Tackling in the air or dangerous play?

[Statesman]

I refer to the Exeter Saints game 7/1/22 in the 1st half at around 30 minutes. X have a lineout 12m out from the S line. They throw it long beyond the 15m and the X12 (who is not in the lineout) races on to it at pace. He leaps high into the air to collect the ball but knocks it forward. His momentum carries him forward towards the S12 who is crouched arms out stretched in a tackling position. The X12 goes over the head of the S12 and tumbles to the ground. At the position of impact X12 was leading with his knee and his boot. His knee was about 2 feet higher than the head of the S12 and his boot narrowly missed the left ear of the S12. The S12's head was approximately 4 feet from the ground (given he was crouching). The referee awarded a penalty to X as the S12 had been deemed to have tackled the X12 in the air. There was no further sanction against the S12. X scored a try from the ensuing penalty.

Discussing this elsewhere there are some strong views which fall into 3 camps - all of which, I would say, have equal support.
1. The referee made the correct decision.
2. No action should have been taken, it was a rugby incident - scrum to S for the knock on.
3. The X12 should have been penalised under Law 9.11

Interested in the thoughts of this forum - who I suspect (hope!) know much more about it than those of us who have been discussing it!

 

[Decorily]

This is something that has been discussed at length previously and I'm sure you will get a range of opinions here similar to what you report.

Suppling a video clip may help encourage replies.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I refer to the Exeter Saints game 7/1/22 in the 1st half at around 30 minutes. X have a lineout 12m out from the S line. They throw it long beyond the 15m and the X12 (who is not in the lineout) races on to it at pace. He leaps high into the air to collect the ball but knocks it forward. His momentum carries him forward towards the S12 who is crouched arms out stretched in a tackling position. The X12 goes over the head of the S12 and tumbles to the ground. At the position of impact X12 was leading with his knee and his boot. His knee was about 2 feet higher than the head of the S12 and his boot narrowly missed the left ear of the S12. The S12's head was approximately 4 feet from the ground (given he was crouching). The referee awarded a penalty to X as the S12 had been deemed to have tackled the X12 in the air. There was no further sanction against the S12. X scored a try from the ensuing penalty.

Discussing this elsewhere there are some strong views which fall into 3 camps - all of which, I would say, have equal support.
1. The referee made the correct decision.
2. No action should have been taken, it was a rugby incident - scrum to S for the knock on.
3. The X12 should have been penalised under Law 9.11

Interested in the thoughts of this forum - who I suspect (hope!) know much more about it than those of us who have been discussing it!

Without seeing the clip I feel like should be no action against S as X wasn't catching a kick and placed himself in a dangerous position. X player can't disappear, and players need to take some responsibility for their own safety.

 

[Dickie E]

the incident happens at 27:41.

I've got no idea what the correct decision should be.

 

[didds]

Without seeing the clip I feel like should be no action against S as X wasn't catching a kick and placed himself in a dangerous position.

NZ v Lions 2nd test, 76th minute, Faumuina was penalised for tackling Sinckler in the air. Sinckler wasn't catching a kick, but a pass above his head which he jumped for - same situation as in the OP

(1:54:53 video time)

Unless the law has been changed since then of course, you dont have to be catching a kick for a tackle-in-the-air scenario.

On that basis back to the OP...

Based on the Sinckler ruling, the OP is a PK at least to black shirts .
There's a decent argument that the black shirted player should be penalised for dangerous play

Personally - rugby incident.

 

[Phil E]

Unless the law has been changed since then of course, you dont have to be catching a kick for a tackle-in-the-air scenario.

As OB always states, when you are running both feet are off the ground most of the time, so you are in the air. Does that mean you can't be tackled?

I thought the Sinckler ruling was daft and haven't seen it repeated since.

 

[crossref]

Didn't they just change the Law to ssay

9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

but I don't think the conversation with the TMO even considered that.

 

[Phil E]

the incident happens at 27:41.

I've got no idea what the correct decision should be.

My first question is "was the catcher 10m back when the ball was thrown?"
Second question "if it was a penalty why wasn't advantage played and the try given?"

 

[Dickie E]

Second question "if it was a penalty why wasn't advantage played and the try given?"

Ball was knocked on

 

[didds]

As OB always states, when you are running both feet are off the ground most of the time, so you are in the air. Does that mean you can't be tackled?

I thought the Sinckler ruling was daft and haven't seen it repeated since.

I agree with both your points .
But we have "precedence" due to that Sinckler "ruling" wrt tackle in the air, hence one of my points.
And I think there is a strong case for the attemptred catcher to be PKd for dangerous play indeed.

I think its a rugby incident (as i did sinckler) personally, and we are in violent agreement!

 

[didds]

My first question is "was the catcher 10m back when the ball was thrown?"

If he wasnt presumably foul play trumps an offside generally speaking

caveat: I think its a rugby incident so if the catcher wasnt 10m back its a white PK for offside

 

[DocP]

My first question is "was the catcher 10m back when the ball was thrown?"

If you watch the wide angled shot of the LO he was clearly onside when the ball was thrown and knew the ball was going over the 15m so that he could break the 10m offside line. Law 18.36

 

[Volun-selected]

To me, the X player didn‘t need to jump as no one was contesting in the air and arguably he knocked on because he jumped. He created the problem. At a minimum I’d have awarded the scrum to S - and depending on how I saw the jump on the day maybe a PK against X.

 

[Statesman]

Thank you for your replies and also to DE for posting the clip. I think we can all agree that Rugby is a dangerous sport. I think the game should be refereed to discourage avoidable dangerous incidents - and this to my mind was a dangerous incident. Whilst there is probably no doubt that S12 'tackled' the X12 in the air, my starting point in refereeing this incident would be Law 9.11 - and in looking at the incident through this lens I think you can build a strong case that the X12 was reckless, dangerous, led with his knee/boot and jumped into/over the S12 - if any of those were true it should be penalty to S.

What is concerning though, is that the team of officials didn't even consider Law 9.11 and my gut feeling is that most officiating teams that I see in the Premiership would have refereed it the same way.

Another point from the dialogue above in considering the start position of the X12 and whether he was onside/offside. There was little consideration of this by the officials - the TMO advised the referee that as the S12 had committed foul play it trumps the technical infringement (my words not his). Was he correct? My point being that they were both penalty offences (no sanction) - so is there a hierarchy of penalty offences where one overrides another?

 

[crossref]

Yes to the last question: the hierarchy is
Dangerous play
Foul play
Other PK offences

 

[crossref]

basically we now have two, competing. relevant laws

9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

9.17 A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

9.11 is new (in its current form) and WR have yet to provide guidance on who to penalise when both offences happen at once - the jumping ball carrier? the tackler in the air ? both ?

I imagine there will be a clarficiation request in due course

Like you, Statesman, I am disappointed that for match officials in this case, 9.11 didn't even seem to occur to them. Presumably because it's new

 

[Locke]

the incident happens at 27:41.

I've got no idea what the correct decision should be.

For me there is no question. The (attempted) ball carrier has jumped into the tackle, is solely responsible for creating the dangerous situation, and is in violation of law 9.11. Penalty awarded to white.

 

[Locke]

To add to my comments, the laws define the ball carrier as someone in possession of the ball and the laws define possession as someone controlling the ball or attempting to control the ball. Exeter player is attempting to control the ball and jumps into a tackle. He causes the dangerous situation and would be penalized by me.

 

[Stu10]

To me, the X player didn‘t need to jump as no one was contesting in the air and arguably he knocked on because he jumped. He created the problem. At a minimum I’d have awarded the scrum to S - and depending on how I saw the jump on the day maybe a PK against X.

This exactly matches my opinion... he jumps as he catches the ball, he does not jump to catch the ball... there really was no need for X12 to jump and this scenario is close to jumping the tackler, which would be a penalty against black.

 

[BikingBud]

Here we go again, travelling at high lateral speed and decides to jump into a challenge, whilst hoping to get protection

Reckless endangerment by Exeter, clear penalty.

In fact I would also yellow card given the high degree of danger he was quite fortunate his boot or knee did not injure Saint's player.

@didds its a rugby incident until someone breaks their neck

Then with 20-20 hindsight it would have been wholly avoidable by effective and stern intervention for player safety.

Utter tosh by ex professional players again "he had to jump to catch it"

As an aside while we want to see the game moving quicker no body seemed to mention Luke Cowan Dickie about 8-10 m ahead of the kickers already going to the line out.

• Law 20- 10 - Other than the placer at a place-kick, the kicker’s team must remain behind the ball until it has been kicked.

So none of the usual huddle and chat and then dancing around before the throw, it was a pre-called and planned overthrow, cynical mode - I wonder if the jump to get another penalty and get Saints a yellow was part of that planning?