NPR

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:01 pm**

oh fuck, thats horrible. How was the player?

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:09 pm**

Slick wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:01 pm oh fuck, thats horrible. How was the player?

Surprisingly okay, I don't think he went off

These young guys have got rubber bones and elastic bands for tendons

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:13 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:59 pm
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:33 pm Link to the incident in the 20's game.
That's a croc roll, which is now banned. The two incidents are not remotely comparable.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BcVVnQsJ6/
Oh ffs, this is painful with you guys.

The referee explained to the player that he was sending him off for landing on the lower limb, as per the world rugby laws. I said all this in a previous post.

I don't understand what is to be gained by a point blank refusal to accept there was any wrong doing on a niche chatroom which has a few dozen readers. It won't change the outcome and no one is going to get cited now, but we've all been here before I await the next explanation why the Dupont injury was completely nothing to do with Irish players doing anything wrong with bated breath.

Croc roll and landing on a players lower leg is foul play. That's the law as it was changed to recently hence most (but not all) players have stopped doing croc rolls.

It's not just a niche forum. You have the French national coach painting Ireland as a dirty team and engaging in vexatious citings to push that narrative.

There's also be accusations of "deliberate" and "targeted" foul play which is nonsense because the leg that got injured wasn't there until a split second before the contact.

And then the direct comparisons with another incident and the only thing they have in common is a player falling on another players lower leg.

If there was wrong doing in the unfortunate Dupont injury, I'm sure one of the following would have sanctioned it or caused it to be sanctioned:
1. The referee
2. Either TJ
3. TMO
4. Citing commissioner

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:56 pm**

Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:13 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:59 pm
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:33 pm Link to the incident in the 20's game.
That's a croc roll, which is now banned. The two incidents are not remotely comparable.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BcVVnQsJ6/
Oh ffs, this is painful with you guys.

The referee explained to the player that he was sending him off for landing on the lower limb, as per the world rugby laws. I said all this in a previous post.

I don't understand what is to be gained by a point blank refusal to accept there was any wrong doing on a niche chatroom which has a few dozen readers. It won't change the outcome and no one is going to get cited now, but we've all been here before I await the next explanation why the Dupont injury was completely nothing to do with Irish players doing anything wrong with bated breath.
Croc roll and landing on a players lower leg is foul play. That's the law as it was changed to recently hence most (but not all) players have stopped doing croc rolls.

It's not just a niche forum. You have the French national coach painting Ireland as a dirty team and engaging in vexatious citings to push that narrative.

There's also be accusations of "deliberate" and "targeted" foul play which is nonsense because the leg that got injured wasn't there until a split second before the contact.

And then the direct comparisons with another incident and the only thing they have in common is a player falling on another players lower leg.

If there was wrong doing in the unfortunate Dupont injury, I'm sure one of the following would have sanctioned it or caused it to be sanctioned:
1. The referee
2. Either TJ
3. TMO
4. Citing commissioner

Law 9.11
Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others
(Sanction: Penalty)

Law 15. 7
Joining a ruck
A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
(Sanction: Penalty)

Beirne hits Dupont with his shoulder, his arm is tucked across his own body and there is no attempt to bind or wrap.

If you dispute anything there have a look at this

The guy with the video says that happens all the time and it does, but it is contrary to the laws.

I don't believe Beirne targets Dupont's leg, he is propelled into doing it by the action of Porter, but he does land on his lower leg.

Law 9.20e
A player must not drop their weight onto an opponent or target the lower limbs. (Sanction: Penalty)

I cannot give an explanation as to why this has not been cited, but he did lead with his shoulder into Dupont and he did land on Dupont's lower limb

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:08 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:56 pm
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:13 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:59 pm

Oh ffs, this is painful with you guys.

The referee explained to the player that he was sending him off for landing on the lower limb, as per the world rugby laws. I said all this in a previous post.

I don't understand what is to be gained by a point blank refusal to accept there was any wrong doing on a niche chatroom which has a few dozen readers. It won't change the outcome and no one is going to get cited now, but we've all been here before I await the next explanation why the Dupont injury was completely nothing to do with Irish players doing anything wrong with bated breath.
Croc roll and landing on a players lower leg is foul play. That's the law as it was changed to recently hence most (but not all) players have stopped doing croc rolls.

It's not just a niche forum. You have the French national coach painting Ireland as a dirty team and engaging in vexatious citings to push that narrative.

There's also be accusations of "deliberate" and "targeted" foul play which is nonsense because the leg that got injured wasn't there until a split second before the contact.

And then the direct comparisons with another incident and the only thing they have in common is a player falling on another players lower leg.

If there was wrong doing in the unfortunate Dupont injury, I'm sure one of the following would have sanctioned it or caused it to be sanctioned:
1. The referee
2. Either TJ
3. TMO
4. Citing commissioner
Law 9.11
Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others
(Sanction: Penalty)

Law 15. 7
Joining a ruck
A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
(Sanction: Penalty)

<snip>

Hands in the ruck is also illegal, but unless you're off your feet when you do it, it's carte blanche. Same here, I would imagine a good 50% of rucks (if not more) follow the same format as the one where Dupont got injured, but they aren't even given a second look. That's why it wasn't cited! For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with you that that's bollocks, but that's WR for you.

I'm with Fester on the comparison though, as things are reffed now, Beirne was defacto legal. the Welsh 9 was never legal (croc roll) and so they are not really comparable.

(Seeing that though reminds me of how much I miss Dan Leavy - that's pretty much a carbon copy of the incident that ended his career

)

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:17 pm**

Dinnae bother TH.

There's a certain category of Irish supporter who are congenitally incapable of accepting their players have any fault in anything at all.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:38 pm**

Biffer wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:17 pm Dinnae bother TH.

There's a certain category of Irish supporter who are congenitally incapable of accepting their players have any fault in anything at all.

Definition of bad faith argument above.
I get that we're not a well liked team but you're fooling yourself if you think you're being objective here. There's sympathy for a Welsh player who actually did commit foul play but then there's demands for a ban on an Irish player who did not commit foul play.
I do enjoy pointing out the frothing at the mouth here whenever an Irish team plays about all the illegal things we're doing that the refs apparently never see.

If you asked me if POM should have been carded for either of the block down/tackle efforts, I'd say wouldn't have reason for complaint if he was.

And no issue with the Nash yellow.

But as it stands, the Dupont injury is not foul play.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:46 pm**

SaintK wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 4:58 pm
laurent wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 4:23 pm
OomStruisbaai wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 3:38 pm
Kak man, the French is the last ones who can complain about thuggish play.
Extreme Ironing...

Quite

2024 Rochelle ended Fourie season plus three more, this year Toulon took out Libnok and injured two more.

Now they complain about their Goat pissie ended in the wrong side of a ruck. After the Boks beat them at their own WC, their midfielder could have died after a PSdT clean out.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:51 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:56 pm
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:13 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:59 pm

Oh ffs, this is painful with you guys.

The referee explained to the player that he was sending him off for landing on the lower limb, as per the world rugby laws. I said all this in a previous post.

I don't understand what is to be gained by a point blank refusal to accept there was any wrong doing on a niche chatroom which has a few dozen readers. It won't change the outcome and no one is going to get cited now, but we've all been here before I await the next explanation why the Dupont injury was completely nothing to do with Irish players doing anything wrong with bated breath.
Croc roll and landing on a players lower leg is foul play. That's the law as it was changed to recently hence most (but not all) players have stopped doing croc rolls.

It's not just a niche forum. You have the French national coach painting Ireland as a dirty team and engaging in vexatious citings to push that narrative.

There's also be accusations of "deliberate" and "targeted" foul play which is nonsense because the leg that got injured wasn't there until a split second before the contact.

And then the direct comparisons with another incident and the only thing they have in common is a player falling on another players lower leg.

If there was wrong doing in the unfortunate Dupont injury, I'm sure one of the following would have sanctioned it or caused it to be sanctioned:
1. The referee
2. Either TJ
3. TMO
4. Citing commissioner
Law 9.11
Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others
(Sanction: Penalty)

Law 15. 7
Joining a ruck
A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
(Sanction: Penalty)

Beirne hits Dupont with his shoulder, his arm is tucked across his own body and there is no attempt to bind or wrap.

If you dispute anything there have a look at this

The guy with the video says that happens all the time and it does, but it is contrary to the laws.

I don't believe Beirne targets Dupont's leg, he is propelled into doing it by the action of Porter, but he does land on his lower leg.

Law 9.20e
A player must not drop their weight onto an opponent or target the lower limbs. (Sanction: Penalty)

I cannot give an explanation as to why this has not been cited, but he did lead with his shoulder into Dupont and he did land on Dupont's lower limb

You've quoted 3 different laws that you allege were broken yet support this by posting a video saying that it's an unfortunate accident and the international referees in the game + the citing commission after agree with him.

You're all over the shop.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:25 pm**

Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:51 pm

You've quoted 3 different laws that you allege were broken yet support this by posting a video saying that it's an unfortunate accident and the international referees in the game + the citing commission after agree with him.

You're all over the shop.

Nope, I posted video because it was the first one I found that shows clearly Beirne entering the ruck contrary to the laws, in a reckless manner.

I posted the three laws which have been broken.

Is it so difficult to focus on the facts in the point of contact and ignore this guy’s opinion? On here we get opinions against high tackles and head contact being ruled illegal. I think that is a bollocks opinion rooted in rugby from more than 30 years ago and has no relevance to the professional sport we have now.

I don’t get what is your gain here, saying Beirne has joined that ruck illegally and it resulted in Dupont’s injury has no real world consequences. I understand the wish to be right on the internet, I am as guilty of that as anyone, but can you really tell me that was a legal way to join the ruck?
Just that one simple questIon, was Beirne legal on initial contact with Dupont?

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:55 pm**

Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:39 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:12 am
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:13 am

Back to English comprehension class with you.
It did read like you were victim blaming
Not my intention. There's a ruck and the situation has changed just before Beirne joins it. You can't ignore that change when making a determination on whether it is foul play or not.

As per the laws it is foul play, but as per how the game is reffed it's not. In essence I don't think players should be allowed to play like that, but given they are it'd be unfair to single out Beirne (and/or Porter)

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:12 pm**

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:55 pm

As per the laws it is foul play, but as per how the game is reffed it's not. In essence I don't think players should be allowed to play like that, but given they are it'd be unfair to single out Beirne (and/or Porter)

I’m not sure that’s true, often when someone gets injured they go back and look to see if there was any foul play. Players get away with things all the time, far less often when someone gets hurt enough to be taken from the field.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:33 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:12 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:55 pm

As per the laws it is foul play, but as per how the game is reffed it's not. In essence I don't think players should be allowed to play like that, but given they are it'd be unfair to single out Beirne (and/or Porter)
I’m not sure that’s true, often when someone gets injured they go back and look to see if there was any foul play. Players get away with things all the time, far less often when someone gets hurt enough to be taken from the field.

Darcy Swain copped a YC and a 6 week suspension for his 'clean out' on Quinn Tupaea that caused a ruptured medial cruciate ligament and a partial anterior cruciate ligament tear in his left knee and cost him any chance of playing in the RWC.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:36 pm**

An Irish player cited in Dublin?? You’re on crack, lads.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:42 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:25 pm
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:51 pm

You've quoted 3 different laws that you allege were broken yet support this by posting a video saying that it's an unfortunate accident and the international referees in the game + the citing commission after agree with him.

You're all over the shop.
Nope, I posted video because it was the first one I found that shows clearly Beirne entering the ruck contrary to the laws, in a reckless manner.

I posted the three laws which have been broken.

Is it so difficult to focus on the facts in the point of contact and ignore this guy’s opinion? On here we get opinions against high tackles and head contact being ruled illegal. I think that is a bollocks opinion rooted in rugby from more than 30 years ago and has no relevance to the professional sport we have now.

I don’t get what is your gain here, saying Beirne has joined that ruck illegally and it resulted in Dupont’s injury has no real world consequences. I understand the wish to be right on the internet, I am as guilty of that as anyone, but can you really tell me that was a legal way to join the ruck?
Just that one simple questIon, was Beirne legal on initial contact with Dupont?

Beirne did enter the ruck illegally, but so did most of the players playing at the weekend, & the only reason we're talking about him & not the others is because Dupont got injured. If the TMO's did a full review of every ruck, there'd be about 1% that didn't generate at least one penalty.

There's a good reason why we don't Ref or Officiate on "Outcomes" in general, & that's because you end up in situation like this, where a fairly minor penalty gets elevated to a hanging offense because a player got injured, & it was down to dumb luck rather than anything else.

The breakdown is a mess, & the Irish players like everyone else will play the Ref & WR in general in every game, because that's how you get an edge & that's what being a Professional is all about.

If people want to have a serious discussion about fixing the breakdown that's fine, but right now this just seems like a pile on where all the usual suspects want to have a go at the "Irish"; not including many on here, but I could have picked a number of the usual one-eyed posters who made this an "Irish" thing rather than just the cluster-fuck that is how the game is refed

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:45 pm**

Guy Smiley wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:33 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:12 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:55 pm

As per the laws it is foul play, but as per how the game is reffed it's not. In essence I don't think players should be allowed to play like that, but given they are it'd be unfair to single out Beirne (and/or Porter)
I’m not sure that’s true, often when someone gets injured they go back and look to see if there was any foul play. Players get away with things all the time, far less often when someone gets hurt enough to be taken from the field.
Darcy Swain copped a YC and a 6 week suspension for his 'clean out' on Quinn Tupaea that caused a ruptured medial cruciate ligament and a partial anterior cruciate ligament tear in his left knee and cost him any chance of playing in the RWC.

It's unworkable of course but I wouldn't be against a player who injures someone like that not being allowed to play until the injured party does.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:48 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:45 pm
Guy Smiley wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:33 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:12 pm

I’m not sure that’s true, often when someone gets injured they go back and look to see if there was any foul play. Players get away with things all the time, far less often when someone gets hurt enough to be taken from the field.
Darcy Swain copped a YC and a 6 week suspension for his 'clean out' on Quinn Tupaea that caused a ruptured medial cruciate ligament and a partial anterior cruciate ligament tear in his left knee and cost him any chance of playing in the RWC.

It's unworkable of course but I wouldn't be against a player who injures someone like that not being allowed to play until the injured party does.

Funny that was one of the recent incidents that came to mind when thinking of deliberate foul play that was going to cause an injury, & should absolutely result in a year at least out of the game.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:48 pm**

fishfoodie wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:42 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:25 pm
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:51 pm

You've quoted 3 different laws that you allege were broken yet support this by posting a video saying that it's an unfortunate accident and the international referees in the game + the citing commission after agree with him.

You're all over the shop.
Nope, I posted video because it was the first one I found that shows clearly Beirne entering the ruck contrary to the laws, in a reckless manner.

I posted the three laws which have been broken.

Is it so difficult to focus on the facts in the point of contact and ignore this guy’s opinion? On here we get opinions against high tackles and head contact being ruled illegal. I think that is a bollocks opinion rooted in rugby from more than 30 years ago and has no relevance to the professional sport we have now.

I don’t get what is your gain here, saying Beirne has joined that ruck illegally and it resulted in Dupont’s injury has no real world consequences. I understand the wish to be right on the internet, I am as guilty of that as anyone, but can you really tell me that was a legal way to join the ruck?
Just that one simple questIon, was Beirne legal on initial contact with Dupont?
Beirne did enter the ruck illegally, but so did most of the players playing at the weekend, & the only reason we're talking about him & not the others is because Dupont got injured. If the TMO's did a full review of every ruck, there'd be about 1% that didn't generate at least one penalty.

There's a good reason why we don't Ref or Officiate on "Outcomes" in general, & that's because you end up in situation like this, where a fairly minor penalty gets elevated to a hanging offense because a player got injured, & it was down to dumb luck rather than anything else.

The breakdown is a mess, & the Irish players like everyone else will play the Ref & WR in general in every game, because that's how you get an edge & that's what being a Professional is all about.

If people want to have a serious discussion about fixing the breakdown that's fine, but right now this just seems like a pile on where all the usual suspects want to have a go at the "Irish"; not including many on here, but I could have picked a number of the usual one-eyed posters who made this an "Irish" thing rather than just the cluster-fuck that is how the game is refed

Yes, the game is reffed poorly with respect to the ruck and the existing Laws.

To avoid any suggestion of unfairly piling on to the innocent and victimised Irish here, when do you suggest would be a good time to start reffing the ruck properly, or to perhaps have a conversation about that?

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:58 pm**

fishfoodie wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:42 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:25 pm
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:51 pm

You've quoted 3 different laws that you allege were broken yet support this by posting a video saying that it's an unfortunate accident and the international referees in the game + the citing commission after agree with him.

You're all over the shop.
Nope, I posted video because it was the first one I found that shows clearly Beirne entering the ruck contrary to the laws, in a reckless manner.

I posted the three laws which have been broken.

Is it so difficult to focus on the facts in the point of contact and ignore this guy’s opinion? On here we get opinions against high tackles and head contact being ruled illegal. I think that is a bollocks opinion rooted in rugby from more than 30 years ago and has no relevance to the professional sport we have now.

I don’t get what is your gain here, saying Beirne has joined that ruck illegally and it resulted in Dupont’s injury has no real world consequences. I understand the wish to be right on the internet, I am as guilty of that as anyone, but can you really tell me that was a legal way to join the ruck?
Just that one simple questIon, was Beirne legal on initial contact with Dupont?
Beirne did enter the ruck illegally, but so did most of the players playing at the weekend, & the only reason we're talking about him & not the others is because Dupont got injured. If the TMO's did a full review of every ruck, there'd be about 1% that didn't generate at least one penalty.

There's a good reason why we don't Ref or Officiate on "Outcomes" in general, & that's because you end up in situation like this, where a fairly minor penalty gets elevated to a hanging offense because a player got injured, & it was down to dumb luck rather than anything else.

The breakdown is a mess, & the Irish players like everyone else will play the Ref & WR in general in every game, because that's how you get an edge & that's what being a Professional is all about.

If people want to have a serious discussion about fixing the breakdown that's fine, but right now this just seems like a pile on where all the usual suspects want to have a go at the "Irish"; not including many on here, but I could have picked a number of the usual one-eyed posters who made this an "Irish" thing rather than just the cluster-fuck that is how the game is refed

I hope you know my posting well enough to know that I'm definitely NOT anti-Irish in any way whatsoever. I agree that the ruck is a mess, but since the claim has now been made that "this is how the game is refereed" I'm turning my attention to that.

I don't agree that is the case when someone gets seriously injured, in the vast majority of times when that occurs, especially in internationals, there is a fine tooth comb used to see if there was any illegality. I have no explanation as to why there was no card issued in that incident.
I brought up the ScoWal U20s because the referee's explanation to the Welsh player was that he was getting sent off for landing on the lower limb of an opponent. He did not say anything about a croc roll to the player.

In the example Guy posted the officials went through what happened and reached a conclusion that exploding a player's knee was a yellow card offence, they got to the wrong decision after a long consultation. I don't think that officials getting things wrong and ignoring the laws is the way forward.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:06 pm**

Guy Smiley wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:48 pm
fishfoodie wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:42 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:25 pm

Nope, I posted video because it was the first one I found that shows clearly Beirne entering the ruck contrary to the laws, in a reckless manner.

I posted the three laws which have been broken.

Is it so difficult to focus on the facts in the point of contact and ignore this guy’s opinion? On here we get opinions against high tackles and head contact being ruled illegal. I think that is a bollocks opinion rooted in rugby from more than 30 years ago and has no relevance to the professional sport we have now.

I don’t get what is your gain here, saying Beirne has joined that ruck illegally and it resulted in Dupont’s injury has no real world consequences. I understand the wish to be right on the internet, I am as guilty of that as anyone, but can you really tell me that was a legal way to join the ruck?
Just that one simple questIon, was Beirne legal on initial contact with Dupont?
Beirne did enter the ruck illegally, but so did most of the players playing at the weekend, & the only reason we're talking about him & not the others is because Dupont got injured. If the TMO's did a full review of every ruck, there'd be about 1% that didn't generate at least one penalty.

There's a good reason why we don't Ref or Officiate on "Outcomes" in general, & that's because you end up in situation like this, where a fairly minor penalty gets elevated to a hanging offense because a player got injured, & it was down to dumb luck rather than anything else.

The breakdown is a mess, & the Irish players like everyone else will play the Ref & WR in general in every game, because that's how you get an edge & that's what being a Professional is all about.

If people want to have a serious discussion about fixing the breakdown that's fine, but right now this just seems like a pile on where all the usual suspects want to have a go at the "Irish"; not including many on here, but I could have picked a number of the usual one-eyed posters who made this an "Irish" thing rather than just the cluster-fuck that is how the game is refed
Yes, the game is reffed poorly with respect to the ruck and the existing Laws.

To avoid any suggestion of unfairly piling on to the innocent and victimised Irish here, when do you suggest would be a good time to start reffing the ruck properly, or to perhaps have a conversation about that?

ASAP, but let's be realistic, there's a process & we have to tie both hemispheres, & the Pro & Amateur game together & get all the Refs agreeing that if it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck !

Players obviously need to be onboard, because while they're the perpetrators, they are also the victims in that they are the ones whose careers might be shortened, & it'll need a bit more than a day in tackle school to get everyone clear on what the differences between an illegal & a legal clearout are, & all the rest of the bits.

We've already got lots of Laws, & catch alls around "reckless" that can get you carded for anything that takes the Refs fancy, but all the stakeholders to use one of my least favorite words can't agree on what happens when a player goes to ground, & an opposition player tries to steal the ball.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:14 pm**

Imagine for a sec how the game could work if refs immediately penalised any player going off their feet at a ruck.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:16 pm**

Guy Smiley wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:14 pm Imagine for a sec how the game could work if refs immediately penalised any player going off their feet at a ruck.

They do it for the most part in lower levels in France.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:31 pm**

Guy Smiley wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:14 pm Imagine for a sec how the game could work if refs immediately penalised any player going off their feet at a ruck.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:35 pm**

The howling would probably sound a bit like Yoko's singing,

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:41 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:58 pm
I brought up the ScoWal U20s because the referee's explanation to the Welsh player was that he was getting sent off for landing on the lower limb of an opponent. He did not say anything about a croc roll to the player.
.

First language is not English. The croc roll bit is implied and will probably be referred to in the judgement.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:51 pm**

Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:41 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:58 pm
I brought up the ScoWal U20s because the referee's explanation to the Welsh player was that he was getting sent off for landing on the lower limb of an opponent. He did not say anything about a croc roll to the player.
.
First language is not English. The croc roll bit is implied and will probably be referred to in the judgement.

I'll ask again

Just that one simple questIon, was Beirne legal on initial contact with Dupont?

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:52 am**

laurent wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:16 pm
Guy Smiley wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:14 pm Imagine for a sec how the game could work if refs immediately penalised any player going off their feet at a ruck.
They do it for the most part in lower levels in France.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:29 am**

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:51 pm
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:41 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:58 pm
I brought up the ScoWal U20s because the referee's explanation to the Welsh player was that he was getting sent off for landing on the lower limb of an opponent. He did not say anything about a croc roll to the player.
.
First language is not English. The croc roll bit is implied and will probably be referred to in the judgement.
I'll ask again

Just that one simple questIon, was Beirne legal on initial contact with Dupont?

Fishfoodie answered this already.
It's one of those areas where letter of the law is long since ignored such as hooker standing inside the line throwing in, 9 feeding straight

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:01 am**

It’s ok to say it.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:06 am**

To boil the point down - it's wrong to harangue the players in situations like this due to the outcome, when the majority of players are doing something very similar in practically every ruck. If they didn't their team would be at a disadvantage.

It is World Rugby's failures that are responsible. There is a total lack of leadership that is putting the safety of players at unnecessarily increased risks.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:10 am**

Biffer wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:17 pm Dinnae bother TH.

There's a certain category of Irish supporter who are congenitally incapable of accepting their players have any fault in anything at all.

You only just spotting this now ?!
It goes a bit further than that, it’s absolute Teflon mentality about anything to do with their country , ESPECIALLY if conversing with someone British .
Aka loves giving out craig, just can’t accept it.

It’s also more a symptom of online keyboard warriors rather than in real life where they are pretty sound like most countries people.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:11 am**

Guy Smiley wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:35 pm The howling would probably sound a bit like Yoko's singing,

You seen that chuck berry reaction video I take it ?

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:27 am**

Uncle fester wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:29 am
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:51 pm
Uncle fester wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:41 pm

First language is not English. The croc roll bit is implied and will probably be referred to in the judgement.
I'll ask again

Just that one simple questIon, was Beirne legal on initial contact with Dupont?
Fishfoodie answered this already.
It's one of those areas where letter of the law is long since ignored such as hooker standing inside the line throwing in, 9 feeding straight

You must have seen cases where play is halted and referees are asked to look at instances where players have driven their shoulder into an opponent with no bind or wrap? This happens a lot so I will be surprised if you haven’t seen it.

You are agreeing with Fishfoodie that Beirne entered that ruck illegally, ie there was foul play, ergo the ref, touch judges, tmo and citing commissioner you mentioned have got this wrong.

Btw, I’ve yet to see a hooker standing inside the line lead directly to someone’s knee getting demolished.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:27 am**

Yeeb wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:11 am
Guy Smiley wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:35 pm The howling would probably sound a bit like Yoko's singing,
You seen that chuck berry reaction video I take it ?

Yeah

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:33 am**

Guy Smiley wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:27 am
Yeeb wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:11 am
Guy Smiley wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:35 pm The howling would probably sound a bit like Yoko's singing,
You seen that chuck berry reaction video I take it ?
Yeah

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:49 am**

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:56 am**

One of the earliest WTF caught on camera

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:17 am**

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:27 am
Uncle fester wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:29 am
Tichtheid wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:51 pm

I'll ask again

Just that one simple questIon, was Beirne legal on initial contact with Dupont?
Fishfoodie answered this already.
It's one of those areas where letter of the law is long since ignored such as hooker standing inside the line throwing in, 9 feeding straight

You must have seen cases where play is halted and referees are asked to look at instances where players have driven their shoulder into an opponent with no bind or wrap? This happens a lot so I will be surprised if you haven’t seen it.

You are agreeing with Fishfoodie that Beirne entered that ruck illegally, ie there was foul play, ergo the ref, touch judges, tmo and citing commissioner you mentioned have got this wrong.

Btw, I’ve yet to see a hooker standing inside the line lead directly to someone’s knee getting demolished.

You're going TS Analytics on this. Don't ever go TS Analytics.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:33 am**

Uncle fester wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:17 am
Tichtheid wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:27 am
Uncle fester wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:29 am

Fishfoodie answered this already.
It's one of those areas where letter of the law is long since ignored such as hooker standing inside the line throwing in, 9 feeding straight

You must have seen cases where play is halted and referees are asked to look at instances where players have driven their shoulder into an opponent with no bind or wrap? This happens a lot so I will be surprised if you haven’t seen it.

You are agreeing with Fishfoodie that Beirne entered that ruck illegally, ie there was foul play, ergo the ref, touch judges, tmo and citing commissioner you mentioned have got this wrong.

Btw, I’ve yet to see a hooker standing inside the line lead directly to someone’s knee getting demolished.
You're going TS Analytics on this. Don't ever go TS Analytics.

I don't know what TS Analytics is, but your avoidance suggests to me that you know you are mistaken on this.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:53 am**

I'll tell you where I'm coming from on this. I'm an active ref who is a bit weary of all the law changes in recent years, most of which haven't helped and serve to confuse everybody/get ignored and now there's a fundamental rejig of the breakdown being floated.

And that's a ludicrous position to take in a game where the base assumption is that the ref is right. You know better than all the international refs looking at this? You want an action that is technically against the laws to be penalised selectively? Reffing by outcome essentially?

NPR

DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury

Re: DuPont Injury