Players colliding contesting a ball in the air

[Dixie]

Chogan seems to be suggesting that by allowing players to challenge for the ball in the air, rugby is unnecessarily putting its participants in danger. He draws this conclusion from the fact that it is an area of the game that quite frequently results in players being stretchered off.

But Chogan, consider where this line of thought takes you. Between a pass being delivered and collected, the ball is in the air. Can the game be played if that cannot be contested? How can you put pressure on a fullback under a high kick? If you can't, then presumably the mark has to be removed from the game? Why should the defence be allowed to field a kick if the attack can't? What happened to "fair contest for the ball"?

The tackle is another area where players get stretchered off when they get it wrong. Are we to stop that as well? Touch rugby already exists - does it move you in the same way as the game we currently enjoy? People have always got injured in rugby - as with the Grand National, football and all other contact sports. Unless we all stick to chess, this will happen. It's a risk we were all prepared to take in our younger days - why would we prevent our children from doing so?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Dixie. I don't have a problem with risk in the the game, but what I do have a problem with is unnecessary high risk.

Tackling is a necessary risk because it is an integral part of the game, and the relative risk on a per tackle basis is very low. Tackling has always been a part of the game. Tackling is also a managed risk. Players are coached how to tackle (and be tackled) so that they minimize the risk of injury. The nature of the tackle is that you never see two players sprint directly at each other at full speed while not looking where they are going, and then crash into each other.

The same cannot be said for jumping to field the ball. For a start, it never used to be a part of the game, at least, nowhere near as much as it is now. Before the mid-1990's it was very rare to see a player jumping in the air to catch a ball. It is very high risk, especially when two players compete in the air, and the consequences of the almost inevitable collision is that one or both players will fall uncontrolled from a considerable height. It is also a completely unmanaged risk; there is no technique you can teach a player which will protect him from injury after a collision in which he starts to rotate as he heads for the ground (which happens on almost every occasion). There is also no technique to prevent a player from being knocked unconscious in the collision. The likelihood is that if a player does put his arms up to protect his head, the referee will almost certainly interpret that as tackling his opponent and therefore will send him off. The same will happen if the challenging player pulls out at the last moment as Jarrod Payne did.

 

[menace]

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.



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

Perhaps you can look at some stats from AFL, where every ball in the air is attempted to be contested in the air, and there's a whole lot more of those than in rugby? Maybe their stats might show if the injury rate is significant or not. ....though of all the games I've seen (and that's 100s), I'd say the rugby tackle is much more injury prone rate. (I don't know if AFL stats would even exist to answer this, as it's just not an issue as it's part of a contact sport. Even high flying marks are few injuries...most injuries I see are pulled muscles while sprinting and broken limbs at the tackle usually when all feet are on the ground. Most head injuries seem to be from clashes of heads on bodies when trying to retrieve a loose ball on the ground)

If rugby looks at this and bans one-on-one contesting in the air for the ball, then AFL is in trouble!

 

[OB..]

In the NFL, a player signals a Fair Catch before trying to catch the ball. If he succeeds, he may not advance the ball. If he fails, play on. In rugby that would mean extending the Mark up to the halfway line again. Looks viable. The question still remains: is it actually necessary?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Perhaps you can look at some stats from AFL, where every ball in the air is attempted to be contested in the air, and there's a whole lot more of those than in rugby? Maybe their stats might show if the injury rate is significant or not. ....though of all the games I've seen (and that's 100s), I'd say the rugby tackle is much more injury prone rate. (I don't know if AFL stats would even exist to answer this, as it's just not an issue as it's part of a contact sport. Even high flying marks are few injuries...most injuries I see are pulled muscles while sprinting and broken limbs at the tackle usually when all feet are on the ground. Most head injuries seem to be from clashes of heads on bodies when trying to retrieve a loose ball on the ground)

If rugby looks at this and bans one-on-one contesting in the air for the ball, then AFL is in trouble!

I thought of looking at that, but after watching only 20 minutes or so, I realised/remembered that there is a fundamental difference between the two games that affect the dynamics of the way that high balls are contested... offside. There is no offside in AFL.

Firstly, in AFL many "kick-outs" are short ranged to an unmarked team-mate, and these catches are most often uncontested.

Secondly, while the long range kicks often are contested, unlike rugby they are not kicked into space with a team-mate starting behind the kicker and rushing up to contest the ball; they kick to a free team-mate who is already well downfield and is already waiting in the vicinity of where the ball will come down, along with opponents. As a result, players often jump from a slow jog and they are generally already close together and facing the direction the ball is coming from. You hardly ever see a situation where a ball is coming down into space with two opponents rushing from opposite directions into that space at full-tit!

 

[menace]

I concede that you make some valid points as to the dynamics of those contesting...though I still think it's the best you'll have in regards to proxy figures of injuries for contesting players in the air?

 

[Chogan]

I've watched loads of AFL, GAA, League and Union mid-air collisions between a number of players contesting the ball with varying degrees of elevation or lack there of.

There is a distinct difference, in all codes, between what we (union people) could describe as a contest for possession and taking a man out in the air.

There is also an enormous amount of luck with the physics of each individual post collision and how they land.

The example here shows what I would describe as a clear and obvious attempt to tackle the man in the air and not contest for possession. It is pure luck that the player taken in the air fails to land on his head earning the offender a Red Card.

That is the fundamental issue with the sanctions that are currently being handed out.

As for possible problem in our game, I'm not sure and hope the IRB are addressing the matter as we speak. Not allowing people to Jump IMHO is not the direction I would like to see it go

 

[Rushforth]

It is pure luck that the player taken in the air fails to land on his head earning the offender a Red Card.

The luck is that the player jumping to catch the ball was actually high enough (and "not held well" in the "tackle") that he was able to extend an elbow to land on.

 

[OB..]

RC for me. It was deliberate and reckless.

 

[Browner]

RC for me. It was deliberate and reckless.

Mid air collisions have the same type of thinking as high/late tackles .....the arriving player is responsible for his actions.

Most players know when they aren't going to get there 'properly', its total rubbish to consider that the luck of the landing determines the sanction.

Legitimate challenges for the BALL are the only way forward. Even a jumper can hit the player and spin him... I'm wanting to see a bonafide ball catch attempt , anything else you leave the pitch.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Mid air collisions have the same type of thinking as high/late tackles .....the arriving player is responsible for his actions.

Most players know when they aren't going to get there 'properly', its total rubbish to consider that the luck of the landing determines the sanction.

Legitimate challenges for the BALL are the only way forward. Even a jumper can hit the player and spin him... I'm wanting to see a bonafide ball catch attempt , anything else you leave the pitch.

So you're giving a RC for this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXFs9_acXrg
Or by "leave the pitch", are you leaving your options open for a YC?

 

[Dickie E]

So you're giving a RC for this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXFs9_acXrg
Or by "leave the pitch", are you leaving your options open for a YC?

I'd give a YC for that

 

[Chogan]

I'm wanting to see a bonafide ball catch attempt , anything else you leave the pitch.

There's a lot of scope for ones own opinion in there.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The example here shows what I would describe as a clear and obvious attempt to tackle the man in the air and not contest for possession. It is pure luck that the player taken in the air fails to land on his head earning the offender a Red Card.

I would have blown my whistle well before the ball was even caught, for clear an obvious offside under the 10m Law. Red 2, 6, 7, 8 ALL advancing ahead of the kicker. They must stop or retire until either the kicker passes them, or an onside team-mate passes them.

 

[Dickie E]

I would have blown my whistle well before the ball was even caught, for clear an obvious offside under the 10m Law. Red 2, 6, 7, 8 ALL advancing ahead of the kicker. They must stop or retire until either the kicker passes them, or an onside team-mate passes them.

tough call IMHO. They were hardly having a material impact and never likely to. The invisible culprit was the Blue player (#7?) who obstructs the Red chaser and causes his contest of the ball to be upset.

 

[Ian_Cook]

tough call IMHO. They were hardly having a material impact and never likely to. The invisible culprit was the Blue player (#7?) who obstructs the Red chaser and causes his contest of the ball to be upset.

I see materiality as applying beyond the immediate effect of their infringing i.e. materiality doesn't just affect what is happening now, it can also affect what happens next, e.g.

► Blue player successfully fields the ball and fires a quick pass to his left to start a counterattack

► All those Red players I mentioned (2, 6, 7 & 8) who continued to move forward and crossfield towards the ball while offside, are now several metres closer to the play that they would have been had they complied with the 10m law, in other words, they have gained advantage from their offending. A gap in the midfield that might otherwise have been there, has been closed by these infringing players.

Infringing the 10m offside Laws is one of the standard methods of stifling teams that like to counterattack. SANZAR Referees have been particularly vigilant on this aspect of offside this year.

Referees who allow players to do what Red did here, even if the players involved are quite some distance from the ball, are facilitating cheats to gain from their cheating.

 

[Red Cap Ref]

Ian,
Would you not play advantage to see what developed as the tackler might have stopped before contact and with players out of position an advantage might have developed?

 

[Phil E]

I would have blown my whistle well before the ball was even caught, for clear an obvious offside under the 10m Law. Red 2, 6, 7, 8 ALL advancing ahead of the kicker. They must stop or retire until either the kicker passes them, or an onside team-mate passes them.

If they are offside under the 10m law, then they must retire...immediately. Simply stopping and waiting to be put onside isn't good enough.

 

[crossref]

in the guardian today it says there has been a secret email

Ford, second-ranked to Owen Farrell as England's fly-half, was waved to the sin-bin for 10 minutes, which came as a shock to the 12,000 at the Rec who had not seen a midweek email from the international board's referee manager, Joël Jutge, demanding at least a yellow card for any player who did not get out of the way when another players is airborne.

"An interesting one; you don't see many of those and we hadn't made any contingency plans [for losing our fly-half]," Booth said. "A shambles," said Ryan, a coach with a history of getting himself into trouble after remarks about referees. "Let's just keep me away from that and see what email we get next week."

The Jutge email arrived only three games from the end of the regular season, in response to the sending off of Jared Payne in the Ulster-Saracens Heineken Cup quarter-final two weeks ago. The diktat seemed harsh when the Worcester flanker Sam Betty went off in the 38th minute with the Bath wing Horacio Agulla nowhere near catching the ball and quite out of proportion when Lemi rose to claim a bouncing ball before landing on top of Ford.

"The upshot of it is, unless two people are in the air contesting, irrespective of whether someone is looking at someone or not, if that collision occurs when one person is on the floor, that person is getting a minimum yellow card.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/apr/20/bath-worcester-premiership-match-report

 

[Browner]

There's a lot of scope for ones own opinion in there.

What else should be the yardstick chogan? Are you in the banning 'jumping' camp?

"Both yellow cards were a bit of a shambles," said Ryan. "Neither were particularly dangerous in the way the lads came down,"

Oh I see Dean, we have to have a broken neck 1st, before we can take preventative measures in the game!!!!??!!... This tackling the jumper issue is increasing and worsening, likely coached by the likes of you, so stop wingeing, you really don't get it, or my respect.