Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BJ's yellow...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    BJ's yellow...

    So, I think BJ is too long in the tooth to have such a colossal brainfart as it looked like for the yellow card.

    Working on that assumption, he took the yellow on purpose. At the time, Leinster were building a bit of momentum but the defence was stretched particularly.

    So what was going on in that potato-shaped head of his?

    Take a yellow, go uncontested? It meant a man less but more back rows on the pitch than 14 men would.

    #2
    Unlike BJ, you are overthinking this.

    Comment


      #3
      He made the tackle got back on his feet and could play the ball as long as no ruck called . There was no Leinster player bridging over the ball but one on either side , ref viewed that as ruck formed but i did not hear him call ruck . BJ a bit unlucky, but the way the ref was warning he should have been more careful . Would like to see a clear ref call as to ruck everytime .

      Comment


        #4
        Outside inside is correct, its a crap interpretation of a silly rule. In some instances refs will rule that its ok to play it despite clearly being on wrong side of the ruck as long as you were the tackler
        My computer thinks I'm gay
        What's the difference anyway
        When all the people do all day
        Is stare into a phone

        Comment


          #5
          Haven't bothered responding to all the people who've been bitching about it but my interpretation was the same as OI's. He was the tackler and thought he had rights to the ball. No biggie.

          Comment


            #6
            BJ blundered, we got away with it.
            Moving on to the Scarlets...
            Gwan Joe!!

            Comment


              #7
              BJ did no wrong.

              from t'other thread -

              Today, 20:50 #1245
              Keyop
              Originally Posted by POC Lost Tooth
              Jackman and Toland on news talk now, both backing axles claim today that BJ was entitled to play that ball, not even a penalty
              They are right, ruck was not called, ball was in play, bj was onside.


              Keyop


              Originally Posted by Keyop
              They are right, ruck was not called, ball was in play, bj was onside.
              I,ve discussed this today with a few refs, 1 Leinster based and they have all stated the same. It was not a maul, there was no ruck called ,therefore BJ was entitled to play the ball. Always good to learn something.

              Comment


                #8
                “BJ’s thing is a point of law. If there’s no ruck formed, which there wasn’t, he’s entitled to play the ball from that direction within the laws of the game. I know it looks horrible, it looks wrong, but it’s actually a rule in the game of rugby. BJ was entitled to do that.

                “BJ knows the rules, he’s a World Cup winner, he knows what he’s entitled to do there. There was no ruck called, so he’s entitled to immediately play the ball there.” - Axel
                Munster – Champions of Europe 2006, 2008, 2019.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Yeah, I had a look again.

                  BJ was right to go for the ball there, alright.

                  CLOSE THE TOPIC!!!!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    BJ done good. Bitterness bank in the black.
                    Moving on to the Scarlets...
                    Gwan Joe!!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      There's only one thing to consider, was there a munster and a leinster player in contact over the ball when BJ picked it up ? It's a split second decision.

                      If yes then it's a good call.

                      If no then it's a bad call.

                      Ref is under no obligation to be shouting ruck, players have to know themselves.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Well here it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cdx0q9UCAo&t=77m50s

                        Does Paulie being there make it a ruck or is it not because he's the second tackler?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          No. He'd have to be on his feet for it to be a ruck. That is never a ruck, never a penalty, and never a yellow card. The more I look at it the more I'm convinced Davies simply didn't know the law because it never comes close to being a ruck. What a dreadful call.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Dougie View Post
                            Well here it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cdx0q9UCAo&t=77m50s

                            Does Paulie being there make it a ruck or is it not because he's the second tackler?
                            I think the question is, does a ruck have to be called by the ref, before it becomes a ruck? I think not.

                            One player from each team binding onto each other over the ball, is a ruck, so says wikipedia.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              The ref is under no obligation to call "ruck", although many do for clarity's sake.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X