Player in the air in-goal (Sarries v Quins)

[Stu10]

pretty much!

lay prone beneath the falling player so that 9s)he falls on top of you with the ball between you and hug for dear life so the ball cannot be freed ?

( aot of hope and maybes going on in that!)

It appears to be the only option, but we all know that's not feasible!

 

[didds]

It appears to be the only option, but we all know that's not feasible!

and if it ever did happen would blinking hurt!

 

[menace]

I suspect it might hurt a little, but I'm considering that Marchant was sufficiently over the try line that he could have dropped from the air and grounded the ball before putting feet down. Thinking this further you get to a scenario that if the attacking player catches a kick in-goal, there is absolutely nothing a defender can realistically do to prevent the try.

Perhaps contest for the ball and catch it first?

 

[Stu10]

Perhaps contest for the ball and catch it first?

I agree in principle, but reality is that the defender is either back peddling or stationary, and stands little chance contesting the ball against the attacker that is running onto the ball.

 

[Dickie E]

If a defender had his feet planted and caught the jumper as he was coming down and carried him over the DBL, I'd be OK with that

 

[menace]

I agree in principle, but reality is that the defender is either back peddling or stationary, and stands little chance contesting the ball against the attacker that is running onto the ball.

I understand what you're saying..but imagine if the defender read the play better so he had other choices. Perhaps he was just outplayed? But if he chooses the 'foul play' option then he risks the consequences.

 

[menace]

If Marchant catches unimpeded with the other 3 defenders all recovering from the 5 m line he has made it to the 15 m line at least, therefore "more advantageous".

I'm ok that you saw it different. We make a judgment on what we see and interpret...your interpretation is a little different to mine. I'm not going to die in a ditch if you deem the attacker was denied 2/3 extra steps for his goal kick and that's enough lost advantageous ground to upgrade to a PT and YC. I'm just not on that journey with you.

In the same manner he was challenged in the air so a deliberate act of foul play - YC

Up to you if you see it that way. I'm applying the challenge in the air protocols for foul play as the basis for my decision of PK vs YC.
I'm personally not putting that one into the category of YC "deliberate/cynical". If you choose to, I would imagine that will be a pretty tough sell and you'd lose credibility for your empathy.

If you saw that exact same scenario at the half-way mark would you still give him his marching orders? If you did I would propose that would be seen as extremely harsh and a very soft YC.

You cannot change behaviour if everything is outcome biased, the risk of penalties must be real and applied consistently otherwise players will always gamble on getting a good outcome. Player decision processes. If I do this:

• I might be able to prevent the try. <5%
• The try might be scored and they get five points. >60%
• The try might be scored and they get five points and a successful conversion >20%
• I am likely to get penalised, sin binned and they get PT <5%
• Make any other possible outcome as you see fit ~10%

So the defender gambles away knowing that the most likely sanction is only that they get the try as scored as this was seen as advantageous, for whom?

Under the challenge in the air protocols the outcome certainly has a bias on the sanction level. You may not like it but that's what it is. And I would say it has had impact on changing behaviour.

We've been here before and discussed the lottery and quality of kickers but as can be seen here even with international 10s the kick is not assured, so a decision by the match officials restricts the full advantage and the score.

I just don't get this, there has been foul play, but we get deliberate denial of the full benefit of the law to the non-offending team, bizarre .

I don't think there has been 'deliberate denial' at all - it's just that others haven't interpreted the "benefit' to the same level as you would think it should apply. Foul play is a sliding scale and there's shades of grey - though you seem to want it black and white (ie yes and no).

 

[Dickie E]

I just don't get this, there has been foul play, but we get deliberate denial of the full benefit of the law to the non-offending team, bizarre .

there is truth in that. If a try is scored, any lead up offences (unless particularly severe foul play) tend to get ignored

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Even with the try being scored, should Goode have been penalised? YC for Goode? Restart with a penalty on half-way?

Justification in law? Any offence was BEFORE not after the score so no PK restart for me.

Back to the point.

Goode's foot looks to be on the line , thereby he is in goal so no tackle is possible. However, he is playing the man in the air. That is an offence for me. PT would be a fair call if felt a try would have been scored in a better position. However, There was a defender quite close and I don't think a PT would be the correct call. I'm not thinking PT as it was more instictive a grasp than anything and I'd not be going under the posts (when a YC would be "compulsory").

We can bemoan the laws, but for now they are what they are. Goode needs to wait and play the man as soon as his feet land.

 

[BikingBud]

I'm ok that you saw it different. We make a judgment on what we see and interpret...your interpretation is a little different to mine. I'm not going to die in a ditch if you deem the attacker was denied 2/3 extra steps for his goal kick and that's enough lost advantageous ground to upgrade to a PT and YC. I'm just not on that journey with you.

Up to you if you see it that way. I'm applying the challenge in the air protocols for foul play as the basis for my decision of PK vs YC.
I'm personally not putting that one into the category of YC "deliberate/cynical". If you choose to, I would imagine that will be a pretty tough sell and you'd lose credibility for your empathy.

If you saw that exact same scenario at the half-way mark would you still give him his marching orders? If you did I would propose that would be seen as extremely harsh and a very soft YC.


Under the challenge in the air protocols the outcome certainly has a bias on the sanction level. You may not like it but that's what it is. And I would say it has had impact on changing behaviour.

I don't think there has been 'deliberate denial' at all - it's just that others haven't interpreted the "benefit' to the same level as you would think it should apply. Foul play is a sliding scale and there's shades of grey - though you seem to want it black and white (ie yes and no).

Is that the same as being sightly pregnant?

It's illegal or not, it's binary, therefore allow the non-offending team the full benefit of the law.

Considering the same event at halfway changes the scenario as we all shuffle our decision matrix for position on the field of play. There is no immediate threat of a try and therefore the defender's actions would likely be completely different as would our assessment of those actions. Although again I would like to outlaw lateral jumps as this places the player on the ground at significant risk and leaves them unable to defend effectively, that is not in the spirit of the game: "This balance of contestability and continuity applies to both set piece and open play."

We see many "red-zone" offences with extended advantage being played, often with numerous other penalty offences occurring, eg chop tackles or offside line broached, and the attacking team get the option for a number of marks to play from. If we consider the secondary offences, especially the offside, sometimes with attempted intercept that gets called for deliberate knock on, they are most likely to have prevented a try, they are deliberate and cynical and should therefore be PT and YC but we just don't see it.

If the jeopardy exists and sanctions consistently applied, actions will change.