Jumping over the tackle again

[didds]

f*ckwits gonna f*ckwit I guess Stu! ;-)

 

[Balones]

Hurdling someone sounds so much more safe and skilful than jumping over someone
Is that why we don’t have a 110M jumping race?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

No, jumping over a tackle is illegal in the first 90 or last 5m of the park. Diving for a try isn't. The only thing a ref needs to distuinguish is a jump/hurdle from a dive. I reckon I can do that.

What constitutes a jump vs dive? Are either a defined action within the law book? What happens if a diving players arm/knee/boot makes contact with a tacklers head? Is diving over a prone player ok or dangerous? Why is a player who jumps to catch a ball protected but a player who jumps with a ball not?

The clarification came out so quickly that I doubt any significant consultation with referee associations was undertaken and, like many clarifications, there are more questions than answers due to them addressing the second question in the way they did.

 

[Jz558]

I’m not often a fan of Word Rugby, but in this instance I agree with others on here that the clarification was pretty good and reinforces how these rare instances should be dealt with. World Rugby have clearly stated that “jumping to hurdle a potential tackler is dangerous play, as is the act of a ball carrier jumping into a tackle”. The speed of response seems to be a reflection of the fact that most people involved in the game understood this to be the case anyway and were alarmed by the try in the OP being allowed to stand.

In terms of how to define a jump v a dive, I’m still confident that I can identify that without World Rugby’s help (look at the cock-up they made of flying wedge!).

The second question does appear less clear cut than the first but that is why narrow definitions don’t work in rugby, there will always be borderline cases. Fortunately referees are still given enough latitude within the framework of the laws to deal with those situations. Asking for ever narrower definitions wont help referees and those that demand absolute consistency either don’t understand the game or have to be made aware that it is only possible to a point.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I’m not often a fan of Word Rugby, but in this instance I agree with others on here that the clarification was pretty good and reinforces how these rare instances should be dealt with. World Rugby have clearly stated that “jumping to hurdle a potential tackler is dangerous play, as is the act of a ball carrier jumping into a tackle”. The speed of response seems to be a reflection of the fact that most people involved in the game understood this to be the case anyway and were alarmed by the try in the OP being allowed to stand.

In terms of how to define a jump v a dive, I’m still confident that I can identify that without World Rugby’s help (look at the cock-up they made of flying wedge!).

The second question does appear less clear cut than the first but that is why narrow definitions don’t work in rugby, there will always be borderline cases. Fortunately referees are still given enough latitude within the framework of the laws to deal with those situations. Asking for ever narrower definitions wont help referees and those that demand absolute consistency either don’t understand the game or have to be made aware that it is only possible to a point.

Why not define it as when a BC jumps over another that isn't acceptable (meaning that even diving over a ruck or leaping head first over a player would still be illegal), while a dive taken without passing over a player is legal? Much simpler than the clarification where they tell you a dive to score is acceptable, without actually saying what a dive is. Can I dive feet first if I'm trying to score?

 

[SimonSmith]

What constitutes a jump vs dive? Are either a defined action within the law book? What happens if a diving players arm/knee/boot makes contact with a tacklers head? Is diving over a prone player ok or dangerous? Why is a player who jumps to catch a ball protected but a player who jumps with a ball not?

The clarification came out so quickly that I doubt any significant consultation with referee associations was undertaken and, like many clarifications, there are more questions than answers due to them addressing the second question in the way they did.

Off the top of my head:
A dive will tend to be head first, and be either horizontal or towards the ground.
If the initial direction is upwards, then the idea of the jump comes much more into play

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Off the top of my head:
A dive will tend to be head first, and be either horizontal or towards the ground.
If the initial direction is upwards, then the idea of the jump comes much more into play

Agreed, but WR tell us what to look for but not what they consider to be a jump vs dive. The second example in the clarification would be a jump by your reasoning?

 

[Dickie E]

This is one of those topics where people (in general, not particularly this community) can become blinkered, IMHO... I've seen on Twitter and other forums, people making statements that the law does not directly address hurdling a tackle, or cite examples when a penalty was not awarded, therefore they argue that hurdling a tackle must be allowed, at least in some instances (i.e. when a penalty has not been awarded). The fact that a penalty has not been awarded does not necessarily make it a legal action, the same way a forward pass does not become legal because there is an example when a ref did not blow for a scrum.

up until now the law has been silent on hurdling tacklers so it is not unreasonable for observers to see a referee not penalise the incident and conclude that it is legal. That is quite different to a referee missing a forward pass which is a set-in-stone infringement.

 

[Volun-selected]

Why not define it as when a BC jumps over another that isn't acceptable (meaning that even diving over a ruck or leaping head first over a player would still be illegal), while a dive taken without passing over a player is legal? Much simpler than the clarification where they tell you a dive to score is acceptable, without actually saying what a dive is. Can I dive feet first if I'm trying to score?

I find the problem with hard and fast definitions is that they can often fail to add anything for the clear-cut cases and create a world of pain for the more nuanced cases. At the risk of reductio ad absurdum… as an example, if we make it illegal to dive over a player then what happens when BC coming off the back of a ruck or maul near goal line sees a gap between 2 defenders and just as they dive a player on the floor or one of the defenders sticks out a leg? The BC just dived over a player even if just their foot, so try disallowed and PK to defending team?
What I personally need is more examples - ideally with rulings agreed by multiple top refs of what is inside and outside the law, the reasons why, what would have tipped the ruling a different way - and then leave it to ref discretion on the day.
For example, tackle a player jumping in the air to catch a ball and we all are looking for the same things - was it a fair contest with good/bad timing, and if unfair where did the jumper land - before we apply our discretion. No definition of fair or timing needed.

 

[Jz558]

Why not define it as when a BC jumps over another that isn't acceptable (meaning that even diving over a ruck or leaping head first over a player would still be illegal), while a dive taken without passing over a player is legal? Much simpler than the clarification where they tell you a dive to score is acceptable, without actually saying what a dive is. Can I dive feet first if I'm trying to

Why not define it as when a BC jumps over another that isn't acceptable (meaning that even diving over a ruck or leaping head first over a player would still be illegal), while a dive taken without passing over a player is legal? Much simpler than the clarification where they tell you a dive to score is acceptable, without actually saying what a dive is. Can I dive feet first if I'm trying to score?

You’re sort of missing the point. The offence isn’t jumping or hurdling or diving, it’s dangerous play. Can you dive feet first to score? Dam right you can, fill your boots, providing its not dangerous. Can you jump up and down, wave your studs at people, lift your knees to protect you whilst you’re in the air when catching a ball, dive head first over a pile of people? Yes you can, unless it is dangerous play in which case you can’t

 

[Jarrod Burton]

You’re sort of missing the point. The offence isn’t jumping or hurdling or diving, it’s dangerous play. Can you dive feet first to score? Dam right you can, fill your boots, providing its not dangerous. Can you jump up and down, wave your studs at people, lift your knees to protect you whilst you’re in the air when catching a ball, dive head first over a pile of people? Yes you can, unless it is dangerous play in which case you can’t

You've hit the crux - its about dangerous play. Whether a player jumps/dives/leaps/belly flops or vaults it should come down to whether a play is dangerous not what how we interpret the initial angle of take off and whether the player is attempting to score.

The clarification first says jumping a player is dangerous, then goes to - unless you are diving which is ok, and then finishes with - but this could still be dangerous. Make it simple - if you jump/dive over a player and its dangerous, its sanctionable, end of story. Don't muddy the water with ifs and buts, but WR are great at picking examples in clarifications which serve to confuse more than confirm.

 

[Dickie E]

The clarification first says jumping a player is dangerous,

for the purpose of accuracy which could be important. The clarification says that jumping over a player is only outlawed if that player is attempting to tackle.

 

[VM75]

Potential foul play doesn't exist, foul play either occurs or it doesn't. Every single tackle situation EVER has the potential for foul play from either BC or Tackler.

Skillful evasion should be applauded, not penalised.

The risk of hitting a tackler with feet or Knees (and thereby getting a red card) will dissuade most players incapable of such skilful agility from attempting it.

If a tackler throws himself headfirst toward the feet of a BC then i'd much rather see the tackler skilfully hurdled than see the tacklers head collide with the BC's feet or knees.

 

[Dickie E]

Potential foul play doesn't exist, foul play either occurs or it doesn't. Every single tackle situation EVER has the potential for foul play from either BC or Tackler.

Skillful evasion should be applauded, not penalised.

The risk of hitting a tackler with feet or Knees (and thereby getting a red card) will dissuade most players incapable of such skilful agility from attempting it.

If a tackler throws himself headfirst toward the feet of a BC then i'd much rather see the tackler skilfully hurdled than see the tacklers head collide with the BC's feet or knees.

this ^^^

 

[Balones]

Perhaps we need to differentiate between a front on jump and a sideways tackle hurdle? The latter is less dangerous that the former I believe. Speaking as a highly skilful hurdler.

 

[OB..]

How should you approach the effort to tackle a renowned hurdler? Lower than usual is probably a waste of time. Higher than usual risks getting kicked . Higher than that could become an illegal high tackle if he ducks instead of jumping.

Of course it is always possible that he could effectively injure himself if you manage to upset him in the air. Would anyone then penalise the tackler?!