[Law] Jumping or Diving Clarification required

[Jz558]

as far as I can make out this "you can't jump over a tackle" is in the same category as "you have to let him up". Unless there is some RFU edict that I'm missing. I've never seen anything from WR.

Yes, dangerous play is illegal ... but each incident will be managed on its own merit.

Just this in spades. Considerable portions of rugby law are subjective. On any given day I could probably be persuaded that May's try was a dive or a jump but I'd be consistent in not considering it dangerous play.

 

[crossref]

Just this in spades. Considerable portions of rugby law are subjective. On any given day I could probably be persuaded that May's try was a dive or a jump but I'd be consistent in not considering it dangerous play.

neither did I really - and yet his boot ddi seem to clip the tacklers head, so perhaps it was.

 

[didds]

as far as I can make out this "you can't jump over a tackle" is in the same category as "you have to let him up". Unless there is some RFU edict that I'm missing. I've never seen anything from WR.

Yes, dangerous play is illegal ... but each incident will be managed on its own merit.

This. 100%.

for if nothing else jumping to avoid a tackle form behind has a very very very very very low risk of dangerous play involved.
Jumping to avoid a tackle from right in front ie head on has a very very very very very high risk of dangerous play involved.

As the defender moves in that 180 degree arc from dead in front to totally behind that risk factor and dangerous play elelment changes constantly.

WR fraffs about with so many laws trying to create perfection that end up creating MORE issues lets leave this to a ref's decsion and if one ref one week has a different view than next week's ref ... that's the rub. Cos otherwise you are going to see a red card for somebody jumping/diving that catches a defender that at best will only tackle a calf from behind as the player scores anyway.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Good debate.
So are we clear, a player in possession diving or jumping for the line can be tackled in the air?
But what if that tackle or attempt results in an injury or a player landing on their head?

 

[Flish]

Good debate.
So are we clear, a player in possession diving or jumping for the line can be tackled in the air?
But what if that tackle or attempt results in an injury or a player landing on their head?

No, because that is specifically forbidden under 9.17, even before you consider reckless play - but then I think you knew that Not particularly fair is it, not for us to make things up to even it out though, there are other areas of play that are unfair on the defender too (pick and go on the try line and avoiding head / neck contact for example).

 

[Dickie E]

So are we clear, a player in possession diving or jumping for the line can be tackled in the air?

to the letter of law, no.

in reality, yes.

Things are dealt with a little bit differently when try scoring is involved.

Consider a tackle inches from the line. Would we require the tackler to roll away so that the ball carrier can reach out to score?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

The law examples in the good book show videos of players jumping to catch a kick which is what the law was for, not jumping for other reasons.
I agree with your interpretation Dickie E but I'd like to see world rugby clarify it to protect decisions made by Officals.

 

[OB..]

[...]

Consider a tackle inches from the line. Would we require the tackler to roll away so that the ball carrier can reach out to score?

That is my "Mexican Stand-off" situation. I recommend a quick whistle and a 5-metre attacking scrum.

 

[Dickie E]

That is my "Mexican Stand-off" situation. I recommend a quick whistle and a 5-metre attacking scrum.

I'd be looking for the tackler to release to allow ball to be recycled, but not roll away. In the messiness of this goal line scenario, a quick whistle would not be inappropriate.

 

[OB..]

I'd be looking for the tackler to release to allow ball to be recycled, but not roll away. In the messiness of this goal line scenario, a quick whistle would not be inappropriate.

If the tackle is preventing the ball carrier from reaching out to score, then forcing the tackler to release is demanding that he gives away a score - which seems inequitable.

 

[Decorily]

If the tackle is preventing the ball carrier from reaching out to score, then forcing the tackler to release is demanding that he gives away a score - which seems inequitable.

Really?
So you propose refereeing the game differently depending on how close the play is to the goal line!
I know this has been discussed previously but for me a tackle 20m out is the same as a tackle half meter out!
Similarly a penalty in the 1st min is the same as a penalty 'under the sticks' in the last!

 

[OB..]

Really?
So you propose refereeing the game differently depending on how close the play is to the goal line!
I know this has been discussed previously but for me a tackle 20m out is the same as a tackle half meter out!
Similarly a penalty in the 1st min is the same as a penalty 'under the sticks' in the last!

I think your view is inappropriately legalistic, and shows no empathy for the game.

 

[thepercy]

I think a typical dive to score is a low trajectory .. avoiding a tackle by going low
May was different , he dived over a tackler

Don't ask me whether it was legal or not .. am so confused now I don't know ! :wink:

Indeed this wasn't typical, it was extraordinary.

 

[thepercy]

Good debate.
So are we clear, a player in possession diving or jumping for the line can be tackled in the air?
But what if that tackle or attempt results in an injury or a player landing on their head?

I concur. I think 9.17 is only meant to be used when players have jumped to gain/compete for possession of the ball and not for ball carriers that are already in possession of the ball. Players running often have both feet off the ground. We don't want to create a situation where jumping makes a player impervious to being tackled. In the OP scenario the defender makes contact with May who's feet were off the ground even though the tackle wasn't completed, and saw no mention from the team of referees, no admonishment, no YC, no PT.

 

[crossref]

I concur. I think 9.17 is only meant to be used when players have jumped to gain/compete for possession of the ball and not for ball carriers that are already in possession of the ball. Players running often have both feet off the ground. We don't want to create a situation where jumping makes a player impervious to being tackled. In the OP scenario the defender makes contact with May who's feet were off the ground even though the tackle wasn't completed, and saw no mention from the team of referees, no admonishment, no YC, no PT.

The possibility that May was engaged in dangerous play didn't seem to even occur to them. That really surprised me,

to be clear - I am happy for them to judge that May wasn't dangerous, to me that's a reasonable view. But I was surprised they didn't even (seem to) consider it, especially as boot did seem to hit head. Surely whenever boot meets head, the officials should consider whether there was foul play or not.

 

[nimblehippo]

The basic actions of hurdling a tackler and diving for the line are different. The former raises a distinct likelihood of boot meeting head when they are travelling in different directions. The latter does not.

This 100% - a dive for the line takes the quickest route between two points, possibly lower. May's hurdle was straight out of the NFL, where there aren't issues hitting people in the head or taking them out in the air.

As to whether it being illegal depends on contact, if I see a player lash out a leg trying for a trip and missing, he's still going to the bin. I'd say level of sanction depends on contact.

In fairness, I'd also ping him for his little skips when dodging players in open play, but I happen to think any jumping to avoid a tackle is unfair, potentially dangerous and not something we want kids to be replicating.

 

[OB..]

Surely whenever boot meets head, the officials should consider whether there was foul play or not.

I remember Gregan tackling Lomu by holding on to his lower leg. If the foot had hit Gregan's head, would it have been appropriate to consider foul play by Lomu?!

 

[crossref]

I remember Gregan tackling Lomu by holding on to his lower leg. If the foot had hit Gregan's head, would it have been appropriate to consider foul play by Lomu?!

consider for half a second, and reject yes

 

[buff]

Wayne Barnes' opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zeNxJLhqNE

 

[didds]

Wayne Barnes' opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zeNxJLhqNE

except that doesnt actually adress what May did - unless we simply accept that any aerial route to the try line is a dive no matter what it looks like.

That aside the Italian defender wasnt in the position that Captain America is in. He was behind and to the side.

So the video is not really any help whatsoever...