Ireland v France match thread

[CM11]

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.

Out of interest, why do you think there's an argument for the tackle being illegal? He initially wraps with both arms.

[MrJonno]

Bed time for me. I'll check again in the morning but he never wraps for me.

Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't see a wrap

[CM11]

Bed time for me. I'll check again in the morning but he never wraps for me.

Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't see a wrap

Ok, maybe not a full wrap (as I look at it again, again! Should really stop looking on my phone) but enough with the right arm to count.

[laurent]

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

You should try it out.

[Torquemada 1420]

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

You should try it out.

I will do. When I am wrong. We've effectively spent 3 pages and kerrist knows how many words demonstrating
- how the Irish go into full meltdown in respect of anything remotely adverse in respect of their players
- how a significant portion of the Irish appear to have reading and comprehension problems in their own language. Not like it's an excuse that the Fre or some safas might have. Mr Jonno being the worst culprit here and is still at it

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.

No, WR does not. Again, for the hard of thinking

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.

The clue here sir is in the caveating of "In principle" which does not mean it's carte blanche fine. It does not say "Always in the act of scoring". And the overrider to that is in

If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle........ then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

Note that "or to jump, or hurdle" are specifically mentioned separately and so what other act could be outside the ORs? Maybe a dive?

So, if anyone is arguing Lowe (or Penaud in Mandy's link v Japan to make the Irish feel less victimised) is not described by the bit in red, I suggest you seek immediate admission to next year's CSE English intake.

Notes:
1) In the first example, WR specifically comments on it

In this specific case the sanction should be a PK against the ball carrier.

but declines to do so in the case of May (unlike CM11's earlier mirage that they had said May was okay). Massively unhelpful. If the governing body is not prepared to opine, where does that leave officials?
2) I am not arguing this is how the game is ref'd: as pointed out by another poster, it's the reverse i.e. these are all allowed and also no "tackler" ever gets pinged. But that is not what the Law (clarification) says.
3) The traditional dive is exactly that. The mechanics of these efforts are first and foremost a leap. A jump if you like. Maybe that's what was in the Law maker's mind when he wrote that? Who knows?
4) It's bio-mechanically inefficient (as well as carrying the additional risks of a dislodge I highlighted earlier) to go about it this way. Your vector of motion is significantly compromised (speed and distance) by the vertical element. So you are only likely to do this:
- if showboating
- it's like the finish in another link above where there were no defenders left but in sidestepping the last defender, the scorer would have gone into touch without the spectacular finish. Had he sidestepped away from the touchline, would he have done the same? I don't think so!
- to ............avoid a tackle

[CM11]

Again, you lost me very quickly there torque. I got as far as you accusing us of melting down. Which is a very odd take when no one agrees with you and you're the one melting down.

[PornDog]

I'm confused - was James Lowe not diving for a try when he dove to score the try?

I was going to say this is all very odd, but that's not correct. Stupid. This is all very stupid!

And boring!

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm confused - was James Lowe not diving for a try when he dove to score the try?

I was going to say this is all very odd, but that's not correct. Stupid. This is all very stupid!

And boring!

dove



Whether he was or not (ask WR on what their nuances are between diving and jumping) does not matter if he did so to avoid a tackle. And that's the only reason he chose to go that airborne (left the ground). The Law is clear-ish, probably stupid (although I can understand WR's wetting the bed at the mention of safety) and being uniformly ignored. Rather like feeding the scrum, offside, straight lineout throws and staying on your feet.

[Torquemada 1420]

Again, you lost me very quickly there torque. I got as far as you accusing us of melting down. Which is a very odd take when no one agrees with you and you're the one melting down.

Sadly, that appears all too easily done as evidenced by the inability to read some pretty plain English.

[TheFrog]

Reviewed the game, and this is what I see:

1. The difference between the French attacking patterns and Irish ones are telling. French were very slow to get back to their feet and re-distribute themselves for the next phase, resulting in limited options for Dupont-Ntamack. I have seen several instances where there were more Irish defenders than French attackers and a yawning gap between the touch line and 20m in where no French winger was.

2. Physical impact: while the French did hit hard, Ireland consistently gained ground ball in hand and managed to keep a forward momentum that prevented the French from competing at the rucks and allowed Ireland to speed up their game and create opportunities.

3. Defense: on a number of occasions, we only had one man covering at the back in the second half and Ireland took full advantage of this through the replacement scrum-half, Byrne and Keenan. That is when Ireland tool back control of the game in the second half, pinned us back and French heads started to drop.

4. Support on our own attacking rucks: often that split second late allowing Ireland to slow down the ball.

In addition, the work rate of key players for the battle of the front line was lower than their usual standards, and Atonio, Willemse and Aldritt were clearly below par. Even Marchand wasn't at his usual level of performance.


Finally, a bit of rant although I don't think it would have changed a thing such is Ireland's margin over France today, but (1) the Irish forwards induced in a diving competition on their own rucks that would normally have earned them a few penalties against and (2) the Irish choke tackle results in 50% of the cases in shoulder contact with attacker's head or attacker being held by the neck.

[CM11]

Again, you lost me very quickly there torque. I got as far as you accusing us of melting down. Which is a very odd take when no one agrees with you and you're the one melting down.

Sadly, that appears all too easily done as evidenced by the inability to read some pretty plain English.

You miss my point. Ironic given the slur. I stopped reading quickly. At the point I mentioned. Because it made no sense. Given you're the one melting down.

[MrJonno]

Nigel Owens can't decide if the tackle was legal but doesn't even question Lowe's dive.

[Raggs]

Diving is allowed, jumping is not. I believe that was clarified a while back?

Not sure they gave a good description of what makes a jump vs a dive, but the simplest one to get started for me is whether you're aiming to land on your feet or not. Lowe clearly wasn't.

[Torquemada 1420]

For the Irish, 1, or maybe 2, simple questions. The answers are binary. YES or NO.

Question 1
Did Lowe (or Penaud in the other link) leave the ground SOLELY to avoid a tackle?
YES or NO only.
I've even made it easier for you by adding SOLELY.

Optional question 2
Only for anyone who answers NO to 1.
Would either Lowe (or Penaud) have left the ground in the absence of a defender?
YES or NO only.

[Raggs]

For the Irish, 1, or maybe 2, simple questions. The answers are binary. YES or NO.

Question 1
Did Lowe (or Penaud in the other link) leave the ground SOLELY to avoid a tackle?
YES or NO only.
I've even made it easier for you by adding SOLELY.

Optional question 2
Only for anyone who answers NO to 1.
Would either Lowe (or Penaud) have left the ground in the absence of a defender?
YES or NO only.

Not Irish, but just 1 question.

Did Lowe avoid a tackle?

[Torquemada 1420]

Diving is allowed, jumping is not. I believe that was clarified a while back?

Not sure they gave a good description of what makes a jump vs a dive, but the simplest one to get started for me is whether you're aiming to land on your feet or not. Lowe clearly wasn't.

Bold bit is the real problem here. However, dives are generally legal ("In principle") and they would never be with the intent of landing on one's feet.

Whether Lowe dived or jumped is academic if he did it for the purpose of avoiding the tackler. That's what the Law clarification says and Jonno bringing up Nigel is irrelevant: I've already pointed out that the Law clarification is being ignored, like so many others.

[Torquemada 1420]

Not Irish, but just 1 question.

Did Lowe avoid a tackle?

Well, that's messy because you then have the debate as to whether Penaud's effort was a tackle!! But he clearly acted to avoid any potential tackle and that was the only reason he did so.

[Raggs]

Not Irish, but just 1 question.

Did Lowe avoid a tackle?

Well, that's messy because you then have the debate as to whether Penaud's effort was a tackle!! But he clearly acted to avoid any potential tackle and that was the only reason he did so.

Or he knew he was getting tackled and wanted his legs in the air to try and avoid being in touch?

Your questions clearly state to avoid, if he didn't avoid the tackle, then your questions fall down. World rugby clarification states you can dive as long as it's not to avoid. He clearly didn't avoid the tackling player, so there's no issue there, we cannot judge intention only result, and here he clearly avoided nothing.

For me Penaud attempted a tackle, Lowe attempted to dive for the line, all legal, and Lowe was in touch. Grounding was seen, so question was correctly sent up as any reason not to, and the important angle went missing.

[PornDog]

For me Penaud attempted a tackle, Lowe attempted to dive for the line, all legal, and Lowe was in touch.

This is blatantly obvious to everyone except Torque. It's true some people may have taken some convincing to get to this point, but everyone is there now...........except for Torque - cause he's a fucking loon!!!

[Paddington Bear]

Yeah I'm comfortable Penaud attempted a tackle. Fuck up here begins with the Touch Judge who doesn't see a pretty blatant foot in touch. Still, the right team won.

[PornDog]

Yeah I'm comfortable Penaud attempted a tackle. Fuck up here begins with the Touch Judge who doesn't see a pretty blatant foot in touch. Still, the right team won.

What's really daft is, even without that angle from behind you can still his toe touched the ground. I mean we really don't have to differentiate between brushing grass versus touching mud do we? Pretty daft of TMO and Barnes to interpret the situation the way they did.

[Paddington Bear]

Yeah I'm comfortable Penaud attempted a tackle. Fuck up here begins with the Touch Judge who doesn't see a pretty blatant foot in touch. Still, the right team won.

What's really daft is, even without that angle from behind you can still his toe touched the ground. I mean we really don't have to differentiate between brushing grass versus touching mud do we? Pretty daft of TMO and Barnes to interpret the situation the way they did.

Yeah and IIRC the TJ is right on the spot. Hard job, split second and all that but he literally has one job. If you're not sure, there's no shame in saying so and sending it upstairs as 'Try, yes or no?'. If they'd done that I would guess benefit of the doubt would have gone to the defending side.

[Biffer]

Fucking hell Torq, go and pay someone for a blowjob, there's a lot of pent up frustration coming through.

[Grandpa]

Interesting though as World Rugby cited this try by Johnny May as now being illegal... a jumping dive, not dissimilar to Lowe?

Q.2 In 2021, 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.



Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee:

A.1 We agree – jumping to hurdle a potential tackler is dangerous play, as is the act of a ball carrier jumping into a tackle. Even if no contact is made, we believe this act is in clear contravention of law 9.11, and runs contrary to the game-wide focus on player welfare.

In this specific case the sanction should be a PK against the ball carrier.

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.

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. 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.

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

[Raggs]

May avoided the tackler, did Lowe? No. If he didn't avoid the tackler then he doesn't break the law.

[CM11]

They specifically don't say May's jump was illegal. Answer 1 is an answer to a different incident where a player hurdles another, lands on his feet and dots down.

They left the May incident down to the interpretation of the ref as to whether it was dangerous and like Lowe and many others, May jumps to avoid a side on tackle, he is not hurdling a player ahead of him and he doesn't land on his feet first. It wasn't particularly dangerous but the clarification was more to confirm it was legal to tackle May in the air in this scenario.

[GogLais]

May avoided the tackler, did Lowe? No. If he didn't avoid the tackler then he doesn't break the law.

Oh God, I hesitate to get involved. Admittedly I haven’t looked up the dictionary definition of avoid but if a player’s leap makes a tackle less effective then he’s sort of avoided it hasn’t he?

[Grandpa]

They specifically don't say May's jump was illegal. Answer 1 is an answer to a different incident where a player hurdles another, lands on his feet and dots down.

They left the May incident down to the interpretation of the ref as to whether it was dangerous and like Lowe and many others, May jumps to avoid a side on tackle, he is not hurdling a player ahead of him and he doesn't land on his feet first. It wasn't particularly dangerous but the clarification was more to confirm it was legal to tackle May in the air in this scenario.

Ah you're right. I assumed both answers were for May's try. My bad.

[JM2K6]

May avoided the tackler, did Lowe? No. If he didn't avoid the tackler then he doesn't break the law.

Oh God, I hesitate to get involved. Admittedly I haven’t looked up the dictionary definition of avoid but if a player’s leap makes a tackle less effective then he’s sort of avoided it hasn’t he?

No. You either avoid it or you don't. You can easily argue his jump was to evade the tackle. Dives like Lowe's aren't about tackle evasion, they're attempts to mitigate the consequences of the tackle, i.e. being taken into touch.

[CM11]

The one thing I'd say about May's is that if he was taken out in the air (legally per clarification) at the initial trajectory of his jump, there'd be potential for a very serious injury to himself as he'd be upended. When you dive forward rather than up, this isn't really an issue.

[PCPhil]

Sigh. Bump

[CM11]

Sigh. Bump

?

[PCPhil]

Sigh. Bump

?

just bored but this thread is going on a bit. I suppose we’re all a bit peed off as no 6Ns tomorrow. Probably showing my frustration at that more than anything.

[Torquemada 1420]

Not Irish, but just 1 question.

Did Lowe avoid a tackle?

Well, that's messy because you then have the debate as to whether Penaud's effort was a tackle!! But he clearly acted to avoid any potential tackle and that was the only reason he did so.

Or he knew he was getting tackled and wanted his legs in the air to try and avoid being in touch?

Your questions clearly state to avoid, if he didn't avoid the tackle, then your questions fall down.

No they do not. The Law is in regards intent and not outcome. It's irrelevant whether a potential tackler made a tackle, missed a tackle, committed a foul in the act of attempting to tackle or stood there and waived the ball carrier to the line a la Garbajosa.

[Torquemada 1420]

For the Irish, 1, or maybe 2, simple questions. The answers are binary. YES or NO.

Question 1
Did Lowe (or Penaud in the other link) leave the ground SOLELY to avoid a tackle?
YES or NO only.
I've even made it easier for you by adding SOLELY.

Optional question 2
Only for anyone who answers NO to 1.
Would either Lowe (or Penaud) have left the ground in the absence of a defender?
YES or NO only.

That second question is possibly the stupidest thing I have read on here ever

I am going with SOLELY in the air

Well, then we are done.

Yes, the second one is utterly ridiculous and was for Jonno (see what his attempt at reasoning was earlier).

[Torquemada 1420]

No. You either avoid it or you don't. You can easily argue his jump was to evade the tackle. Dives like Lowe's aren't about tackle evasion, they're attempts to mitigate the consequences of the tackle, i.e. being taken into touch.

Eh? How are those 2 things distinct? Tackle and tackle into touch are still tackles, non? This goes back to would he have acted in the same way in absentia a defender? Clearly not and so the only motivation was to avoid a tackle.

Not that it matters particularly here but within WR's bumbling wording is the possibility that they consider what Lowe & co are doing is not a dive but a leap (jump).

[Torquemada 1420]

Fucking hell Torq, go and pay someone for a blowjob, there's a lot of pent up frustration coming through.

Pffft, you give the Swarm way too much credit if you think I am frustrated at the hard of thinking demonstrating blind partisanship to the exclusion of the ability to think. This isn't even a 1 on the scale compared with dealing with football forums.

If the example had been Penaud rather than Lowe (which is irrelevant), they'd not have contributed a single post.

[JM2K6]

Trying to avoid a tackle and trying to avoid being grounded in touch before you can put the ball down are indeed two different things. What with the latter achievable while still being tackled. So you can have b) without having a).

[MrJonno]

For the Irish, 1, or maybe 2, simple questions. The answers are binary. YES or NO.

Question 1
Did Lowe (or Penaud in the other link) leave the ground SOLELY to avoid a tackle?
YES or NO only.
I've even made it easier for you by adding SOLELY.

Optional question 2
Only for anyone who answers NO to 1.
Would either Lowe (or Penaud) have left the ground in the absence of a defender?
YES or NO only.

That second question is possibly the stupidest thing I have read on here ever

I am going with SOLELY in the air

Well, then we are done.

Yes, the second one is utterly ridiculous and was for Jonno (see what his attempt at reasoning was earlier).

I'm flattered you're so obsessed but this is getting creepy. And all this over an illegal 'tackle'. For god's sake take a break