Player in the air

[oldman]

Having watched a number of games since World Rugby's edict about tackling players in the air etc I would like to make a suggestion for a law change.
Players in open play players jump to catch a ball, when they catch a ball they must have one foot on the ground.
Reasoning; this removes the possibility of another player misjudging the jump and taking the player in the air.
Thoughts?

 

[OB..]

Having watched a number of games since World Rugby's edict about tackling players in the air etc I would like to make a suggestion for a law change.
Players in open play players jump to catch a ball, when they catch a ball they must have one foot on the ground.
Reasoning; this removes the possibility of another player misjudging the jump and taking the player in the air.
Thoughts?

A running player will have both feet off the ground for a significant proportion of the time, so I don't think the idea is practicable.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Something needs to be done about this though. We saw another ludicrous RC on the weekend in the Bristol v Worcester match.

Yes I get that Wayne Barnes had no choice because of the directive, so the decision was correct in Law, but its the directive (and Law) that is wrong IMO. Its the jumping player who creates the danger to himself, he should bear the consequences in the case of a collision. Different if a player actually tackles and/or grabs the jumping player, but in the case of a competition for the ball in open play we should stick to the mantra that the player on his feet is king. Whether both parties jump or not, an accident is an accident; the referee should be allowed to decide for himself and not have his hand forced by stupid, ill-considered directives.

Its time we returned to the application of Law 6.A.4 (a)

 

[Guyseep]

Here's the RC Ian is refereing too and I have to agree with Ian 100%. How is this Pisi's fault?! The Yellow player puts himself in a dangerous position by jumping.

https://gfycat.com/DefiantClearcutGuineafowl

 

[OB..]

Its the jumping player who creates the danger to himself, he should bear the consequences in the case of a collision.

How is this Pisi's fault?! The Yellow player puts himself in a dangerous position by jumping.

I don't think this sort of simplistic absolutism is helpful. After all, a player puts himself in a dangerous position by playing rugby. Do those rules apply to lineout jumping? Etc.

It is a difficult problem to which I do not have a clear solution. Leaving it to the referee (6.A.4 (a) ) is simply opting out.

One principle I stick to is that players are responsible for reading the game as best they can, which means taking into account what others can be expected to do. The most dangerous cases are when one player jumps and the other doesn't. Both or neither is safer, but you cannot realistically ban jumping. It occurs too often as a natural part of the game.

 

[menace]

I can't for the life of me find the official WR interpretation for player in the air....certainly not on their website! I gave up trying.
But here in ARU land we were given this in out game management guidelines.
"Challenge in the air
• World Rugby has provided guidelines for situations where two players contest for a ball in the air and collide:
o Play on = Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player lands dangerously, play on
o PK = Not a fair challenge, wrong timing but no pulling down
o YC = Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down/interfered with landing on their back or side
o RC = Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down/interfered with landing on their head, neck or shoulder"

Presumably, but i cant be sure, it would the the same sort of directive WB was operating with...

As i saw it it seemed a fair challenge...so Ian why do you think WB was compelled to issue a RC. Im not debating your assertion but just asking why you think he had to issue a RC. Under the guidelines I think WB has made a judgment error on this one. But Im happy to be edumacated. :shrug:

 

[The Fat]

Here's the RC Ian is refereing too and I have to agree with Ian 100%. How is this Pisi's fault?! The Yellow player puts himself in a dangerous position by jumping.

https://gfycat.com/DefiantClearcutGuineafowl

I'm pleased that Pisi got a RC for that but not for the reason some may think.
I hope that when it goes to the judiciary, it will cause a rethink of how this situation is handled.
At the moment, WR is basically saying it has to be a fair contest to reach a "play on, no-one at fault" situation which implies that both players jump to approximately the same height. This is unfair to the player who times his run and lower level jump to perfection (with eyes set firmly on the ball) only to have an opponent jump half a metre higher to get full protection.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I question how this directive protects the man in the air?

Its quite noticeable that there has been NO downward trend in these incidents since they started to RC players (unlike the tip/tackle scenario where we did see a decline in numbers).

Its not hard to understand why this is, and why it will never, work. The RCs are being issued to players who are acting instinctively and are not doing anything intrinsically wrong or risky. In the tip tackle scenario, the player is taking an action (lift and tip the opponent), its a premeditated, dynamic action. With the "player in the air" scenario, the player is often static, or doing nothing other than waiting for the ball to come down - then they get clattered from behind and RC.

I see no reason why jumping should make a player immune from PK for charging into an opponent who doesn't have the ball

 

[Ian_Cook]

I can't for the life of me find the official WR interpretation for player in the air....certainly not on their website! I gave up trying.
But here in ARU land we were given this in out game management guidelines.
"Challenge in the air
• World Rugby has provided guidelines for situations where two players contest for a ball in the air and collide:
o Play on = Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player lands dangerously, play on
o PK = Not a fair challenge, wrong timing but no pulling down
o YC = Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down/interfered with landing on their back or side
o RC = Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down/interfered with landing on their head, neck or shoulder"

Presumably, but i cant be sure, it would the the same sort of directive WB was operating with...

As i saw it it seemed a fair challenge...so Ian why do you think WB was compelled to issue a RC. Im not debating your assertion but just asking why you think he had to issue a RC. Under the guidelines I think WB has made a judgment error on this one. But Im happy to be edumacated. :shrug:

IIRC the directive says basically that whoever jumps highest gets the protection as long as he catches the ball. Any player who does not jump high enough (or does not jump at all) is automatically in the wrong if the jumping player catches the ball and gets upended. IMO, this whole philosophy is cock-eyed. It basically holds that in any competition for the ball is automatically an unfair one of one player is closer to the ground that his opponent.

So, to answer you question, WB was right because WR have decided that if one player jumps and the other doesn't, the one that doesn't is not contesting for the ball (which I believe to a a ludicrous take on things)

Leaving it to the referee (6.A.4 (a) ) is simply opting out.

As a referee (speaking as if I was still active) I am trained by my RA/RS. They are expecting me to apply the Laws fairly, and i.a.w. the LotG. If the Union then gives me directives that take the decision-making responsibility out of my hands, I consider that a vote of no-confidence in me. I find that insulting and I would not want to be a part of it.

 

[OB..]

Leaving it to the referee (6.A.4 (a) ) is simply opting out.

As a referee (speaking as if I was still active) I am trained by my RA/RS. They are expecting me to apply the Laws fairly, and i.a.w. the LotG. If the Union then gives me directives that take the decision-making responsibility out of my hands, I consider that a vote of no-confidence in me. I find that insulting and I would not want to be a part of it.

As a referee you get given all sorts of guidelines, mainly to ensure consistency from one referee to the next. This a difficult and important problem, and you want all referees to act differently?! If your solution prevailed, it would have to be via instructions to all referees, whether they agreed with it or not.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As a referee you get given all sorts of guidelines, mainly to ensure consistency from one referee to the next. This a difficult and important problem, and you want all referees to act differently?! If your solution prevailed, it would have to be via instructions to all referees, whether they agreed with it or not.

OB, there is a world of difference between a guideline....

noun
1. a principle put forward to set standards or determine a course of action

....where you still need to use your judgement, and a directive....

noun
3. an authoritative instruction or direction; specific order:

...which tells you what to do and makes no allowance for you to judge each situation on its merits.


I don't like mandatory cards because they make no allowance for extenuating circumstances, and in any case, as a principle, I do not like outcome driven decision-making.

So strongly do I feel about this, that, if I was currently an active referee, I would make myself unavailable for appointments until such time as this current foolishness was dispensed with.

 

[beckett50]

The other issue with this surrounds the player that has set himself to receive the catch - and perhaps to call "Mark!" - with a good stance and both feet on the ground, only to be clattered/battered by an opponent who has chased the kick and leapt like a salmon to retrieve the ball but misjudges the jump and totally misses the ball, but his legs make contact with the first player in this scenario and he lands awkwardly.

Under the guidelines this could fall into any of the categories and so the defender could end up leaving the field, either permanently or temporarily, and yet - logically - he did no wrong. Some may immediately say that this is a fair contest and so "Play On!", but will the crowd/players have not only read the Directive but also asked questions of constituent bodies and seen the (albeit not very well edited) video clips that are available to explain the reasons behind the guidelines?

I agree with others on here that this is a poorly thought through piece of legislation and is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is not that widespread in the context of the game, IMO

 

[didds]

There are some here that woiuld say that the fullback should move away from the area .

There was a time when one would coach kickers to kick away from a defender. Now it seems the best course of action is to kick it down his throat.

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

One principle I stick to is that players are responsible for reading the game as best they can, which means taking into account what others can be expected to do. The most dangerous cases are when one player jumps and the other doesn't. Both or neither is safer, but you cannot realistically ban jumping. It occurs too often as a natural part of the game.

There is a way of looking at that which is a jumping player should reasonably be expected to know that he could be about to land on another player and act accordingly.

Part of the challenge is that 'blame' - for want of a better word - is being apportioned to a part of the game where many of us believe that there is no actual blame to be attached.

 

[thepercy]

Why do teams continue to kick away possession and expect to get the ball back by taking a man in the air out. Shouldn't teams be expected to change their tactic, or accept the consequences of their actions, knowing that if/when they get it wrong they will be down a man, possibly for the rest of the match. I would not be disappointed if the up and under/Gary Owen were to go the way of the Dodo. If you want to take the pressure off and kick for territory, go for it, kick to space, or kick for less territory, and a chance to regain possession or be sent off when you get it recklessly wrong.

 

[didds]

Why do teams continue to kick away possession and expect to get the ball back by taking a man in the air out. Shouldn't teams be expected to change their tactic, .

See Ian's (Cook) post of a couple of weeks ago when he explained that this is exactly what his club is doing.

didds

 

[thepercy]

So why is he so empathetic to those clubs who refuse to adapt?

 

[Paule23]

There are some here that woiuld say that the fullback should move away from the area .

There was a time when one would coach kickers to kick away from a defender. Now it seems the best course of action is to kick it down his throat.

didds

I think you are misinterpreting what some people are saying. There are some (me included) who believe the defender has to be responsible for his actions, and be aware of the consequences of his actions on others, particularly in this minefield of contact with someone in the air. I have not seen anyone suggest the defender should move away from the area, I have seen comments suggesting the defender should consider what might happen if they compete with feet on the ground and impact a player who has jumped.

 

[didds]

WASR, the tail is wagging the dog then.

how about the chasing & leaping player should be considering THEIR actions and likely outcomes? Particularly when their team mate (or self) has just kicked the ball right down the throat of a player that doesn't even have to move?

didds



didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

So why is he so empathetic to those clubs who refuse to adapt?

While we might have adapted to the way the Law is being interpreted, that doesn't mean we agree with it. We resent having to change the way we play the game because some faceless asshat working at Huguenot House, Dublin has decided unilaterally that automatic cards have to be dished out to protect people who endanger others by jumping recklessly.

Toward the end of last season, we had a player carded....our SH kicked an up and under, our 13 got to ground zero first - he was feet planted facing back to our goal-line. A sprinting opponent jumped from about two metres away directly behind our 13 clattered him with knees in the back of the head. Our 13 went down in a heap, and while he was being attended to by the Zambuck, the referee RC him for "playing the man in the air".

If you wonder why I hate this Law, wonder no more.