Reckless Endangerment

[BikingBud]

Wasps v Northampton - Northampton players jumps with high lateral speed and collides with Wasp's fullback who is looking to catch the ball.

Still perceived as a player on the ground issue rather than recognising that the risk is entirely with the jumping player.

If player safety is paramount jumping laterally needs to be outlawed.

 

[crossref]

I didn't see that as controversial.. expand a bit ?

 

[Dickie E]

I think the OP is lamenting that a stationary player can be held responsible for an injury to a moving player ... a sentiment that I agree with

 

[didds]

we've been here before.

CF Biggar/Finn Russel.
nothing new., authorities don't seem to "get" it (or its in the "too difficult" drawer, to be ignored)

As I've opined before ... this ... interpretation basically means the best tactic is to kick AT a defender and not into space. Because it forces the defender to run AWAY from the point of landing ie where they ALREADY are so as not to become a standing red card and PK.

beyond stupid.

didds

 

[crossref]

Ugama wasn't stationary though, he was running without looking properly where he was going

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579143223821234180

 

[BikingBud]

I never said he was stationary.

Brian O'Driscoll says:

• "It's very dangerous" - It is but why the assumption that the player on the ground is at fault?
• "He's coming running across, he's not in control" - what utter tosh, he absolutely is in control on a line going to where the ball is about to land.
• "He doesn't know where the player in the air is" - Why should he, the player decided to put himself into the air with reckless abandonment. Does the player in the air know the space through which he is about to recklessly hurl himself is clear?

If you removed the player in the air would Umaga have caught the ball cleanly?

 

[Phil E]

I never said he was stationary.

Brian O'Driscoll says:

• "It's very dangerous" - It is but why the assumption that the player on the ground is at fault?
• "He's coming running across, he's not in control" - what utter tosh, he absolutely is in control on a line going to where the ball is about to land.
• "He doesn't know where the player in the air is" - Why should he, the player decided to put himself into the air with reckless abandonment. Does the player in the air know the space through which he is about to recklessly hurl himself is clear?

If you removed the player in the air would Umaga have caught the ball cleanly?

The player on the ground has the ability to move his position and avoid contact.
The player in the air does not.

 

[dfobrien]

The player on the ground has the ability to move his position and avoid contact.
The player in the air does not.

Correct, so in any normal understanding of the term, the jumping player is the one creating the dangerous situation, or in layman’s terms, being reckless. But WR, for reasons I think we all understand, but which has the inevitable result of creating situations like these, has turned this normal meaning on its head and has transferred the burden of responsibility onto the non-jumper.

I have less sympathy for Umaga in this case (he came running across at speed, although I agree with a lot of what BikingBud says above), than I had with Kolbe and Russell in the two similar cases discussed here previously. In each case, they simply stood in place awaiting the ball and had Conor Murray and Dan Biggar respectively leap dangerously at their head, and got yellow carded for the privilege. At the time of the Russell incident, Gregor Townsend apologised to all the players he had coached in his career, given that keeping your eye on the ball was now a yellow card offence!

 

[Stu10]

If Umaga had also jumped, creating a more out-of-control situation with 2 players in the air, would that be considered more acceptable and thus no card would have been awarded because both were competing in the air?

 

[crossref]

Ugama ... (not Umaga)

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Ugama ... (not Umaga)

It's Umaga. Jacob. Son of Mike, nephew of Tana

 

[BikingBud]

Correct, so in any normal understanding of the term, the jumping player is the one creating the dangerous situation, or in layman’s terms, being reckless. But WR, for reasons I think we all understand, but which has the inevitable result of creating situations like these, has turned this normal meaning on its head and has transferred the burden of responsibility onto the non-jumper.

I have less sympathy for Umaga in this case (he came running across at speed, although I agree with a lot of what BikingBud says above), than I had with Kolbe and Russell in the two similar cases discussed here previously. In each case, they simply stood in place awaiting the ball and had Conor Murray and Dan Biggar respectively leap dangerously at their head, and got yellow carded for the privilege. At the time of the Russell incident, Gregor Townsend apologised to all the players he had coached in his career, given that keeping your eye on the ball was now a yellow card offence!

Edited to add, I fully support your first para.

But why does Umaga have any less entitlement to travel at speed to where the ball will land? If we dictate the pace that players can manoeuvre around the pitch to compete for the ball we have undermined a fundamental concept of the game

However, the jumper also had a high lateral speed into the collision zone. He set off from the 22 and watched the ball so wasn't aware of where the defender, who had every right to compete in fielding a cross field kick, actually was. Hence my consideration that the Saint's player was reckless and endangered himself and the defender, who was on a good line to catch the ball until someone travelling at high speed jumped into him.

If we want to protect the players then we should outlaw this tactic and consign into history the misplaced assumption that by jumping into other players you are not responsible for the danger. The dynamics, and potential outcome, are not supported by the thought that only one party is at fault.

 

[BikingBud]

Ugama ... (not Umaga)

​

 

[BikingBud]

3 week ban Law 9.17 - A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

Whereas Law 9-11 could apply to the other party: - Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

 

[crossref]

​

I was misled by BT sport
I will stand on a chair right now and down a pint

 

[shebeen]

I never said he was stationary.

Brian O'Driscoll says:

• "It's very dangerous" - It is but why the assumption that the player on the ground is at fault?
• "He's coming running across, he's not in control" - what utter tosh, he absolutely is in control on a line going to where the ball is about to land.
• "He doesn't know where the player in the air is" - Why should he, the player decided to put himself into the air with reckless abandonment. Does the player in the air know the space through which he is about to recklessly hurl himself is clear?

If you removed the player in the air would Umaga have caught the ball cleanly?

This whole thing of protecting the player in the air at al costs has resulted in unintended consequences, none of them good.
* to be safe both players (or more) now need to get in the air
* we will see more and more milking of penalties cards as there is zero tolerance, hopefully it doesn;t get to the stage of players trying to land on their heads after contact to try and get a yellow moved up to red.

this clip is not the best example, infact the player who got injured was the one who didn't jump.

 

[Stu10]

@shebeen the clip you shared is the incident in the OP

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I think the decision was correct however I wonder what would have happened if the Wasps player was in position, stationary and waiting to catch the ball without jumping as I was taught back in the day.
The logical decision should be Northampton player should be sent off, jumped at a player without the ball and knocked him out.

 

[BikingBud]

I think the decision was correct however I wonder what would have happened if the Wasps player was in position, stationary and waiting to catch the ball without jumping as I was taught back in the day.
The logical decision should be Northampton player should be sent off, jumped at a player without the ball and knocked him out.

My concern is not whether the decision is correct or otherwise but that the framework assigns blame rather than stopping an extremely dangerous tactic.

It's no good saying it was someone else's fault to a paraplegic when the situation was avoidable by a change to the laws.

The logical decision is for WR to make jumping for the ball in open space illegal, early or late hits on catchers will likely continue and should be penalised but the motion rarely ends with players landing on their necks/heads with the increased risk of life changing injury.

Edit to add, concern about the weekend game with Quins v LI seemed more about the process being followed than addressing its fitness for purpose, to protect players.

 

[Mipper]

I see this similarly to the dangerous clear out defence at a breakdown. That is, the jackler is over the ball, very low and the opposition player can ”only hit him in the had/neck” because of his low position.

I often hear this, but it is nonsense because the player attempting this clear out is too late, he has already lost the ball. He has to leave it. To smash into the hackles is nothing but malice.

Same as the player jumping to catch the ball, if he is already in the air, no-one is going to out-jump or get to the ball first. Let him have it (the ball).