[Tackle] Red card or not

[Zebra1922]

As per #14 with a link to relevant LoTG page. No fair challenge for the ball and red player lands on his head. So fits the 2015 memo for a straight Red.[LAWS]Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position[/LAWS]

I disagree this makes this incident a RC. We have no contest and a player landing on his head, but were the actions of the non jumper reckless or deliberate foul play? I say no, jumper caused the contact, unfortunate landing, play on (well, blow for the injury but no offence)

 

[L'irlandais]

In my #15 I already said I agree with the idea it was not a Red Card. My point is that the referee has applied the guidelines given to him. Opinion supported by the fact Blue captain said post match he had no complaints about the red. If a defender is not going to contest possession of the ball, then they are better standing off and engage the player just after he lands.

 

[nhughes]

Well Lowe didn't contest it and got a two week ban instead of a month, still don't think he deserved it seeing as he didn't contest the ball or opposition player, just waiting on jumping late to become a tactic.

 

[L'irlandais]

The fact that the citing was upheld, tells us that WR feel it was a Red Card offense :
[LAWS]With the advent of the professional game in 1996, the Citing Commissioner role became established as an extension of the Match Official team, specifically tasked with addressing serious incidents of foul play that may have occurred in a match but were not addressed sufficiently at the time. Source: Worldrugby [/LAWS]Otherwise they’d have dismissed the case. A ban suggests they felt the red Card was not sufficient to deter future foul play. It is an offense because he didn’t contest for the ball, but ran head long into the player in the air.
Citing Commitees are notorious for reducing bans to way below the entry levels, for little reason other than the player turns up in a suit and tie and remains polite throughout the proceeding.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

http://fullmatchtv.com/index.php/rugby/guinness-pro14-munster-vs-leinster-dec-29-2018/ About 46 minutes into this video here.
It looks awful but both players have there eyes on the ball.
Red choses to Jump, Blue doesn't.
If red was not there Blue was positioned perfectly to catch the ball. Why is it his fault?

 

[SimonSmith]

...
Citing Commitees are notorious for reducing bans to way below the entry levels, for little reason other than the player turns up in a suit and tie and remains polite throughout the proceeding.

Also known as following the mitigating factors laid out in Reg 17.
Plead guilty?
Clean record?
Get a discount.

 

[L'irlandais]

You tell me. Perhaps, because TV referees had a different brief ?
Thing is Red was taken out in the air. #20 lists the match referee’s limited options.

 

[Zebra1922]

You tell me. Perhaps, because TV referees had a different brief ?
Thing is Red was taken out in the air. #20 lists the match referee’s limited options.

But as per my post 21, Red card requires "being reckless or deliberate foul play action....". What part of a player standing on the ground waiting to catch the ball with his focus on the ball reckless or dangerous?

 

[L'irlandais]

Blue sprints pretty fast toward the landing zone, getting there ever so slightly before the ball. He attempts not to overrun the spot, but his forward momentum carries him into the Red player in the air. At no point was he standing still, at best he had slowed his run. I suspect it is reckless, 1. Due to the fact he hasn’t looked to see where other arriving players are. 2. It was reasonable to expect other players were going to compete for the ball. You would have to look at the disciplinary committee report for the exact reason.

 

[didds]

and as said before this approach encourages attackers to kick the ball to where defenders are already standing as it effectively gives the attacking team a double whammy of catch the ball or win a card+PK. Becvause the catcher already under the ball has to effectoivel;y run away from where the ball was kicked.

didds

 

[OB..]

and as said before this approach encourages attackers to kick the ball to where defenders are already standing as it effectively gives the attacking team a double whammy of catch the ball or win a card+PK. Becvause the catcher already under the ball has to effectoivel;y run away from where the ball was kicked.

didds

If the kick is that accurate (and few are) the defender could just retire a few paces and be in a position to tackle the chaser as soon as he lands.

 

[BikingBud]

Blue sprints pretty fast toward the landing zone, getting there ever so slightly before the ball. He attempts not to overrun the spot, but his forward momentum carries him into the Red player in the air. At no point was he standing still, at best he had slowed his run. I suspect it is reckless, 1. Due to the fact he hasn’t looked to see where other arriving players are. 2. It was reasonable to expect other players were going to compete for the ball. You would have to look at the disciplinary committee report for the exact reason.

And how much momentum did the red player bring to the collision? I would suggest most of it. Red card to red for reckless play! If red had jumped straight up not coming in from the half way line, about 10m, and been taken out by blue undercutting him then yes red for blue but red had no concern for his own safety.:frown:

WR have to stop protecting players that are reckless with their own bodies to this extent.

A broken neck and severe paralysis is not far away.

 

[BikingBud]

Similar event in the first few mins of the Toulouse v Leinster game. Meddart runs and jumps with high knees to catch a high ball but in doing so takes out the player waiting on the ground. Yellow to Meddart.

 

[L'irlandais]

Do you have a video of the Medard incident ?
I can’t find any mention of a yellow in today’s Leinster v Toulouse game, nor in the 21 October 2018 fixture in Toulouse.

 

[BikingBud]

Do you have a video of the Medard incident ?
I can’t find any mention of a yellow in today’s Leinster v Toulouse game, nor in the 21 October 2018 fixture in Toulouse.

It wasn't which is my point, maybe I should have used a ? After the first ruck of the game must be first min. Box kick from Leinster. He ran jumped with knees up and took out the Leinster player, Healy. Commenting from "pundits" about responsibility of player on ground :chin:

 

[L'irlandais]

So are you suggesting Wayne Barnes did apply the 2015 memo, in the same way as Frank Murphy (IRFU) ?
If he thought it was a fair challenge, then it is play on.

As per #14 with a link to relevant LoTG page. No fair challenge for the ball and red player lands on his head. So fits the 2015 memo for a straight Red.[LAWS]Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position[/LAWS]

Video clip examples @ Enforcement of current Law
May 2015
At a meeting in April 2015, the Laws Representation Group (LRG) considered the areas of the Game where, it had been agreed that Law amendments were not required but that current Law was to be enforced by match officials including:At a meeting in April 2015, the Laws Representation Group (LRG) considered the areas of the Game where, it had been agreed that Law amendments were not required but that current Law was to be enforced by match officials including:

No mention of it on Leinster Rugby twitter.

The French had this to say about it

De suite après réception irlandaise, les Leinstermen ont tapé une chandelle vers Médard qui a commis un en-avant sur les 40m adverses.

Médard knocks-on under the high ball.
Source: Rugbyrama

 

[BikingBud]

No my concern for this is from the other perspective, that seems to be ensuring players in the air are not taken out. Which is a good protection and should be applied.

However we should also be ensuring players do not jump into collisions without any concern for their own or others safety. Medard jumped high and fast and with knees up into a space where it was entirely reasonable for a player to be competing. Why is the person on the ground always deemed to be at fault? If we want a fair contest then players jumping in at speed and height should be penalised as they are skewing that contest as they are assumed to be fault free.

It's probably not reported as we seem to turn a blind eye towards the actions of the person that may be coming in higher and faster. Why? They exposed themselves and others to the greater risk, this is reckless and should be penalised.

 

[L'irlandais]

Apparently Médard knocked the ball on and was penalized for that, rather than knees up in the jump.

 

[BikingBud]

Exactly my point.

If you watch it you will, hopefully, understand my concern better.

Its on the BT website but UK and subscribers only, 4:35 on the programme clock:

https://sport.bt.com/ss/Satellite/b...1363980987389?site=btsport&leId=1364319130121

 

[BikingBud]

Series of stills: