Sco v Wal - penalty count!

[OB..]

Strange that you bring this example up, when the same argument could easily be applied in this case in defence of Russell.
Russell's actions were legal. Biggar's actions were legal. The result was unfortunate.

You have the wrong end of the stick. I was asking people to stop dealing with this situation as if it were the expected outcome of jumping to catch the ball, and claiming it means we should ban all such activity. I think everybody agrees that Hearn's injury does not mean we need to ban tackling any more than the well known legal cases of scrum injuries mean we should ban scrummaging. I would like people to stop using this particular case as a basis for demanding a radical change in the laws.

I have consistently said that Russell got it wrong; that can make a player culpable eg the IRB reference to "reactionary" high tackles in relation to penalty tries.

It appears to me that the 'best' way to mitigate this risk is for all players competing for a kicked ball to be held responsible for their decisions and not just the one on the ground.

At one time it became the practice to jump for the ball with a foot stuck out in front of you. I attacked this as unacceptably dangerous play, and fortunately it has been treated as such, so the practise has ceased.

Perhaps if you stopped falling back on the argument of 'this is how it is currently adjudicated' you could see the value in this incident being a catalyst for a close look at how the current interpretation fails to create more safety in some situations and could be revisited.

You must have missed the posts where I said a discussion about the general situation was reasonable. What I object to is people attacking officials by claiming they should have dealt with the situation according to a different set of rules from the ones currently in place.

 

[RobLev]

I deliberately quoted your boxing scenario because it did not contribute anything sensible to the discussion.

And I used the boxing analogy to demonstrate that Browner's claim that Russell "upended" Biggar simply by not removing his head and shoulders from Biggar's flightpath has its logical flaws, to put it politely.

 

[RobLev]

...

I have consistently said that Russell got it wrong; that can make a player culpable eg the IRB reference to "reactionary" high tackles in relation to penalty tries.

...

What did Russell get wrong that caused Biggar to land as he did?

 

[Browner]

What did Russell get wrong that caused Biggar to land as he did?

His timing, which caused him to collide with a player in the air, such that the player in the air's feet were knocked from underneath him & he fell on his head/ neck area.

 

[RobLev]

His timing, which caused him to collide with a player in the air, such that the player in the air's feet were knocked from underneath him & he fell on his head/ neck area.

One, I was asking OB; I know, and disagree with, your claims.

Two, Russell's timing was spot on; he arrived beneath the ball at the right time to catch it.

 

[Phil E]

If you want to challenge for the ball in the air, and both players are going for the ball, that's fine. What happens, happens.

If you don't want to challenge for the ball in the air, then you take your chances if you take out the player who is in the air.
Best thing is to wait until he lands before making contact.

 

[Browner]

One, I was asking OB; I know, and disagree with, your claims.

Two, Russell's timing was spot on; he arrived beneath the ball at the right time to catch it.

Three, you're being a hypocritic! Unless you never respond to posters replies to other's, yep, thought so.

Russell's timing was spot on

, ah ha , I now see why we differ so.

Out of all the analysis of this " collision" this article seems to mirror my view closest.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/six-nations-2015-scots-wrong-8678848

 

[Ian_Cook]

If you want to challenge for the ball in the air, and both players are going for the ball, that's fine. What happens, happens.

If you don't want to challenge for the ball in the air, then you take your chances if you take out the player who is in the air.
Best thing is to wait until he lands before making contact.

So, when a player who has got himself into position where the ball is going to land, has his eyes on the ball and is waiting to catch it, and then an opponent crashes into him before the ball arrives, you are happy to PK the player, not the opponent? .

 

[Ian_Cook]

Out of all the analysis of this " collision" this article seems to mirror my view closest.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/six-nations-2015-scots-wrong-8678848

This bit is complete and utter bollocks!!

Townsend’s criticism centres around his claim that Russell has been banned despite keeping his eye on the ball. Well, this is clearly a flawed argument.
Russell does indeed keep his eye on the ball until the point where he pulls out of the contest and turns his head away.
The moment he does that he loses any control over the situation.
By turning his shoulder towards Biggar, he effectively makes a back for the Ospreys No.10, who flips over as he collides with him.

The only difference is that is Russell had not turned away, his face would have copped Biggar's right knee, and Biggar still would have flipped over.

Russell’s left arm also makes contact with the Welshman’s right leg, exacerbating the toppling effect, sending him head-first towards the turf.

If Russell's back was what flipped Biggar over, then his hand would have had no effect, and if you actually look at the video (instead of a cherry picked still), you'll see that what his journalist says is not what actually happened.

 

[Phil E]

So, when a player who has got himself into position where the ball is going to land, has his eyes on the ball and is waiting to catch it, and then an opponent crashes into him before the ball arrives, you are happy to PK the player, not the opponent? .

But he's not going to catch it because the player who jumps for the ball will nine times out of ten catch it first.

The 'opponent' didn't crash into him, they crashed into each other, and as the law stands, the player in the air has the rights.

If the law changes, then it will be refereed differently, but until then................

 

[OB..]

What did Russell get wrong that caused Biggar to land as he did?

He appears to be totally unaware (until the last second) that Biggar is charging up and will jump for the ball. He ended up running though Biggar and upending him. That was clearly dangerous. It is reasonable to expect more from a professional player.

 

[OB..]

One, I was asking OB; I know, and disagree with, your claims.

Two, Russell's timing was spot on; he arrived beneath the ball at the right time to catch it.

He failed to take into account what another player was doing, therefore his actions ended up being dangerous. His timing was incompetent.

 

[OB..]

So, when a player who has got himself into position where the ball is going to land, has his eyes on the ball and is waiting to catch it, and then an opponent crashes into him before the ball arrives, you are happy to PK the player, not the opponent? .

You are happy that he has no obligation to be aware of any other player and his perfectly normal action?

 

[Balones]

The reporter in the article (and some previous posters) have made reference to the 'guidance' on such incidents and that the citing panel applied it. Can anyone please point me in the direction of this 'guidance'. As far as I know we have some Laws (10.4e & i) that could be applied, but are not really precise enough for this incident, and we have some guidance on how to apply the laws that apply to a tip tackle scenario. More than willing to be pointed in the right direction to access this 'guidance'. Thanks.

 

[RobLev]

He failed to take into account what another player was doing, therefore his actions ended up being dangerous. His timing was incompetent.

All of which applies to Biggar just as much as it does to Russell. And Russell's timing was spot on to catch the ball - which was after all what he was trying to do.

The situation was dangerous because Biggar was in the air. Who put him in the air?

But, with respect, you haven't answered my question, which may be because I wasn't clear.

Which part of Law 10.4(i) did Russell infringe?

 

[RobLev]

He appears to be totally unaware (until the last second) that Biggar is charging up and will jump for the ball. He ended up running though Biggar and upending him. That was clearly dangerous. It is reasonable to expect more from a professional player.

Biggar appeared to be totally unaware until the last second that Russell is running to catch the ball on the ground. He ended up jumping into Russell and, had Russell not taken evasive action, could easily have caused Russell serious injuries to head and face. That was clearly dangerous. It is reasonable to expect more from a professional player.

My point is not to be sarcastic; but to show that your reasoning assumes that it is for Russell to avoid Biggar, and not vice versa. It is that assumption that has no basis in Law or equity; in Law, because nothing in the Law makes it illegal to be at a spot through which someone is jumping without more; and in equity because the dangerous situation is created by Biggar launching himself into the air either not knowing or, worse, knowing that his flightpath is likely to intersect with a defender's head.

 

[Balones]

You are happy that he has no obligation to be aware of any other player and his perfectly normal action?

I'm sure we agree that this applies to both (all) players?
Roblev - beat me to it.

 

[RobLev]

Three, you're being a hypocritic! Unless you never respond to posters replies to other's, yep, thought so.

???

, ah ha , I now see why we differ so.

Out of all the analysis of this " collision" this article seems to mirror my view closest.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/six-nations-2015-scots-wrong-8678848

We differ, it appears, because I look at the video and you look at a still?

The refereeing as it stands allows a jumping player to create a dangerous situation (watch the vidoe and note that moments before your still Biggar's knees are traveling at speed towards Russell's unprotected face) and to have an opponent removed from the field should the danger eventuate.

 

[FlipFlop]

Of course the jumper doesn't have to take any action to protect themselves, or prevent harm to those dumb enough to remain on the ground.... :sarc:


Personally I think (but appreciate it isn't in law, or reffed as such) the jumper has to have exercised a duty of care to themselves, and to others on the field. I think this is the FIRST thing that should be judged. If their actions are okay, then look at the person on the ground. (Or - you want to be protected in the air, then ensure you don't endanger those on the ground!)

 

[Browner]

???



We differ, it appears, because I look at the video and you look at a still?

The refereeing as it stands allows a jumping player to create a dangerous situation (watch the vidoe and note that moments before your still Biggar's knees are traveling at speed towards Russell's unprotected face) and to have an opponent removed from the field should the danger eventuate.

One - you're wrong, I'd arrived at my view before stumbling upon a supportive photo.

Two - the article ( as I said) is closet to mirroring my view on this subject and the wider game implications.

If it turns out that your view is upheld at the appeal, then I'll buy you a cider if/ when we meet, if not then you can reciprocate