I feel they both need sanction. I have a slight sympathy for white as while it IS his fault he was in a position to collide with a player in the air, that only _really_ happened because the blue player did something he wouldn't have expected ie put a limb where normally one wouldn't think there would be one.
That leg was clearly there deliberately however for exactly this reason, and given its height etc can only be dangerous.
YC for both, PK to blue would seem reasonable to me, in current RU land.
That's a fair question .
It might depend on "how" the knee ended up in the face, includign how tight it was to his body or hanging out to dry. So my answer would be "potentially" I guess.
The foot however could only be there for the intended purpose of stopping players getting too close by endangering the head area for coming too close. That's not a natural action. IMO. YMMV.
didds
I ask, because that's how I was taught to catch a high ball, by raising a knee to "protect" yourself.
I ask, because that's how I was taught to catch a high ball, by raising a knee to "protect" yourself.
How would rugby union handle it?
1. WR would describe in great detail the "karate kick". Complete with guidance on determining if in fact it is a "karate kick", such as the angle of thigh to trunk and degree of leg extension. WR would require a Redcard for maneuver known as "karate kick"
2. The RFU would send it via email to select recipients and expect that it will be forwarded to all referees worldwide.
3. The "karate kick" law will be place between the flying wedge and cavalry charge in Law 10 with the distinction "this usually happens when..."
4. Referees will develop a secondary signal for Law 10 "karate kick"
5. Referees will develop a tertiary signal for the roundhouse "karate kick"
6. The Asian Rugby Union files a claim against WR and the RFU for discrimination and predjudice
I was always taught that the raising the knee gave extra lift - a la high jump & basketball jump for a basket (when you're not 7' what ever!)