Mallia's charge on D Williams

Cross

Getting to know the game
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
176
Post Likes
32
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Long time gents and gals.
Thoughts? Accidental and allowed by the rules, reckless, foul play, card (which)? Does the matter that his charge was successful change things (i a m asking this because a LOT of people compared it to CJ Stander vs Lambie's incident, during which Stander wasnt even close to touching the ball)?
Penny for your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

In case you havent seen in it

 
Last edited:

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
449
Post Likes
119
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Thanks Cross, appreciate you posting this. Seeing it at the time I was astonished it wasn't a card of any kind as it seemed reckless at best and highly dangerous. Mind you, I'm not a ref - so would be very interested to hear others' thoughts.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,535
Post Likes
355
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
My first reaction was a reckless act and foul play, but I’m one of those who believes a jumper has duty of care not to land on someone, some top tier decisions don’t agree with me.

I suspect this is one where the correct decision in our games is foul play, but in showboat rugby it’s a different law book to preserve the spectacle 🤷‍♂️
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
192
Post Likes
83
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
Clearly reckless for me. Head contact, no mitigation imho.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,138
Post Likes
2,155
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I'm with Didds. Was it reviewed?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
This is a difficult one.

1. There is no law forbidding a defender jumping to charge down a kick
2. The charge down was successful (the Blue player blocked the kick)
3. Is the blue player really expected to vanish into thin air?

Refs get it drummed into them that the player in the air is to be protected, yet in this scenario, the player on the ground is king.

This is the rod that WR has made for it's own back IMO. This incident is the inevitable result of allowing players to jump into the air in a reckless fashion, putting knees and sprigs at face level, and then asking the refs to protect that reckless player.
 

Cross

Getting to know the game
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
176
Post Likes
32
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
It was reviewed. To avoid putting words in the ref, AR, and TMO's mouths i'll just put a link to the video. You can hear most of the conversation. First 3 minutes.



Been reading a bit online and quite a few are quoting 9. 11 "Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler."

The thing is most of that is so loosely defined and open to interpretation that you could pretty much include anything or nothing into that category. Is there any guidance regarding this?

Silly example: is a 130 kg third row running at full speed and tackling a 70 kilo SH who just received a hospital pass dangerous? I believe most physicians would probably say 'yes' or at the very least it could be. Are we going to penalize him for it? I'm taking the argument to the extreme, I know. I am doing it on purpose.
My point is that as bad as this looks, it is not clear to me that the laws disallow this sort of charge. I see arguments to excuse the player AND the ref here. If you want to blame someone/something my top pick would be the laws themselves.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,072
Post Likes
1,800
H,mmm. I get the points about a charge down and can see there can be a debate about that.
I'm with iain in that this is what the various regulations have created, although Im also all fopr player protection, and despite what allegedly some ex-players may apparently believe, yes the game HAS changed.

If blocked kick = acceptable, what if he hadn't blocked the kick, what then?
If same - no action - now players have carte blanche to jump into kickers.
If no block = card, now you have an outcome based decision, where that outcome may be based on luck ie ball misses block by 1mm. Or the kicker sees the leap and now doesnt kick and just stands there to be clattered, to earn a card (and yes that is dangerous in itself - but are we really going to penalise a player for NOT kicking when shaping to do so initially?)
 

Cross

Getting to know the game
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
176
Post Likes
32
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Regarding the outcome-based decision, two points:

1) I know it's far, FAR from a perfect equivalence, but I can't help thinking about the question refs use when two players simultaneously go for a high ball: "Was he in a position to compete?" If two players were in a position to compete and one of them lands very, very badly, it would be play on (not really as the game would stop due to an injured player but you get the point). Why not use similar criteria here. Let's apply this to this case and CJ Stander's.
CJ couldnt have blocked that kick even if given 100 attempts. He was late, slow, not high enough, afar away, the lot. Mallia blocked the kick. That suggest the first was not really in a realistic position to compete and the latter was.
Too far stretched?

2) "where that outcome may be based on luck ie ball misses block by 1mm." Let the players make the call and go with it. Just explain to them (clearly) the consequences of them missing and give them a choice. They will evaluate their luck/skill/reward/penalty equation and see if it's worth it or not. If it is indeed about luck and not skill, players will adjust their decisions accordingly. It'd be silly for them not to. They would be giving the opponents an advantage. Maybe such adjustment doesnt happen instantly but i suspect it'd be rather fast.
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
566
Post Likes
313
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
The regs got us here, and I suspect only the regs can get us out. I’m in the same camp as @Flish and think the jumper gets way too much leeway to attempt to play the ball in a manner that can harm other players with (almost) impunity.

As it stands now, I can see why this will be chalked up as “just another rugby incident”.

I suspect nothing will change until WRU decide either 1) it’s not a good look for the product and they need to fix the optics, or 2) the elite level refs decide in the next cabal meeting to start rebalancing back toward consistently treating speculative jumps or jumps into defenders perfectly positioned to make a catch as reckless or dangerous.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,072
Post Likes
1,800
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
726
Post Likes
260
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Jumping with high lateral velocity and no control.

Only one person is responsible for that situation, the player who decided to jump recklessly!

Touching the ball, incidentally or by chance, does not mitigate the reckless intent.

So contrary to Ref discussion TOTALLY avoidable.

🟥
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
192
Post Likes
83
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
Yes I’m very much with BB.

I have been thinking about this, and to me it is quite straightforward, when the Argentina player decided to jump, where did he think he was going to land?

He knew the SA player would be hit in his follow through. If he didn’t consider this, then he should have. Reckless, plain and simple.
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
191
Post Likes
57
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Jumping with high lateral velocity and no control.

Only one person is responsible for that situation, the player who decided to jump recklessly!

Touching the ball, incidentally or by chance, does not mitigate the reckless intent.

So contrary to Ref discussion TOTALLY avoidable.

🟥
bit of eyebrow raising down south here, as this immediately triggers the Stander/Lambie comparison.

Referee didn't seem to see the incident as severe at first, moved on to the ruck and only after penalising there and being shown the motionless player at his feet did he notice and turn the clock off. It seems like decision was made to rule it a rugby incident without requiring a review, as charge down was successful, so nothing else comes into it.


Suppose there won't be a citing triggered here, nothing to see and a precedent is set.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,072
Post Likes
1,800
I have been thinking about this, and to me it is quite straightforward, when the Argentina player decided to jump, where did he think he was going to land?

He knew the SA player would be hit in his follow through. If he didn’t consider this, then he should have. Reckless, plain and simple.
a.k.a. "A Biggar"
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I may sound like a broken record here, but I think something akin to the basketball rules about jumping players would be useful to think about for these situations, and with small amendments, they could be made to apply equally well to both a player who has just kicked the ball ahead and is running with an intent to jump to contest the ball, and a player who is on the non-kicking team who also wishes to contest the ball. It could also be made to apply to the situation here; a player kicking when an opponent is trying to charge down his kick.

33.6 A player who is in the air

a. A player who has jumped into the air from a place on the court has the right to land again at the same place.

b. A player who has jumped into the air from a place on the court has the right to land on another place on the court provided that the landing place and the direct path between the take-off and landing place is not already occupied by an opponent(s) at the time of take-off.

c. If a player has taken off and landed but his/her momentum causes him/her to contact an opponent who has taken a legal guarding position beyond the landing place, the jumper is responsible for the contact.

d. An opponent may not move into the path of a player after that player has jumped into the air.

e. Moving under a player who is in the air and causing contact is usually an unsportsmanlike foul and in certain circumstances may be a disqualifying foul.

33.6 b would have to be modified to remove the red text part because we have obstruction laws.
33.6 c would have to be modified because we have tackle laws.


Essentially, when the ball is thrown (or in the case of rugby, is kicked), the player on the kicking team who jumps to contest the ball owns the space he will land in, unless someone is already there, in which case the player already in that space owns it.

One of the arguments against this that I often hear is that there are only 10 basketball players on the court while there are thirty on a rugby field. and it would be difficult to manage. However, the basketball court is much smaller too, and in fact the density of players on a basketball court is higher. Also, basketball umpires are not out in the middle like a rugby referee, they stay close to the sideline.

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.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,072
Post Likes
1,800
One of the arguments against this that I often hear is that there are only 10 basketball players on the court while there are thirty on a rugby field. and it would be difficult to manage. However, the basketball court is much smaller too, and in fact the density of players on a basketball court is higher. Also, basketball umpires are not out in the middle like a rugby referee, they stay close to the sideline.
and there are not usually 30 players in the vicinity of where the ball is landing anyway. At most two receiving players id suggest normally.

And in the instances of where tghere are multiple players (a chip and chase near a scrum/ruck?) that landing area is pretty obvious to the kicker beforehand after all
 
Top