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) .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.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)
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
That was the gist of nigel owens argument..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?
Big Guy jumps. Clearly dangerous, so he's off for 10.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
My emphasis. Agreed.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.
Rumour has it - albeit by NZ press - that WR have in fact issued a clarification to this effect.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.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.
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.
Hey Presto - here it isRumour has it - albeit by NZ press - that WR have in fact issued a clarification to this effect.
Can I find it? Can I bollocks.