Jumping the tackler

[RobLev]

...

The Law was introduced with the intention of protecting players jumping to catch a ball directly after it has been kicked by either a team-mate or an opponent.

...

Which Law? There are two: 10.4(e), which is clearly written for the general case, and 10.4(i), which is clearly written to protect a player jumping to catch the ball (including "in a lineout", which disposes of the "from a kick" claim")?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Which Law? There are two: 10.4(e), which is clearly written for the general case, and 10.4(i), which is clearly written to protect a player jumping to catch the ball (including "in a lineout", which disposes of the "from a kick" claim")?

I would have though it was obvious that we were talking about 10.4(e) since we mentioned catching a kicked ball.

AFAIK, you can't kick the ball into a lineout (and no one has questioned the legality of hurdling the line-out )

The 1996 Laws did actually state the reference to fielding a kick

[LAWS]LAW 26. FOUL PLAY
Foul Play is any action by a player which is contrary to the letter and spirit of
the Game and includes obstruction, unfair play, misconduct, dangerous play,
unsporting behaviour, retaliation and repeated infringements.

<snipped>

(3) Misconduct, Dangerous Play

<snipped>

Notes:-
(iii) "Playing the man without the ball" and all forms of dangerous tackling
including early, late and stiff arm "tackling" or tackling or attempting to tackle a
player around the neck or head or above the line of the shoulders must be
punished severely. Players who willfully resort to this type of foul play must be
ordered off the field. Advantage should be played, but a penalty try must be
awarded if the dangerous tackle prevents a probable try.

(iv) It is for the referee to decide what constitutes a dangerous tackle, having
regard to the circumstances, e.g. the apparent intentions of the tackler, or the
nature of the tackle, or the defenseless position of the player being tackled or
knocked over, which may be the cause of serious injury.

(v)The following actions constitute dangerous play:-

(a) If a player charges or knocks down an opponent carrying the ball
without any attempt to grasp him (as in a tackle);

(b) If a player taps or pulls the foot or feet of another player who is
jumping in a line-out;

(c) If a player attempts to tackle a player who, when fielding a kick in open
play, is off the ground jumping for the ball.[/LAWS]

That last bit, Note (v)(c) was the one I referred to when I said that the intent of the introduction of the "tackle in the air" Law was to protect that player, and that player alone.

I cannot recall if both the line-out and open play provisions came in in the same year (I think they did, and I think it was around 1993. I'm sure OB will know.

 

[RobLev]

I would have though it was obvious that we were talking about 10.4(e) since we mentioned catching a kicked ball.

I'm sorry, but it is Law 10.4(i) that refers to jumping for a ball (kicked or not), and provides protection for such a player beyond simply not being tackled.

AFAIK, you can't kick the ball into a lineout...

Hence my comment...

The 1996 Laws did actually state the reference to fielding a kick

[LAWS]LAW 26. FOUL PLAY
Foul Play is any action by a player which is contrary to the letter and spirit of
the Game and includes obstruction, unfair play, misconduct, dangerous play,
unsporting behaviour, retaliation and repeated infringements.

<snipped>

(3) Misconduct, Dangerous Play

<snipped>

Notes:-
(iii) "Playing the man without the ball" and all forms of dangerous tackling
including early, late and stiff arm "tackling" or tackling or attempting to tackle a
player around the neck or head or above the line of the shoulders must be
punished severely. Players who willfully resort to this type of foul play must be
ordered off the field. Advantage should be played, but a penalty try must be
awarded if the dangerous tackle prevents a probable try.

(iv) It is for the referee to decide what constitutes a dangerous tackle, having
regard to the circumstances, e.g. the apparent intentions of the tackler, or the
nature of the tackle, or the defenseless position of the player being tackled or
knocked over, which may be the cause of serious injury.

(v)The following actions constitute dangerous play:-

(a) If a player charges or knocks down an opponent carrying the ball
without any attempt to grasp him (as in a tackle);

(b) If a player taps or pulls the foot or feet of another player who is
jumping in a line-out;

(c) If a player attempts to tackle a player who, when fielding a kick in open
play, is off the ground jumping for the ball.[/LAWS]

That last bit, Note (v)(c) was the one I referred to when I said that the intent of the introduction of the "tackle in the air" Law was to protect that player, and that player alone.

I cannot recall if both the line-out and open play provisions came in in the same year (I think they did, and I think it was around 1993. I'm sure OB will know.

Current law 10.4(i) equates to (v)(b) and (v)(c) together, covering both cases of jumping for the ball; so 10.4(e) must either have no meaning, or apply to someone who is off the ground but not jumping for the ball (such as hurdling a tackler...?).

EDIT: And prior to the 2003 Laws, there was an exception to 10.4(e):

[LAWS]Exception: A player is permitted to attempt to tackle a player who is in possession of the ball and is in the act of diving in an attempt to score a try[/LAWS]

which makes it quite clear that 10.4(e) was not intended purely to protect kick fielders; if it were, the exception would not have been necessary.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm sorry, but it is Law 10.4(i) that refers to jumping for a ball (kicked or not), and provides protection for such a player beyond simply not being tackled.



Hence my comment...



Current law 10.4(i) equates to (v)(b) and (v)(c) together, covering both cases of jumping for the ball; so 10.4(e) must either have no meaning, or apply to someone who is off the ground but not jumping for the ball (such as hurdling a tackler...?).

Yes, they were combined in the 2000 major rewrite. IMO, this is an unintentional cock-up, and another case of the 12 year old proof-readers striking again.

I refuse to believe that the Lawmakers intended to make this Law cover any of the scenarios a. to e. that I listed in post #60.

 

[RobLev]

...

EDIT: And prior to the 2003 Laws, there was an exception to 10.4(e):

[LAWS]Exception: A player is permitted to attempt to tackle a player who is in possession of the ball and is in the act of diving in an attempt to score a try[/LAWS]

which makes it quite clear that 10.4(e) was not intended purely to protect kick fielders; if it were, the exception would not have been necessary.

The exception - indeed the relevant part of 10.4(e) - appears to have been introduced in 2002 specifically to protect those not jumping for the ball - see this page:

Players in the Air
This part of Law 10 was amended to make it clear that tackling any player in the air was dangerous – not just when receiving a kick. There is an exception allowing defenders to tackle a ball carrier who is diving for the goal line. “Tackling” was added to the list of what cannot be done to a jumper at a line-out.

EDIT: The 2001-02 Laws had this as the seventh paragraph of 10.4(e):

In open play, a player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground because
that player is jumping to catch the ball.

So the RRSNY interpretation I refer to above appears to be correct; 10.4(e) was deliberately amended to protect all players in the air from being tackled - it is not confined to kick fielders.

 

[RobLev]

Yes, they were combined in the 2000 major rewrite. IMO, this is an unintentional cock-up, and another case of the 12 year old proof-readers striking again.

See my edit to my comment above which crossed with yours.

I refuse to believe that the Lawmakers intended to make this Law cover any of the scenarios a. to e. that I listed in post #60.

Those being:

...a ball carrier:

a. who jumps as an opponent tackles him
b. who jumps to catch a pass.
c. from being tackled during the 15-20% of the stride time when the runner's feet are both off the ground (between the end of the swing phase and footstrike).
d. when diving for the try-line.
e. who jumps to catch a bouncing ball.

My response:

a. this is the issue here - but I'd agree that it shouldn't allow the BC to manufacture an offence
b. we had a long thread involving Hartley being penalised for precisely this action in the England-Wales 2014 Six Nations match: was it Hartley's third strike so he should have been binned?
c. agree - this was OB's point when this has been discussed before;
d. this was the subject of the now removed exception...
e. if you protect a player catching a bomb direct, it's not such a stretch to protect him if he catches it on the bounce.

 

[didds]

I would feel safer being hurdled in an attempted tackle than playing hooker in a scrum

That's cos you never had an awesome TH like me to look after you Dickie

didds (SSNZ RFC and Woolhara Colleagues RFC...)

 

[Browner]

From your comment in #49

"We don't penalise any of the safe actions under a 'cotton wool' prevention programme.."

I did mistakenly slightly misquote you however, so - you regard hurdling an opponent, leading with the feet as a fundamentally and inherently "safe action"?

didds

Jumping over a potential tackler is as safe as any of the other potentially dangerous actions I've described,

If the ball carrier gets it wrong and strikes his opponent then he'll get carded, that's enough to deter most unathletic BCs from attempting it.

Players have to have control of their boots/knees, this isn't any different in my mind. Recklessness gets tough sanction.

 

[Browner]

..... an awesome TH ......

Ah ha,........ now your prejudice toward athletic players is obvious... ( wink)

 

[Ian_Cook]

The thing is RobLev, out of those five scenarios, technically you can't cherry pick what you personally think the Laws should or should not apply to. If the Law says that a player with his feet off the ground cannot be tackled, then it must apply to all of them,. If you make a personal exception for one, then the door is open to make exceptions for others.

a. this is the issue here - but I'd agree that it shouldn't allow the BC to manufacture an offence

Agreed.

b. we had a long thread involving Hartley being penalised for precisely this action in the England-Wales 2014 Six Nations match: was it Hartley's third strike so he should have been binned?

IMO, this was a completely wrong call. Jumping for a pass means the pass was poor, the catcher had to make up for it, and the opponent is effectively being punished for the opponent's incompetence. Unlike a midfield bomb type of kick, no-one can reasonably expect the pass catcher to jump. The tackler is likely to be already committed to the tackle. AFAIC, if a pass was so poor that the catcher had to jump for it, and got hit by a committed tackle, tough shiit! Teach your team-mate to pass better or don't jump for the ball.

c. agree - this was OB's point when this has been discussed before;

Yep, agree

d. this was the subject of the now removed exception...

And it should never have been removed. How is a tackler supposed to stop a try scorer if he dives and becomes untouchable. For mine, is open to door to a manufactured offence; an unnecessary dive

e. if you protect a player catching a bomb direct, it's not such a stretch to protect him if he catches it on the bounce.

Disagree. Its as big a stretch as PKing a tackler who tackles a ball carrier who jumps to take a pass. It is not reasonable to expect a player to jump for a bouncing ball.

There is a very simple way to fix all this BS; make it illegal to jump for a ball in open play, then the whole issue just disappears. The argument I often hear against this is that it is counter-intuitive, that jumping for the ball is a natural response to catching a ball. I call BS on that argument because it didn't used to be, In fact in rugby, when a mark could be taken anywhere in the field of play, jumping was counter-intuitive, because every player knew that the mark would not be awarded unless they had at least one foot planted on the ground at the moment they caught the ball.

 

[talbazar]

If the ball carrier gets it wrong and strikes his opponent then he'll get carded, that's enough to deter most unathletic BCs from attempting it.

What if the tackler stands up?

You can end up with a tackler kicked in the face and needing about 25 stitches
AND
A ball carrier on the ground with broken neck (because he landed on his head)

So what's the call?
Red Card for the guy lying on the floor waiting for the ambulance to arrive?

Sorry for being so cynical, but I really don't get the point here:
- It's potentially very dangerous
- It's against the spirit of the law: not a "nice" way of avoiding a tackle

Honestly, I'd rather have a PK preventing a try than the fear of a card avoiding seeing this on any rugby pitch!

 

[RobLev]

...

There is a very simple way to fix all this BS; make it illegal to jump for a ball in open play, then the whole issue just disappears. The argument I often hear against this is that it is counter-intuitive, that jumping for the ball is a natural response to catching a ball. I call BS on that argument because it didn't used to be, In fact in rugby, when a mark could be taken anywhere in the field of play, jumping was counter-intuitive, because every player knew that the mark would not be awarded unless they had at least one foot planted on the ground at the moment they caught the ball.

I have previously suggested something similar - removing all protection from a player in the air in open play.

 

[Dixie]

isn't hurdling a ruck illegal?

didds

Nope, just jumping on top of one.

Not quite the full story. Didds is referring to Clarification 8 of 2006, where the laws committee answered No to each of the following questions:

1. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on an opponent as soon as his opponent has his hands on the ball, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
2. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on the ball as soon as it emerges from the ruck, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
3. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?

The implication is that diving over a ruck is illegal. Law references for this illegality were 16(2)d and 16(3)d. Perversely, those say that placing a hand on a rucker is not binding, and it is illegal to collapse a ruck. It is hard to see how either can form the rationale for question 2, as the ruck by definition has ended before the dive occurs. But that's the iRB for you

 

[Ian_Cook]

Not quite the full story. Didds is referring to Clarification 8 of 2006, where the laws committee answered No to each of the following questions:

1. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on an opponent as soon as his opponent has his hands on the ball, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
2. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on the ball as soon as it emerges from the ruck, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
3. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?

The implication is that diving over a ruck is illegal. Law references for this illegality were 16(2)d and 16(3)d. Perversely, those say that placing a hand on a rucker is not binding, and it is illegal to collapse a ruck. It is hard to see how either can form the rationale for question 2, as the ruck by definition has ended before the dive occurs. But that's the iRB for you

a. diving over a ruck is not the same hurdling the ruck. epper:

b. of course, all of those refer to diving over the "players on the ground" and not "the ruck", because at the time the Clarification was issued, the ruck was over in all three examples

c. No 2 is moot anyway, because...
[LAWS]LAW 16.4 OTHER RUCK OFFENCES
(e) A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

...then there's this!

d. Clearly, diving over the "players on the ground" is not illegal in every instance

Side issue: If someone had tackled him while he was diving over..... PT?

 

[Browner]

But his foot coming down from that angle might have hit someone in the face ....
Yes I know it didn't, but it might have, therefore it must always be dangerous ( sarc)