jumping for the ball

[crossref]

Robert Kitson in the Guardian today says something interesting - my emphasis -

Even when the fit-again Jack Nowell was sent to the sin-bin for taking out Brown in the air as the pair jumped for the same ball – the man propelling himself highest off the ground now has right of way which seems an odd way of improving player safety – there was no respite for the visitors

Not heard exactly that before. Anyone else heard anything? have top-level referees been given some new guidance?

I guess the point Kitson is making is that this approach encourages leaping into the air, but is it real 'thing' ?

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/sep/28/exeter-harlequins-aviva-premiership-match-report

 

[Dixie]

This has been much discussed by Austin Healey et al on BT Sport, and so remains as clear as mud. We are told (though our informants do not have a good track record for technical accuracy) that there is now an idea of a "duty of care" for the other jumper, and if something bad happens you will be YC'd at least for failing in that duty. The summary by Kitson is a neat encapsulation of the absurdity this can lead to. While the policy seems to come at the issue from the other direction (whether intentionally or not, if you get underneath the other jumper, you tip him and cause a dangerous situation), Kitson's summary that if you can jump higher you get all the rights seems to grab the essence of it.

 

[crossref]

so you think it's Kitson's summary of the ongoing discussion, rather than any specific recent/updated guidance.
yes, could well be.

 

[RobLev]

And of course there's the RC suspension decision that it's the player who has to keep looking over his shoulder to track the flight of the ball who has the responsibility to avoid the collision, not the player who is running toward the ball and his opponent and therefore has a clear view of both.

 

[Taff]

... Kitson's summary that if you can jump higher you get all the rights seems to grab the essence of it.

Isn't this creating a more dangerous situation? Ie it encourages players to jump as high as possible in the hope that they are higher than their opponent and the lower one automatically loses if it all goes pear-shaped. What's wrong with staying on the ground? The higher you are, the further you have to fall and the bigger the risk surely.

My understanding was that if both players are considered to be going for the ball then it was just bad luck. I admit though I'm starting to get confused with all this talk of "Duty of Care" and you could argue this both ways - ie the jumper has a duty of care to himself too.

It seems to be getting more common and I fear it's only a matter of time before we see a player break his neck live on telly. :frown:

 

[Pegleg]

Anyone have a copy of any IRB or union issued directive that we can see?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I gave a PK for a jumper playing a player in the air whilst both were jumping. The higher jumper had his legs knocked sideways and landed in a "press-up position". Some muttering from players and spectators but I sold it like a good 'un.

I did struggle with a few of the last season's RCs for jumping/knocking/landing.

 

[Browner]

Couple of weeks ago both jumpers lept high, focussed on the ball AND had hands reached skyward.

They collided mid air, both fell to the deck in a separate heap,

The non kicking catchers supporters 'bellowed' for a foul, but to my eye it was a fairly equal mid air challenge, so no PK/YC or RC and a big yell "fair contest-play on" ....... both captains agreed afterwards it was x2 genuine catch attempting players , nothing more.

Home crowd clearly been watchinglistening to too much BT Sport !!

 

[Ian_Cook]

What we have at the moment is an utter pigs breakfast. Its time for the madness to stop, and I can only see two possible ways to stop it...

1. Make it illegal for any player to jump for the ball in General Play. Apply the Law 14 mantra "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet". If you've jumped in the air, your feet are no longer in contact with the ground, therefore you are not your feet.

2. Make it so that only members of the non-kicking team are allowed to jump for a kicked ball. That way, chasers would be restricted to timing their chase to tackle the catching player when his feet touch the ground.

I think both would cut down the amount of kick and chase because it would make kicking far less rewarding as a kicked ball caught by an opponent will likely result in a loss of possession unless a chaser can turn the ball over.

 

[chbg]

I like Option 2; Option 1 would be very difficult to apply - during running both feet are off the ground (which is why race-walking is such a strange motion).

 

[Ian_Cook]

I like Option 2; Option 1 would be very difficult to apply - during running both feet are off the ground (which is why race-walking is such a strange motion).

No problem with running.

We already make the distinction that we don't penalise player for tackling a ball carrier whose feet are off the ground purely because of his running motion. If we did, more than half of all tackles could be PK (a sprinting runner spends more than 50% of their time in "flight" phase).