Player in the air

[crossref]

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.

There is every incentive to kick.. It's normally the player from the team who receive the kick who ends up being RC.. T

 

[menace]

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.

Just last seaon I was AR to a 1st grade game where a similar type of incident occured. A team mate of the kicking team jumped for the ball way too early and with no realistic chance of getting the ball on the full even though he had eyes for the ball and was 'competing' for the ball. And so he was on the way down while the defender was at the peak of his jump. The end result was at the collision the defender was flipped over and dangerously landed on his shoulder/neck (neck breaking fall!). This was essentially my report to the referee who had obstructed view with the contact but agreed with my assessment and duly RC the attacking player for unfair competing for the ball in the air and thus taking out a player. It seemed obvious the attacker just jumped in some vain attempt to make it look like he was competing. There was video evidence. The local judiciary threw the case out. What was worse is that the judgments in our union are not released and we cannot obtain them. So we have no idea the reason the RC was dismissed.

But presumably it seems in our parts everyone has immunity once you're in the air!

 

[OB..]

What was worse is that the judgments in our union are not released and we cannot obtain them. So we have no idea the reason the RC was dismissed.

That is contrary to the principles of Natural Justice.
'justice should no only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done' (Lord Hewart CJ)

 

[crossref]

No doubt there is an email list

 

[didds]

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".

the most basic coaching points about catching a ball kicked ahead is to turn sideways at least from the flight, so that if the ball is dropped it goes backwards ie no knock on.

Si9deways on leaves a big blind spot for the catcher to one side of the pitch or another .

So presumably now it could be that teams kick to a FB, and have a runner coming to him from his blindside, leap, collide and fall - hey - RC time!


You read it here first.

didds

 

[DocY]

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

I think that's the essence of the problem and, as others have said, one teams are looking to exploit.

What I'd like to see as the principle for determining if a penalty should be awarded is something like: "Would the player's actions be deemed reasonable had the opponent not been where he was?"

As a player chasing the ball, your focus is on the ball, not the opposition and it's perfectly reasonable to jump for any ball for a variety of reasons, as it is to hold your ground if you're already in the right place, or not have time to get out of the way when something unexpected happens.

This would lead to situations like North's a couple of weeks ago or the one Ian describes being dealt with sensibly whilst still allowing a contest - just not one where you risk a card if you lose - and still penalising/carding genuine cases of playing a man in the air.

 

[menace]

That is contrary to the principles of Natural Justice.
'justice should no only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done' (Lord Hewart CJ)

I agree... union refuses to allow them to be released and association leaders dont want to take them on to force a hand. A lone voice is easily ignored.