Jumping over the tackle again

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,082
Post Likes
2,117
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
has anyone any evidence of an incident such as this leading to injury to a player? (apart from the tackler's bruised ego from grabbing fresh air)
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Never seen anyone injured doing it but on the grounds that it has always been penalised as dangerous play and therefore only rarely happens, the sample pool is very small. Also never seen anyone injured whilst being tripped but similarly happens so rarely.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,794
Post Likes
3,130
has anyone any evidence of an incident such as this leading to injury to a player? (apart from the tackler's bruised ego from grabbing fresh air)
I guess we have all seen enough tackles that involved accidental contact between boot and head to know that this can be dangerous (as well as producing a lot of blood) .

Aside - with all the focus this week on Luke Cowan Dickie's controversial tackling technique (he dives at your shins) I wonder if we'll see any Welsh players on Saturday jumping over him and, if so, who will be PK'd
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,318
Post Likes
1,423
has anyone any evidence of an incident such as this leading to injury to a player? (apart from the tackler's bruised ego from grabbing fresh air)
Yes, a game I did.

A Very Large Player tried to jump over a wiger, much as we had here. The winger got all sorts of things wrong. end result was that he got a knee to the head and went off concussed with a yellow card for toppling the jumping player, who landed badly and did his collar bone. He also got YCed
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
11,996
Post Likes
1,748
in the interests of safety-enjoyment (nee equity)-law, could the winger have not been given a YC seeing as it wasnt his actions that led to the hurdler being toppled in the air?
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,053
Post Likes
2,332
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
A Very Large Player tried to jump over a wiger, much as we had here. The winger got all sorts of things wrong. end result was that he got a knee to the head and went off concussed with a yellow card for toppling the jumping player, who landed badly and did his collar bone. He also got YCed

Bit confused.

Winger YC for tackling in the air (effectively).
Large player YC for being in the air?

Surely they can't both be in the wrong?

Who got the penalty?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,794
Post Likes
3,130
Bit confused.

Winger YC for tackling in the air (effectively).
Large player YC for being in the air?

Surely they can't both be in the wrong?
That was the gist of nigel owens argument..
It's illegal to tackle someone in the air
Therefore it must be illegal to jump
So they are both committing an offence

No, I don't agree with it either
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
192
Post Likes
83
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
At the risk of over simplifying this, what differentiates this as dangerous play (by the ball carrier) for me is that the defenders is not expecting it.

This is why it is not the same as tackling someone in the air who is diving for the line, or jumping to catch a high ball.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,318
Post Likes
1,423
Bit confused.

Winger YC for tackling in the air (effectively).
Large player YC for being in the air?

Surely they can't both be in the wrong?

Who got the penalty?
Big Guy jumps. Clearly dangerous, so he's off for 10.
The winger, instead of doing what any sensible winger should have done and got out of the way attempted some kind of weird tackle/catch of the big guy when he was in the air. So, he got 10 minutes too.

original penalty against the Big Guy. Reversed for the dangerous "tackle" of the winger
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,053
Post Likes
2,332
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Big Guy jumps. Clearly dangerous, so he's off for 10.
The winger, instead of doing what any sensible winger should have done and got out of the way attempted some kind of weird tackle/catch of the big guy when he was in the air. So, he got 10 minutes too.

original penalty against the Big Guy. Reversed for the dangerous "tackle" of the winger

Which offence occurred first?
Surely the winger wouldn't have had to attempt "some kind of weird tackle/catch of the big guy" if the big guy hadn't illegally tried to jump the tackle in the first place?
Saying the winger should have got out of the way seems grossly unfair.
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
870
Post Likes
468
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Seeing the OP example, I don't think a winger can move out the way and just let the big guy through for a try uncontested with the confidence that the referee will award a penalty against the ball carrier. Also, in my experience, the hurdler typically jumps into the tackler, making it almost impossible to get out the of the way... the defender is rarely dictating if contact will be made here.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Which offence occurred first?
Surely the winger wouldn't have had to attempt "some kind of weird tackle/catch of the big guy" if the big guy hadn't illegally tried to jump the tackle in the first place?
Saying the winger should have got out of the way seems grossly unfair.
My emphasis. Agreed.

Blaming a winger and claiming that they are committing an illegal tackle in this case is bullsh*t in my opinion.

But, it seems that WR already include a level of blame for a tackler who, even though they may have attempted a tackle legally, make contact with the head of a player accidentally, due to the BC falling. I know there is mitagation for a change in BC height but once contact with the head is made, referee's (professional especially) seem adamant that its a minimum PK and mitagation for the actions of the BC only reduce the severity of the card, not reduce the PK to "play on".

Trying to argue that contact made with a BC who jumped into contact like this is a PK against the tackler is grossly unfair and just encourages the behaviour.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
And where exactly would we draw the line for a BC jumping/hopping to avoid a tackle?
What if it was an attempted ankles wrap tackle and the BC jumps just a little to avoid it? hardly dangerous.

I can see exactly why WR have not written a law against jumping to avoid a tackle! It would descend into the same ridiculous farce that haunts us with the "contest in the air" BS guidelines we have to contend with!

Leaving it as a possible dangerous play might well be the best option here, IMO. If the jump is egregiously creating a danger to the opposition then some discretion is there for the referee to decide that.
 
Last edited:

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,318
Post Likes
1,423
And where exactly would we draw the line for a BC jumping/hopping to avoid a tackle?
What if it was an attempted ankles wrap tackle and the BC jumps just a little to avoid it? hardly dangerous.

I can see exactly why WR have not written a law against jumping to avoid a tackle! It would descend into the same ridiculous farce that haunts us with the "contest in the air" BS guidelines we have to contend with!

Leaving it as a possible dangerous play might well be the best option here, IMO. If the jump is egregiously creating a danger to the opposition then some discretion is there for the referee to decide that.
Rumour has it - albeit by NZ press - that WR have in fact issued a clarification to this effect.

Can I find it? Can I bollocks.
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
192
Post Likes
83
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
And where exactly would we draw the line for a BC jumping/hopping to avoid a tackle?
What if it was an attempted ankles wrap tackle and the BC jumps just a little to avoid it? hardly dangerous.

I can see exactly why WR have not written a law against jumping to avoid a tackle! It would descend into the same ridiculous farce that haunts us with the "contest in the air" BS guidelines we have to contend with!

Leaving it as a possible dangerous play might well be the best option here, IMO. If the jump is egregiously creating a danger to the opposition then some discretion is there for the referee to decide that.
Surely we should revert to the dangerous/reckless law, which in itself is of course down to refs interpretation.

For example; a skip/small jump to avoid an ankle tap, is not dangerous. However, when a tackler is getting a boot in (or near) the head, whilst targeting a tackle around the thighs is, in my opinion, dangerous.
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
870
Post Likes
468
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
And where exactly would we draw the line for a BC jumping/hopping to avoid a tackle?
What if it was an attempted ankles wrap tackle and the BC jumps just a little to avoid it? hardly dangerous.

I can see exactly why WR have not written a law against jumping to avoid a tackle! It would descend into the same ridiculous farce that haunts us with the "contest in the air" BS guidelines we have to contend with!

Leaving it as a possible dangerous play might well be the best option here, IMO. If the jump is egregiously creating a danger to the opposition then some discretion is there for the referee to decide that.

This is a classic case of "you'll know it when you see it". If anyone is using the word "hurdle", then it is definitely unacceptable!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,794
Post Likes
3,130
I would say that the focus should be on boots near head.. if you see that, it's dangerous.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,794
Post Likes
3,130
Rumour has it - albeit by NZ press - that WR have in fact issued a clarification to this effect.

Can I find it? Can I bollocks.
Hey Presto - here it is



A.1
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.

In this specific case the sanction should be a PK against the ball carrier.

A.2 A ball carrier may dive with the ball in order to score a try, and we all agree that should be allowed. From an equity perspective, if they do so, a defender may attempt to make a safe and legal tackle on that player. As we have said above, jumping to avoid a tackle should be regarded as dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly,even if no contact is made.

Player welfare should remain the priority deciding factor for match officials in these very rare situations. In such instances as this rare example, which involves great player skill and dexterity, match officials have to make a judgement call as to which actions have taken place. If there is any element of dangerous play, in line with the above ruling, then a try cannot be the reward.

In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted. If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.
 
Top