[Law] Tackling man in air

[Pegleg]

Ian, your comment about British blazers is at best stereotyping and at worst xenophobic, I ask you to withdraw it.

Priceless nonsense.

 

[didds]

Is the tackler's action defensible?

isn;t this the same as tackling a dummy runner?

didds

 

[didds]

His only option is to time his tackle so that he is not tackling a player, who has jumped to gain possession, while he is still in the air. Whether he was already so committed to the tackle that he had zero chance of reacting in time to change the outcome is no-ones problem except the tackler's.
I maintain it is a timing issue. Half a second later and he's fine. Half a second early and he's not.
The fact the catcher had to jump to catch the ball on his chest certainly altered what the AB's player saw when he committed him self to the tackle. No argument from me there. However, once the dynamics of the situation changed, it's back to the tackler to ensure he stays legal.

Ha;lf a second later and Sinkler has caught the ball, landed and is past him. which is too late.

didds

 

[didds]

Pegleg, winchesterref and I seem to be the only ones here who have any understanding that what you are asking is both dynamically and physiologically impossible. Perhaps this little analogy will help.

You can put me in that group too Ian.

didds

 

[DocY]

I may have been slightly biased, but I immediately thought it was going to be a penalty.

For me, the jump to take the ball was legitimate and then he was tackled before he hit the ground. If the law against taking players in the air is about player safety, then why distinguish between them jumping to catch a kick or jumping to catch a pass?

Lucky for the Lions to profit from a bad pass, or sneaky play from Murray.

If teams do start doing this regularly to milk penalties, I expect to see a change in the laws or some announcement about how it should be dealt with.

 

[didds]

If teams do start doing this regularly to milk penalties, I expect to see a change in the laws or some announcement about how it should be dealt with.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

the law about scrum put ins being straight has been there for ever yet gets ignored anyway at these levels.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

If the law against taking players in the air is about player safety, then why distinguish between them jumping to catch a kick or jumping to catch a pass.

Firstly, from a danger point of view, tackling a player who has just popped his feet a few cm off the ground to catch a pass is nowhere near as dangerous as tackling a player who has jumped 5 feet in the air to catch a kick. IMO, the former is no more dangerous than an ordinary tackle.

Second, from a practicality point of view, a kick chaser has plenty of time (several seconds) to get himself to where the ball is coming down, and to judge whether or not he is going to compete for it. A potential tackler has no such luxury; he has no opportunity to make any kind of a judgement call, and ZERO time to react if his opponent jumps.

And here is another point, Late tackling a player who has passed or kicked the ball is dangerous play, and we allow a tolerance for a late tackles such that if the tackler is genuinely committed and only fractionally misjudges timing of the tackle we play on. Yet when a player tackles and opponent who jumps to catch the ball we allow no margin for error whatsoever, even if he is fully committed to tackle, for an act that is impossible to judge.

 

[DocY]

Firstly, from a danger point of view, tackling a player who has just popped his feet a few cm off the ground to catch a pass is nowhere near as dangerous as tackling a player who has jumped 5 feet in the air to catch a kick. IMO, the former is no more dangerous than an ordinary tackle.

If the tackle is made as the jumper is landing and his feet are two inches off the ground, it's still a penalty - not actually dangerous in the common sense of the word, but the law book doesn't specify a height off the ground. Likewise if he hopped up a few inches at the last minute.

Second, from a practicality point of view, a kick chaser has plenty of time (several seconds) to get himself to where the ball is coming down, andto judge whether or not he is going to compete for it. A potential tackler has no such luxury; he has no opportunity to make any kind of a judgement call, and ZERO time to react if his opponent jumps.

Agreed, but it's a risk you take if you rush - not a lot different to tackling a dummy runner.

And here is another point, Late tackling a player who has passed or kicked the ball is dangerous play, and we allow a tolerance for a late tackles such that if the tackler is genuinely committed and only fractionally misjudges timing of the tackle we play on. Yet when a player tackles and opponent who jumps to catch the ball we allow no margin for error whatsoever for an act that is difficult, if not impossible to judge.

Yes, I think judgement should be exercised to stop players milking penalties, but IME that's not how tackling in the air is treated. The same thing should apply to jumping for a kicked ball.

 

[Phil E]

I thought the call was wrong.
Bad precedent to set; Thin end of the wedge and all that!

But it didn't affect the result. The result was affected by missed kicks and the AB's failing to score any try's.

PS: some of the comments and reactions on this thread are the reason why many people no longer post as often as they used to.

 

[Skids]

PS: some of the comments and reactions on this thread are the reason why many people no longer post as often as they used to.

I have deleted many comments/questions or simply not posted them and no longer post my very junior opinions on this board because of this.

Well said Sir.

 

[ChuckieB]

I note no reference to an alternative taking a b/carriers legs above the horizontal which shows an area that can be just as contentious depending on one's view.

A situation where the law confers new obligations on a player after he has committed himself.

If you can't be sure of compliance then you takes your chances.

It was a sanction supported in law and that has to trump one's personal opinions. The referee called it so it's not hugely relevant unless it contributes to a review of the law at some later date.

 

[crossref]

PS: some of the comments and reactions on this thread are the reason why many people no longer post as often as they used to.

it's like a referee who complains that the Laws are not being obeyed, but doesn't blow his whistle...
you're a senior mod, go moderate!

 

[Pegleg]

I thought the call was wrong.
Bad precedent to set; Thin end of the wedge and all that!

But it didn't affect the result. The result was affected by missed kicks and the AB's failing to score any try's.

Hang on:


Score 21-21
Incorrect PK awarded.
Team score.
Match score now 21-24
Final result 21-24.

Sorry, can you please explain how the, in your words, wrong call did not effect the result? It sure seemed to to me.

 

[Phil E]

Sorry, can you please explain how the, in your words, wrong call did not effect the result? It sure seemed to to me.

We only lost because the referee made one call we disagree with and gave the opposition 3 points.

Or

You only lost because you missed 3 kicks, any one of which would have won you the game.


If that penalty call had been at the start of the game no one would be suggesting it affected the result. Don't blame the referee because you played badly.

 

[Pegleg]

For me the whole playing ia man in the air thing was brought in because of player jumping high in lineouts. Catching restarts take up and unders and the like. It was not meant to stop an ordinary tackle where the guy is close to the ground and the situation is far removed from the danger of being a good 4, 5 or so feet off the ground being toppled.

Earlier, I asked the question: "Do you ping EVERY tackle where both feet are off the ground?" The reply was silent. Why? I believe it was because those saying this was a fair PK know that in a large percentage of tackles the ball carrier will have both feet off the ground because he is running and most of the time when running you have both feet off the ground. So to apply this law ridgedly would be absurd and 99.9% (estimate) of tackles would be pinged as illegal.

Perhaps we need the law makers to state the obvious. But the truth is unless you tackle a guy when both his feet are off the ground you will not make many tackles in your career. The game would become touch rugby.

 

[DocY]

For me the whole playing ia man in the air thing was brought in because of player jumping high in lineouts. Catching restarts take up and unders and the like. It was not meant to stop an ordinary tackle where the guy is close to the ground and the situation is far removed from the danger of being a good 4, 5 or so feet off the ground being toppled.

Earlier, I asked the question: "Do you ping EVERY tackle where both feet are off the ground?" The reply was silent. Why? I believe it was because those saying this was a fair PK know that in a large percentage of tackles the ball carrier will have both feet off the ground because he is running and most of the time when running you have both feet off the ground. So to apply this law ridgedly would be absurd and 99.9% (estimate) of tackles would be pinged as illegal.

Perhaps we need the law makers to state the obvious. But the truth is unless you tackle a guy when both his feet are off the ground you will not make many tackles in your career. The game would become touch rugby.

Well of course you don't ping for tackling a running ball carrier (which I assume is what you were getting at), but you do ping every time a player has jumped to catch a kick (for argument's sake) no matter how close to the ground they are, or even how high they jump - hence players being coached to jump slightly even when unnecessary.

I think the question is whether there should be any provision in law for a player jumping to take a pass to not be afforded the same protection. As this law it nominally about safety, I can't see them making such a distinction.

 

[didds]

Clearly as we have identified here, to make it illegal will have to incorporate a protocol that doesn't clobber tackling a runner with both feet off the ground in mid stride and also clearly identifies when a player IS in the air not to be open to a tackle.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

We only lost because the referee made one call we disagree with and gave the opposition 3 points.

Or

You only lost because you missed 3 kicks, any one of which would have won you the game.


If that penalty call had been at the start of the game no one would be suggesting it affected the result. Don't blame the referee because you played badly.

I'm not blaming the red because "we" lost. I am looking it from a law perspective. I am saying the error directly led to the score that decided the result. A "critical" incident I believe. When watching the game in A pub in South Wales my comment was. Never a PK (as a ref) and immediately But we will take it (as a fan). It does not stop the facts namely at the point of the game the referee got it wrong and the Lions benefited. Now in the past (1974 in RSA for example) the disadvantaged side was the other team and not the lions. Swings and roundabouts. However, The question is / was was the PK right or not and in the context of a 21-21 scoreline the score was critical. Otherwise there would be no critical errors.

 

[Phil E]

I'm not blaming the red because "we" lost. I am looking it from a law perspective. I am saying the error directly led to the score that decided the result. A "critical" incident I believe. When watching the game in A pub in South Wales my comment was. Never a PK (as a ref) and immediately But we will take it (as a fan). It does not stop the facts namely at the point of the game the referee got it wrong and the Lions benefited. Now in the past (1974 in RSA for example) the disadvantaged side was the other team and not the lions. Swings and roundabouts. However, The question is / was was the PK right or not and in the context of a 21-21 scoreline the score was critical. Otherwise there would be no critical errors.

You have missed my point completely. Forget it.

 

[ChrisR]

The law is clear:

10.4 (e) A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

The law is an ass? Yes, when applied to a player running with the ball. No, when protecting a player jumping to catch a kick.

Should it be applied to a player leaping to catch a ball thrown above his head? It would be easy to say "Yes! We must protect vulnerable players" but, as Ian has shown in graphic detail, the application would be impractical.

As to the tackle in question: Correct in law, wrong in application. The fact of no citing is significant.