No way in the world is that a try. Having eyes on the ball does not excuse taking out an opponent wayyyyyyyyy before the ball gets there. If the ball was arriving and they were attempting to catch it - different story. You can't just run around like a chook with your head cut off and claim "eyes on the ball" though.
If we followed this decision as precedent, all a player would need to do is look to the sky and he could take out whomever he wanted.
I knew something like this would eventually happen with the stupid protocols for competing for a kicked ball that the game is currently being refereed under.
If the Blue player jumps for the ball, and that collision happens, then the Red player gets YC/RC
If the Red player jumps for the ball, and that collision happens, then the Blue player gets YC/RC
If both players jump for the ball then there is no penalty because it is a fair contest
So why, I ask, is it also not also a fair contest when neither player jumps for the ball?
Does the Red player really have to jump and put himself at risk of serious injury in order to not be penalised when the inevitable crash happens?
Also, it is worth noting that NEITHER of the players were near enough to where the ball came down in order to be legitimately competing for it.
I stopped the video here at the point where the ball is touching the ground on landing. Its at least six feet away from the two players lying prone after the collision.
While an argument could be made that the Red player deliberately took out the Blue player, an equal argument could be made that the Blue player deliberately planted himself in the Red player's running line.
What is more likely to have happened is that both players had eyes on the ball, both misjudged where the ball was coming down, they didn't see each other, and they collided.
For mine, its just a collision, play-on, try stands.
