Red Card?

[leaguerefaus]

Tahs v Stormers

Player slips causing him to take out the man in the air. Referee says he cannot take the slip into account, and as he was not in a position to catch the ball at point of contact, he has to wear the full responsibility for the dangerous landing, thus RC.

Should the slip be taken into account?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/video/rugby/super-rugby/bernard-foley-falls-on-face!519380
Couldn't find a youtube link for those outside of Aus yet, sorry.

 

[The Fat]

Probably a touch unlucky but Mike Fraser didn't have much choice in the end. Shaun Veldsman (TMO) tried to get the slip taken into consideration but as Fraser explained, the Stormers player's actions placed Foley in a dangerous position that ended with him landing on neck and shoulders. I thought Mike Fraser handled it quite well and made his reasoning very clear. The Stormers captain complained a bit but was never going to have MF overturn his RC decision once he had issued it.

I think the NZ refs are probably just edging the other refs at the moment. Joubert had a pretty good game this weekend also.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm not suggesting that either this RC or the one in the Highlanders v Sharks game last weekend were not appropriate, but I think that if this is the course WR intends to stay, then we will soon see the end of the contest for the ball in the air. I know of a couple of local club coaches who are already coaching players not to compete at all for the jump ball, and instead, they are coaching their kick-chasers to time their runs so that they clatter the jumper at full throttle the moment his feet touch the ground. Its only a matter of time before coaches at higher levels pick this up, and it could make things worse as far as potential for injury goes

 

[Dickie E]

Joubert had a pretty good game this weekend also.

What did you think of his truck & trailer call?

 

[The Fat]

What did you think of his truck & trailer call?

From memory, a group of about 3 players break off main group (changing lanes). The ball carrier is at the rear of this group. Not the same maul and therefore a case of truck & trailer.
Will see if I can find video to check my recollection of the event.

 

[Crucial]

I'm not suggesting that either this RC or the one in the Highlanders v Sharks game last weekend were not appropriate, but I think that if this is the course WR intends to stay, then we will soon see the end of the contest for the ball in the air. I know of a couple of local club coaches who are already coaching players not to compete at all for the jump ball, and instead, they are coaching their kick-chasers to time their runs so that they clatter the jumper at full throttle the moment his feet touch the ground. Its only a matter of time before coaches at higher levels pick this up, and it could make things worse as far as potential for injury goes

I tend to agree except it will be a different type of injury to the potential neck one.

This concept is fine except in instances when there is no jumping player until the last moment. I think WR have made some good changes in reffing this area, providing guidelines similar to tip tackles where the sanction is appropriate to whether there was a genuine contest and how the affected player is hit/lands. However it still doesn't take into account situations where a player playing the game on his feet and positioned for a catch has an incoming player jump into them recklessly placing themselves in danger. It is the poor bloke not jumping that cops the punishment. I hear there was a similar incident to this in the Kings/Jaguares game (but have not seen it).
IMO there has to be a level of responsibility placed on the jumping player. After all if he doesn't jump and place his tipping point above a contact point then there is no danger.
I am not advocating removing jumping for contest out of the game I just think that there is a rather one sided view taken.
If both teams coach their players to hold back from the contest to clatter the one who eventually claims the ball we will see kicks used more and more as a 50/50 opportunity. Poor teams will just send up endless high balls and chasers.

 

[Ian_Cook]

What did you think of his truck & trailer call?

A clear and obvious case of changing lanes.

The Rebels ball carrier and a team mate ahead of him that he was bound to broke off the maul together. In that case the ball MUST be cleared away from the maul immediately.. if they carry on running forwards, that is obstruction.

[LAWS]Clarification 9 2006

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling9-2006

Union / HP Ref Manager

FFR

Law Reference17

Date29 November 2006

Request
The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 17 Maul

1. During a maul the ball carrier and one of his team mates leave the maul.
a. Can an opponent tackle the ball carrier?
b. Does the ball carrier have to be the lead player?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
1. (a) Yes as it is no longer a maul.
1. (b) Yes otherwise it is obstruction.
[/LAWS]

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...changing-lanes&p=297500&viewfull=1#post297500

 

[Dixpat]

Mike Fraser ....

I think the NZ refs are probably just edging the other refs at the moment. Joubert had a pretty good game this weekend also.

Is this the same Mike Fraser who missed the obvious KO when the Waratahs scored the match winning try??

 

[Ian_Cook]

I tend to agree except it will be a different type of injury to the potential neck one.

This concept is fine except in instances when there is no jumping player until the last moment. I think WR have made some good changes in reffing this area, providing guidelines similar to tip tackles where the sanction is appropriate to whether there was a genuine contest and how the affected player is hit/lands. However it still doesn't take into account situations where a player playing the game on his feet and positioned for a catch has an incoming player jump into them recklessly placing themselves in danger. It is the poor bloke not jumping that cops the punishment. I hear there was a similar incident to this in the Kings/Jaguares game (but have not seen it).
IMO there has to be a level of responsibility placed on the jumping player. After all if he doesn't jump and place his tipping point above a contact point then there is no danger.
I am not advocating removing jumping for contest out of the game I just think that there is a rather one sided view taken.
If both teams coach their players to hold back from the contest to clatter the one who eventually claims the ball we will see kicks used more and more as a 50/50 opportunity. Poor teams will just send up endless high balls and chasers.

A la Dan Biggar/Finn Russell?

https://youtu.be/9_7ILvecMcg?t=126


I was at the time, and am still still firmly of the opinion that Dan Biggar's actions were reckless in putting himself into danger by jumping at speed from so far back. Finn Russell tried to stop, and was near stationary when Biggar jumped into him.

IMO, this is one Law that Rugby has wrong and that Basketball has right... in Basketball, if the ball carrier or player competing for the ball runs into a stationary defender, that is a charging foul against the player in motion, i.e. the defender does not have to get out of the opponent's way.

 

[Crucial]

I think that in Rugby it is a little more kinetic than being able to plant your feet and would be harder to call but the concept is good.

All I am asking is that the whole situation is taken into account. If a player recklessly clatters in with no regard for safety then RC him. If the collision is accidental or the second player to the point of contact is the jumper then just have a look at it later and don't ruin a player's season and paypacket for a genuine accident.

I like what they have done so far to clarify sanctions at the time, just think it needs to go a little further to be fair.

In the JO decision for this one it has been acknowledged that the player slipped while attempting to jump which caused him to slide into and under the jumper yet he still gets a ban? That is the Law being an ass IMO and doesn't reach anywhere near a standard of 'fairness'.

 

[Crucial]

So rather than moaning about this I thought I would look at changing the guidelines myself. This is my version...

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

• The player in position under the ball first has rights to it whether in the air or on their feet. Arriving players have the responsibility to not create a dangerous situation.
• If competing players arrive under the ball at a near similtaneous time then the following applies.
• 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. If two or more players are in position on their feet before the ball arrives any player subsequently taking to the air has responsibility for their own saftety.
• 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 – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

 

[thepercy]

I think that in Rugby it is a little more kinetic than being able to plant your feet and would be harder to call but the concept is good.

All I am asking is that the whole situation is taken into account. If a player recklessly clatters in with no regard for safety then RC him. If the collision is accidental or the second player to the point of contact is the jumper then just have a look at it later and don't ruin a player's season and paypacket for a genuine accident.

I like what they have done so far to clarify sanctions at the time, just think it needs to go a little further to be fair.

In the JO decision for this one it has been acknowledged that the player slipped while attempting to jump which caused him to slide into and under the jumper yet he still gets a ban? That is the Law being an ass IMO and doesn't reach anywhere near a standard of 'fairness'.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask players to be careful in this type of situation, eventually after enough RCs and bans they will get the message. I liken this to a ball on the ground in open play or in a ruck that is near a players head, players should be careful, if you are not and you slip or miss the ball and kick your opponent in the head then you risk sanction.

 

[Crucial]

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask players to be careful in this type of situation, eventually after enough RCs and bans they will get the message. I liken this to a ball on the ground in open play or in a ruck that is near a players head, players should be careful, if you are not and you slip or miss the ball and kick your opponent in the head then you risk sanction.

I think asking players to take into account a risk of slipping is a stretch.

Funny that you use the kick in the head example as that is exactly what we saw in the RWC and it was waved off as an accident when the action was deliberate and included a high degree of risk.
Yet when a player who has possibly trained to jump for a ball hundreds of times and has never slipped during that training has his boots/ground give way on him during a game then what is a low probability suddenly happens and he cops a RC and a ban.
Do you really think that a player should be going into any action with doubts. That is asking for trouble and second thoughts will lead to indecision and poor timing.

Expect risk mitigation by all means but expecting low probability risks to be mitigated is taking things a bit far. This is a sport and in sport unexpected things happen. That is the nature of things and why we watch/play.

 

[Dickie E]

I think asking players to take into account a risk of slipping is a stretch.

Funny that you use the kick in the head example as that is exactly what we saw in the RWC and it was waved off as an accident when the action was deliberate and included a high degree of risk.
Yet when a player who has possibly trained to jump for a ball hundreds of times and has never slipped during that training has his boots/ground give way on him during a game then what is a low probability suddenly happens and he cops a RC and a ban.
Do you really think that a player should be going into any action with doubts. That is asking for trouble and second thoughts will lead to indecision and poor timing.

Expect risk mitigation by all means but expecting low probability risks to be mitigated is taking things a bit far. This is a sport and in sport unexpected things happen. That is the nature of things and why we watch/play.

I agree. The cricketer Philip Hughes was tragically killed in a freak occurrence that involved a bouncer. Should the bowler have been held accountable for placing the batsman in a dangerous position?

 

[Phil E]

 

[Pegleg]

Funny that you use the kick in the head example as that is exactly what we saw in the RWC and it was waved off as an accident when the action was deliberate and included a high degree of risk.

That highlights a fault in the game's disciplinary process and why many see the citing / Disciplinary system as not fit for purpose. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Treat each on their own merits.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The slow-mo in that video (starts at 0:07 on the timer) clearly shows both players with eyes on the ball, but the Stormers player plant foot slips as he is about to jump.



PS: Phil. Has it calmed down in your city yet?

 

[DocY]

WR have made a bit of a rod for their own (or rather referees') backs. They've agreed to clamp down on tackling in the air, fair enough, but simultaneously introduced very strict and inflexible rules regarding sanctions.

These rules might be fine 90% of the time, but what we've seen in the last few weeks are situations that obviously weren't considered when the rules were devised and in which a card (or even who would be given a card) is at best very debatable.

Hopefully it's an organic process where they'll change the criteria so that, for example, if another player pushes you into a jumping player, you're not liable, but at the moment I agree that there's a risk jumping will die out - the consequences of a mistake are just too great.

 

[DocY]

Expect risk mitigation by all means but expecting low probability risks to be mitigated is taking things a bit far. This is a sport and in sport unexpected things happen. That is the nature of things and why we watch/play.

^This. You can't mitigate all risks except by staying in the changing room.

 

[didds]

I'm not suggesting that either this RC or the one in the Highlanders v Sharks game last weekend were not appropriate, but I think that if this is the course WR intends to stay, then we will soon see the end of the contest for the ball in the air. I know of a couple of local club coaches who are already coaching players not to compete at all for the jump ball, and instead, they are coaching their kick-chasers to time their runs so that they clatter the jumper at full throttle the moment his feet touch the ground. Its only a matter of time before coaches at higher levels pick this up, and it could make things worse as far as potential for injury goes

This is where we were following Finn Russell a couple of years ago, with it becoming almost impossible as a defender to look to contest the ball against a reasonably timed chaser. Things seemed to have become a little more sensible over the intervening couple of years I thought... but maybe not.

Are we to see players RC'd for poorly timed, or just HUGE tackles that injure opponents as we move forward?

didds