Super Rugby final - red card

[Ian_Cook]

(you mean Russell)

Yes

No, he means Hogg

Simon. Both players were YC and then the referee changed his mind after seeing the replay and RC Hogg. I conflated the two incidents, thinking that happened in the Finn Russel one instead.

when Biggar jumped no one was in his landing zone - at least, so it seemed to me.

Finn Russell always (and only) had eyes on the ball....

https://youtu.be/whN_jd2gh44?t=45

...It wasn't until his sky was full of Dan Biggar that he realised Biggar was airborne. However, at no time was Kwagga Smith ever watching the ball, and he was never intending to compete for it in the air...

https://youtu.be/tK1xLL0rg6g?t=44

...His sole intent seems to be that he is going to clatter David Havili when he landed after catching it, he just got his timing wrong.... very wrong

Whereas Havili had Smith oncoming directly before he jumped and when he did jump he was probably going to land on him even if Smith could have stopped still immediately.

Now while I disagree with the the application of the Law as is stands now, it is what it is, and I think players must adapt. Hopefully, WR will see sense and realise their drive to have outcome based decision making is deeply flawed. In the mean time, kick chasers are going to have to improve their judgement of when to bail out of any attempt to contest the ball, doing so the moment they have any doubt about whether they are going to get there in time to contest.. Watch Israel Dagg in this clip from later in the same match...

https://youtu.be/7m0EANyoSus?t=4204

Initially, he is running quick enough to get there for the contest, but around 15m out, he realizes that he's not going to make it, so he adjusts his speed down to get there for the tackle.

I think Christy's approach [post #10]would have been a correct application of the Law. It will be interesting to see what the Disciplinary Panel make of it.

Totally disagree with Christy's approach. Flouting the GMGs of your Union will get you an adverse from your MO, and on Tuesday night, you'll be fronting up to your REO with a please explain request.

 

[Treadmore]

Finn Russell always (and only) had eyes on the ball....

wasn't the point but nevermind..

However, at no time was Kwagga Smith ever watching the ball

I think you need to look again: watch his whole run from after the kick he looks up and then ahead several times. The last time he looks up is as he crosses the Black 10m line, just before where you timed the clip to start.

Watch Israel Dagg in this clip

https://youtu.be/7m0EANyoSus?t=4204

Good timing and play from Dagg, however, fwiw, I don't think he ever ran to contest the ball (he's faster than that!).

 

[DocY]

What's it going to take for players to get it?

If you're meaning the penalised player, they do get it, and they got it just as much when it only resulted in a penalty. You're heavily penalising something the player had no intention of doing anyway, so the penalty is no deterrent - it just screws the rest of the team.

In school, I had a coach who made anyone who dropped the ball do press ups. Did it stop dropped balls? Did it ****! It's just the same thing here.

If, on the other hand you were referring to the jumpers - they also get it. They know that if they throw themselves into the air there's a good chance an opponent will get a RC!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Once upon a time, you only got sent off for a really serious act of foul play. Now you get sent off for making an unintentional and fleeting mistake in judgement. I don't know about others here, but this state of affairs seem grossly unfair to me, and actually cheapens the more serious offences. Now, I get the idea that the more serious offences get dealt with by the judiciary, but that does not help the players whose fault it wasn't.

I think it is about time for a review of Law 10 to make a clear distinctions between foul play infringements that happen in the course of normal play, and those that are clearly pre-meditated, intentional acts.

Firstly, I would like to drop the term Dangerous Play, and replace it with two terms.. Reckless Play and Violent Play. I would then divide Law 10.4 into two parts.

10.4.1 RECKLESS PLAY
This would include those parts of the current Law 10.4 such as late and early tackles, high tackles, no-arms tackles and tackles without the ball, as well as swinging arm and stiff arm tackles etc

10.4.2 VIOLENT PLAY
This would include those parts of the current Law 10.4 such as punching, striking, head-butting or kicking an opponent. I would also include a provision that any intentional act of Reckless Play shall be considered as Violent Play.

Secondly, I would change the players' suspension sanctions as follows:

► YC - keep as it is now. The player is temporarily suspended for 10 minutes. The player may come back on or be replaced after the suspension period expires.
► RC - change so that it results in a longer temporarily suspension period, say 15 or 20 minutes. The player cannot return to the field, but he can be replaced with another player after the temporary suspension expires, and that replacement counts as one of the team's eight allowable replacements.
► Sending Off. The referee will still have the option of sending off a player (no card is shown and no replacement allowed) if the player commits a serious enough act of Violent Play, or in the opinion of the referee, intentionally commits an act of Reckless Play.

 

[DocY]

Once upon a time, you only got sent off for a really serious act of foul play. Now you get sent off for making an unintentional and fleeting mistake in judgement. I don't know about others here, but this state of affairs seem grossly unfair to me, and actually cheapens the more serious offences. Now, I get the idea that the more serious offences get dealt with by the judiciary, but that does not help the players whose fault it wasn't.

Exactly this. In a competitive game, an early RC will all but decide the outcome.

As Ian says, the bar for such game altering decisions needs to be much higher and shouldn't cover honest mistakes.

 

[Jeff2509]

But, if you look at it a different way, when harsher sanctions were brought in for careless feet in the ruck with the aim of trying to remove shoeing, it was viewed as harsh at the time. But over time, the message got through to players that you had to take care where your feet were in a ruck, even reckless feet.
Over time, it will get through to players that you can't charge after the ball in the air at full pace, not look where you're going and not care who's around you...we see so many less incidents like this now than we did a few years ago because players are getting the message, we just need to keep being consistent and eventually, the players will stop putting themselves, and referees, in this position because the risk of getting it wrong is so high.

 

[DocY]

But, if you look at it a different way, when harsher sanctions were brought in for careless feet in the ruck with the aim of trying to remove shoeing, it was viewed as harsh at the time. But over time, the message got through to players that you had to take care where your feet were in a ruck, even reckless feet.
Over time, it will get through to players that you can't charge after the ball in the air at full pace, not look where you're going and not care who's around you...we see so many less incidents like this now than we did a few years ago because players are getting the message, we just need to keep being consistent and eventually, the players will stop putting themselves, and referees, in this position because the risk of getting it wrong is so high.

I don't agree with that.

Treading on on people in rucks was never really accidental and was almost always a conscious decision, so starting to penalise it made sense.

Plus, using your feet in a ruck is entirely down to the player in question. There's nothing the opposition can do to force him to infringe and there are never and situations where it's acceptable.

When it comes to contesting in the air players (usually) aren't going out to tackle an opponent - they're trying to make a legitimate play for the ball -so when they do it's unintentional and the prospect of a penalty is heavily influenced by the actions of an opponent. A catcher running towards where the ball will land to take it on the ground will be fine as long as no opponent jumps into him, but as soon as an opponent does he's liable to sanction - without any difference in his thoughts or actions.

 

[TheBFG]

Exactly this. In a competitive game, an early RC will all but decide the outcome.

Then players shouldn't commit acts of foul play #simples

I once had a coach tell me that I ruined a game because I sent a player off in the first 10mins of a game :chin: "that'll be the player that ran in from 10m away and kick a player at full speed in the ribs????" "Yeah that's right, I ruined the game, wnaker!"

 

[OB..]

A catcher running towards where the ball will land to take it on the ground will be fine as long as no opponent jumps into him, but as soon as an opponent does he's liable to sanction - without any difference in his thoughts or actions.

You are arguing that the would-be catcher is entitled to disregard any likely actions by the defender.

 

[Jeff2509]

DocY

Perhaps the feet in a ruck was a bad example, it was meant to show how consistent enforcing the laws does change behaviour and almost removes it as an issue in the game

Whilst I completely get the fact that 99% of these situations are accidental, I don't accept that, just because the ball is in the air, players are suddenly given license to charge around at full pace, not look where they are going and put opposition players in dangerous positions because they were looking at the ball and not paying attention to the situation around them

 

[Ian_Cook]

Whilst I completely get the fact that 99% of these situations are accidental, I don't accept that, just because the ball is in the air, players are suddenly given license to charge around at full pace, not look where they are going and put opposition players in dangerous positions because they were looking at the ball and not paying attention to the situation around them

Does that apply to players like Biggar (and in this case Havili) who jumped into the air with total disgregard for their own safety and that of others, yet it was the others who copped the PK/card for the jumping player's recklessness?


1. You get into your car absolutely trolleyed, misjudge a bend due to your drunken state, cross the centreline and hit an oncoming car, killing all three occupants. You survive .... You get 15 years behind bars for manslaughter.


or

2. You get into your car absolutely sober, misjudge a bend, cross the centreline and hit an oncoming car, killing all three occupants. You survive .... Would 15 years behind bars a fair and just sentence for this simple misjudgement.

Of course not, but that is effectively what rugby is doing. Kwagga Smith just got 4 weeks for a simple misjudgement... this is completely over the top IMO. Its not too different from what you get for punching an opponent in the head and breaking his jaw. For comparison, Dylan Hartley got two weeks in 2012 for punching Rory Best, and four weeks in 2015 for head-butting Jamie George, and this was a guy with seriously bad form.. Kwagga Smith has never been before the judiciary until now.

The removal of intent from consideration is a crock of shite. If I was currently an active referee, I would tell them to shove their game; I want no part of enforcing Laws of the Game that are unjust. The fact that there are referees around, even on this forum, who advocate flouting their own Union's GMG and making their own decisions in cases like this, tells me that I am not alone in feeling this way.

 

[_antipodean_]

The problem with this one was that the catcher jumped forwards as well as upwards. That made the incident and the outcome worse. Under the current interpretation the right call, but I'd rather see the penalty go the other way - against the guy who causes the potential danger.

You're involved in the wrong sport then. It's a collision sport. There's always potential danger.

The difference here is Kwagga Smith should have anticipated that the player coming forward (that he knew was there) would likely jump to secure possession. If Kwagga wasn't in a place to have that contest for possession, he should have slowed and attempted to position himself to tackle Havili as soon as Havili landed.

This is how Smith should have done it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m0EANyoSus&t=4204

Similarly I had one in an under 18 game today where a payer jumped just as he was about to be tackled. I penalised him for dangerous play and noone complained

That's completely different and not relevant.

 

[DocY]

Then players shouldn't commit acts of foul play #simples

I once had a coach tell me that I ruined a game because I sent a player off in the first 10mins of a game :chin: "that'll be the player that ran in from 10m away and kick a player at full speed in the ribs????" "Yeah that's right, I ruined the game, wnaker!"

When the laws make an accident an act of foul play - and one that can easily come with a red card - I don't think it's simple. Saying "Don't commit foul play" is the same as saying "don't make a mistake". No matter how much you say it it doesn't stop people doing it.

 

[DocY]

Whilst I completely get the fact that 99% of these situations are accidental, I don't accept that, just because the ball is in the air, players are suddenly given license to charge around at full pace, not look where they are going and put opposition players in dangerous positions because they were looking at the ball and not paying attention to the situation around them

Players do, more or less, have license to do this when the ball is on the ground, why should that change when the ball is in the air? And why should a player making his best efforts to legitimately claim the ball be penalised because an opponent jumped into him? In a good number of these situations the jumper has put himself into a dangerous situation by flying around without consideration of the opposition.

Im waiting, with no great relish, for a jumper's knee to hit a standing player in the head. It's going to take a nasty accident for these guidelines to change.

 

[didds]

I don't agree with that.

Treading on on people in rucks was never really accidental and was almost always a conscious decision, so starting to penalise it made sense.

Plus, using your feet in a ruck is entirely down to the player in question. There's nothing the opposition can do to force him to infringe and there are never and situations where it's acceptable. .

There were other factors at play here though. Referees either didn't see it as their place, or were instructed to not penalise/deal with players laying over the ball/preventing easy access. So a law of the jungle existed wrt boots on bodies at the ruck at least tacitly accepted by referees and the authorities.


Once the authorities decided boots on bodies were no longer acceptable they had to deal with bodies on the floor. So the "reasons" for shoeing a player were removed on the whole.

cause and effect as always.

didds

 

[OB..]

Players do, more or less, have license to do this when the ball is on the ground, why should that change when the ball is in the air?

It doesn't. Players do not have carte blanche to run wherever they want when the ball is on the ground. Your "more or less" presumably covers not treading on players on the ground, not running straight though opponents deemed to be in you way etc.