Mallia's charge on D Williams

[Flish]

Cited under 9.11 it seems, hearing tomorrow - https://www.rugbypass.com/news/los-pumas-fullback-in-hot-water-following-boks-defeat/

 

[Volun-selected]

So,
1. When a player jumps, and his landing space is empty, any opponent moving into that space is responsible for the collision.
2. When a player jumps, and his landing space already has an opponent standing there, the jumping player is responsible is he clatters the opponent in that space.
3. When a player is trying to charge down a kick, the player kicking the ball owns the space in which he is standing.

I like the simplicity of this - the first player there owns the space and if you enter that space to compete you must do so in a way that is neither dangerous or reckless, which feels in line with other principals of competing for the ball.

 

[shebeen]

Cited under 9.11 it seems, hearing tomorrow - https://www.rugbypass.com/news/los-pumas-fullback-in-hot-water-following-boks-defeat/

I wonder if he will plead not guilty with the successful charge down argument, as used by the referee?

 

[Balones]

So,
1. When a player jumps, and his landing space is empty, any opponent moving into that space is responsible for the collision.
2. When a player jumps, and his landing space already has an opponent standing there, the jumping player is responsible is he clatters the opponent in that space.
3. When a player is trying to charge down a kick, the player kicking the ball owns the space in which he is standing.

Never work - too much like common sense for WR!

 

[BikingBud]

Ian_Cook said:
So,
1. When a player jumps, and his landing space is empty, any opponent moving into that space is responsible for the collision.

Get what you are proposing @Ian_Cook and this has been one of my areas of concern for a long while so likely I'm stuck on the same record as you, but why would the landing space remain empty?
Why shouldn't the opposition compete at the point where the ball lands?

I like the simplicity of this - the first player there owns the space and if you enter that space to compete you must do so in a way that is neither dangerous or reckless, which feels in line with other principals of competing for the ball.

But the expectation should be that someone else will be there to compete, its rugby we want people to challenge and compete, so assuming clear ground gives the kicker free reign is still to my mind flawed.

The focus needs to be on the safety of players on the ground preparing to catch the ball, or in this case kicking, and has to provide protection from players that recklessly jump laterally at high speed.

 

[Volun-selected]

But the expectation should be that someone else will be there to compete, its rugby we want people to challenge and compete, so assuming clear ground gives the kicker free reign is still to my mind flawed.

It’s not an expectation for it to be clear, only that any player entering that space does so with in a manner neither recklessly nor dangerously.

If the space is clear as the jumper launches, then a competing player must position themselves so as to allow the jumper to land safely before engaging them. Pretty much what happens now for safety and for good reason.

I just want some reciprocity so that if a player has already positioned themselves ready to catch that ball, then you cannot simply jump and get away with smashing them out the way - dangerous to both players. Either don’t jump and time your tackle right, or jump to one side to reach over to take the ball in the air above the catcher.

As it stands I believe the jumper has an unfair advantage. So by allowing another player who gets there first some protections I believe would allow a rebalance which in turn would lead to fairer competition.

 

[didds]

One thing that Iain's excellent suggestion wouold also mean is that kicks would HAVE ot be to an empty space. Currently it actually PAYS to kick AT a player, as that player is on a hiding to nothing to be able to compete with a non-running jump [1], and faces a card for just standing where they were already.
[1] which in itself means the receing player actually has to run away from the place, in order to run back again. which is lunacy!

 

[BikingBud]

It’s not an expectation for it to be clear, only that any player entering that space does so with in a manner neither recklessly nor dangerously.

If the space is clear as the jumper launches, then a competing player must position themselves so as to allow the jumper to land safely before engaging them. Pretty much what happens now for safety and for good reason.

I just want some reciprocity so that if a player has already positioned themselves ready to catch that ball, then you cannot simply jump and get away with smashing them out the way - dangerous to both players. Either don’t jump and time your tackle right, or jump to one side to reach over to take the ball in the air above the catcher.

As it stands I believe the jumper has an unfair advantage. So by allowing another player who gets there first some protections I believe would allow a rebalance which in turn would lead to fairer competition.

If the space is clear why do they need to jump? Just run in and catch, simples.

Also not sure that it does happen now for safety, we have been discussing this for some time and static players or players on the ground waiting to catch frequently come off worst, in terms of immediate outcome and subsequent judgment.

By providing protection for reckless behaviour (high speed lateral jumping) the game has got itself all caught up.

Just go back to a simple straightforward consideration of what is dangerous, launching yourself at another player across the line out is considered dangerous and unacceptable, we do not need a whole new set of considerations for this in open play. I'm sure we could all judge dangerous play:

• Clumsiness only - penalty
• Lack of control, lower speed, small prospect of getting to the ball - Yellow
• Reckless motion high speed without control - prospect of getting ball immaterial - Red

But as always showcase rugby lead and everyone else follows.

 

[BikingBud]

I've just had a trawl back through and see that I first raised my concern about lateral jumping in Nov 14, https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.php?threads/sale-v-leicester-yellow-card.18286/ there may have been earlier discussion but with transition to the the new site I cannot find it.

In that time we might consider ourselves fortunate and that my perception of serious injury is unnecessarily pessimistic but it still makes me cringe as the outcome is frequently based upon luck. To see Williams on the bench after the event might indicate no immediate injury that requires further medical attention but we know so little about longer term consequences and these outcomes shouldn't be trusted to luck. We will see how the SANZAAR Foul Play Review Panel adjudicate on this instance.

I wonder looking forward, what the RWC will throw at us in terms of problematic decisions, especially when some of them are entirely foreseeable and in some situations likely coached. No doubt the focus will be on unavoidable incidents and with pundits talking over the referees, commenting upon how they have spoiled the game, we will get a skewed perspective rather than a focus on players' responsibility for their own safety.

 

[shebeen]

Don't normally like sharing this channel, (too much of a biased agenda, and headings are clickbaity - get me too often!).
Obviously edited, but this is really not a good look for Andrew Brace. Against the backdrop of citing being upheld and collision deemed a red.

( for instance not penalising team - for subs on the field, that's a nothingburger if I ever saw one)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

A bit biased However, I share "concerns" about Mr Brace.

 

[tim White]

Legal perhaps in terms of actions but clearly and obviously reckless and dangerous in execution. How this is not a red card is beyond me.

If this is not a red card offence- and treated as such by the citing team, we stand to lose all youngsters who want to play the game but their parents are afraid to let them.

 

[SimonSmith]

2 weeks.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Once again hearings do not back up WR's rhetoric

 

[shebeen]

2 weeks.

reckless foul play + high degree of danger = 2 weeks?
(injured player probably out for longer - might even cost him a WC place)

So if the ball missed him then 6 weeks probably? So his sanction depends on the angle the opponent kicked at, which he was not in control of.
I had a look at the actual kickoff, it's hard to see conclusively but let's for argument's sake say he was in front of the kicker. then he would be offsides and the charge down is illegal.

What a mess.

 

[didds]

So if the ball missed him then 6 weeks probably? So his sanction depends on the angle the opponent kicked at, which he was not in control of.

This entirely. The sanction/penalty is entirely dependent on the actions of the kicker/aggrieved.
Then again this is oft presented as a reason to not penalise non connected/ not landed punches and kicks ....

 

[shebeen]

This entirely. The sanction/penalty is entirely dependent on the actions of the kicker/aggrieved.
Then again this is oft presented as a reason to not penalise non connected/ not landed punches and kicks ....

or if a player gets taken out in the air. lands on shoulder/head = yellow/red, often the offending player action is the same.

 

[didds]

indeed.
its outcopme dependent basically, and often where the outcome is independent of the perpetrator's action(s)

 

[BikingBud]

....but given the evidence from the referee and the coach as to how successful charge downs are viewed by match officials and as to how chargedowns are coached as a consequence.....

But it wasn't successful, yes it was touched but how is that successful, in the same way that knocking on is not successfully catching the ball?

Morevoer just because something is coached doesn't make it correct, either in law or in relation to dangerous play, eg choke tackles!

Many coaches actively work in ambiguous and even illegal space because they know they will not get penalised and if they do change the tactics. But coaching the players to jump with high lateral speed is coaching dangerous play and maybe the coaches should also be cited

Another wash of the whitest variety.

 

[SimonSmith]

As others have said, WR need to sort this out.

The controversialist claim would be that Grant should have been cited - he's the player on the ground and has obligations to the player in the air. (See: Russell et al). Mallia has played the ball, and is in the air.

Why is Mallia treated differently to a player chasing the ball and jumping into space being occupied by a player with feet on the ground? There is, I would argue, no material difference at all.

Should it have been red? By common sense, yes. By WR protocols and precedents? I'm not convinced.