Jumping into a tackle

[Volun-selected]

I‘m seeing a number of posts framing this as a great play off De Klerk to offload during a potential red card tackle that leads to a try. As entertaining as FDK is to watch, to me this is a clear jump into a tackle.

As far as I know, there was no penalty against the two tackling players or FdK and the try stood (the onscreen score goes from 31 to 36). I also feel this shouldn’t have been lauded by a World Rugby outlet. The French text (translates badly by me) has: “Faf De Klerck the Acrobat. What name would you give to this pass?”

To me it should have been a PK against FDK and no try. Am I missing something?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627994960497713154

 

[Volun-selected]

Screen grab of just before he makes contact.

 

[Dickie E]

what's wrong with jumping into a tackle? Law reference please

 

[Volun-selected]

what's wrong with jumping into a tackle? Law reference please

Listed as Dangerous Play

9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

 

[Flish]

what's wrong with jumping into a tackle? Law reference please

Clarified specifically here - https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarification/2022/3/

However, was he jumping to avoid a tackle - and thus dangerous, or merely jumping? I would probably have played on

 

[crossref]

it was not dangerous for the tackler
It was dangerous to himself as it's quite likely to lead to him being tipped over and landing on his head (indeed that is very nearly what did happen).
Given that - if he does fall on his head, the tackler is likely to receive a YC or RC for something that was no fault of his own, it would be nice to be able to penalise it, but I don't think 9.11 quite works for that.

 

[Locke]

My view is that if is clearly a penalty under 9.11. It doesn’t matter if he is jumping to try to avoid a tackle or merely jumping, he has jumped into a tackler, which the law prohibits him from doing.
It prohibits it because it creates dangerous situations exactly like this one. This one ended well but FDK was essentially upside down at one point and it could have ended much worse.

 

[crossref]

My view is that if is clearly a penalty under 9.11. It doesn’t matter if he is jumping to try to avoid a tackle or merely jumping, he has jumped into a tackler, which the law prohibits him from doing.
It prohibits it because it creates dangerous situations exactly like this one. This one ended well but FDK was essentially upside down at one point and it could have ended much worse.

it's problematic because 9.11 - and Law 9 itself - is really about being reckless or dangerous to others

9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

so, I dunno.

certainly I wouldn't object to a ref giving a PK. but also easy to see why another ref plays on.

that one wouldn't alert my constant spider-sense for danger -- even though it would ping my slower cognitive radar for detecting technical-offenses

 

[Locke]

it's problematic because 9.11 - and Law 9 itself - is really about being reckless or dangerous to others

9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

so, I dunno.

certainly I wouldn't object to a ref giving a PK. but also easy to see why another ref plays on.

that one wouldn't alert my constant spider-sense for danger -- even though it would ping my slower cognitive radar for detecting technical-offenses

I see your point. It makes sense to me to discourage all jumping into a tackle. Especially when considering WR’s clarification, I would penalize this every time, regardless of if the particular jump-into-a-tackler was dangerous or not. From WR:

We agree – jumping to hurdle a potential tackler is dangerous play, as is the act of a ball carrier jumping into a tackle. Even if no contact is made, we believe this act is in clear contravention of law 9.11, and runs contrary to the game-wide focus on player welfare.

WR wants it to be a penalty “even if no contact is made”. I’m extrapolating to conclude that any “non-dangerous” contact from jumping into a tackler should also be penalized.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

It was possible that no contact could have been made if the tackle was lower.
For me it does alert my "spider sense" and looks wrong.
I would have penalised Faff 9.11 law

 

[BikingBud]

FDK is a liability, fortunately for him he appears to be made of rubber and he has got away with a lot of crazy stuff over the years.

As the game is refereed to outcomes rather than actions, this will probably continue until he seriously hurts someone else.

 

[Stu10]

it was not dangerous for the tackler
It was dangerous to himself as it's quite likely to lead to him being tipped over and landing on his head (indeed that is very nearly what did happen).
Given that - if he does fall on his head, the tackler is likely to receive a YC or RC for something that was no fault of his own, it would be nice to be able to penalise it, but I don't think 9.11 quite works for that.

This is a major thing in this example... if he had landed on his head and needed to be carried off, forcing the referee to make a decision (rather than play on), what would have been the outcome. Blue should not even be penalised IMHO, but I could see them losing a player, which would have been a serious miscarriage of justice! Might FDK have been playing for this outcome?

 

[Stu10]

I see your point. It makes sense to me to discourage all jumping into a tackle. Especially when considering WR’s clarification, I would penalize this every time, regardless of if the particular jump-into-a-tackler was dangerous or not. From WR:



WR wants it to be a penalty “even if no contact is made”. I’m extrapolating to conclude that any “non-dangerous” contact from jumping into a tackler should also be penalized.

What makes things even worse is that the tweet is from WR France!!! To me, that means WR is promoting this play despite WR clarification 2022-3.

 

[didds]

This is a major thing in this example... if he had landed on his head and needed to be carried off, forcing the referee to make a decision (rather than play on), what would have been the outcome. Blue should not even be penalised IMHO, but I could see them losing a player, which would have been a serious miscarriage of justice! Might FDK have been playing for this outcome?

I have absolutely no doubt that in this scenario a RC would have been the outcome. "Cos my hands are tied" etc.

 

[Volun-selected]

I have absolutely no doubt that in this scenario a RC would have been the outcome. "Cos my hands are tied" etc.

And this drives me to distraction, as far as I’m concerned there has to be equity. If a player has done everything right - got in a solid, realistic position to catch the ball, maybe braced for impact as they see several players charging at them, then if a runner then jumps into them I don’t see why the jumper should be rewarded for putting both themselves and the static player at risk.

I really would like to see more clarity and enforcement against jumping into a tackle.

 

[Locke]

I really would like to see more clarity and enforcement against jumping into a tackle.

For my money, the clarity is there. Enforcement appears to be lagging somewhat, at least in this instance.

 

[BikingBud]

For my money, the clarity is there. Enforcement appears to be lagging somewhat, at least in this instance.

We often see what appears to be clear in the LoTG not applied or misinterpreted for show case rugby and frequently perpetuated by ex-professional players being paid large sums to act as pundits.

A large number of spectators will believe these "experts" even when they directly contradict what is being applied by the match referee.

But yes we should see this applied more frequently and equitably, is it a tackle in the air or did the ball carrier jump into the tackle? Same principle applies to catching the up and under!

 

[crossref]

I think its the old thing that
WR see something they don't like and decide to make a law about it
They write the law without completely thinking through all the different scenarios that could be impacted by the new law.

 

[number11]

But is the law meant like this?

9.11 Players must not do anything that is (reckless or dangerous) to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

or like this?

9.11 Players must not do anything that is (reckless) or (dangerous to others) including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

I go for the second interpretation. I think the "reckless" here applies to the player's own safety.

In the clarification "reckless" is not in the quoted law. Was it possibly added after this clarification?

 

[crossref]

In the clarification "reckless" is not in the quoted law. Was it possibly added after this clarification?

no, it was a misquote. 9.11 has been the same since at least 2018 (quite likely longer - I haven't bothered to check older books)