Ball Carrier Hurdling The Tackler

[crossref]

well that certainly looked dangerous to me..

 

[The Fat]

well that certainly looked dangerous to me..

It did to me as well

 

[Browner]

well that certainly looked dangerous to me..

When you look at the mechanics of this Rocky Elson jump, what is the 'dangerous' issue about jumping into a tackle OVER & ABOVE all the historically accepted risks of putting your head in front of someone's knees as they run forward at speed? It can't be knees in the face, or collisions with the shoulder area, or even knocking the tackler backwards............. because these already exist. In fact the more I think about this the more i'm forming the view that the only 'increased' risk is with the ball carrier 'flipping over' from an greater height than he would if he was running across the ground and the defender went to tackle at knee height. :shrug:.............. Seperately Q? doesn't the Fijian commit an offence under 10.4 [e]
[LAWS]A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick [/LAWS]


which is either a law that should be removed ? , OR it means that all players who jump/dive for the line aren't allowed to be tackled !!!

 

[winchesterref]

If someone jumps into a tackle they aren't getting a 10.4 (e) penalty from me!

Equally it is one of those things that have to be judged on the situation, a low jump over a diving tackler I probably wouldn't look twice at, a head high hurdle of a slightly crouching player is more likely to be dangerous and get penalised as such, judgement call.

I imagine the historic dangerous part is jumping to hurdle inevitably ends with studs up towards a players head at speed which doesn't often happen in a typical tackle

 

[damo]

It depends on the situation. I can't speak for any and all situations that I haven't seen, but I have seen the Elsom one, and that one is certainly dangerous and worthy of a penalty.

 

[Browner]

If someone jumps into a tackle they aren't getting a 10.4 (e) penalty from me!

Equally it is one of those things that have to be judged on the situation, a low jump over a diving tackler I probably wouldn't look twice at, a head high hurdle of a slightly crouching player is more likely to be dangerous and get penalised as such, judgement call.

I imagine the historic dangerous part is jumping to hurdle inevitably ends with studs up towards a players head at speed which doesn't often happen in a typical tackle

Hmmnn, you'll recognise i'm being devil advocate here, but.....surely if you hurdle someone it was 'potentially dangerous' but with no contact it was never actually so. If you hit the tackler in the face with your boots it's 'actually dangerous' , i'm not sure penalising for potentially is practiced very often? Ok, forget hurdling for a moment, jumping into the tackle is equally as dangerous as running straight at a crouching face-on would be tackler isn't it?

- - - Updated - - -

If someone jumps into a tackle they aren't getting a 10.4 (e) penalty from me!

Equally it is one of those things that have to be judged on the situation, a low jump over a diving tackler I probably wouldn't look twice at, a head high hurdle of a slightly crouching player is more likely to be dangerous and get penalised as such, judgement call.

I imagine the historic dangerous part is jumping to hurdle inevitably ends with studs up towards a players head at speed which doesn't often happen in a typical tackle

Hmmnn, you'll recognise i'm being devil advocate here, but.....surely if you hurdle someone it was 'potentially dangerous' but with no contact it was never actually so. If you hit the tackler in the face with your boots it's 'actually dangerous' , i'm not sure penalising for potentially is practiced very often? Ok, forget hurdling for a moment, jumping into the tackle is equally as dangerous as running straight at a crouching face-on would be tackler isn't it?

 

[OB..]

If something is potentially dangerous, then at some stage the potential will become real.

The key is getting a sensible balance. Jumping into or over a tackle is in general to be discouraged because of the danger when boots meet head.

 

[Browner]

If something is potentially dangerous, then at some stage the potential will become real.

The key is getting a sensible balance. Jumping into or over a tackle is in general to be discouraged because of the danger when boots meet head.

But is that the danger OB?, is it boots meeting head, or are knees meeting head more likely in practice? & if so doesn't that mirror the risks of virtually most head-on tackles below the thighs? & doesn't this take you back to http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?16785-JP-quot-call-quot-Sarries-v-Bath

 

[menace]

But is that the danger OB?, is it boots meeting head, or are knees meeting head more likely in practice? & if so doesn't that mirror the risks of virtually most head-on tackles below the thighs? & doesn't this take you back to http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?16785-JP-quot-call-quot-Sarries-v-Bath

Does it matter? Surely you must see that it heightens the risk above the normal parts of the game and above what is considered acceptable? A bit like lifting tackles...tackles are inherently dangerous, but adding a lift to it increases them to a level that's not acceptable?

 

[Toby Warren]

It's dangerous as the tackler can't reasonably foresee that action. A side step or head down they can expect to see happen but a boot at waist height - that's unlikely NOT to be dangerous.

As for Ian's suggestion of lying down. Simple PK for cowardice!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Does it matter? Surely you must see that it heightens the risk above the normal parts of the game and above what is considered acceptable? A bit like lifting tackles...tackles are inherently dangerous, but adding a lift to it increases them to a level that's not acceptable?

Careful with that analogy menace, because lifting (as yet) is not in itself illegal. Its only what happens after a lift goes wrong that the PK is incurred.

If you apply that logic to hurdling players, then hurdling itself is not illegal, only if it goes wrong does it become a PK.

I think hurdling is legal provided it comes off. We penalise for actual dangerous play, not for potentially dangerous play. Nowhere in law 10.4 are referees instructed to PK for doing something that might be dangerous.

[LAWS]10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) Tripping. A player must not trip an opponent with the leg or foot.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Do we PK players for a swing and a miss, for a stamp that misses, for a swing with the boot that misses, for an attempted trip that makes no contact? No we don't, although I would go along with any edict from the iRB that says we should.

Nowhere in the Laws does it say that hurdling players is dangerous and should be penalised, but if a player does it and makes contact with the tackler or another player, then you have 10.4 (a) or (c)

 

[OB..]

In a different era both Colin Meads and Paul Ringer were sent off for attempts that missed.I see no reason why 10.4 (m) should not be invoked in the appropriate circumstances eg an unprovoked swing and a miss, because the action has no part in the game. It may well be that a strong warning would suffice in many cases, but not all? We need to try to eliminate such practices BEFORE they actually cause physical harm.

 

[Browner]

In a different era both Colin Meads and Paul Ringer were sent off for attempts that missed.I see no reason why 10.4 (m) should not be invoked in the appropriate circumstances eg an unprovoked swing and a miss, because the action has no part in the game. It may well be that a strong warning would suffice in many cases, but not all? We need to try to eliminate such practices BEFORE they actually cause physical harm.

'Rucking with feet' would be safer removed eh? ps.... I though Ringer hit, but it was adjudged late.

 

[OB..]

'Rucking with feet' would be safer removed eh?

Rucking a player is indeed illegal under 16.3 (f)

ps.... I though Ringer hit, but it was adjudged late.

IIRC Horton managed to duck out of the way, but there had been several previous incidents of foul play involving Ringer.

 

[menace]

Careful with that analogy menace, because lifting (as yet) is not in itself illegal. Its only what happens after a lift goes wrong that the PK is incurred.

If you apply that logic to hurdling players, then hurdling itself is not illegal, only if it goes wrong does it become a PK.

I think hurdling is legal provided it comes off. We penalise for actual dangerous play, not for potentially dangerous play. Nowhere in law 10.4 are referees instructed to PK for doing something that might be dangerous.

[LAWS]10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) Tripping. A player must not trip an opponent with the leg or foot.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Do we PK players for a swing and a miss, for a stamp that misses, for a swing with the boot that misses, for an attempted trip that makes no contact? No we don't, although I would go along with any edict from the iRB that says we should.

Nowhere in the Laws does it say that hurdling players is dangerous and should be penalised, but if a player does it and makes contact with the tackler or another player, then you have 10.4 (a) or (c)

Agreed Ian, that I should have added 'lifting past horizontal' to be clear, but I thought you'd all know what I meant. The point being that at some point certain actions cross the line and become more dangerous to players than other actions and it's based on potential danger not always that it resulted in danger or injury. Ie we don't rely on actual danger but potential danger.

IMO (but happy to be educated) the extent of the jump/hurdle is one of those that has to be assessed as dangerous at the time it happens, and not an auto PK because it was a jump. For eg the Elsom jump really became dangerous, less so because he was inthe air but more the way he lead high with the knees towards the head of the defender.

 

[OB..]

The point being that at some point certain actions cross the line and become more dangerous to players than other actions and it's based on potential danger not always that it resulted in danger or injury. Ie we don't rely on actual danger but potential danger.

Agreed.

 

[crossref]

agreed there's a world of difference between the elsom jump, and - say - a ball carrier jumping over a hand that is stretched out, aiming for a last ditch tap-tackle