[Law] Tackling man in air

[DocY]

As someone who used to go flying at great pace for the try line I would certainly ban the ankle tap!:smile:

Not wrapping the arms, right?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Does this comment refer to the OP Ian?

Why would it. Christy questioned the decision and didn't give an opinion one way or the other.

 

[The Fat]

Why would it. Christy questioned the decision and didn't give an opinion one way or the other.

OK then, does your comment relate to the AB's v BIL incident?

 

[ChuckieB]

[LAWS]10.4 (e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
.. and yet we allow some wiggle room for the referee to decide whether a tackle was more than marginally late (tackler was truly committed!!

[LAWS]10. 4 (o) Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.[/LAWS]
.. and yet we allow some wiggle room for the referee to decide whether a tackle was more than marginally late (tackler was truly committed!!

How do these fit into your idealised "everything is black and white" world

One is an issue of absolute fact.
One is an issue of opinion/judgement and I am more than happy to accept yours may be very different to mine.

 

[DocY]

One is an issue of absolute fact.
One is an issue of opinion/judgement and I am more than happy to accept yours may be very different to mine.

Do you not think referees should try to ensure their judgements are as similar as possible?

 

[Rich_NL]

No. I just can't see that tackling a player diving for the line with feet off the floor should be even talked about as a penalty, unless high.

So a suplex is fine?

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Olympics Day 15 Wrestling QNqZ1gE1EHEx.jpg

I think it's fairly established practice that the tackler has a duty not to drive anyone into the ground, or otherwise affect their travel such that they can't help but land dangerously.

 

[ChuckieB]

Do you not think referees should try to ensure their judgements are as similar as possible?

Judgement relates to a use of evidence to support a decision.

Incontrovertible evidence should be pretty compelling. In this instance, for some reason it appears not to be.

If, in the context of this situation, people can't reconcile the facts to the stated law (in itself black and white), as are seeing we will always be hard pressed to converge on the same view.

I have said it was the right call. Would I have spotted it? I hope so but, possibly not? Would I have bottled it? Well.......but that's why JG is where he is.

 

[VM75]

So would you always ping a tackle where the ball carrier has two feet off the ground?

A pathetic attempt to ambush me into 'running with ball in hand'
:rc:

 

[Ian_Cook]

OK then, does your comment relate to the AB's v BIL incident?

It relates to ANY incident where the Law makes compliance a physiological impossibility (this is the only one I can find).

To be clear, were I refereeing now, I would not penalise an incident such as the one under discussion. When asked by my assessor why that was, my answer would be that I was unable to tell whether the player catching the ball jumped in order to contrive a penalty offence, and I was not prepared to guess. Rather like not guessing when you don't know which team was responsible for a scrum collapse.

Guessing is worse than making a mistake.

I have never guessed on a rugby field with a whistle in my hand

 

[Pegleg]

It seems the danger is in flipping the BC. If a winger was diving and the defender yanked his ankles vertically causing him to land nastily on his head, we'd penalise that, no?

I've only seen unclear footage of the tackle, but my recollection was that the hit was low enough to scythe out the legs - I could be wrong. However, a defender driving into the hips would have little problem pushing the BC back.

Would it be a suggestion to have a minimum tackle height applied to tackles on jumping players, as we have a maximum height restriction?

Any tackle can be considered dangerous if the referee believes it to be so then it is.

What the problem here is a blanket treatment of tackles as dangerous without due regard for common sense and physics.

 

[Ian_Cook]

One is an issue of absolute fact.
One is an issue of opinion/judgement and I am more than happy to accept yours may be very different to mine.

Nope

"...feet are off the ground." is a fact, they were either off the ground or they weren't

"late" is a fact, the tackle was either late or it wasn't

"just kicked the ball" is a fact, the player had either just kicked the ball or had not yet kicked the ball

In all three cases, the referee should be using his judgement to decide whether the infringement was dangerous. The problem we have is that some numpties in a committee room in Huguenot House, Dublin have introduced an ill-considered piece of Law without an understanding of Merton's Law (the Law of unintended consequences). When the "protect the player in the air" edict was formulated the entire focus was on players jumping high off the ground while competing for a kick. In all the memos and other publications which came from WR about this, it was all about the kick. There was not a single mention of players leaving their feet to catch a pass. Somewhere along the line, this edict has been stretched to apply to a part of the game that it was never intended to apply to.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Any tackle can be considered dangerous if the referee believes it to be so then it is.

What the problem here is a blanket treatment of tackles as dangerous without due regard for common sense and physics.

Absolutely, 100% THIS!!!

 

[VM75]

What the problem here is a blanket treatment of tackles as dangerous without due regard for common sense and physics.

WR had no choice, players were becoming too deviously skilled at 'accidentally' [or innocently protesting the same] running through the legs of a player who was up higher than he was, the jumped players were landing on their head & the referees were then faced with injured players & a host of Accidental assailants often claiming they were only looking at the ball.

WR simply had to act, for the safety of the Pro jumpers and every referee/player in the community game.





That problem was caused

 

[Ian_Cook]

WR had no choice, players were becoming too deviously skilled at 'accidentally' [or innocently protesting the same] running through the legs of a player who was up higher than he was, the jumped players were landing on their head & the referees were then faced with injured players & a host of Accidental assailants often claiming they were only looking at the ball.

WR simply had to act, for the safety of the Pro jumpers and every referee/player in the community game.

You're talking about players jumping to compete for the ball. That is a different subject entirely.

ETA

Here is the wording from WR's Sept 8, 2015 memo..(my emphasis)

CHALLENGING PLAYERS IN THE AIR
The sight of players jumping for the ball in the air after a defensive or attacking kick has become much more common in recent years.

But there is a danger of serious injury when players do not compete fairly.

Referees at the World Cup will allow the game to play on if they feel there has been a fair challenge - with both players genuinely trying to catch the ball - even if one lands dangerously.

They will award a penalty if there has been a genuine challenge but a player has timed his jump wrongly and unfairly impeded his opponent.

But referees have been instructed to show a yellow card if there has been no fair challenge or contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side.

They will show a red card if the same thing happens and a player lands on his head, neck or shoulder.

Please note, this is all about competing for possession for the ball in the air, and challenging the jumper. Its is NOT, repeat NOT about players jumping to catch a pass. There is no mention of jumping to catch a pass for the simple reason that doing so is NOT competing for the ball or challenging the opponent for possession of it.

 

[SimonSmith]

A pathetic attempt to ambush me into 'running with ball in hand'
:rc:

Well, feet are either on the ground or not. If they both aren't, what's your justification for not blowing a penalty? There isn't a running exemption...

 

[VM75]

Well, feet are either on the ground or not. If they both aren't, what's your justification for not blowing a penalty? There isn't a running exemption...

yes there is, it's existed since WWEllis !

 

[VM75]

You're talking about players jumping to compete for the ball. That is a different subject entirely.

Point accepted.

The same principles of player protection apply, as the KS incident. Players are entitled to try and catch/gather the ball, which might include jumping for it in any phase of the game, & it's 100% right that they are protected from being wiped out through the legs & upended onto their head/neck/spinal chord, it has to be considered the Tacklers responsibility, there isn't another way here.





If you or Pegleg don't agree then raise it through Pegleg's Society :smile: IMO there's no change needed, referees still decide on severity & mitigation - as did the ref on Sat.

 

[ChuckieB]

Point accepted.

The same principles of player protection apply, as the KS incident. Players are entitled to try and catch/gather the ball, which might include jumping for it in any phase of the game, & it's 100% right that they are protected from being wiped out through the legs & upended onto their head/neck/spinal chord, it has to be considered the Tacklers responsibility, there isn't another way here.





If you or Pegleg don't agree then raise it through Pegleg's Society :smile: IMO there's no change needed, referees still decide on severity & mitigation - as did the ref on Sat.

actually I don't believe JG decided on severity and mitigation. I believe he indicated that he was just not allowed to tackle a player whose feet were off the ground.

As such, a simple application of a simple law that stands in its own right. No debate. And wholly separate from the law and subsequent memos that deal with tackles and then unfair contests when jumping for the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Point accepted.

The same principles of player protection apply, as the KS incident.

So...

Why are the "principles of player protection" not applied to tackling a player during "float phase", when both the player's feet are off the ground?

Why are the "principles of player protection" not applied to tackling a player when they are off their feet becasue they are diving to score a try.

If tackling a player who has jumped for the ball is dangerous, so too is tackling a player who is in float phase or diving for a try. Why are the latter two not afforded protection?

Players are entitled to try and catch/gather the ball, which might include jumping for it in any phase of the game, & it's 100% right that they are protected from being wiped out through the legs & upended onto their head/neck/spinal chord, it has to be considered the Tacklers responsibility, there isn't another way here.

But you see, there is another way. Let the referee judge whether or not the tackle was dangerous just like we do with every other dangerous area of the game; late tackles, early tackles, tackles without the ball, shoulder charges, dangerous charges etc etc....THAT IS THEIR JOB!!!!

 

[VM75]

So...

Why are the "principles of player protection" not applied to tackling a player during "float phase", when both the player's feet are off the ground?

Why are the "principles of player protection" not applied to tackling a player when they are off their feet becasue they are diving to score a try.

If tackling a player who has jumped for the ball is dangerous, so too is tackling a player who is in float phase or diving for a try. Why are the latter two not afforded protection? ​Simple, neither or the two examples you cite are AS DANGEROUS as destabilising a player who is up in the air, & who [as it's been seen many times] is much more likely to land on his head than either of the two examples you offer. Even KS was only a fraction of a second from rotating further & landing on his head.

But, as always - if you wish to further your arguments, you could put your name on open memo & send it to WR & they might copy it to all the players who've landed on their head from height & suffered spinal damage. FWIW I think you're peeing into the wind with WR on this subject.

But you see, there is another way. Let the referee judge whether or not the tackle was dangerous just like we do with every other dangerous area of the game; late tackles, early tackles, tackles without the ball, shoulder charges, dangerous charges etc etc....THAT IS THEIR JOB!!!!

All of those have different levels of risk, I can only imagine that WR want 'consistency' to ensure that they are covered from Liability claims. Personally I wouldn't ever want to see a dive for the line being unchallengeable by a Tackler, but who knows - with the Pro's continuing to knock six bales of S... out of each other, one day it may come.

ps...Shoulder barge 'tackle-hits' never used to be widespread, whereas it was routine in League for many years, IMHO it's gradually polluted Union.