UPDATE: England centre cited for dangerous tackle on the very first play

No don't think so. Thanks again.

Sounds like we are talking 2 completely different incidents here.

Seriously... I feel like I'm being pranked. "If the opposition doesn’t have the ball, there is no clear advantage." They got the ball and scored a try!!! for heavens sake. It's the most clear and real advantage that can play out in the game. What are you wanting...a scrum for the knock on instead of the try....yeah right. Excuse me ref we will have the scrum instead of the try thanks. Goodness me... "I didn’t say he he was at fault".... no but you said "Farrel was at least partially if not fully responsible for the collision" ...you also named him as the "aggressor". There is no need Timbo to carry this any further. Thanks for your time.

My original post was to seed a discussion, I didn't say he he was at fault, I said that there was scope for conversation about it. I still contend that if it was 2 seconds later, Farrel would have been penalized. I quoted the laws to refute your understanding of them and to support my assertion that play, for all intents and purposes was over the moment Farrel regained possession of the ball. If the opposition doesn't have the ball, there is no clear advantage. The direct quote I supplied uses specific clarifying language ruling out the scenario that you have provided.

Honestly I think you are all over the shop Timbo. I'm over it to be fair. Your notion that Farrell is at fault here is simply nonsense. Regards your quoting the advantage law to me...why would you do that... The scenario I put to you is a perfect example of the advantage law being successfully applied. A team scoring a try whilst playing on under advantage, following an infringement by their opponents, is not a "clear and real" advantage??? "The law doesn't even support it"??? ....what? The very reason the advantage law exists is to allow scenarios (and others) like I have put to you to play out.

Look at he footage, the English players had stopped running, nobody was lining up for the clean out. The USA player’s posture including Quill’s had changed, Any reasonable person knew it was over, whistle or not. Your scenario was not worth responding to because it would never happen, not on any field that I have played on or watched. The Law doesn’t even support it. Law 7: Advantage d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient. https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=7&language=EN

Fully engaged? - what on earth do you mean. Farrell is recovering the situation that he has created, by knocking the ball on, as he is entitled to do and he has done so without doing anything that could be considered foul play. The whistle was imminent as long as USA did not gain an advantage which they didn't. You say everyone knew the ball was dead. Shall we make 'everyone' the referee then? I like it how you avoided commenting on the scenario I put to you.

Did either of the players in this event look like they were fully engaged? No..... The whistle was imminent, The ball was dead everyone knew it.

The ball is "officially dead" when the whistle is blown by the referee. As long as I have been watching the game of rugby it has always been the case that the ball is live until the referee blows the whistle. The players don't decide when play stops. Consider this scenario and how it might tie up with your notion that a recovered knock results in play being stopped. Farrell knocks the ball on - Farrell recovers the ball - A USA player immediately drives Farrell back to his goal line bringing him to ground - The referee is playing advantage - USA turn the ball over and score - try yes or no - of course it's a try. The referee has played advantage and USA have taken that advantage. According to your notion that can never be a try because apparently play ceases because Farrell has recovered the ball that he knocked on. So no advantage to the non offending team then.

Thanks to all for the abuse/ridicule, this was intended as a thought experiment on the interpretation of the rules.... If you recover your own knock on, the ball is officially dead, there is no scope for play on. I have never seen it reffed any other way. I still contend that play was over. So, lets say play had stopped (in a traditional fashion) and Farrel came running in an bashed into an opposition player. Penalty/sanction Yes or no? The only variable is time elapsed since the ball went dead. My postulation is that it shouldn't matter, With the defending player "off the clock" Farrel was at least partialy if not fully responsible for the collision.

You're beautiful Neilie.

And there it is again

Still waiting

If those ballerinas had to go off for 5 minutes for assessment and couldn’t be replaced unless it was permanent then all showboating would vanish

Just got it again

It was a no arms tackle Clarkey. As you were.

"honest to goodness" - yet your alleged shoulder charge on Billy V by Kapeli , which wasn't even a shoulder charge, was described by you as "hugely illegal". beautiful...good on ya Neil... :silly:

I wasn't sure if your first post was serious but now I can see you are serious.

"charge" at the opposition" ? - Hmmmm...stick with "run" I think. The ball is dead when the referee blows the whistle. Even though Farrell has knocked the ball on, it is still live and he is entitled to attempt to retrieve the situation.

Perhaps to a person that determines whether a person has a head injury…oh look, there just happens to be one of those in this sport :laughing: I mean, sure, they can fake the injury then as well, but it also means they’ll be off as well. Might just have to go down that path.