How do we feel about this decision

[didds]

The fundamental issue with this interpretation is that a kick kicked to exactly where the eg fullback is standing, such that he doesn't have to move to catch it, means that that full back will have to move away from the landing point because if the jumping chaser lands on the stationary fullback then the FB is at default. That's just stupid.

didds

 

[OB..]

The fundamental issue with this interpretation is that a kick kicked to exactly where the eg fullback is standing, such that he doesn't have to move to catch it, means that that full back will have to move away from the landing point because if the jumping chaser lands on the stationary fullback then the FB is at default. That's just stupid.

didds

Perhaps we should allow the NFL "fair catch" approach.

 

[Pegleg]

I don't follow NFL. How does that work?

 

[didds]

I don;t know either but a google gives me

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/faircatch


didds

 

[DocY]

I don't follow NFL. How does that work?

Like a mark, but you shout/wave before catching and the opposition have to leave you alone.

 

[didds]

but it seems the fair catch is off if the oppo touch the ball in flight. So it doesn't stop the oppo from playing it.

It also seems you don;t even have to catch it...


didds

 

[DocY]

but it seems the fair catch is off if the oppo touch the ball in flight. So it doesn't stop the oppo from playing it.

It also seems you don;t even have to catch it...


didds

No, there are various caveats and I don't think it would apply to any of the controversial situations we've seen recently - more to the situation you described earlier where the fullback doesn't jump.

Maybe there's some merit in bringing it in for kids, but I don't think there's much for adults.

 

[crossref]

isn't it already the case that when a player stands on the ground waiting for the ball, it is illegal to tackle him before the ball arrives?

(although it seems it is legal to jump on him!)

 

[OB..]

I don't follow NFL. How does that work?

Basically a player can wave his arm above head height and then cannot be tackled, but cannot advance the ball ie first down at the spot of the catch.

We would have to adapt it for rugby eg if he catches the ball, his team gets a scrum. It he knocks on, play advantage. If he signals, he must make an attempt to catch the ball. If he is inside his own 22, the fair catch becomes a Mark (originally known as a Fair Catch anyway).

 

[DocY]

isn't it already the case that when a player stands on the ground waiting for the ball, it is illegal to tackle him before the ball arrives?

I think it's done to make it easier to catch and so you don't get smashed as soon as you catch it (at the cost of being able to run it back).

(although it seems it is legal to jump on him!)

And I think didds' point was that, if the chaser does jump on him, he'll win a penalty and card! I'm kind of looking forward to that happening.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Basically a player can wave his arm above head height and then cannot be tackled, but cannot advance the ball ie first down at the spot of the catch.

We would have to adapt it for rugby eg if he catches the ball, his team gets a scrum. It he knocks on, play advantage. If he signals, he must make an attempt to catch the ball. If he is inside his own 22, the fair catch becomes a Mark (originally known as a Fair Catch anyway).

So would that mean if a defender chose to indicate a fair catch, an opposing chaser would not be allowed to jump for the ball?

If so, I like that approach

If not, then we are back to square one

 

[Rushforth]

So would that mean if a defender chose to indicate a fair catch, an opposing chaser would not be allowed to jump for the ball?

If so, I like that approach

If not, then we are back to square one

Your reading is the same as mine, if that is so.

 

[Pegleg]

Basically a player can wave his arm above head height and then cannot be tackled, but cannot advance the ball ie first down at the spot of the catch.

We would have to adapt it for rugby eg if he catches the ball, his team gets a scrum. It he knocks on, play advantage. If he signals, he must make an attempt to catch the ball. If he is inside his own 22, the fair catch becomes a Mark (originally known as a Fair Catch anyway).

Thanks and thaks to all who replied. A bit clearer now. I'll have a look at the lin provided too.

 

[RobLev]

Neither. Both are expected to react to the situation properly, which at the moment means jumping if the catch is going to be contested.

...

So if the catcher had done a little hop, so that the running player hits him in the air, he doesn't get a YC?

Going back to basics, in this case the running player is launching his knees head height at a standing player. Whatever you say about how the standing player should be YC'd for standing his ground, surely the running player should also be YC'd for dangerous play?

 

[OB..]

So if the catcher had done a little hop, so that the running player hits him in the air, he doesn't get a YC?

Can we stick to being serious please? In all such situations there are grey areas and marginal decisions. The search for certainty is largely delusional.

Going back to basics, in this case the running player is launching his knees head height at a standing player. Whatever you say about how the standing player should be YC'd for standing his ground, surely the running player should also be YC'd for dangerous play?

Only because you say the player is entitled to just stand there. That is not the way it is currently refereed.

 

[Chris_j]

OB, if you were assessing me; a player jumped with leading legs into a player waiting to play the ball; I gave the jumping player a red card for dangerous play, which law would you rely on to criticise that decision? Even if the jumper landed on his neck and left in a wheelchair!

In any other situation on the rugby field there would be no argument. I seems perverse that the onus on safe play is arbitrarily reversed in this situation.

Sometime soon a player landed on will be seriously hurt or even killed. I then expect the 12yo law makers to react by making all jumping for the ball illegal, taking a hugely exciting aspect out of the game.

Far better, we ask referees to penalise cynical taking out of players in the air and accept that accidents will happen in fair contests. We should be putting the onus on jumpers to be aware of players in their landing zone and to accept the risk that if they jump into an opponent then they may come off the worst.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Far better, we ask referees to penalise cynical taking out of players in the air and accept that accidents will happen in fair contests. We should be putting the onus on jumpers to be aware of players in their landing zone and to accept the risk that if they jump into an opponent then they may come off the worst.

THIS^^

So long as we have this crazy WR driven policy of penalising outcomes instead of actions, the game will continue to have farcical decisions like this one.

 

[RobLev]

Can we stick to being serious please?

I'm trying to be.

In all such situations there are grey areas and marginal decisions. The search for certainty is largely delusional.

Erm; that is precisely the problem we have here. WR has decided that it is certain that a standing player is playing dangerously when jumped into by a jumping player. That is not the way it looks to a spectator.

Only because you say the player is entitled to just stand there.

No. I say he's entitled to catch the ball without having his head taken off by a dangerous fool jumping at him head-high.

That is not the way it is currently refereed.

I'm well aware of that. And current refereeing is looking ever more ludicrous as a result.

 

[Pegleg]

...That is not the way it is currently refereed.

And here is the biggest flaw in your argument. The whole point is that the way "it is currently refereed" is a huge mistake and it is causing a problem. We know it is the way "it is currently refereed". The point we are making is that it need to change.

I'm afraid if you were to advise me and such an incident happened it is likely you'd be marking me down as "non-complient". Why I'd be pinging the player that I deem to be the reckless one and not the one the memo has decided was reckless before the incident happened.

 

[Openside]

I completely agree with Ian's assessment. I have been banging on about this on another forum for years. The reason there has been a spate of this in recent years is WR has decided that they want all contests for the ball to be carried out in the air which is a bizarre and dangerous decision. Finn Russel is a case in point he ran to catch a ball with eyes only on the ball, he turned away at the last second only as he realised that instead of being able to catch the ball he was going to get Biggars knees in his head. Maybe complete protection should only be afforded to people who jump having 'waited' for the ball. All other situations should be governed by whether they were in a position to catch it, in the air or not.