[Law] Tackling man in air

[Christy]

Delighted lions won .
Far too many penalties both sides .
Plenty questions could be raised from both sides about penalties .
Some harsh , some very relevant .

However , the penalty for tackled player in air .
Which allowed lions to kick to win from last penalty .
But in all honesty , were the all blacks robbed from this decision .

Player takes a pass , jumps in air to catch ball .
Did the player play the ref .

Would you of made same decision .

 

[ChuckieB]

Delighted lions won .
Far too many penalties both sides .
Plenty questions could be raised from both sides about penalties .
Some harsh , some very relevant .

However , the penalty for tackled player in air .
Which allowed lions to kick to win from last penalty .
But in all honesty , were the all blacks robbed from this decision .

Player takes a pass , jumps in air to catch ball .
Did the player play the ref .

Would you of made same decision .

now supported by a precedent, so easier to consider.

 

[leaguerefaus]

I don't know how in the world that was a penalty. I can understand protecting a man in the air when he's fielding a kick (although I think this has gone too far as well), but someone jumping a bit off the ground to field a bad pass is now unable to be tackled? Pfft.

 

[Pegleg]

I suspect I would not have awarded it.

 

[BikingBud]

Wasn't there one a few years ago Eng V Wales. Faletau coming through a line out from SH and caught the ball after jumping, Eng pinger for tackling in the air.

In reality when you run you are in the air so where do you draw the line?

 

[Ian_Cook]

now supported by a precedent, so easier to consider.

Not the point, and irrelevant if it was wrong in the first place.

The Law as it stands put the tackler in an impossible position if the player jumps as he is about to be tackled. Its not like a kick where both players have several seconds to consider their judgement.

 

[Pegleg]

Wasn't there one a few years ago Eng V Wales. Faletau coming through a line out from SH and caught the ball after jumping, Eng pinger for tackling in the air.

In reality when you run you are in the air so where do you draw the line?

For me there is a difference between running (two feet naturally leave the floor for a microsecond) / a "jump" to catch a poor pass and a full scalle line out jump or a jump to field a kick.

The latter two ivolve a proper leap from the ground and therefore there is an increased risk of coming down on the head neck area. In the first two there is little chance of that happening.

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree that this doesn't create a precedent, since it was a harsh call. Not clear and obvious.

Perhaps it is about time that jumping into the tackle was added to forbidden practices.
The tackler could can not be held responsible in this case. The onus must be on the ball carrier, who is creating the danger for himself. Something along g the lines of 15.7 (e)
‪[LAWS]15.7‬ Forbidden practices
(e) Danger may arise if a tackled player fails to release the ball or move away from it immediately, or if that player is prevented from so doing. If either of these happens the referee awards a penalty kick immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
This has been come up before when Shane Williams hurdling over a tackle was seen as clearly wrong.

 

[crossref]

I agree that this doesn't create a precedent, since it was a harsh call. Not clear and obvious.

Perhaps it is about time that jumping into the tackle was added to forbidden practices.
The tackler could can not be held responsible in this case. The onus must be on the ball carrier, who is creating the danger for himself. Something along g the lines of 15.7 (e)
‪[LAWS]15.7‬ Forbidden practices
(e) Danger may arise if a tackled player fails to release the ball or move away from it immediately, or if that player is prevented from so doing. If either of these happens the referee awards a penalty kick immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
This has been come up before when Shane Williams hurdling over a tackle was seen as clearly wrong.

red herring - as Sinkler wasn't really jumping into the tackle, so much as jumping to catych a poor pass. You can't outlaw that.

 

[UpandUnder]

I don't think 'man in the air' should have been discussed here at all. The tackle was clearly a no arms daisy chop, a penalty in itself and far easier to sell for this

 

[Rushforth]

Not the point, and irrelevant if it was wrong in the first place.

The Law as it stands put the tackler in an impossible position if the player jumps as he is about to be tackled. Its not like a kick where both players have several seconds to consider their judgement.

I don't think a ball carrier who gets tackled in the air has a leg to stand on (apologies, I had to). No jumping, hurdling or skipping as a defence against being tackled.

However, your excuses in the other thread that he only has three frames/0.12 seconds to react are a bit feeble, because he is anticipating that the ball will be passed to a player that doesn't have the ball yet, if he only has that long to "pull out".

It is the tackler's responsibility to ensure that the tackle is legal and safe. I have no problem whatsoever with top professionals taking calculated risks, by which I mean risking a penalty but not a card against them. In fact I would expect even grass-roots players to do so, and I referee accordingly (usually with advantage for adults, and a quick blast of the whistle for kids if it is anything at all potentially dangerous).

Although I wasn't very impressed with the tone and body language of the AB captain: "Oh, so next time if I jump into the air..." or whatever he said right after the incident, he was gracious in defeat after the match.

I can understand where you are coming from as a supporter of a side who has just lost, but the ABs didn't lose it in the last minutes or in the twenty fifth. They lost because they let in a couple of soft tries, and failed to score any themselves.

Next season I hope to coach other referees in senior matches more than refereree them myself, and run with U17s or U15s for my own matches more often. I won't be telling players not to line up tackles, but if some poor kid gets a hospital pass in the air and gets walloped at the same time, I'll have no problem giving a card. Mind you, they only play 2x30 and 2x25 here, and conditions aren't likely to be quite as wet most matches....

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't think 'man in the air' should have been discussed here at all. The tackle was clearly a no arms daisy chop, a penalty in itself and far easier to sell for this

Irrelevant (again) See the thread title

This thread is about what the player was penalised for and not about what, in your opinion, he should have been penalised for. If you want to discuss "daisy chop" tackles or whatever, start your own thread about it.

I don't think a ball carrier who gets tackled in the air has a leg to stand on (apologies, I had to). No jumping, hurdling or skipping as a defence against being tackled.

However, your excuses in the other thread that he only has three frames/0.12 seconds to react are a bit feeble, because he is anticipating that the ball will be passed to a player that doesn't have the ball yet, if he only has that long to "pull out".

No. You show me a tackler that does not line up the potential ball carrier to tackle him as the ball arrives, and I'll show you player who will miss a lot of tackles and won't make selection for his team (well, he won't make selection for any team I'm coaching, that's for sure).

I can understand where you are coming from as a supporter of a side who has just lost

Don't patronise me! I know exactly why they lost last night and it had nothing to do with the last penalty. They lost because they (correctly IMO) had to play the last three quarters of the match with only 14 players, and eventually, the extra workload on those players took its toll and they gave up two soft tries that they would never have let in with a full complement on the field.

I have been on record here as being opposed to the idea that the "protect the player in the air" edict should ever be applied when ball carriers jump, or players jump to catch a pass, ever since that edict was first introduced in 2015 shortly before Finn Russell got sent off in the Six Nations match between Scotland and Wales. The player who leaps high off the ground to catch a kick needs protection being from being taken out and flipped over, but a player who pops 30 cm off the ground to catch a pass does not. Next thing we'll be penalising tacklers who tackle a ball carrier during "float phase" and we'll start awarding penalty tries when tacklers successfully tackle diving players into touch. To be consistent with the Law and this interpretation, both of these are infringements.

Next season I hope to coach other referees in senior matches more than refereree them myself, and run with U17s or U15s for my own matches more often. I won't be telling players not to line up tackles, but if some poor kid gets a hospital pass in the air and gets walloped at the same time, I'll have no problem giving a card. Mind you, they only play 2x30 and 2x25 here, and conditions aren't likely to be quite as wet most matches....

Good luck with that.

I'll be coaching my team to take advantage of this current interpretation should a situation arise where we need a PK to win a match or secure a lead.

 

[Blackberry]

"I'll be coaching my team to take advantage of this current interpretation should a situation arise where we need a PK to win a match or secure a lead."

Er, Ian, not only would a ploy like that be unsporting and out of order, it would also be unwise for the instigator to announce his plan on a referees' web site. Not the sharpest tool in the box, dare I venture. Can anyone local to his club copy the blazers in on this?

 

[Rushforth]

"I'll be coaching my team to take advantage of this current interpretation should a situation arise where we need a PK to win a match or secure a lead."

Er, Ian, not only would a ploy like that be unsporting and out of order, it would also be unwise for the instigator to announce his plan on a referees' web site. Not the sharpest tool in the box, dare I venture. Can anyone local to his club copy the blazers in on this?

Perhaps he hasn't read http://laws.worldrugby.org/?charter=3.

[LAWS]Application

There is an over-riding obligation on the players to observe the Laws and to respect the principles of fair play.

The Laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the Game is played according to the principles of play. The referee and touch judges can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, at the highest levels, management. In return, it is the responsibility of coaches, captains and players to respect the authority of the match officials.

[/LAWS]

 

[Ian_Cook]

"I'll be coaching my team to take advantage of this current interpretation should a situation arise where we need a PK to win a match or secure a lead."

Er, Ian, not only would a ploy like that be unsporting and out of order, it would also be unwise for the instigator to announce his plan on a referees' web site. Not the sharpest tool in the box, dare I venture. Can anyone local to his club copy the blazers in on this?

The point is Blackberry, how would you know if it was a play, or if it was a genuine bad pass. You'd never know, that is why the Law, in this case, is a complete ass.

As for copying it to my "blazers".. well, this is not England, we don't have the gin swilling old farts that you have, but good luck with that anyway.. I'll even PM you their email if you like; I have a fair idea what they will say.

 

[SimonSmith]

Jeez.

In fairness to Ian - he called the RC early.

The second decision with MV? More problematic, and probably CO-bound. I don't think anyone is seriously debating the RC (and rugbyrefreees.net has a good discussion there)

Vunipola is more...problematic. I think it it's a straight RC. OOAA.

 

[UpandUnder]

Irrelevant (again) See the thread title

This thread is about what the player was penalised for and not about what, in your opinion, he should have been penalised for. If you want to discuss "daisy chop" tackles or whatever, start your own thread

Wind your neck in mate and show some respect for other posters. No need to get rude because your team lost to a fair decision.

If you read the OP he said 'would you have made the same decision?'
My post is merely pointing out the decision I would have made for the incident we are discussing. A penalty for a no arm chop would have been an equally suitable decision and given the ranting about the tacklen the air decision it would probably have been an easier sell.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Wind your neck in mate and show some respect for other posters. No need to get rude because your team lost to a fair decision.

If you read the OP he said 'would you have made the same decision?'
My post is merely pointing out the decision I would have made for the incident we are discussing. A penalty for a no arm chop would have been an equally suitable decision and given the ranting about the tacklen the air decision it would probably have been an easier sell.

Was the actual tackle something else that could have been penalised? Perhaps, but that is debatable IMO.

"Tackling the man in the air" is what the referee gave the penalty was for; that is what the thread is about, and that is all I am arguing against.

Do you get that?

 

[UpandUnder]

The thread is about what your decision would have been, read the first post. I'm allowed give my opinion on what my decision would have been.


Do you get that?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The thread is about what your decision would have been, read the first post. I'm allowed give my opinion on what my decision would have been.


Do you get that?

Nope, I don't get that at all

"the penalty for tackled player in air .
Which allowed lions to kick to win from last penalty .
But in all honesty , were the all blacks robbed from this decision .

Player takes a pass , jumps in air to catch ball .
Did the player play the ref .

Would you of made same decision"

I read that as asking about the specific scenario (in bold) not other irrelevant things that might have happened at the same time

Maybe my understanding of plain English differs from yours, but in the interests of peace, I'll answer your question.

The was nothing wrong with the tackle. His left arm wrapped enough to satisfy me it was an attempt to tackle legally

If Sinkler hadn't jumped, the tackle would have been above the knees. In fact, there wasn't any need for Sinkler to jump to catch that ball...

.. it was chest high and he could easily have caught it; and that makes me somewhat suspicious that his actions were, to quote Blackberry "unsporting and out of order". Perhaps someone local to Sinkler's club can "copy the blazers in on this?" epper: