How do we feel about this decision

[Rich_NL]

I'm not a mod, but the tone of this thread seems unnecessarily combative and needling.

Something like a fair catch/mark signal seems like a far safer and saner approach than forcing a stationary jumper to leap upwards and chance a mid-air collision to avoid being penalised for unsafe play for standing still. However, it would slow the game down a lot to have a scrum every time the ball is caught in play, and give kicking a strange status as in line with a technical error... with gain in ground.

 

[OB..]

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.

I was attempting to look at the situation analytically in the hope that people might follow that approach.

Your disagreement is apparently with the current application of the laws at the top level (i see see no real problems at my levels).

This site is not a place where we vote to decide which way we should interpret the laws. It is a place to argue our views and analyse problems. In practice we have to follow whatever we are told by our societies/National Unions etc. Sometimes these are different, which leads to confusion. A vote on here is not a determining factor.

If formally outvoted on some issue, I have to act with the majority, but I still do not have to change my own view.

 

[Pegleg]

May I, with all due respect, suggest you report the thread / posters if you have a problem with it or them. We have one poster defending a position which pretty much every other contributor, to the thread, sees as nonsense. It is difficult to say it in many other ways than we have.

 

[Pegleg]

I was attempting to look at the situation analytically in the hope that people might follow that approach.

Your disagreement is apparently with the current application of the laws at the top level (i see see no real problems at my levels).

This site is not a place where we vote to decide which way we should interpret the laws. It is a place to argue our views and analyse problems. In practice we have to follow whatever we are told by our societies/National Unions etc. Sometimes these are different, which leads to confusion. A vote on here is not a determining factor.

If formally outvoted on some issue, I have to act with the majority, but I still do not have to change my own view.

Whe know whar you are doing. We disagree with your analysis. I think we are all aware that this forum is not WR law department thanks.

 

[DocY]

May I, with all due respect, suggest you report the thread / posters if you have a problem with it or them. We have one poster defending a position which pretty much every other contributor, to the thread, sees as nonsense. It is difficult to say it in many other ways than we have.

Though World Rugby agree with this poster.

 

[didds]

Your disagreement is apparently with the current application of the laws at the top level (i see see no real problems at my levels).

I'd missed that nuance... so do you mean, OB, thyat at your levels you just don;t see this dangerous situation ever playing out ie jumping catchers landing on stationary hopeful catchers, or that its ruled differently?


purely interested

didds

didds

 

[DocY]

I'd missed that nuance... so do you mean, OB, thyat at your levels you just don;t see this dangerous situation ever playing out ie jumping catchers landing on stationary hopeful catchers, or that its ruled differently?


purely interested

didds

didds

TBH, I can't remember any such situation in a game I've reffed. I get the odd tackling the jumper, but when (and it's not often) players are contesting a kick neither is any appreciable distance off the ground so the only offence I'm likely to blow up for is obstruction.

 

[crossref]

I'd missed that nuance... so do you mean, OB, thyat at your levels you just don;t see this dangerous situation ever playing out ie jumping catchers landing on stationary hopeful catchers, or that its ruled differently?


purely interested

didds

didds

I don't really see it.
I think it's for several reasons
- there is generally less ping-pong kicking than in the pro-game
- when there is a a kick chasers aren't so fast, or so well coordinated with the kicker, so they are seldom in a position to make a catch
- and kicks aren't so high, so even fast, well-timed chasers have less chance to get there in time to make a catch

- and, not least, players are reluctant to risk breaking their own, or their opponents, neck. It's only a game after all.

The really bad collisions come when neither player is aware of the other, and neither have realised the danger they are in. mercifully that's rare (and I don't card anyone!)

 

[Pegleg]

Though World Rugby agree with this poster.

Indeed. But there is a difference. Posters on here have offered reasonable explanations why the WR stance is nonsense. To my knowledge WR has offered no real support for its stance.

WR is expecting a player in the air to defy the laws of physics and to be able to change his flight path. That is nonsense. They then, as is typical of them, issue a hard and fast rule that defies common sense and logic. We have to live in the real world.

 

[Pegleg]

...
The really bad collisions come when neither player is aware of the other, and neither have realised the danger they are in. mercifully that's rare (and I don't card anyone!)

because you use common sense and "interpret" the law accordingly and not according to an illogical dictat.

"Boys, no ones fault there. Just two guys colliding. We'll restart with a scrum when they've had treatment. Blue ball."

 

[OB..]

I'd missed that nuance... so do you mean, OB, thyat at your levels you just don;t see this dangerous situation ever playing out ie jumping catchers landing on stationary hopeful catchers, or that its ruled differently?


purely interested

didds

didds

I don't see this jumping situation producing the dangerous outcomes we have seen on TV. Partly this is because kickers are not that accurate and chasers not that quick to respond. It is also true that the players are not physically as gifted/strong etc so such contests as do occur are relatively mild.

 

[OB..]

WR is expecting a player in the air to defy the laws of physics and to be able to change his flight path.

I have never come across anyone saying that. I presume you are claiming it is a necessary inference, which is something I dispute.

The problem usually arises when A jumps and B does not. B may well end up under A and tip him upside down to land dangerously. The main argument seems to be that if B doesn't jump, then A mustn't.

 

[OB..]

May I, with all due respect, suggest you report the thread / posters if you have a problem with it or them. We have one poster defending a position which pretty much every other contributor, to the thread, sees as nonsense. It is difficult to say it in many other ways than we have.

I honestly do not understand this. I have no problem at all with people expressing views I disagree with. If I think their arguments are wrong I will try to say why (if I think it matters). Being an odd man out is not a penalty offence. If I am the odd man out I have no obligation to join the herd.

 

[SimonSmith]

I have never come across anyone saying that. I presume you are claiming it is a necessary inference, which is something I dispute.

The problem usually arises when A jumps and B does not. B may well end up under A and tip him upside down to land dangerously. The main argument seems to be that if B doesn't jump, then A mustn't.

If A jumps into B, who is at fault? Who is greater risk?

 

[ChrisR]

I like the Fair Catch idea proposed by OB. However I think the kicking gets to advance to the mark and the catchers retire from it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I like the fair catch idea, but not he idea of a scrum after it.

Here is how I would like to see it played.

"defender" is the player who has not kicked the ball
"opponent" is the player who his kicked the ball

1. The defender or any of his team-mates may call "fair catch", but only one (the first one) is valid.

2. A defender may not call "fair catch" unless he is stationary (presumably, in the place where he thinks the ball will alight)

3. Once a defender calls "fair catch", he cannot move or adjust his position or jump for the ball. If he does so, his fair catch call is void

4. Once a defender has called "fair catch", an opponent may still jump to catch the ball, but the onus will be on him to avoid a collision with the defender. The opponent becomes entirely responsible for whatever happens to him and/or the defender.

5. If the defender does not call "fair catch" or if he moves or jumps after he has called (and before he catches the ball) then the onus is on him to avoid a collision with the opponent. The defender becomes entirely responsible for whatever happens to him and/or his opponent.

6. when any player has caught the ball, its play-on unless a PK infringement has been committed.

Some scenarios (Blue 15 kicks the ball, which is coming down near some Gold players)

1. Gold 15 calls "fair catch". Blue 15 jumps, and there is a collision, and Blue 15 falls to ground - PK to Gold
2. Gold 15 calls "fair catch". Blue 15 jumps, and there is a collision, and Gold 15 is knocked out. PK to Gold
3. Gold 15 calls "fair catch" and then moves after the call. Blue 15 jumps, and there is a collision, and Blue 15 falls to ground shoulders first - PK to Blue.

 

[Dickie E]

The main argument seems to be that if B doesn't jump, then A mustn't.

That's not how I read it. The main argument is that if A jumps but B doesn't then normal foul play law applies. If no FP, then play on or, if injury, no-one's fault.

 

[Dickie E]

2. Gold 15 calls "fair catch". Blue 15 jumps, and there is a collision, and Gold 15 is knocked out. PK to Blue

should this be PK to Gold?

 

[Pegleg]

I honestly do not understand this. I have no problem at all with people expressing views I disagree with. If I think their arguments are wrong I will try to say why (if I think it matters). Being an odd man out is not a penalty offence. If I am the odd man out I have no obligation to join the herd.

Appologies I did not make it clear. I was replying to Rich_NL and your post got in just before mine so the line was lost. I should have used a quote. He was moaning about the tone of the thread. It was not directed at yourself.

 

[Pegleg]

I have never come across anyone saying that. I presume you are claiming it is a necessary inference, which is something I dispute.

The problem usually arises when A jumps and B does not. B may well end up under A and tip him upside down to land dangerously. The main argument seems to be that if B doesn't jump, then A mustn't.

When you make catch all judgements you end up with bad calls. Just judge players, as refs have always done, case by case. If a jumper is deamed to be reckless / careless / innocent judge accordingly. Like wish judge the standing player on the same basis. Two players moving towards a high ball are / should be watching the ball. Yes they need to consider the wider picture. if a player has no hope of catching the ball why go up in the air? That does not mean the non jumper has no duy of care. We as refs have to weigh everything up and ask some questions. The answer may lead to the jumper being pinged OR the standing player being pinged. But let' not have the decision made before the game.