The logical argument says that if you are trying to eliminate a certain behaviour by penalising it even if it is not intentional and merely "reckless" then the penalty should apply even if the offence is against your own team.
It feels like an idiotic idea but is also the logical extension of the charge for dangerous and reckless actions that are not intentional.
11.11 says "Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others"
I understood that this is what was being used with regard to interfering with players catching the ball that aren't a realistic chance of catching it themselves.
Yeah and again I thought the same thing, not sure what Biggar was thinking, maybe he just panicked????
It seems bizarre that they are being so stringent on the head contact stuff if they aren't going to police all such incidents. I think that is what is so inherently wrong with the whole situation though.
Had the same thought.
That said Williams jumped and caught the ball, it's Biggar who was no realistic chance of catching it that could get done for taking out the man in the air!
So in regards to the Welsh player hitting his own player in the head with his shoulder in what was clearly an accident, will it still be deemed "reckless" and cited?
I am genuinely curious given some previous rulings and that had it been an opposition player I am sure it "probably" would have been looked at by the TMO.
I am genuinely not interested in the player being cited just wondering what others think given shoulder and or elbow made contact with the head with force. Is this the sort of situation that shows this stuff just happens or do WR and the referees, given previous rulings have an obligation to police this?
jeznez
Roar Guru
The logical argument says that if you are trying to eliminate a certain behaviour by penalising it even if it is not intentional and merely "reckless" then the penalty should apply even if the offence is against your own team. It feels like an idiotic idea but is also the logical extension of the charge for dangerous and reckless actions that are not intentional. 11.11 says "Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others" I understood that this is what was being used with regard to interfering with players catching the ball that aren't a realistic chance of catching it themselves.
dazell
Roar Rookie
Yeah and again I thought the same thing, not sure what Biggar was thinking, maybe he just panicked???? It seems bizarre that they are being so stringent on the head contact stuff if they aren't going to police all such incidents. I think that is what is so inherently wrong with the whole situation though.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Had the same thought. That said Williams jumped and caught the ball, it's Biggar who was no realistic chance of catching it that could get done for taking out the man in the air!
dazell
Roar Rookie
So in regards to the Welsh player hitting his own player in the head with his shoulder in what was clearly an accident, will it still be deemed "reckless" and cited? I am genuinely curious given some previous rulings and that had it been an opposition player I am sure it "probably" would have been looked at by the TMO. I am genuinely not interested in the player being cited just wondering what others think given shoulder and or elbow made contact with the head with force. Is this the sort of situation that shows this stuff just happens or do WR and the referees, given previous rulings have an obligation to police this?