Reckless Endangerment

[Mipper]

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?

Whilst appreciating some have disagreed my view remains as I noted above, that is - perhaps put in a slightly different way - when ball is coming down, there are two relevant scenarios;

1. Both players have an equal opportunity to catch the ball, or
2. one player has a realistic chance to catch whilst an opposition player does not, but can “disrupt”

As a ref, I see it very simply, in scenario 2 the dis-advantaged player, whether attacker or defender has the absolute duty of care to allow the oppo player to land safely. Whether he is on the try line, or anywhere else on the pitch.

 

[didds]

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.

Which means... in reality the defender now has to actually run AWAY from the landing point, in order to run back, to gain the same momentum as the chasing player.

Daft.

 

[didds]

Dupont had this dilemma in Fra v SA. Try and catch and risk a RC ( which is what happened), or allow the chaser to catch and land - and probably score.

WR cannot now be ignorant of this created unbalance. But clearly accepts it. Meanwhile the reasons for the cards ( player safety) is still manifestly failing.

As for what should "you" as refs do about it - your hands are tied. Any rainier with an alternative approach is only a moot discussion ( which in effect we are having) because any application on the pitch would in effect be rogue as its not reflected in law. Though i may wryly applaud a dangerous play call against a running leaper.

 

[Mipper]

Which means... in reality the defender now has to actually run AWAY from the landing point, in order to run back, to gain the same momentum as the chasing player.

Daft.

Yeah, I’d agree with that. It would be daft!

Not sure I see the same version of your “reality”

 

[Harry]

In order to be equitable, it's up to the kicker to place the ball where his attacking player can get to it before any defender. That would reward his/her skill. If the kicker drops it on a defender that defender has the right to catch it without risk of injury or a red card. IMHO.

 

[didds]

Yeah, I’d agree with that. It would be daft!

Not sure I see the same version of your “reality”

Well if the ball is kicled AT the defender, who is waiting for the ball... what else can the defender do? That's the reality?

 

[Mipper]

In my minds eye, a ball kicked AT a defender would generally be a low kick arriving quickly and unlikely to arrive along with a leaping attacker, so I suspect this in not what you are intending.

The situation in question, I believe, is a high ball kicked in such a way that in comes down exactly where a motionless defender is standing, right? Which in itself is quite a rare occurrence. Not impossible of course, but rare.

So what I find daft is the contention that I would suggest that a defender should “run away” from a dropping ball. Possibly a poor choice of expression, but to be clear this is not what I suggest - obviously (?).

So I’ll try with some different words, my view, in the unlikely and rare event described in the second paragraph above, is that the defender is obliged to take 2 or 3 steps back in order to enable a fair challenge in the air OR allow the catcher/attacker to catch/land before tackling. By the way, in a similar fashion to how a chaser would when they realise that the kick they are chasing is slightly too far to challenge for in the air.

”Man and ball” so to speak.

Definitely no running away. It must be said however that I have seen games where players have run away from a high ball

 

[didds]

Shrug. It happens. Whatever. And under the current interpretations kicking AT a defender and chairing in the air is the best tactic.

Whatever.

 

[shebeen]

Dupont had this dilemma in Fra v SA. Try and catch and risk a RC ( which is what happened), or allow the chaser to catch and land - and probably score.

WR cannot now be ignorant of this created unbalance. But clearly accepts it. Meanwhile the reasons for the cards ( player safety) is still manifestly failing.

As for what should "you" as refs do about it - your hands are tied. Any rainier with an alternative approach is only a moot discussion ( which in effect we are having) because any application on the pitch would in effect be rogue as its not reflected in law. Though i may wryly applaud a dangerous play call against a running leaper.

Very similar incident to the original post, the problem is Dupont IS in a realistic position to catch but doesn't know Kolbe is leaping above him as he's watching the ball. The only way I could see this working is with fellow team mates can warn you to pull out or leap. Very hard in practice to execute that.

 

[BikingBud]

RC for Kolbe for reckless endangerment, he jumped into the space where he should expect another player to be.

Dupont is moving into the correct place and is watching the ball, and has been taken out by a player with no concern about his own or other player's welfare.

Crazy red card.

Whereas deliberating smashing into a player into a ruck, a la PSD, and fracturing another player's eye socket deserves a significant ban.

 

[BikingBud]

Very similar incident to the original post, the problem is Dupont IS in a realistic position to catch but doesn't know Kolbe is leaping above him as he's watching the ball. The only way I could see this working is with fellow team mates can warn you to pull out or leap. Very hard in practice to execute that.

It's not at all hard to manage though, in fact it is simple, outlaw jumping laterally.

If Kolbe had jumped straight up he would have come straight down, he was jumping high and with high lateral speed and hit Dupont on the head!

 

[BikingBud]

Dupont had this dilemma in Fra v SA. Try and catch and risk a RC ( which is what happened), or allow the chaser to catch and land - and probably score.

WR cannot now be ignorant of this created unbalance. But clearly accepts it. Meanwhile the reasons for the cards ( player safety) is still manifestly failing.

As for what should "you" as refs do about it - your hands are tied. Any rainier with an alternative approach is only a moot discussion ( which in effect we are having) because any application on the pitch would in effect be rogue as its not reflected in law. Though i may wryly applaud a dangerous play call against a running leaper.

Not at all rogue, it may be against what people perceive, or have been led to believe, as dangerous but it is not without basis in law. We easily and regularly could apply:

Law 9-11 - 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.​

Law as applied to Umaga incident:

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

 

[SimonSmith]

Not at all rogue, it may be against what people perceive, or have been led to believe, as dangerous but it is not without basis in law. We easily and regularly could apply:

Law 9-11 - 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.​

Law as applied to Umaga incident:

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

"A player struck another player on his head, using his knee"

In every other situation, that's a straight red for the person using their knees. Do it in midair, however, and the player you knee in the head gets a red depending on how you land.

Put like that...

 

[crossref]

We could also notice that
.. jumping over a tackler and contact with head, RC to jumper
.. jumping over a catcher and contact with head
RC to catcher

 

[shebeen]

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.

With more reflection this might actually be the best in a bunch of non ideal solutions. I hate to use football(soccer) as an example, but the goalkeeper is protected in the air. Even though he already has the advantage as the only one who can use his hands, he can come claim a cross unopposed and there's little subjectivity about it if played in the air. It actually works quite well and the end result is your cross has to be more directed into a space where you have a chance of regathering.

 

[didds]

Not at all rogue, it may be against what people perceive, or have been led to believe, as dangerous but it is not without basis in law. We easily and regularly could apply:

Law 9-11 - 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.​

Yes. You could.

SO why don't we see this called instead?

Ìd suggest if a ref did this it world be seen as"rogue" as i isn't how it is ever blown. Witness this and other threads.

 

[Stu10]

"A player struck another player on his head, using his knee"

In every other situation, that's a straight red for the person using their knees. Do it in midair, however, and the player you knee in the head gets a red depending on how you land.

Put like that...

I also feel like this needs to be addressed by WR... looking at the Dupont red, I genuinely feel there is a fair call that Kolbe committed the dangerous play, but, as you say, right now the player in the air gets the benefit of the decision, even more so if he catches the ball.

 

[Stu10]

Straying a little, anyone else here play Street Fighter? Kolbe Tiger Knee

 

[shebeen]

I also feel like this needs to be addressed by WR... looking at the Dupont red, I genuinely feel there is a fair call that Kolbe committed the dangerous play, but, as you say, right now the player in the air gets the benefit of the decision, even more so if he catches the ball.

View attachment 4470View attachment 4471

I guess you would then genuinely feel that Connor Murray committed the dangerous play here then too?



the gif

 

[Stu10]

@shebeen Yeah, that's the same. In both cases all the players involved had eyes on ball and were in a good position to catch it (despite what Barnes said at the weekend). I don't know the solution, jumping to take a ball is generally accepted, and we agree that safety needs to be paramount, but in these 2 examples IMHO all players are equally entitled to be where they are and to compete for the ball.