Head-on-head collision by two players in the air after a kick, what's the decision?

[jdeagro]

Gut feeling.

I agree with this out of simplicity sake. Though I guess one can argue technically the Red team was the last team going forward, I suppose.

 

[Dickie E]

The law says team going forward, not team in possession.

If there is no offence refer to Law 19:
Stoppage due to injury. In the scrum zone at the point where the ball was last played. The team last in possession

Last in possession would be the kicking team

 

[jdeagro]

If there is no offence refer to Law 19:
Stoppage due to injury. In the scrum zone at the point where the ball was last played. The team last in possession

Which would be the kicking the team (in scenario 1).

 

[Phil E]

If there is no offence refer to Law 19:
Stoppage due to injury. In the scrum zone at the point where the ball was last played. The team last in possession

Last in possession would be the kicking team

I was looking at "stoppage for any other reason", which is to the team moving forward.

 

[SimonSmith]

I like this answer simply because it's consistent to both sides in a situation where I personally felt their was equal blame. I also would've accepted if the ref gave out YC to both players. But I did not see justification (at least for scenario 1) to only YC one side in the incident.

(My bold)

So: no act of foul play, no player at fault,, and you're OK with two YCs being issued.
Pretend I'm your Coach. Debrief me on that thought process.

 

[jdeagro]

(My bold)

So: no act of foul play, no player at fault,, and you're OK with two YCs being issued.
Pretend I'm your Coach. Debrief me on that thought process.

If you can find out why 1 YC makes sense in the same scenario, I'll be more prepared to answer you.

For context, my role in this scenario was captain not ref, which is why I'd be ok with that outcome. My reasoning as a player would be that the ref must have a valid / logical reason and they are applying that reason equally in a scenario of equal fault.

As a ref, I wouldn't have given a YC at all, but I could see other refs trying to justify it was reckless from both players nonetheless, for their reasoning of a YC to each.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I guess it sepends on your definition of "accept". You have to accept the referee's call, on one level. After all "sole judge and all that jazz".

However, if doing my club feedback to the referee's' department on a referee, whilst I would "accept" a referee's call on the level abpve, I would be very "unaccepting" of it but keeping it to myself until I put togethermy club feedback form. Putting the question: "Why was a "rugby incident" penalised?" I think if I were his advisor / assessor I'd be asking him the "talk me through the decision making process".

 

[jdeagro]

I guess it sepends on your definition of "accept". You have to accept the referee's call, on one level. After all "sole judge and all that jazz".

However, if doing my club feedback to the referee's' department on a referee, whilst I would "accept" a referee's call on the level abpve, I would be very "unaccepting" of it but keeping it to myself until I put togethermy club feedback form. Putting the question: "Why was a "rugby incident" penalised?" I think if I were his advisor / assessor I'd be asking him the "talk me through the decision making process".

I do like the term "rugby incident" and don't think I've heard it before this thread. In fact, I'd bet most of the refs in my local society probably never heard / used the term either lol. But it helps fill a void for what otherwise would appear to be an indeterminate situation.

 

[didds]

I do like the term "rugby incident" ... it helps fill a void for what otherwise would appear to be an indeterminate situation.

aka "shit happens"

 

[BikingBud]

Perfectly happy with "rugby incident" but you originally said, changed after my post #12, one player was receiving the ball and the other was chasing hence my reference to charging and yellow card.

So if I understand this correctly, you are now saying both players are running towards each other?

And neither has any concern for their own safety?

The "keepers of the game" should be stopping this reckless behaviour.

 

[jdeagro]

Perfectly happy with "rugby incident" but you originally said, changed after my post #12, one player was receiving the ball and the other was chasing hence my reference to charging and yellow card.

So if I understand this correctly, you are now saying both players are running towards each other?

And neither has any concern for their own safety?

The "keepers of the game" should be stopping this reckless behaviour.

I only clarified what my original post was saying, but it's still the same situation which is as follows:

1. Red team kicks off.
2. Ergo Blue team is the receiving team (this does not imply anything about whether the Blue receiver was moving or static).
3. A Red player chases after the kick.
4. Then that Red player jumps in the air forward simultaneously as the Blue player jumps in the air forward (from their perspectives). Neither of them posses the ball yet.
5. They both attempt to catch the ball in the air.
6. The Red and Blue player knock heads into each other accidentally and fall to the ground.

Thoughts?

 

[SimonSmith]

If you can find out why 1 YC makes sense in the same scenario, I'll be more prepared to answer you.

For context, my role in this scenario was captain not ref, which is why I'd be ok with that outcome. My reasoning as a player would be that the ref must have a valid / logical reason and they are applying that reason equally in a scenario of equal fault.

As a ref, I wouldn't have given a YC at all, but I could see other refs trying to justify it was reckless from both players nonetheless, for their reasoning of a YC to each.

I can't justify any cards in what you describe.

Blow time off, get the two players looked at, and have a chat with the captains in the downtime to explain why there's no foul play.

 

[jdeagro]

I can't justify any cards in what you describe.

Blow time off, get the two players looked at, and have a chat with the captains in the downtime to explain why there's no foul play.

Works for me.

 

[Dickie E]

All this BS about tackle height and there's no mechanism to address 2 non-ball carriers clashing heads at high speed and at height. SMH

 

[BikingBud]

I only clarified what my original post was saying, but it's still the same situation which is as follows:

1. Red team kicks off.
2. Ergo Blue team is the receiving team (this does not imply anything about whether the Blue receiver was moving or static).
3. A Red player chases after the kick.
4. Then that Red player jumps in the air forward simultaneously as the Blue player jumps in the air forward (from their perspectives). Neither of them posses the ball yet.
5. They both attempt to catch the ball in the air.
6. The Red and Blue player knock heads into each other accidentally and fall to the ground.

Thoughts?

But point 2 is wholly material and influences the decision, you saw it we didn't, you need to get off the fence and comment upon Blue's status, else you get fudged decisions.

• If both are static but jump only vertically, how do you get a clash of heads?
• If you make no implication of Blue's status in Bullet 2 why do you then say, Bullet 4 "Red player jumps in the air forward simultaneously, and Blue player jumps in the air forward", nothing needs to be implied they are both jumping laterally, at the same time.
• If both are charging and clattering into each other then whilst it may be considered a "rugby incident" it arises because the current interpretation of the laws has allowed this reckless and dangerous behaviour to become commonplace.
• It is not accidental it is the predictable outcome of their actions.

 

[BikingBud]

I can't justify any cards in what you describe.

Blow time off, get the two players looked at, and have a chat with the captains in the downtime to explain why there's no foul play.

If they were not airborne but charged into each other off the ball and clashed heads would this be viewed in the same manner?

 

[Dickie E]

If they were not airborne but charged into each other off the ball and clashed heads would this be viewed in the same manner?

In my view, yes. Eg, ball on ground and 2 opponents simultaneously dive on it

 

[jdeagro]

But point 2 is wholly material and influences the decision, you saw it we didn't...

Point 2 isn't material at all (at least not in the way you're reading into it). All I was saying is there is a kicking team and a receiving team, because this is a kickoff. No different than saying there was an attacking team and a defending team, when speaking in regards to a particular players movement lol. And in this case, I suppose you can interchange kicking team with attacking team, and receiving team with defending team, if that makes it clearer for you.

you need to get off the fence and comment upon Blue's status, else you get fudged decisions...

I already have, minimally thrice times: in the original post that you misread, in the clearer adjustment to it, and in the post you just replied to in point #4 (which should answer your second subsequent question).

In all honesty I'm rather confused by your questions which both contradict what you wrote prior to them and seem to be as if you didn't read the post you're replying to.

 

[Decorily]

No different than saying there was an attacking team and a defending team, when speaking in regards to a particular players movement lol.

Players movement doesn’t define whether they are 'attacking' or 'defending' teams.

 

[jdeagro]

Players movement doesn’t define whether they are 'attacking' or 'defending' teams.

That's my point.

What I said (in regards to receiving team / player) has no indication of a player's movement or lack there of, just the same as if I used "attacking" and "defending" as the terms to refer to the players, which happen to be applicable in this situation too, given it's a kickoff.