How do we feel about this decision

[OB..]

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.

I think "normal foul play rules" are unclear in this situation, hence the arguments about who is at fault.

 

[didds]

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.

and wadr to you OB, that description assumes that B also has to run towards the ball. If he is standing stock still never having needed to move its suggests that he has to either jump just to prevent a potential RC, or run away from where the ball is landing.

didds

 

[DocY]

I think "normal foul play rules" are unclear in this situation, hence the arguments about who is at fault.

I'm not sure they're unclear, just that a rigid one-size-fits-all interpretation isn't appropriate.

 

[OB..]

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.

from Wikipedia

A fair catch is a feature of American football and several other codes of football, in which a player attempting to catch a ball kicked by the opposing team – either on a kickoff or punt – is entitled to catch the ball without interference from any member of the kicking team. A ball caught in this manner becomes dead once caught, i.e., the player catching the ball is not entitled to run with the ball in an attempt to gain yardage, and the receiving team begins their drive at the spot where the ball was caught.

Obviously we would need to devise a rugby version of the basic idea, which in the NFL is aimed at preventing injury to the catcher. I see where Ian is going, but I would like the law to be as simple as possible since most people are only going to see it being used in top level games.

Of course our chance of even getting it considered by Them is minimal.

 

[OB..]

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.

and wadr to you OB, that description assumes that B also has to run towards the ball. If he is standing stock still never having needed to move its suggests that he has to either jump just to prevent a potential RC, or run away from where the ball is landing.

didds

My first sentence was simply an attempt to characterise the situation that gives rise to danger, without apportioning blame. Note that I did not define either A or B as catcher. My second was my understanding of what many people are in effect saying, but I'm happy to be corrected.

 

[OB..]

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.

Thank you - that now makes better sense.

 

[DocY]

My first sentence was simply an attempt to characterise the situation that gives rise to danger, without apportioning blame. Note that I did not define either A or B as catcher. My second was my understanding of what many people are in effect saying, but I'm happy to be corrected.

I don't think you're quite right in your understanding.

What I'm thinking (and I think others are too) even if I'm not articulating it well isn't that either both should jump or that neither should, just that in a given situation who, if anyone, is being dangerous or reckless, and that a guideline automatically favouring the jumper is unfair, potentially encourages dangerous play and poorly thought-through.

I can envisage situations where the jumper is being reckless/dangerous (e.g. jumping with knees up at a defender who's obviously not going to jump) and when the player on the ground is (running into the jumper's path when he's got no hope of catching the ball). Or situations where nobody is - like the video at the top of this thread (IMO).

 

[crossref]

A fair catch is a feature of American football and several other codes of football, in which a player attempting to catch a ball kicked by the opposing team – either on a kickoff or punt – is entitled to catch the ball without interference from any member of the kicking team. A ball caught in this manner becomes dead once caught, i.e., the player catching the ball is not entitled to run with the ball in an attempt to gain yardage, and the receiving team begins their drive at the spot where the ball was caught.

from Wikipedia
Obviously we would need to devise a rugby version of the basic idea, which in the NFL is aimed at preventing injury to the catcher. I see where Ian is going, but I would like the law to be as simple as possible since most people are only going to see it being used in top level games.

Of course our chance of even getting it considered by Them is minimal.

perhaps a rugby version would be to extend/amend the concept of a mark.
- so that you call for the mark before you catch it, instead of after (and then no interference)
- and a mark can be had inside or outside the 22, if you are inside the 22 you get the FK (as now) and outside the 22 a scrum

 

[Ian_Cook]

should this be PK to Gold?

Yes (caught out by cut and paste.)

Fixed

 

[OB..]

What I'm thinking (and I think others are too) even if I'm not articulating it well isn't that either both should jump or that neither should,

That certainly reduces the danger, though it does not determine who is at fault (if anyone), and is not enforceable in practice.

just that in a given situation who, if anyone, is being dangerous or reckless, and that a guideline automatically favouring the jumper is unfair, potentially encourages dangerous play and poorly thought-through.

Would a guideline automatically favouring the non-jumper be better? It would presumably discourage jumping, but the catcher is then vulnerable as the chaser is moving fast.

The current approach seems to be that if both players jump it reduces the danger without bringing in a new law.

The initial video is unusual both in that the catcher jumps and the chaser does not, and that the chaser gets knocked out. The catcher was not jumping in a dangerous way - it was his hip that caught the opponent.

 

[DocY]

That certainly reduces the danger, though it does not determine who is at fault (if anyone), and is not enforceable in practice.

Sorry, I maybe wasn't clear - I was saying that we *shouldn't* say that both players have to do the same thing - I agree that it couldn't be enforceable.

Would a guideline automatically favouring the non-jumper be better? It would presumably discourage jumping, but the catcher is then vulnerable as the chaser is moving fast.

I expect it would be better, yes - it wouldn't encourage a chaser to jump into a standing player and milk a penalty - but I think not pre-deciding to favour either party would be best. And it might result in the situation where chasers stop going for the ball and prefer to just smash the catcher.

The current approach seems to be that if both players jump it reduces the danger without bringing in a new law.

I'm not sure it does reduce the overall danger. I can see that it reduces the danger for the guy who jumps higher, but increases it for the other guy. And as others have pointed out, it encourages unnecessary jumping from well-positioned players.

The initial video is unusual both in that the catcher jumps and the chaser does not, and that the chaser gets knocked out. The catcher was not jumping in a dangerous way - it was his hip that caught the opponent.

Agreed - I don't think there was any foul play there. The only stoppage should have been due to the injury, then restart with a scrum.

 

[didds]

perhaps a rugby version would be to extend/amend the concept of a mark.
- so that you call for the mark before you catch it, instead of after (and then no interference)
- and a mark can be had inside or outside the 22, if you are inside the 22 you get the FK (as now) and outside the 22 a scrum

albeit a FK outside of one;'s own 22 is more likely to end up as a scrum anyway, so toothless is the award. (caveat - very close to oppo tryline maybe)

didds

 

[crossref]

albeit a FK outside of one;'s own 22 is more likely to end up as a scrum anyway, so toothless is the award. (caveat - very close to oppo tryline maybe)

didds

true, but the objective here is safety of the catcher, rather than to penalise the kicker, or reward the catcher.

a FK, obviously, is always better than a scrum as there is the option to tap an go.

one impact of introducing a 'free catch' is that teams would kick less -- and/or the kicking would be more short grubbers so no no free catch is possible. Less kicking, and very few free catches, might be a good outcome

 

[DocY]

a FK, obviously, is always better than a scrum as there is the option to tap an go.

Being a bit pedantic, but if you're two points behind and in drop goal range I'd definitely prefer the scrum!

 

[OB..]

The current approach seems to be that if both players jump it reduces the danger without bringing in a new law.

I'm not sure it does reduce the overall danger. I can see that it reduces the danger for the guy who jumps higher, but increases it for the other guy.

The danger is the tipping effect if one player is significantly higher than the other - the higher one gets tipped, the lower may get a knee . If both jump to roughly the same height, the chance of tipping is small, and the effect of the body to body clash is slightly reduced because neither player is fixed to the ground.

And as others have pointed out, it encourages unnecessary jumping from well-positioned players.

If it reduces the danger and increases the chances of that player winning the ball, why claim jumping is unnecessary? It only becomes unnecessary if you rule that jumping by the chaser is in itself illegal.

BTW, has anyone seen comments from any top players or coaches on this issue?

 

[crossref]

Being a bit pedantic, but if you're two points behind and in drop goal range I'd definitely prefer the scrum!

good point

 

[DocY]

The danger is the tipping effect if one player is significantly higher than the other - the higher one gets tipped, the lower may get a knee . If both jump to roughly the same height, the chance of tipping is small, and the effect of the body to body clash is slightly reduced because neither player is fixed to the ground.

I agree about reducing tipping, but I think jumping can increase the danger for the lower player. If he's jumping he's in less control than if he has his feet on the ground.

BTW, has anyone seen comments from any top players or coaches on this issue?

Not a top coach, but I spoke to a coach of semi-pros about a month ago. He didn't like the guidelines, but his attitude was "well that's what they're looking for, so we'd better adapt", by which he meant trying to get as high as possible as early as possible even if it reduced the chance of getting the ball.

 

[Balones]

Would anyone's opinion change if the player on the floor had caught the ball and then got injured?

 

[DocY]

Would anyone's opinion change if the player on the floor had caught the ball and then got injured?

If everything were exactly the same otherwise, then no, I still wouldn't see it as foul play from either player. Sh1t happens.

If he'd caught the ball well enough before the jumper collided with him then I might be thinking about the jumper being reckless or dangerous.

 

[OB..]

I agree about reducing tipping, but I think jumping can increase the danger for the lower player. If he's jumping he's in less control than if he has his feet on the ground.

I think the danger is more likely to be to the higher player, who has further to fall . However the reduction in tipping is to me the key.

If there is contact in the air, a player can get forced backwards, but not necessarily tipped. If he has his feet on the ground the same force would flatten him. Having his feet on the ground is only useful if he takes avoiding action.