Is this a Red?

[RobLev]

I think you need to take the plank from your own eye first, NKW.

I am not familiar with this plank reference

Someone accusing others of myopia really should be aware of other references to inability to see clearly...

 

[SimonSmith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FscIgtDJFXg

 

[Ian_Cook]

NFL has a rule about roughing the passer. You'll know how it works; and that quarterbacks don't dummy passes with oppo players in close proximity. Is your claim that Rugby Union players are more skilful and/or have more control of their bodily movements than NFL defense players?

Even the NFL recognises that a committed defensive player cannot expect to pull out of a tackle at the last monent. That is why they have the "One Step Rule"

Rule 12 Section 2 Personal Fouls

ROUGHING THE PASSER
Article 13 Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting a pass) in
a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply. The
Referee has principal responsibility for enforcing these rules. Any physical acts against passers during or
just after a pass which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will
be called as fouls. The Referee will be guided by the following principles

PASS LEAVING PASSER’S HAND; ONE-STEP RULE
(1) Roughing will be called if, in the Referee’s judgment, a pass rusher clearly should have known that the
ball had already left the passer’s hand before contact was made; pass rushers are responsible for
being aware of the position of the ball in passing situations; the Referee will use the release of the ball
from the passer’s hand as his guideline that the passer is now fully protected; once a pass has been
released by a passer, a rushing defender may make direct contact with the passer only up through
the rusher’s first step after such release (prior to second step hitting the ground); thereafter the rusher
must be making an attempt to avoid contact and must not continue to “drive through” or otherwise
forcibly contact the passer; incidental or inadvertent contact by a player who is easing up or being
blocked into the passer will not be considered significant

The no 10 MAY do anything. If Lawes holds off the tackle because of that and Plisson goes off on a quintessentially French jinking run,Lawes would be derelict. I honestly can't understand why you want to penalize this. It smacks of the worrying trend of American referees MSU to suit their personal moral view of the game

A few years ago I talked with a former All Black who spent some time playing France back in the early 1980s. French referees officiating in their domestic rugby competitions decided they the were going to come down hard on players who tackles kickers late. Even fractionally late was penalised. The initial consequence was that players stopped challenging kickers altogether as it was too risky. This made it easy for ball carriers to feint a kick in order to avoid being tackled. In the end it became an utter farce, with would-be tacklers doing little more that shadow the ball carrier around. The crack down by referees only lasted a month before they dropped it and went back to what they were doing before

 

[Dickie E]

The two questions I ask myself if I am going to penalise a late tackle is - did they commit before or after the ball was passed. Was the commitment sensible. E.g. Not committing 25 meters away.

If the answer to those questions was - A) After and B) No. Then you're at least getting sent back 10.

And we have recently been exposed to the novel concept that a player should be able to anticipate that an opponent is going to leap to play the ball. Should a would-be tackler also be anticipating that the ball may be passed?

 

[OB..]

And we have recently been exposed to the novel concept that a player should be able to anticipate that an opponent is going to leap to play the ball. Should a would-be tackler also be anticipating that the ball may be passed?

It is normal for a chasing player to jump for the ball. No mind reading required. Nothing novel either.

It is normal for a ball carrier to either pass or dummy (or kick). Why should a would-be tackler be required to guess before committing to the tackle? If Lawes' tackle hadn't been so devastating, would we even be discussing it?

 

[RobLev]

It is normal for a chasing player to jump for the ball. No mind reading required. Nothing novel either.

...

It's also normal for a chasing player to try to catch the ball while on the ground. Similarly, it is normal for a defending player either to jump for the ball, or to catch it while on the ground. Mind-reading is clearly required to know which he is going to do.

The problem is that a player jumping into a player on the ground could injure both himself and the player on the ground. The current emphasis on penalising the player on the ground, even when he is the victim, ostensibly on the grounds of safety, is to increase the number of times players jump for the ball, and hence to increase the dangers that the emphasis is intended to reduce. Unfair, since the player creating the danger (the jumper) gets off scot-free, and perverse.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

If Lawes' tackle hadn't been so devastating, would we even be discussing it?

No, absolutely not. The devastation drew my attention to its legality and player welfare. If it happened in my game, I would not be discussing it either because the surgeons would have had to remove my acme after I sucked in my throat after I gasped as I tried to reattach a players head. And little known to me, a head can talk and think for 20 seconds after its been detached.

TBH a cheek to cheek tackle form behind would not have drawn my notice.

It is normal for a ball carrier to either pass or dummy (or kick). Why should a would-be tackler be required to guess before committing to the tackle?

I do not think it is a guessing game. Players need to adapt a posture or defense for each of ball carrier options as situation dictates.
We all know, CL is targeting. He also gets in a tackling profile early. I'm sure he is aware that if he commits he won't be found late. Often he runs by through defending teammates, who have adopted a defending posture.


All I ask for is something that stipulates different from law of PMWB, and LT. No one has provided a law intrepretation, clarification, or directive. We do have a precident set from NO as a guideline in a 6N. I believe he says "he was commited" twice in video.

I want to be sure that I'm not MSU, but I think we are just victims of the perceived beliefs that we are often so critical

 

[Browner]

. TBH a cheek to cheek tackle from behind would not have drawn my notice.

But that could cause 'whiplash' easily enough, & this insight is actually quite interesting, because you're now ' accepting' merely on the height of the legal impact, not its timing ......

Timing is a very difficult fixed "line in the sand" to draw, neck contact or lift are so much easier to spot (?!)

As an aside, I'm noticing a trend towards players post event protestations.
Often ( not always) the more you confront , the greater the likelihood of YC/RC being produced almost "Chelsea v Ibrahimovic esk!"
Not sure of the match, but some guy in super15 lifted a player off the floor ( granted poorly thought through) but still brought him down delicately /safely but was still YC , which IMO was due to the mele' that the arriving players created !

Maybe that was the sneaky French con !
:biggrin:

PS...NO doesnt have authority to set any WR precedents!

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

But that could cause 'whiplash' easily enough, & this insight is actually quite interesting, because you're now ' accepting' merely on the height of the legal impact, not its timing ......

No its timing is in question. By the tackler's cheek against the B/C buttock cheek, a tackle from behind.
Not the height on the body

Timing is a very difficult fixed "line in the sand" to draw, neck contact or lift are so much easier to spot (?!)

The flight of the passed ball is easiest to determine timing

Agree, come Saturday this season he may, as "he was commited to the tackle" is exclaimed

 

[OB..]

It's also normal for a chasing player to try to catch the ball while on the ground. Similarly, it is normal for a defending player either to jump for the ball, or to catch it while on the ground. Mind-reading is clearly required to know which he is going to do.

No. If player stands under where the ball will land, he is expected to know that a chasing player will jump for the ball because that way he will win it. That is why you so often get both players jumping for the ball.

The problem is that a player jumping into a player on the ground could injure both himself and the player on the ground. The current emphasis on penalising the player on the ground, even when he is the victim

Victim of his own error IMHO, as you already know. We will clearly never agree on this subject, and it has been gone over many times already. Nothing new here.

 

[Dickie E]

It is normal for a chasing player to jump for the ball. No mind reading required. Nothing novel either.

Well, it is mind reading because sometimes a chaser will jump and other times he won't. It is now up to the opponent to guess what he intends to do then act proactively accordingly.

And it is novel because I've never heard such tosh before.

 

[RobLev]

...

Victim of his own error IMHO, as you already know. We will clearly never agree on this subject, and it has been gone over many times already. Nothing new here.

It does seem so. The emphasis does though reverse certain norms of rugby tactics. It is now, for example, perversely more effective tactically to kick an up and under straight to an opposition player, and send a chaser. The defender will have to move away from where the ball is going to land, on pain of receiving a head-high tackle from the chaser who will then also get a PK as well, and possibly either a RC or YC.

So we encourage players to take to the air with no responsibility for getting down safely, or for the safety of anyone whom they might injure with flying knees and feet, in the name of safety. Odd.

But, as you say, we will never agree on this.

 

[OB..]

It is now[...] more effective tactically to kick an up and under straight to an opposition player, and send a chaser. The defender will have to move away from where the ball is going to land

I understand your point, but it can be seen as a reward for accurate kicking that the defender has to adjust.

 

[Dixie]

I understand your point, but it can be seen as a reward for accurate kicking that the defender has to adjust.

or that the defender is forced to allow the attacker to collect the ball unchallenged. A high jumper does not leap from a standing start - he will take a run up to increase height. The static defender cannot jump as high as the running chaser. If he stands still, he's penalised when the jumper clatters into him. If he jumps, he's penalised for "taking the space" by not getting as high as the attacker. His only realistic option is to give way if he is to avoid being penalised. If he does not and tries to contest the ball, he's cynically putting the attacker in danger, and deserves a YC.

The contest for possession of the ball is one of Rugby’s key features

R.I.P.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The contest for possession of the ball is one of Rugby’s key features

R.I.P.

The wipers kick: a diagonal kick behind the defensive line and away from the opposing forwards.

R.I.P. !

Why would a team want to kick the ball to gain territory when they can kick to gain territory, and a good chance of a PK, so possession as well, and either three points or further territory and possession.

Once the tactic catches on, we will be heading Back to the Future, to 2009 when the over-use of aerial kick-chase became a blight on the game, and where not having the ball was better than having it.

I don't like where the game is currently headed with outcome-driven sanctions such as the Finn Russell and Glenn Hughes suspensions. Players should be sanctioned for what they do, not for the result of what they do.

 

[Crucial]

The opposite situation is also now causing consternation whereby the chaser and defender are both on the ground and the defender jumps as the chaser is committed to a timed tackle (as committed as Lawes was). Even if the chaser/tackler then sees the jump and tries to avoid the jumper, any touch is being penalised.

To me it's fairly clear. If you own the space where the ball is coming down you can only be tackled after collecting the ball. If you jump to collect, that is your risk. Currently players jump and cause danger when there is no need to do so except to offer themselves legal protection.

 

[OB..]

I don't like where the game is currently headed with outcome-driven sanctions such as the Finn Russell and Glenn Hughes suspensions. Players should be sanctioned for what they do, not for the result of what they do.

I don't agree that the Finn Russell case was outcome driven. AIUI it was determined on his failure to take into account the normal actions of others, something that it is not unreasonable to expect from international players.

I know you disagree with the official view, but that does not entitle you to claim there was a different rationale.

 

[OB..]

I am not comfortable with the often exaggerated claims being made about the dangers of this issue (since there is rarely a problem), nor about solutions that involve banning jumping.

I suppose one approach might be an NFL style Fair Catch where the catcher signals and is allowed to catch the ball before being tackled? Not sure.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I suppose one approach might be an NFL style Fair Catch where the catcher signals and is allowed to catch the ball before being tackled? Not sure.

I guess that is what the "mark" was initially used. Who knew kickers would actually try and catch their own kick?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't agree that the Finn Russell case was outcome driven. AIUI it was determined on his failure to take into account the normal actions of others, something that it is not unreasonable to expect from international players.

I know you disagree with the official view, but that does not entitle you to claim there was a different rationale.

So, if everything had been exactly the same and happened in exactly the same way, except that Dan Biggar landed on his feet, and carried on running, the referee should have given a YC/RC and Russell would have been cited and given a suspension? Really?