Springboks v Lions

[crossref]

Struggling to know what the Boks alternative was. He had eyes on the ball and was in position where it was due to land. The Lion launches himself recklessly

yes, generally I detect WR moving away from rigid application of the frameworks, and back to a more empathetic approach.

2 weeks ago BOK followed the framework and got rapped on the knuckles for it
this week BOK exercised a bit of discretion and the citing officer agrees with him .


there have been one or two other examples where I have thought that, but can't recall specifics.

Anyone else think this could be happening?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

But Gatland gets a free pass for criticising the appointment of the TMO because he did it publicly through the media?

“Match officials are the backbone of the sport, and without them there is no game. World Rugby condemns any public criticism of their selection, performance or integrity which undermines their role....

Either way this process is underway now, hopefully the outcome is better systems in the long run.

If you read WR's statement they comment about BOTH camps! THe view the RSA breech the more serious gfor the reasons they give. Gatland, whilst "scoring points" was objecting to the principle and NOT a specific referee. Erasmus was directly referring to the official himself.

The difference is pretty obvious.

 

[Rich_NL]

Im not sure how though?

after being played in the air

* first point of contact with the ground was Murray's foot
* second point of contact with the ground was his outstretched hand
* third point of contact seemed to be his back, just behind the shoulder.

The foot was not in any way load bearing, and players reaching out to protect their head/neck doesn't mitigate where the impact would have been - otherwise you might get players trying to suppress their reflex to make it worse.

I thought the contact was head/shoulder - I don't see how it could have been his back, as he came down face-first.
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/cheslin-kolbe-conor-murray-lions-springboks-233531
If it was his back, then YC is justified.

I'm also not a fan of the framework here, by the way

 

[crossref]

yes, my understanding is that a player managing to put out a hand to save himself from horrible injury should NOT be treated as a mitigating factor.

 

[TigerCraig]

yes, my understanding is that a player managing to put out a hand to save himself from horrible injury should NOT be treated as a mitigating factor.

Personally I think if aplayer jumps they are responsible for having a safe place to land. While other players have to allow them that space, they shouldn't be penalised for standing their ground.

 

[crossref]

Personally I think if aplayer jumps they are responsible for having a safe place to land. While other players have to allow them that space, they shouldn't be penalised for standing their ground.

yes, but the complicated ones are when (like last weekend) both players are moving at speed.

 

[dfobrien]

If Kolbe had been in the air, even by millimetres, and looking throughout at the ball (as he clearly was), is it then a fair contest, and no fault either way? And is there any case that Murray was in fact the reckless one? From the video it appears his hip hit Kolbe in the head. If it had been his foot, or his knee, would HE have been the one penalised? I think the ref made a pretty pragmatic decision, in the circumstances.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If Kolbe had been in the air, even by millimetres, and looking throughout at the ball (as he clearly was), is it then a fair contest, and no fault either way? And is there any case that Murray was in fact the reckless one? From the video it appears his hip hit Kolbe in the head. If it had been his foot, or his knee, would HE have been the one penalised? I think the ref made a pretty pragmatic decision, in the circumstances.

I agree with this view 100%.

I despise this outcome-driven bullshit about protecting the player in the air ever since it began a few years ago with the Finn Russel yellow card...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWIOPJIZpvc

.. one, and only one player is responsible for what happened to Biggar here.. and that is Biggar himself. He runs full speed and recklessly launches himself at Russel, who is following the most basic and fundamental tenet of the game... don't take your eyes off the ball - and for that, he gets clattered by a dangerous & irresponsible idiot, and is awarded with 10 minutes out of the game doing so.

The law should allow a player to stand his ground to catch the ball, and not have some cockhead jumping at him and putting him and everyone around him danger of getting knees or sprigs in their face. If WR are being honest about protecting the welfare of players, they should make the hard call and ban players from jumping to catch a kicked ball.

 

[Dickie E]

I agree with this view 100%.

I despise this outcome-driven bullshit about protecting the player in the air ever since it began a few years ago with the Finn Russel yellow card...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWIOPJIZpvc

.. one, and only one player is responsible for what happened to Biggar here.. and that is Biggar himself. He runs full speed and recklessly launches himself at Russel, who is following the most basic and fundamental tenet of the game... don't take your eyes off the ball - and for that, he gets clattered by a dangerous & irresponsible idiot, and is awarded with 10 minutes out of the for game doing so.

The law should allow a player to stand his ground to catch the ball, and not have some cockhead jumping at him and putting him and everyone around him danger of getting knees or sprigs in their face. If WR are being honest about protecting the welfare of players, they should make the hard call and ban players from jumping to catch a kicked ball.

if we still had 'likes' I would have clicked 'like' to this post

 

[didds]

ditto - the only query here is how to define jumping for a kicked ball - how high is "a jump" to be a "jump" and not just both feet off the ground whilst running, or hurdling a prone player ie due to second party actions? Its these things that need to be teased out to make such a change workable... but I reiterate the whole scenario has just gone round and round and round ...

 

[Ian_Cook]

ditto - the only query here is how to define jumping for a kicked ball - how high is "a jump" to be a "jump" and not just both feet off the ground whilst running, or hurdling a prone player ie due to second party actions? Its these things that need to be teased out to make such a change workable... but I reiterate the whole scenario has just gone round and round and round ...

Simple. They had no trouble defining this for a "Fair Catch" prior to the 2000 rewrite

1996 Laws of Rugby

LAW 16. FAIR-CATCH


(a) A player makes a fair-catch when in his twenty-two meters area or in his In-goal, he having at least one foot on the ground, cleanly catches the ball direct from a kick by one of his opponents and, at the same time, he exclaims "Mark!"

So, with some re-arrangement and editing...

LAW 9 FOUL PLAY

UNFAIR PLAY
7. A player must not :
a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.
b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.
c. Do anything that may lead the match officials to consider that an opponent has committed an infringement.
Sanction: Penalty.

d. Waste time.
e. Catch, or attempt to catch the ball direct from a kick by either a team-mate or an opposing player without at least one foot on the ground at the moment of the catch
Sanction: Free Kick

 

[Arabcheif]

I think the idea of any player intentionally tucking in to increase a sanction is ridiculous for these aerial issues. Why would a player risk permanent injury by not putting an arm out thereby landing on their head or neck. The whole reason the the Law was changed was the act of taking someone out in the air is has a high risk of serious injury. I can't recall any incidents when the defender has been injured seriously by a chaser in the air. That being said, I agree that the chaser should take reasonable responsibility for himself too, ei not have too much forward momentum in the air that would create the contact. I'd say get to where the ball is going to land then jump vertically, with little or no forward momentum.

The crux of the Murray/Kolbe incident, for me, is that Kolbe was running at full speed with no regard for anyone who he might've made contact with. For me this is both reckless and dangerous. Add that he was still on the ground in a position of strength, no where near the ball. If he had jumped and was even a foot or so higher than he was, then this would've been a fair contest - play on.

We're always told, start with YC. Then Look to see, what part of the player hit the ground - Head/Neck - RC - other - (sticking with) YC. Was the player brought back down safely - Yes - Penalty only - No YC. "Accidental" contact has always been irrelevant in these situations (Accidental just means no intention to play the player and a genuine attempt to get the ball).

My personal view is RC all day, for any player in the same situation.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think the idea of any player intentionally tucking in to increase a sanction is ridiculous for these aerial issues. Why would a player risk permanent injury by not putting an arm out thereby landing on their head or neck.

Why one earth would anyone jump out of a perfectly functional aircraft with only a large piece of silk strapped to their back?
Because the tangible prospect of the huge adrenaline rush outweighs the intangible risk of the parachute not opening and them hitting the ground at 196 km/h.

Why one earth would anyone free climb El Capitan?
Because the tangible benefit of getting to top and earning fame as one of a small group of elite climbers outweighs the intangible risk that they might fall to a certain death.

I personally know, and have seen players who are willing to do exactly what you describe for the immediate and tangible benefit of getting an opponent red carded thereby increasing their team's chance of winning, because they back themselves to minimize their risk of getting hurt.

 

[Arabcheif]

Because that piece of silk strapped to their back will slow down the descent to a point where they can land without injury. That's the idea of that past-time, plus the odds of the chute not opening are extremely low.

Again, their climbing but never heard of anyone being hurt going up. Plus the plunging to a certain death is if it goes wrong, further to that they don't do anything to increase that risk like not grabbing a hold.

In the rugby scenario they'd be maximising the risk by bringing there arms in. I've played and watched rugby for about 25 years, I've never seen someone do something like that. I have seen (fortunately) very few player feign a more serious injury to increase the sanction. But never have I seen someone who is falling through the air and bringing their only defensive measure to prevent very serious injury (as you can't control yourself much falling), in so that it increases/potentially increases the severity of injury. That is nuts.

 

[Ian_Cook]

In the rugby scenario they'd be maximising the risk by bringing there arms in. I've played and watched rugby for about 25 years, I've never seen someone do something like that. I have seen (fortunately) very few player feign a more serious injury to increase the sanction. But never have I seen someone who is falling through the air and bringing their only defensive measure to prevent very serious injury (as you can't control yourself much falling), in so that it increases/potentially increases the severity of injury. That is nuts.

Ever watched AFL?

 

[Arabcheif]

Ever watched AFL?

Like I said..... nuts. They're just nuts :biggrin:

 

[dfobrien]

The problem for me is that what happened is as follows: two players ran at full speed in pursuit of a dropping ball, each focussed only on the ball. One of them jumped perhaps four feet in the air (and not by any means vertically as Arabcheif recommends); the other just kept running, watching the ball. The one who jumped hit the other in the head with his hip. Why do we say Kolbe took out Murray rather than saying Murray took out Kolbe? Because the laws of rugby say it is so. But to any sensible observer not acquainted with the laws, Murray’s actions are clearly more reckless (of his own safety and his opponent’s) than Kolbe’s. Yet the laws state that Kolbe could be sent off (depending on how Murray falls, an outcome completely outside his control) for trying to position himself to catch a falling ball and having a leaping opponent hit him in the head. They furthermore state that if Kolbe had jumped six inches in the air at the end of his run, then no offence would have occurred, regardless of how Murray falls. That IS nuts.

 

[didds]

e. Catch, or attempt to catch the ball direct from a kick by either a team-mate or an opposing player without at least one foot on the ground at the moment of the catch
Sanction: Free Kick

[/TEXTAREA]

Ok... so you cant catch a ball on the full tilt run when both your feet are off the ground? which happens constantly at speed of course?

A catch in this regard presumably including a pass just to complicate matters.

didds

 

[didds]

I think the idea of any player intentionally tucking in to increase a sanction is ridiculous

I agree generically.

But you can guarantee that nobody ever would do such a thing. 100%. ?

Meanwhile ian answered the OP with a far better post (kudos)

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

The problem for me is that what happened is as follows: two players ran at full speed in pursuit of a dropping ball, each focussed only on the ball. One of them jumped perhaps four feet in the air (and not by any means vertically as Arabcheif recommends); the other just kept running, watching the ball. The one who jumped hit the other in the head with his hip. Why do we say Kolbe took out Murray rather than saying Murray took out Kolbe? Because the laws of rugby say it is so. But to any sensible observer not acquainted with the laws, Murray’s actions are clearly more reckless (of his own safety and his opponent’s) than Kolbe’s. Yet the laws state that Kolbe could be sent off (depending on how Murray falls, an outcome completely outside his control) for trying to position himself to catch a falling ball and having a leaping opponent hit him in the head. They furthermore state that if Kolbe had jumped six inches in the air at the end of his run, then no offence would have occurred, regardless of how Murray falls. That IS nuts.

Where the hell is that effing "like" button!!