How do we feel about this decision

[OB..]

I think we agree that current practice is to allow the chaser to jump for the ball, on the assumption that the opponent will also jump and that such a collision in the air is less likely to tip a player over (the main risk of serious injury).

Whether we agree or not, surely we agree that an individual referee choosing to act differently would just confuse the players and might end up making matters worse.

What we can sensibly discuss is theoretical alternative approaches, and the main one is saying that if an opponent is in a position to catch the ball, a chaser cannot jump for it.

If the chaser is still allowed to challenge for the ball, for maximum effect he will arrive just as the ball does. This will usually flatten the opponent and frequently mean the ball goes loose, leaving the referee to decide if either player knocked on.. Being thumped backwards by an opponent arriving at speed does not sound particularly safe to me, even if you reckon it is an improvement over allowing the jump.

What about the catcher? Is he allowed to jump at the last minute to have a better chance of getting a good catch, knowing the opponent is not allowed to jump? If so, can he be tackled in the air? No. So the chaser now waits for him to land before flattening him.

If we want to defuse the situation, I think my Fair Catch proposal would do the job very nicely: player signals, referee shouts "Fair Catch" to acknowledge it, chaser knows he cannot act unless the catch is spilled. Most of the time the current airborne challenge would be replaced by a scrum (which may not be to everybody's taste :biggrin:, but you can't win them all).

BTW I would hope somebody is collecting statistics on how often one or both players get injured in such situations as a way of evaluating the risk in practice.

 

[DocY]

BTW I would hope somebody is collecting statistics on how often one or both players get injured in such situations as a way of evaluating the risk in practice.

I haven't, but I suspect the results would be rather like injuries from 'tip tackles'. i.e. few and far between! I certainly can't recall any.

World Rugby should realise that rugby is a dangerous game. Serious injuries are, unfortunately, part of the game, but they're usually a freak accident during something innocuous (and certainly not illegal) with not even a groan from the crowd.

<rant>
Yes, the laws should penalise genuinely dangerous play and safety should be treated above all, but how far do we really want to go? Players contesting the ball in the air might get injured, let's penalise that; players' legs being lifted in the tackle might result in injury - penalise it; in fact scrums and text book tackles result in injuries...

How much of the game should be taken away in the name of 'safety'? Or should we just play touch.

But the current guidelines don't improve safety - they just prescribe who gets blamed for recklessness and, as that's probably not the player who's being reckless it won't discourage recklessness and might even encourage it!

It doesn't improve safety and it's definitely not fair!

Allow referees to apply common sense. I find it a bit insulting that they don't seem to think we can be trusted to judge individual incidents each on their own merits.
</rant>

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I would have stopped the play as there were injured players and restarted with a scrum to team in possession. I see no offence

 

[OB..]

Allow referees to apply common sense. I find it a bit insulting that they don't seem to think we can be trusted to judge individual incidents each on their own merits.

Referees use their judgement in applying the law, but if they are allowed to decide for themselves what the law is, it would surely make matters worse when there is no general agreement.

 

[SimonSmith]

But the law is not clear. It is an interpretation handed down at Elite level.

that has not been mandated to my Society, and nor will I enforce. Foul play needs a positive action from the player committing it. To penalize a player for simply standing runs counter to any reasonable rugby person's expectations.

 

[didds]

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.

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

I think the point being discussed is that this current interprtation leaves a statinary player at fault, even in ciurcumstances where that player never even had to ever move. The suggestion is that this is somewhat daft.

If that player then somehow receives some sort of protection because he also jumps, whilst the thought that a tiny hop is "stupid" nonetheless this is EXACTLY what players will start doing. Why wouldn't they - its the very first thing that entered my mind. So we can believe that its a stupid suggestion - but it is what will happen.

In short the entire approach needs readdressing. I don;t see why a kick that a receiver can take standing still i.e. its been poorly directed should gain any protections just by jumping for it.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

Referees use their judgement in applying the law, but if they are allowed to decide for themselves what the law is, it would surely make matters worse when there is no general agreement.

You're twisting things to suit you argument. The law on dangerous play (as applicable to the scenario) is:

10.4

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The player on the ground is NOT tackling the player in the air. So thisn is not a reason to ping him!

(f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is
not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the
ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

It could be argued that the jumper landing on a standing player is doing just that!

(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the
ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Again the player standing on the ground is NOT commiting this offence.

(i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or
feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Nor is the player on the ground committing this offence.

The only thing that is occuring that is possibly illegal is the jumper contraveening law 10.4 (f). That is a "push". The referee is there to interpret the event and decide if the law in his opinion has been transgressed. But we start from the law. You are the one inventing new laws. Not those who are oposing your view.

 

[DocY]

Referees use their judgement in applying the law, but if they are allowed to decide for themselves what the law is, it would surely make matters worse when there is no general agreement.

I think the laws are pretty clear in this case, but there are a few of them covering this sort of situation (10.4 e and i, off the top of my head), but neither law applies to all such situations. The one in the OP, for example, I don't think is tackling a jumper, so we need to think of other laws (if any infringement has been committed).

Sure, referees will come to different decisions, but those will be disagreements on the facts of a particular case. I really don't see us disagreeing about how the law should be applied if we agree on the facts.

 

[OB..]

To penalize a player for simply standing runs counter to any reasonable rugby person's expectations.

That is not entirely true.
[LAWS]10.1 (d) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Blocking the ball. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not intentionally move or [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]stand[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.[/FONT][/LAWS]
(I am not claiming this is necessarily relevant here - but it does undermine your claim.)

 

[SimonSmith]

I disagree. The use of the word "intentional" indicates that it is an act/positive decision

It is, as you say, irrelevant here

 

[OB..]

I disagree. The use of the word "intentional" indicates that it is an act/positive decision

It is, as you say, irrelevant here

I cannot see any difference at all. A player waiting to catch a kick is obviously standing there intentionally anyway.

 

[DocY]

I disagree. The use of the word "intentional" indicates that it is an act/positive decision

It is, as you say, irrelevant here

At the risk of getting off topic, I agree with Simon. Surely what is meant is "... with the intention of stopping an opponent playing the ball".

 

[Pegleg]

I cannot see any difference at all. A player waiting to catch a kick is obviously standing there intentionally anyway.

The Law you reference is true but it has no relevance to the scenario. Yes agreed we are not allowed to obstruct and the oft stated "He does not have to move he is allowed to stand where he is" is not accurate. Here it is meaningless. So the only reason I can see for bringing it is it to divert attention from the holes in your point.

In the context of the posters reference it is a diversion.

 

[OB..]

The Law you reference is true but it has no relevance to the scenario. Yes agreed we are not allowed to obstruct and the oft stated "He does not have to move he is allowed to stand where he is" is not accurate. Here it is meaningless. So the only reason I can see for bringing it is it to divert attention from the holes in your point.

In the context of the posters reference it is a diversion.

I responded purely to prevent an inaccurate generalisation being accepted as true.

 

[Pegleg]

Context.

 

[OB..]

Context.

... can be insufficient.

 

[Pegleg]

Without it you make no sense. You really are struggling here. Losing the debate, so going off on a tangent. Standard diversionary tactics.

 

[Chris_j]

Originally Posted by Pegleg
Context.

... can be insufficient.

but almost always is king!

 

[OB..]

Pegleg -if you want to know my views, then please read my #41 instead of inventing your own mistaken ideas on ulterior motives.

As for Simon Smith's assertion, note what I actually said in response as to its relevance.

That is not entirely true.
[LAWS]10.1 (d) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Blocking the ball. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not intentionally move or [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]stand[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.[/FONT][/LAWS]
(I am not claiming this is necessarily relevant here - but it does undermine your claim.)

In other words, it looked to me as though he was using it as a true general statement which thus supported his view on the issue.

 

[Pegleg]

We've all read your view OB, and the disagreement with you is pretty universal on this. Sorry when your peeing into the wind it's time to think about turning around.