Players colliding contesting a ball in the air

[Chogan]

Either we now have a problem in the game or we don't?

 

[beckett50]

I don't see a problem.

Please clarify the point you are trying to make.

 

[Andrew1974]

??? Ouch, but i don't see anything wrong???

 

[Chogan]

In law there is nothing wrong here.
My point is that like the Ulster v Saracen's game we have another player who was seriously injured after contesting a high ball.

 

[Andrew1974]

The only times I've ever been injured whilst playing is being involved in legal actions, players are always going to hurt themselves or others quite by accident. Its not tiddley winks!

 

[Chogan]

The only times I've ever been injured whilst playing is being involved in legal actions, players are always going to hurt themselves or others quite by accident. Its not tiddley winks!

Exactly. But specific incidents in the game which repeatedly result in lads being stretchered off are a problem.

 

[Taff]

My understanding is that if players collide in the air while going for the ball, that's OK.

Obviously, if a player tackles a player jumping for a ball in the air that changes everything.

As Pienaar once said "Rugby isn't a contact sport. Dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport". :biggrin:

 

[beckett50]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CavuYu3JSSM&feature=youtu.be

 

[leaguerefaus]

Either we now have a problem in the game or we don't?

We don't.

 

[Taff]

So from Beckett50s clip, it appears there are a range of options:

• Both players jumping for the ball. Unfortunate but no infringement - probably a Safety Stop. Scrum restart.
• One players jumps for the ball and the opponent while still looking at the ball is reckless / cack -handed in colliding with him - a "Dangerous Challenge" ie a PK or possibly more
• Deliberately tackling a player in the air (no eyes on the ball, but watching the jumper) - We've now strayed into a whole different world of pain. :knuppel2:

 

[RobLev]

So from Beckett50s clip, it appears there are a range of options:

• Both players jumping for the ball. Unfortunate but no infringement - probably a Safety Stop. Scrum restart.
• One players jumps for the ball and the opponent while still looking at the ball is reckless / cack -handed in colliding with him - a "Dangerous Challenge" ie a PK or possibly more
• Deliberately tackling a player in the air (no eyes on the ball, but watching the jumper) - We've now strayed into a whole different world of pain. :knuppel2:

Well, at least the video gives the lie to the claim (aired in the Payne v Goode thread) that provided both players are in the air when they collide no-one will flip over to land on their head or neck.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The Benetton player will have concussion, likely serious (the shaking right leg is a neurological tremor caused by randomly firing synapses due to brain trauma). Anyone who thinks that this is OK, and that there is not a problem for the game has a problem with their priorities.

After the farcical way that Jarrod Payne was dealt with, it wasn't hard to see the "unintended consequences" being this sort of thing happening. As I said in that thread, if I were an elite team coach, I would be telling my players to jump for the ball, even if they think they have no chance of getting it, to ensure that they don't get red carded if there is a collision.

The game is under a microscope at the moment with reference to the long term effects of head injuries. As long as the Laws surrounding players jumping to catch a ball, and jumpers being tackled in the air is not addressed, these incidents will continue to happen, IMO, with increasing frequency. Those responsible for Laws of the Game simply cannot bury their collective heads in the sand, pretend its not happening and hope it will all go away. Shrugging your shoulders and saying that neither player did anything illegal is simply not good enough; I hope that it doesn't take a career ender or a death before some people wake the hell up!!

 

[leaguerefaus]

The Benetton player will have concussion, likely serious (the shaking right leg is a neurological tremor caused by randomly firing synapses due to brain trauma). Anyone who thinks that this is OK, and that there is not a problem for the game has a problem with their priorities.

After the farcical way that Jarrod Payne was dealt with, it wasn't hard to see the "unintended consequences" being this sort of thing happening. As I said in that thread, if I were an elite team coach, I would be telling my players to jump for the ball, even if they think they have no chance of getting it, to ensure that they don't get red carded if there is a collision.

The game is under a microscope at the moment with reference to the long term effects of head injuries. As long as the Laws surrounding players jumping to catch a ball, and jumpers being tackled in the air is not addressed, these incidents will continue to happen, IMO, with increasing frequency. Those responsible for Laws of the Game simply cannot bury their collective heads in the sand, pretend its not happening and hope it will all go away. Shrugging your shoulders and saying that neither player did anything illegal is simply not good enough; I hope that it doesn't take a career ender or a death before some people wake the hell up!!

Ban tackling all together - so let's play touch. But wait, collisions still happen in touch...there was a head-clash in the game I refereed the other day. So fu*k it, let's play lawn bowls (should probably bubble-wrap everyone though, just in case they slip over and hit their head).

 

[Taff]

The Benetton player will have concussion, likely serious

Agreed. As soon as I saw it, I thought "If that happened in a game I was reffing, there's no way he's staying on".

The Benetton player will have concussion, likely serious Anyone who thinks that this is OK, and that there is not a problem for the game has a problem with their priorities.

There's a difference between saying its OK and saying there was no infringement - this is a classic case IMO. No infringement - but a nasty injury anyway. It's a collision sport and even with the best will in the world, sometimes shit happens and nobody is at fault. Sometimes it happens the other way; ie a massive infringement (the sort that sees you holding your head in your hands) and the player just gets up, dusts himself down and trots off with not a care in the world.

.... Those responsible for Laws of the Game simply cannot bury their collective heads in the sand, pretend its not happening and hope it will all go away. Shrugging your shoulders and saying that neither player did anything illegal is simply not good enough; I hope that it doesn't take a career ender or a death before some people wake the hell up!!

But what can they do exactly? Tackling a player in the air is already an offence, so is Dangerous Charging. So the only thing they could possibly do IMO is ban players jumping for the ball - but I don't know if they want to to go down that route. Personally, I'd have no problem with it; sort of "The game is to be played by players on their feet ... while staying on the ground" if you like.

 

[winchesterref]

I don't understand what is difficult to get the head round. Dangerous play is penalised or carded whatever. If someone doesn't jump and takes out the catcher's legs - dangerous. If someone jumps from underneath another and takes out the catcher's legs - dangerous. What we have in Chogan's video is an unfortunate accident, nothing illegal.

 

[OB..]

As I have mentioned before (and will probably have to mention again) Danny Hearn's broken neck was sustained when he made a legal tackle on an All Black.

There is danger inherent in a collision sport, so unless we stop playing it, the question is how we manage the various danger areas. I do not see banning jumping for the ball as practical since it would impact on all sorts of non-dangerous areas of the game. Restricting the ban to jumping for a high kick might be feasible.

However surely the first step should be to determine just how dangerous the situation is using facts rather than anecdotal evidence. (If anyone suggests a single serious injury is too much, he has just shot himself in Danny Hearn's foot.)

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ban tackling all together - so let's play touch. But wait, collisions still happen in touch...there was a head-clash in the game I refereed the other day. So fu*k it, let's play lawn bowls (should probably bubble-wrap everyone though, just in case they slip over and hit their head).

A pointless strawman comment that contributes nothing to the discussion.

I think some are missing the point here.

Yes, tackling is inherently dangerous, but it is a controlled situation, where both the tackler and the ball carrier have their feet on the ground. They are also looking at each other and there are techniques that can save both the tackler and the tackled player from serious injury. Additionally, the game is making a strong effort to rule out ball carriers hitting the ground head first.

The same cannot be said when two players jump for the ball; a situation that is not in any way analagous to a tackle. It is a totally uncontrolled situation, with two players running towards each other looking at the ball, not where they are going; there are no effective techniques that will help either player if they collide in the air, and what happens next is out of their control. The only thing they can do is brace for impact with the ground. If the collision causes one or both players' bodies to start rotating (as happened to the Benetton player), then the impact is going to be a bad one, and likely to cause serious injury. There are about 150 - 300 tackles in match; there are only a few occasions each match where players jump to catch a ball from a kick ahead in general play, which seems to be when these accidents happen. I don't have statistics to hand, but I'll bet anything you like that on a per-incident basis, injury numbers from aerial collisions between players are a very much higher than they are on a per tackle basis.

But what can they do exactly? Tackling a player in the air is already an offence, so is Dangerous Charging. So the only thing they could possibly do IMO is ban players jumping for the ball - but I don't know if they want to to go down that route. Personally, I'd have no problem with it; sort of "The game is to be played by players on their feet ... while staying on the ground" if you like.

I'm loath to suggest making a knee-jerk change lest we suffer from another set of unintended consequences. However, there is no reason why the iRB could not experiment in the Laws Labs with some of the following;

1. banning jumping for the ball in general play for all players
2. ban the players from the kicking team from jumping
3. Change the "mark allowed" area to anywhere in a player's own half & give a gain in ground for the FK

 

[OB..]

I'll bet anything you like that on a per-incident basis, injury numbers from aerial collisions between players are a very much higher than they are on a per tackle basis.

That is indeed what I would also expect. but:

I'm loath to suggest making a knee-jerk change lest we suffer from another set of unintended consequences. However, there is no reason why the iRB could not experiment in the Laws Labs with some of the following;

1. banning jumping for the ball in general play for all players
2. ban the players from the kicking team from jumping
3. Change the "mark allowed" area to anywhere in a player's own half & give a gain in ground for the FK

I think we should start by trying to get some proper statistics to find out the extent of the problem.

 

[irishref]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piX1P6tJz5k&list=PLclPnIJd8nRuw63Av3nO4bpevTXrIP_Z4&index=7

From the same game. Given yellow.

 

[irishref]

By the way, are the ERC pretty late in publishing the hearing details on the Payne red card? My gut feeling is they're normally quite quick to publish the details.