Jumping the tackler

[Fatboy_Ginge]

I'm having a conversation/discussion on another website over this particular bit of video.

The jump of the tackler occurs at about 10 seconds in. The ref awards the try and I am of the opinion that this was the correct decision. I'm now doubting that this was correct and would appreciate some guidance.

 

[Taff]

I know Shane Williams did something similar in an international.

I can't remember if a try was awarded, but I do remember a lot of people called in Dangerous Play.

 

[Dickie E]

Play on for me

 

[dave_clark]

i'd be inclined to call dangerous play there, just so many things that could go wrong.

having said that i did think there was something in the laws that covered this, but a quick check disproves that. so perhaps i'm way off kilter with this one...

 

[ddjamo]

Play on for me

x2

I would remind him of his duty to be safe on his way back.

 

[OB..]

I see it as dangerous play. If it were regularly allowed, there would be a lot of times it went wrong - too many IMHO. At the moment it is a rare event, so it might not seem to be a problem.

 

[chbg]

Previous discussions:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...ling-The-Tackler&highlight=jumping+the+tackle

 

[Taff]

i'd be inclined to call dangerous play there, just so many things that could go wrong. having said that i did think there was something in the laws that covered this, but a quick check disproves that. so perhaps i'm way off kilter with this one...

Try the definition of Foul Play.

Definitions: Foul play is anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

Tacking itself is inherently dangerous. More injuries are caused by tackles that any other part of the game, yet its part and parcel of the game.

While hurdling a tackler can potentially go terribly wrong, so can ordinary tackles, for both the tackler and the ball carrier player. We saw an example of that in the Singapore 10's (discussed elsewhere).

 

[Dickie E]

The ref has to make a tough decision.
Option A: let play continue with a possibility of danger
Option B: blow whistle and face the certainty of danger when ref is hung, drawn & quartered by rampaging spectators for being a Jobsworth

 

[OB..]

Jumping a tackle significantly increases the likelihood of a boot coming into sharp contact with a head travelling in the opposite direction.

 

[talbazar]

Ask yourself this:
What would be your decision if the BC's foot contacted with tackler-to-be's face?
1. Play on
2. PK (or more) against Tackler for taking an opponent in the air
3. PK (or more) against BC for booting an opponent in the face

If you answer 3, I'd say you should PK the BC in the original post for consistency purpose and to remind him that putting an opponent in danger is not in the spirit of the game.
To some extend you can relate that to the tip tackle: either something goes wrong or not doesn't matter, sanction is clear.

As OB said earlier: it is a rare event... And I for one would prefer it to remain that way...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[Dickie E]

Ask yourself this:
What would be your decision if the BC's foot contacted with tackler-to-be's face?
1. Play on
2. PK (or more) against Tackler for taking an opponent in the air
3. PK (or more) against BC for booting an opponent in the face

If you answer 3, I'd say you should PK the BC in the original post for consistency purpose and to remind him that putting an opponent in danger is not in the spirit of the game.
To some extend you can relate that to the tip tackle: either something goes wrong or not doesn't matter, sanction is clear.

As OB said earlier: it is a rare event... And I for one would prefer it to remain that way...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

I would answer 1. As you say, it is a rare occurrence and I'd treat it as part of the game.

 

[ianh5979]

I would answer 1. As you say, it is a rare occurrence and I'd treat it as part of the game.

Are you saying just because you try to jump over a tackler you are allowed to kick him in the face?

 

[Blackberry]

Some events are inherently too dangerous, so they are penalised even if those involved get away without harm. Examples include the tip tackle or the high tackle, where the recipients might be lucky and get dumped no harder than an ordinary tackle. However, the risk of injury is too great, so we penalise all these types of tackle. It is a kind of "statutory" offence, where you are penalised whether you did harm or not.

I guess, without sounding trite, the Game does not care that if everyone came away without injury, it was still too dangerous so for that you are penalised.

 

[TheBFG]

cracking support play :clap:

I think most would expect that to be called as a PK

 

[Phil E]

Poor tackling technique, far too low.
There is no way I am going to stop play for that. It's not clear, obvious or expected (as seen on here, where we can't agree between ourselves). Even the defending team wouldn't expect a PK for that.....just a jug from the tackler.

But as ddjamo says, a word in the ball carrier's ear would be appropriate.

 

[OB..]

I would answer 1. As you say, it is a rare occurrence and I'd treat it as part of the game.

Why is it a rare occurrence? I suspect that is because many (most?) players would expect to get penalised for it. Take that away and I would expect the number of incidents to rise.

I can't prove that, fortunately., so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Browner]

This is a tricky assessment, in the absence of a specific prohibition ........

A) should potentially dangerous actions always be PK'd even if they don't become actually dangerous ?
B) does the game expect players to hurdle/jump/vault an opponent as a bonafide evasion tactic?

We've seen players who jump to catch the ball in open play get protection from a hit, should a ball carrier get similar protection?

But, "far too low"?? yep, anything below the chest bone is far too low in modern rugby ..(sarc)

On balance, I'm heading towards the risk actually being with the BC, if his athletism means he avoids contact with the tackler then play on, however his risk is that if he actually makes contact with the tackler then its either a YC or RC !

Having said this, I've no idea how I'd deal with a psuedo kung-fu style flying kick that narrowly misses the tackler by a few centimetres!!

Until its specifically outlawed the " hurdle"s acceptability remains personal to each ref, IIRC.

 

[didds]

PK and a stern word. that's just bloody stupid.

didds