NPR

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:26 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:22 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:12 am

Wasn't the England player running towards the ball rather than running a blocking line? Sure you'd get pinged for simply blocking, but if you've got the defence you were running towards the ball maybe not so much. I don't doubt for a moment he knew he was blocking, but you're not obliged to get out of the way of someone trying to jump over you when you're otherwise legal

Awful game mind, just awful. And yet sadly also an as expected.

Unless there's been a change in directions on this, the onus is on the defending player to ensure they don't endanger the attacking player... so regardless of intent, contact with a player in the air is a sanction.

So you're running towards the ball, someone runs from behind you but faster tries to jump over you and tumbles and that's on you?

I'd say yes if you were simply running a blocking line, but to say to a defender you can't run towards the ball because someone is approaching you from behind can't be what's intended.

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:22 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:12 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:07 pm

The final non decision of the game was inexplicable to me. Dyer was in the air and got shouldered into touch... surely, that's a penalty at least, it was deliberate with no mitigation.

Wasn't the England player running towards the ball rather than running a blocking line? Sure you'd get pinged for simply blocking, but if you've got the defence you were running towards the ball maybe not so much. I don't doubt for a moment he knew he was blocking, but you're not obliged to get out of the way of someone trying to jump over you when you're otherwise legal

Awful game mind, just awful. And yet sadly also an as expected.

Unless there's been a change in directions on this, the onus is on the defending player to ensure they don't endanger the attacking player... so regardless of intent, contact with a player in the air is a sanction.

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:50 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:26 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:22 am

Unless there's been a change in directions on this, the onus is on the defending player to ensure they don't endanger the attacking player... so regardless of intent, contact with a player in the air is a sanction.

So you're running towards the ball, someone runs from behind you but faster tries to jump over you and tumbles and that's on you?

I'd say yes if you were simply running a blocking line, but to say to a defender you can't run towards the ball because someone is approaching you from behind can't be what's intended.

That's a specifically warped scenario that hasn't been tested, to my knowledge...but the same principle applies. If you're running into a contact zone you have to ensure you don't place the other player at risk. In your case, the roles might be seen to be reversed and the attacking player, in leaping over the defender places both of them at risk. I dunno...

when this direction was first applied, I felt it placed an unfair burden on defenders who could be caught out through having eyes on the ball and not seeing another player. It doesn't matter... players are required to act in a safe manner. Simply put, no contact with players in the air.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:06 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:50 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:26 am

So you're running towards the ball, someone runs from behind you but faster tries to jump over you and tumbles and that's on you?

I'd say yes if you were simply running a blocking line, but to say to a defender you can't run towards the ball because someone is approaching you from behind can't be what's intended.

That's a specifically warped scenario that hasn't been tested, to my knowledge...but the same principle applies. If you're running into a contact zone you have to ensure you don't place the other player at risk. In your case, the roles might be seen to be reversed and the attacking player, in leaping over the defender places both of them at risk. I dunno...

when this direction was first applied, I felt it placed an unfair burden on defenders who could be caught out through having eyes on the ball and not seeing another player. It doesn't matter... players are required to act in a safe manner. Simply put, no contact with players in the air.

Nope, not buying that. Ford is turning his back on Dyer before Dyer jumps.

I don't think Ford is doing much beyond blocking and hoping to shepherd the ball into touch, but the law cannot intend you be held responsible for what people do behind your back. And here Ford isn't only blocking, he's also reasonably enough moving towards the ball.

Dyer chose to jump, that's on him, a Dyer moment in a dire game

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:50 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:26 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:22 am

Unless there's been a change in directions on this, the onus is on the defending player to ensure they don't endanger the attacking player... so regardless of intent, contact with a player in the air is a sanction.

So you're running towards the ball, someone runs from behind you but faster tries to jump over you and tumbles and that's on you?

I'd say yes if you were simply running a blocking line, but to say to a defender you can't run towards the ball because someone is approaching you from behind can't be what's intended.

That's a specifically warped scenario that hasn't been tested, to my knowledge...but the same principle applies. If you're running into a contact zone you have to ensure you don't place the other player at risk. In your case, the roles might be seen to be reversed and the attacking player, in leaping over the defender places both of them at risk. I dunno...

when this direction was first applied, I felt it placed an unfair burden on defenders who could be caught out through having eyes on the ball and not seeing another player. It doesn't matter... players are required to act in a safe manner. Simply put, no contact with players in the air.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:06 am

Nope, not buying that. Ford is turning his back on Dyer before Dyer jumps.

I don't think Ford is doing much beyond blocking and hoping to shepherd the ball into touch, but the law cannot intend you be held responsible for what people do behind your back. And here Ford isn't only blocking, he's also reasonably enough moving towards the ball.

Dyer chose to jump, that's on him, a Dyer moment in a dire game

ASMO wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:05 am I wonder if the RFU have taken a leaf out of the Imperial Romans book by employing a flunkie to walk behind Borethick whispering in his ear " thou art a fantastic coach, England are really making huge strides forwards, they are a top 3 side, don't listen to the critics". There can be no other reason for the shit that spews out of his mouth at press interviews.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 4:25 pm

ASMO wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:05 am I wonder if the RFU have taken a leaf out of the Imperial Romans book by employing a flunkie to walk behind Borethick whispering in his ear " thou art a fantastic coach, England are really making huge strides forwards, they are a top 3 side, don't listen to the critics". There can be no other reason for the shit that spews out of his mouth at press interviews.

I remember a post match interview when he was captain after another poor loss when he said 'we played some fantastic stuff out there'

Guscott said 'his mind has played a game that his body hasn't'

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:05 am is this for real?

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:08 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:05 am is this for real?

Seriously?

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:18 am

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:08 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:05 am is this for real?

Seriously?

Thst's got to be Photoshopped?

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:19 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:18 am

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:08 am

Seriously?

Thst's got to be Photoshopped?

Yes, obviously.

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:27 am

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:19 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:18 am
Thst's got to be Photoshopped?

Yes, obviously.

Quite

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:38 pm Slade's right hand looks a mess...