Reckless Endangerment

Mipper said:
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).
Click to expand...

I think this would create a real issue with kicks dropped right on the try line... if the chaser has a run up and jumps to catch, no defender will take step back and allow an uncontested catch and essentially gift the try.
 
Mipper said:
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).
Click to expand...

This is a lot more difficult, as you have your eyes on the ball *and* have to judge beforehand whether you'll be able to get high enough to be competitive in order to jump - once you start to jump it's out of anyone's hands.
 
Stu10 said:
I think this would create a real issue with kicks dropped right on the try line... if the chaser has a run up and jumps to catch, no defender will take step back and allow an uncontested catch and essentially gift the try.
Click to expand...
Might prompt a review from an "equity perspective"-

Clarification 3 2022​

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee​

A.2 A ball carrier may dive with the ball in order to score a try, and we all agree that should be allowed. From an equity perspective, if they do so, a defender may attempt to make a safe and legal tackle on that player. As we have said above, jumping to avoid a tackle should be regarded as dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly,even if no contact is made.

Player welfare should remain the priority deciding factor for match officials in these very rare situations....................................
 
This is an area I’d love to see official clarification on.

My biggest issue is when I see a player ahead of the chaser who gets in position to receive the ball and they've got into a good, solid, but static position to take a mark and then get taken out by a knee to the head by some leaping yahoo who tumbles and howls for a card on the unconscious defender. Who do you ping for dangerous play?

Maybe the easiest thing is a law rewrite for no more jumping to catch a ball outside of the lineout or restart? A bit dull, yes but safer and easier to enforce.
 
This is one that I'd actually like to see left to the MOs.

Right now we're dealing in absolutes - either it must be the player on the ground, or in the alternative it must be the player in the air. Or we abolish jumping.

In 99% of cases, I think a MO can identify who is at fault, if anyone is, and deal with it appropriately.
 
I feel Simon is right wrt MO... but i have no faith that after a couple of weeks of that, that a ventral and shared innkeepers will somehow be arrived at " for cpnsitency" and well be back to a scenario of it always being the defender/chaser at fault.
 
Volun-selected said:
This is an area I’d love to see official clarification on.

My biggest issue is when I see a player ahead of the chaser who gets in position to receive the ball and they've got into a good, solid, but static position to take a mark and then get taken out by a knee to the head by some leaping yahoo who tumbles and howls for a card on the unconscious defender. Who do you ping for dangerous play?

Maybe the easiest thing is a law rewrite for no more jumping to catch a ball outside of the lineout or restart? A bit dull, yes but safer and easier to enforce.
Click to expand...
This might just be logical endpoint that is the only way to improve player safety, but it doesn't cover all scenarios. Anyone running has both feet off the ground already, and would put shorter players (who are good jumpers) at a disadvantage.

There are plenty of players who have their skill in the air as a plus point to their game, but the contest is hardly ever a clean one to reward it. I'd be happy to see a lot less speculative up and unders in the game - that is the domain of AFL and they are welcome to have it all to themselves
 
off-the-wall idea here :

what about giving priority to the non-kicking team: so that if
- blue kicks
-if a red player is making an attempt to catch the ball, then blue cannot compete, until after the catch is made and red player on the ground.

Then everyone knows the whole time who has priority, and priority cannot change at the last minute by someone jumping/not jumping when it's too late to adjust

Safer and (a bonus) it adds a disincentive to kicking.
 
crossref said:
off-the-wall idea here :

what about giving priority to the non-kicking team: so that if
- blue kicks
-if a red player is making an attempt to catch the ball, then blue cannot compete, until after the catch is made and red player on the ground.

Then everyone knows the whole time who has priority, and priority cannot change at the last minute by someone jumping/not jumping when it's too late to adjust

Safer and (a bonus) it adds a disincentive to kicking.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea in theory but becomes subjective again. How close does red have to be to be “making an attempt to catch the ball”? What if blue’s kick is an attacking kick from the 10 to a wing? If there’s a defending wing “making an attempt to catch the ball”, does the attacking wing then have to stop and let him gather it?
Personally, I find this to be a clever way idea that would be incredibly difficult to put into practice and would make for far more boring rugby. Obviously safety must be an important consideration but if the options to make it safer are this or “no one may jump to catch a kick”, I would choose the latter.
 
Obviously we would want to trial it , to see what impact it made
At the same time trial "no jumping" .. see what works better
 
Locke said:
Interesting idea in theory but becomes subjective again.
Click to expand...
But less so, and more predictable
Locke said:
How close does red have to be to be “making an attempt to catch the ball”?
Click to expand...
I don't quite see the problem .. If blue collides with red before he has possession, or in the air it's always going to be a PK to red
Locke said:
What if blue’s kick is an attacking kick from the 10 to a wing? If there’s a defending wing “making an attempt to catch the ball”, does the attacking wing then have to stop and let him gather it?
Click to expand...
Or get there first, but If blue collides with red before he has possession, or in the air it's always going to be a PK to red

The point would be that blue can't jump and then claim all the protection automatically granted to a jumping player.
 
Stu10 said:
I think this would create a real issue with kicks dropped right on the try line... if the chaser has a run up and jumps to catch, no defender will take step back and allow an uncontested catch and essentially gift the try.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand that perspective.

However, look at it this way, if the skill has been executed to put the ball on the try line by the kicker + on a part of the try line that the teammate can get to ahead of the defence + that chasing teammate does get there first + gets into the air first + presumably catches the ball in the air, then he already has earned an advantage right?

if the only apparent way to stop a try is illegal and/or dangerous then it’s correct to penalise for attempting to stop it.

The conditions as you set out are not equal, therefore it is not fair competition.
 
Mipper said:
Yes I understand that perspective.

However, look at it this way, if the skill has been executed to put the ball on the try line by the kicker + on a part of the try line that the teammate can get to ahead of the defence + that chasing teammate does get there first + gets into the air first + presumably catches the ball in the air, then he already has earned an advantage right?

if the only apparent way to stop a try is illegal and/or dangerous then it’s correct to penalise for attempting to stop it.

The conditions as you set out are not equal, therefore it is not fair competition.
Click to expand...
If the kick is coming down on top of a stationary defender, who makes it a dangerous situation?
 
chbg said:
If the kick is coming down on top of a stationary defender, who makes it a dangerous situation?
Click to expand...
The stationary defender.

How/why?
It’s about the game awareness, or situational awareness if you prefer. Competition for the ball is core to the game, so if there is an attacker who is likely to win the dropping ball, the defender needs to be aware and either jump to compete, or let the attacker jump, land and then compete.
 
Mipper said:
The stationary defender.

How/why?
It’s about the game awareness, or situational awareness if you prefer. Competition for the ball is core to the game, so if there is an attacker who is likely to win the dropping ball, the defender needs to be aware and either jump to compete, or let the attacker jump, land and then compete.
Click to expand...
Disagree
 
Mipper said:
The stationary defender.

How/why?
It’s about the game awareness, or situational awareness if you prefer. Competition for the ball is core to the game, so if there is an attacker who is likely to win the dropping ball, the defender needs to be aware and either jump to compete, or let the attacker jump, land and then compete.
Click to expand...
I disagree too.
 
The modification you need if the kicking team cannot compete in the air for the ball. The defending team can, thereby preventing them being lined up for a hospital tackle. But if you kick it, you must stay on the ground. Solves all problems.
 
lawsons said:
The modification you need if the kicking team cannot compete in the air for the ball. The defending team can, thereby preventing them being lined up for a hospital tackle. But if you kick it, you must stay on the ground. Solves all problems.
Click to expand...
see post #29 !
 
Whether we agree or not, the issue still remains that as it stands the Law is interpreted to give the jumper a huge advantage that some players are more than happy to take full advantage off.

I‘ve seen several ideas on this thread worth developing but until The Blazers set up a trial or similar then we’re stuck in the current framework. What can we do inside that framework that gets the balance of safety vs. competition right? Treat any half-decent attempt at a jump as fair competition? Treat jumping into a player already in position but static as dangerous play?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top