[CM11]

Fucking hell, as expected, as soon as the Irish turn up it turns into a shit show on here. Cunts.

Seriously? That's your interpretation of Torque going off on one and us calmly pointing out his own link proves him wrong?

Ffs.

You’re being equally ridiculous with this pish about a no arms tackle. Typical Irish bullshit, do fuck off.

I'm being ridiculous saying it wasn't a penalty try?

Anyway, I've corrected my view. JMK, as usual, showing how to converse pleasantly as opposed to calling people names.

[OomStruisbaai]

I love the Irish.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Lowe does really finishing that try, first reaching for the pass from Ringrose which if being generous is flat and then getting it down over the line. It's an excellent play, and from a very influential player

[sockwithaticket]

Lowe's dive for the line is the sort of thing we see week-in, week-out. It's not a penalty. May's one was far more arguable.

It's also not a penalty try and claiming it's a shoulder charge or whatever is silly. The defender clearly tries to use both arms to grab him - they're just under the body. No-one calls it a shoulder charge when players are muscled away like that while on their feet near the try/touchlines.

I retract my view above that it was a shoulder charge. I focused on a slo mo replay as the tackle was being completed and missed that initally his right arm was on Lowe's belly. Legit attempted dive and tackle.

I'd add that even if it was a less legitimate tackle, officials have, for as long as I can remember, been rather lax about penalising no arm or high tackles on a players attempting to score, only really stepping in for particularly egregious examples. So while a penalty try could be argued by the absolute letter of the law, it would be extremely unusual to see one being given under that circumstance.

[CM11]

Lowe's dive for the line is the sort of thing we see week-in, week-out. It's not a penalty. May's one was far more arguable.

It's also not a penalty try and claiming it's a shoulder charge or whatever is silly. The defender clearly tries to use both arms to grab him - they're just under the body. No-one calls it a shoulder charge when players are muscled away like that while on their feet near the try/touchlines.

I retract my view above that it was a shoulder charge. I focused on a slo mo replay as the tackle was being completed and missed that initally his right arm was on Lowe's belly. Legit attempted dive and tackle.

I'd add that even if it was a less legitimate tackle, officials have, for as long as I can remember, been rather lax about penalising no arm or high tackles on a players attempting to score, only really stepping in for particularly egregious examples. So while a penalty try could be argued by the absolute letter of the law, it would be extremely unusual to see one being given under that circumstance.

Absolutely. That was my view above when I had incorrectly stated shoulder 'tackle'.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I retract my view above that it was a shoulder charge. I focused on a slo mo replay as the tackle was being completed and missed that initally his right arm was on Lowe's belly. Legit attempted dive and tackle.

I'd add that even if it was a less legitimate tackle, officials have, for as long as I can remember, been rather lax about penalising no arm or high tackles on a players attempting to score, only really stepping in for particularly egregious examples. So while a penalty try could be argued by the absolute letter of the law, it would be extremely unusual to see one being given under that circumstance.

Absolutely. That was my view above when I had incorrectly stated shoulder 'tackle'.

If Adams can't get pinged the bar is reasonably high

[Torquemada 1420]

Torque, it is very clear what World Rugby mean. You are being contrary just for the sake of it. Every dive for the line is an attempt to evade a tackle. There have been thousands of tries scored like Lowe's. The only reason May's is included is because he performed a hurdling action in his dive as opposed to a propel forward dive. And if we're looking at exactly what World Rugby said, that refs need to use their judgement as to whether it was dangerous then clearly they'd conclude Lowe's wasn't any danger to Penaud because his legs arc away from Penaud with no risk of making contact with the latter.

Whether you use common sense or the law clarification or the many, many similar tries given as precedent you are wrong. I cannot fathom how you have managed to construct an argument in your head where you're right.

And we're the ones accused of trolling. Go figure.

No it is not. Because in the 2 examples used they gave an unequivocal illegal to the first and refused to pronounce on May's. What you have done is to say "CM11 wants it to mean X and therefore it is clear WR is saying the same".

The clearest implication is Lowe was illegal because he left the ground to avoid a tackle. And I'm not saying I want to agree with it. Just highlighting what a friggin' bind WR is in trying to balance
- entertainment
- workable law(s)
- safety


I'd hate to see Lowe's type of genius there ruled out. For me, that incident FELT like a great effort to score and an equally great effort to prevent the score. However, I am sure there are greater minds than mine (maybe not given WR's track record) thinking about this who can come to a solution but I can't think of one other than what they've already said, but is being ignored, i.e. it's illegal since the Law clarification.

And don't talk nonsense: "There have been thousands of tries scored like Lowe's" because if there were, that would mean they were commonplace and you wouldn't be seeing headline of "Try of the century" or whatever.

[Tichtheid]

And don't talk nonsense: "There have been thousands of tries scored like Lowe's" because if there were, that would mean they were commonplace and you wouldn't be seeing headline of "Try of the century" or whatever.

Those dives for the line are becoming commonplace - teams train for them now, I was watching an Edinburgh training PR video which was filmed yesterday and the players were diving for the score onto what look like thinner high jump mats

This was very nearly a wonder finish - the touchline was rolled too thick that day

[Torquemada 1420]

And don't talk nonsense: "There have been thousands of tries scored like Lowe's" because if there were, that would mean they were commonplace and you wouldn't be seeing headline of "Try of the century" or whatever.

Those dives for the line are becoming commonplace - teams train for them now, I was watching an Edinburgh training PR video which was filmed yesterday and the players were diving for the score onto what look like thinner high jump mats

This was very nearly a wonder finish - the touchline was rolled too thick that day

I don't think we are remotely close to commonplace.

That example is not in scope because the act of leaving the ground occurred after all tacklers had already been passed.

[Tichtheid]

Well, I've seen a lot of finishes like Lowe's, it's not that unusual, it's extraordinarily skilful and takes superb athleticism, but it's not uncommon
There wasn't one mention of an illegal attempt at a tackle in the relevant moves in this collection, btw

[Torquemada 1420]

Well, I've seen a lot of finishes like Lowe's, it's not that unusual, it's extraordinarily skilful and takes superb athleticism, but it's not uncommon
There wasn't one mention of an illegal attempt at a tackle in the relevant moves in this collection, btw

Haven't looked at the clips but note the WR "clarification" is relatively new. And clearly is being ignored!

[MrJonno]

The issue is you see every dive for the line as a jump to avoid a tackle whereas world rugby specifically differentiates between them, which for some reason you can't accept

[TheFrog]

What i would like is World Rugby to look closely at the choke tackle, because there were at least 4 or 5 instances when Irish shoulders made contact with French heads. We need consistency on high tackles.

(I.e. penalty against Ireland at least. Not sure they deserved more as the French player didn't flop on the ground so I guess the hit wasn't with force).

[Marylandolorian]

I don’t recall anyone complaining about this in November

[CM11]

Again, Torque, it's very clear.

There are two examples in your link. One sees a player hurdle over another player, land and then dot down. The other sees a player hurdle/dive to avoid a side on tackle (or at least weather the tackle in the air) dotting down before hitting ground. The first was deemed clearly illegal as it wasn't a dive for the line and was directly over a player. The second was not commented on as being illegal or not and it's at the high end of being a dangerous dive. However, there was no hurdling the player and WR explicitly state it's OK to go airborne to dive for the line. By definition you only do this to avoid a tackle.

Neither are exactly comparable to Lowe's because Lowe, and most who dive for the line, also twist their legs away from the tackler to avoid the tackler being able to grab the foot and bring it down to ground.

Basically world rugby are saying Lowe, May and many others are fine because they're diving to avoid a side on tackle. If you dive hurdle a player already in front of you, as per the first question, this would be illegal.

At no stage has it been suggested that Lowe's diving style was illegal. May's was brought up because he executes a hurdling action, not a diving action.

[Torquemada 1420]

I don’t recall anyone complaining about this in November

Maybe take the time to read the debate and its context before posting something as meaningless as this?

[Tichtheid]

Re Antonio

I’ve watched his tackle on Herring a few times now, it looks to me like the initial contact was shoulder to upper chest and the momentum whipped Herring’s head forward, making contact with Antonio’s shoulder.

He had time to dip into the tackle, and the annoying thing to me is that had he done so he would have smacked Herring back a metre or two and probably dislodged the ball due to the force of the perfectly legal collision.

[Torquemada 1420]

You Irish are all over the place here.

CM11 has gone from saying it was a pen try to now it is not.

MrJonno started with the assertion

as otherwise it is probably a PT and a YC.

which he has since gone silent upon.

CM11 stated the WR clarification said May’s try was an example of being legal which when challenged

b) Where TF does it say May's action was not illegal? At best, WR simply passes the buck on this one but does not proffer a judgement on the specific incident. You simply went all Irish and read what you wanted to see.

has now been modified to a partial admission with

The second (ed: May’s) was not commented on as being illegal or not and it's at the high end of being a dangerous dive.

and then changes his mind again

Basically world rugby are saying ….. May and many others are fine

So there is some dangerous end and some are fine but others are not?

MrJonno still has comprehension issues or selective reading disease

The issue is you see every dive for the line as a jump to avoid a tackle whereas world rugby specifically differentiates between them, which for some reason you can't accept

when literally 3 posts above

That example is not in scope because the act of leaving the ground occurred after all tacklers had already been passed.

and completely recasts his position when it was he who kept trying to paint the WR ruling to the limited context of “jump”.

Anyway CM11

Again, Torque, it's very clear.

and WR explicitly state it's OK to go airborne to dive for the line.

No WR does not. And it is getting tiresome having to post what is there for you to read even if you choose to change the meaning:

In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted.

“In principle” is already a non absolute.

and then they immediately cloudy it in the very same paragraph (i.e. it's a continuation of subject) with

If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

which takes us right back to the mess I highlighted in the very first post on this debate which is that there is next to no reason (I excepted showboating) to leave the ground that high (dive or otherwise) in the proximity of a defender other than to avoid the tackle. There is a difference with the low dive we all learned at school which also was to ensure a safer grounding
- avoid user error a la Dominici/Italy
- to lessen the chance of a defender knocking it out a la Burns/Medard
Note that on the user error, going so high heightens the chance of spilling the ball (especially embarrassing when showboating). And I suspect (I don't know because WR has been so poor in clarifying in the clarification) that this is the thinking behind their In principle bit i.e. your old school low dive is out of scope and zero chance of dangerous play but somewhere further up the levitation gradient, they are wrestling with what to do.

[CM11]

Torque, you lost me quite quickly but I did get as far as you missing my correction that I don't think there's any argument for a penalty try. What I originally said was that there was more argument for one than a penalty against Lowe. My view on reviewing the try again is that there is no argument for either whatsoever.

We can go around in circles here but you seem to be the only one who thinks Lowe's actions are in any way a penalty.

[CM11]

Btw Torque, the above is an example of admitting you were wrong.

You should try it out.

[MrJonno]

My original statement about the pen try and YC was tongue in cheek (I didn't realise other people were seriously calling for it). I stand by the statement that it is not a legal tackle by the letter of the law and therefore technically a YC and PT but they are never given (like a crooked feed these days or a wonky lineout throw to the front) and I don't expect it to be.

However WR clearly state diving in the act of scoring is fine and you can't accept that is what Lowe did, even though he was awarded a try, pretty conclusive proof that it was in the act of scoring.

[Slick]

This is mad.

It was a perfectly fine dive for the line and a perfectly fine attempted tackle.