But the man on the ground is in a strong position. When was the last time someone was seriously injured by colliding with someone in the the air (who isn't committing and act of Foul play ie kicking his foot up), while running to compete for the ball. The risk of hurting yourself in a tackle is way higher than this. Are we going to ban tackling. Rucks are also another area, with the new Law trials that have came in create another risk with the Croc Rolls or Leveraging. In a couple of years time, are we going to ban rucks? I don't think there's an issue with the Laws as they currently are, in terms of the aerial battles. Yes the player jumping should bear some responsibility but the chasing player should bear the brunt of responsibility as they are in the stronger position.
For clarity from an earlier comment, even if Kolbe had jumped as little as 6 inches off the ground, that's still not OK. He needs to be high enough to realistically compete for the ball, meaning he needed to have been round about the same height. If he was a little lower, then fine play on. Murray's jump, while I'm not saying there was no forward momentum in his jump, most of the emphasis was vertical. Hence how he managed to get so high.
I think we are going round in circles now. I know what the laws (and more importantly the accompanying guidelines) say. But I and the others who argue as I do are suggesting that the laws as currently interpreted are daft. The original intent was to prevent grounded or semi-grounded players from tacking other players who were in the air. I think everyone would agree that is sensible. However, the current interpretation has moved well away from that starting point, and gives licence to players to compete aerially in the most reckless fashion. Kolbe plainly did NOT tackle Murray in the air; nor do I think it is obviously the case that he took him out in the air. You could argue that Murray actually took Kolbe out, and fell down awkwardly himself as a result.
To answer your specific points. Kolbe is in “a strong position” because he has elected, unlike Murray, not to recklessly put himself in a dangerous one. Why should he then be subject to sanction when he has not done anything wrong? And your second point about the contest in the air is problematic on two counts, to my mind. Firstly, if Kolbe has to jump essentially as high as Murray to avoid potential sanction, how can he estimate the leap necessary without taking his eye off the ball and looking at Murray … an action which in itself leaves him open to sanction! And secondly, it is hard to accept that a law which states that to avoid potential sanction Player B has to act as recklessly as Player A has player safety at its heart.
It is off topic and would not eliminate all these aerial collisions (but it would certainly reduce them): the plethora of box-kicking is a blight on the game, in my view, adds nothing to the spectacle, and wastes a vast amount of playing time (caterpillar joins ruck, blocking pillar(s) get in place, scrum-half rolls ball delicately back with foot, ref calls "use it", scrum-half hoofs ball sixty feet up in the air, invariably followed by a knock-on). Simple solution - ban kicking from the base of a ruck or scrum except in your own 22, and force teams to actually play rugby again. Sanction a free-kick to the opposing team. Any views?
