Sale V Lyon

[Pegleg]

https://twitter.com/SaleSharksRugby/status/922784597376716800

What do people think?

 

[Taff]

For what it's worth, that to me is Dangerous Play and a PK to white.

I was always told that a BC was not allowed to "Jump into a tackle" even though it is not specifically mentioned in the book. Sure it looks good when a BC cleanly jumps over a potential tackler, but the chances are that he will get up-ended and come down head first - as happened here. And that is never ever going to end well; sometimes players need protecting from themselves.

 

[TheBFG]

Don't need to watch it, know which clip this is going to be :wink:

PK for dangerous play.

But funny how so many claim "the law states it's illegal to jump into a tackle"

 

[didds]

Well that ref is an idiot frankly.

Her just opened as can of worms for the rest of that match by each team taking it in turns to jump aroundsshoulder height of any crouched player to be turned head over heels and buy a PK, possibly cards too.

Did the PK stand ultimately? Maybe the TMO had a word in his ear, or an AR?

didds

 

[crossref]

If it's dangerous to jump into a tackle, why isn't it similarly dangerous to run at high speed and jump to catch a ball..

Can of worms indeed....

 

[Taff]

If it's dangerous to jump into a tackle, why isn't it similarly dangerous to run at high speed and jump to catch a ball. Can of worms indeed....

They are both dangerous, but one carries a far higher risk. At least if a player jumps to catch a ball, there is a fair chance the opponent will be jumping for it as well, and if they don't, we put the onus on the opponent to make sure the BC isn't tackled while he is in the air. The sanctions are pretty tough.

When a BC jumps into a tackle, the opponent isn't expecting a player to be at head height.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

So does anyone know did he give e penalty to black?

 

[Pegleg]

Missread the post.

 

[Taff]

So does anyone know did he give e penalty to black?

It's just a guess, but tackling a player in the air perhaps?

 

[didds]

well that's clearly what it was given for. But quite how black was supposed to not end up upending him in this situation I dont know - aside from (if they were lucky enough to see him coming so late so high) would be to stepaside - and he'll romp past as a result.

But hey oif this is what WR want then who am I to say they are wrong. I think its daft in the extreme - but WR must have a reason to permit this tactic gaining a PK (+ possible card) or a romp past the would be tacklers. God on 'em - bound to be a TV winner.

Oh - and you guys with the whistles - it'll happen on a pitch near you soon - good innit! Top tactic!



didds

 

[crossref]

For me the referee is completely following modern guidelines : the player in mid air is king and the player on his feet is obliged to avoid him, under pain of a likely card if he doesn't
The Laws are absurd, mind mind but there you go

 

[SimonSmith]

In a rare moment of "Good God, USA Rugby got it right" they have been specific that jumping the tackler is a penalizable offence.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

In a rare moment of "Good God, USA Rugby got it right" they have been specific that jumping the tackler is a penalizable offence.

not so fast, remember this is USA rugby, it is specific alright, but it ain't jumping, it is a hurdle

9. A ball carrier may not hurdle a tackler, as it is dangerous play. PK

I suggest a player may still jump (i.e. dive or broad jump or stride over) a tackler. A hurdle lifts at least one leg fore such as in .... well.... hurdling. The sole of the foot being foremost in this maneuver.

 

[OB..]

The ball carrier is jumping because he sees/thinks the tackler is going low. Therefore he is putting his boot roughly where the defender's head might be, significantly increasing the chance of kicking his head.

I see that as dangerous play and will mark it as such in my report. If told not to, I might well take up crochet instead.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I might well take up crochet instead.

That's not how you spell cricket.

 

[ChuckieB]

Letting it breath, it was a play on and observe the ultimate outcome. It wasn't a mistimed tackle from what I saw. Contributory negligence on the part of the bc had he come off worst. Had he kicked the player in the head it would have been penalty against for dangerous play. He No penalty required.

Only watched it the once. So I am going on first instincts around how the laws should be applied. Had he been diving for the line it would have been easier to see it this way.

 

[ChrisR]

BC is totally at fault. Dangerous play.

I would caution against a mod to the laws without first considering a player leaping an attempted tackle from the side.

 

[VM75]

BC is totally at fault. Dangerous play.

I would caution against a mod to the laws without first considering a player leaping an attempted tackle from the side.

There are occasions when hurdling a tackle attempt is an applaudable athletic agility, but it carries exponent risks. Achieve it & win applause, fail & clatter the opponent & lose a PK, YC, or RC depending on how much you endanger/hurt the player.

Accordingly most don't attempt it.

In the clip - it's a PK for me, if knees had struck defender in the chest/neck/head then a YC, & if defender had been semi or fully concussed then its a RC, similar to the high tackle set of barometers.