[Law] Tackling man in air

[Pegleg]

If you read the OP he said 'would you have made the same decision?'

So, in fairness Ian is correct.

The Decision was PK Takle in the air

Would I have made the same decision. Why? Because on that basis 99.9% of tackles would be illeagal due to both feet being off the ground in the act of running.

The law on taking the man in the air was not about a tackle situation. it was about jumping for the high ball. To extend it is nonsense.

Was the tackle dangerous in some other way? Is a suplementary question with enough meat to make another thread the best place otherwise the actual question gets lost.

 

[UpandUnder]

Fair enough, I can say I wouldn't have given the same decision but not elaborate in fear of offending Ian Cook.

I'll remember that for future reference

 

[Ian_Cook]

Fair enough, I can say I wouldn't have given the same decision but not elaborate in fear of offending Ian Cook.

I'll remember that for future reference

You haven't offended me, and you're not likely to... my hide is tougher than that.

I just thought you were wrong.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So, in fairness Ian is correct.

The Decision was PK Takle in the air

Would I have made the same decision. Why? Because on that basis 99.9% of tackles would be illeagal due to both feet being off the ground in the act of running.

The law on taking the man in the air was not about a tackle situation. it was about jumping for the high ball. To extend it is nonsense.

Was the tackle dangerous in some other way? Is a suplementary question with enough meat to make another thread the best place otherwise the actual question gets lost.

There is also the other issue, and that is jumping into a tackle is illegal. I don't care whether you already have the ball and then jump or whether you jump to catch a pass the optics are the same... you are in the air with the ball and you land in a tackle. IMO, that is dangerous play and it ought to be PK.

I see no reason why the Law cannot have a written distinction between jumping to catch a ball kicked by a team-mate/opponent, and jumping to catch a pass. If the game ruled jumping to catch a pass and then landing in a tackle, as jumping into a tackle, players would soon stop doing it. As the Law stands now, players are encouraged to game the system and con the referee into a PK.

Er, Ian, not only would a ploy like that be unsporting and out of order... Can anyone local to his club copy the blazers in on this?

Had a chat this afternoon to Dave A, the big banana (what passes for a blazer) at the club. When I told him what I was thinking, his first comment was that he didn't see how it was any different from a halfback passing directly at a lazy runner to buy a penalty, or "doing what the Poms do", use illegal tactics in scrums (including the dangerous collapses) to con the referee into a penalty.

I have to admit this didn't occur to me.

 

[VM75]

Firstly, ignore the suggestion that this was merely a chest high catch, the 'still' offered earlier in this thread is frozen before the ball is caught.


https://youtu.be/lLC3BiInC_c?t=5712

KS has jumped well off the ground to collect the pass, if you pause the frame at when he catches the ball you'll see his feet c40cm off the ground. Had he not jumped then he would have had to catch the pass over his ears. It's easy to understand why a player would want to catch it by jumping rather than risk his rib cage being exposed to another NZ 'no arms' illegal tackle if he lifted his arms above his head.

The Risk here, is ALL with the would-be-Tackler.
If his defensive strategy is to rush up so fast [with his eyes aimed at the ground] such that he is unable to stop [if a catcher has to jump to collect a high pass] , and because of that then he is unable to adjust when he should easily be able to see that the catcher is about to take a high pass - THEN HE GETS WHAT HE DESERVES.

WR have spelled out in their recent anti-concussion the responsibility for safe tackling is with the TACKLER.

KS did not jump into a tackle, if he had collected the ball and then run two steps and then jumped at the tackler then he would get ZERO protection, or sympathy from me, so all references to that are deflective.

This, [the same as the high jump catch] is all about the tacklers TIMING and a defensive player who takes a risky gamble based on field position urgency and pressure.

It's often said that smart players [especially when under pressure in the final minutes] need to be squeaky clean with their defending to not give the referee any opportunity to PK, in this case the NZProp failed that test.

As for Shoulder-Biff-Williams, well he's often been 'no-arms'ing unpunished for ages, his ban will be lower than it should as he's very lucky the AW wasn't seriously injured.


ps... If CM & KS deliberately constructed this play with a deliberately thrown high pass, then maybe they bought a book from a local bookshop in Wellington entitled 'creative & cunning ways to win a PK' signed by Richie & endorsed by C.Joubert ! epper:

 

[VM75]

.... jumping into a tackle is illegal. I don't care whether you already have the ball and then jump or whether you jump to catch a pass

Thankfully, Law sees this wholly differently. Otherwise everyone who jumped to catch a ball would be considered illegal if they were then tackled before they landed.

 

[Lindsay G]

Was this topic not discussed a few weeks ago when Sinckler jumped into a tackle in the first few minutes of the Premiership semi final, Quins vs Saracens. Wayne Barnes waved it away, but the TMO had a look anyway.

 

[VM75]

Was this topic not discussed a few weeks ago when Sinckler jumped into a tackle in the first few minutes of the Premiership semi final, Quins vs Saracens. Wayne Barnes waved it away, but the TMO had a look anyway.

Jumping into a tackler [if he did that] should be penalised, but that's very different this example which was jumping up to gather a wayward ball/pass & then having your legs swept from underneath, dangerously.

 

[Pegleg]

Jumping into a tackler [if he did that] should be penalised, but that's very different this example which was jumping up to gather a wayward ball/pass & then having your legs swept from underneath, dangerously.

So would you always ping a tackle where the ball carrier has two feet off the ground?

 

[Blackberry]

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:

Oh my. You have me writhing in the grasp of reason. Ian, you make me feel young again, in so far as I feel like I'm dragged into a playground spat.

Ian, your comment about British blazers is at best stereotyping and at worst xenophobic, I ask you to withdraw it.

I think sometimes people struggle to follow your line of thinking; let me give you an example. You proudly assert you don't have fat gin swilling blazers then immediately offer to give me their email addresses. See the point?

 

[L'irlandais]

You should probably just stick him on your ignore list. He's just looking for a reaction.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think sometimes people struggle to follow your line of thinking; let me give you an example. You proudly assert you don't have fat gin swilling blazers then immediately offer to give me their email addresses. See the point?

Read the your quote and my replay agan

You said "Can anyone local to his club copy the blazers in on this?"

I replaied "I'll even PM you their email if you like.

"Their" is referring to the club, not the blazers

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm going to posit a slightly altered scenario

Sinkler jumps to catch the pass, and in a miraculous feat of anticipation, Faumuina stops dead in his tracks. He makes no attempt to tackle but cannot move out of the way in time; Sinkler crashes into him and is knocked over..

PK or play on?

 

[The Fat]

Just on the previous point that the tackler is committed and doesn't have any chance of pulling out of the tackle, if a tackler is "committed" and has eyes fixed on the opposition player's lower legs, as was the case in the tackle we are discussing, what would the argument be (in defence of the tackler) if the "catcher" missed the ball all together? Is the tackler's action defensible?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just on the previous point that the tackler is committed and doesn't have any chance of pulling out of the tackle, if a tackler is "committed" and has eyes fixed on the opposition player's lower legs, as was the case in the tackle we are discussing, what would the argument be (in defence of the tackler) if the "catcher" missed the ball all together? Is the tackler's action defensible?

Well, by the letter of the Law, that would be a tackle without the ball.

It just goes to reaffirm my assertion that as soon as a player jumps to catch a pass, anyone who was already set to tackle him before he jumped is put into an impossible "no-win" position.

In jumping to contest possession, players always have the option to stay out of the way, not contest, and wait for the catcher to come down. Those options simply do not exist in the scenario under discussion. You cant expect every potential tackler to wait and see if the opponent is going to jump before tacking him.

PS: I have yet to see any law that prohibits tackling a player by the legs... we were always taught that, no matter how fast your opponent is he can't run with his legs held together

 

[winchesterref]

I thought the penalty at the end was a crap call. KS jumped to take a poor pass and CF was committed. Play on.

 

[The Fat]

Well, by the letter of the Law, that would be a tackle without the ball.

It just goes to reaffirm my assertion that as soon as a player jumps to catch a pass, anyone who was already set to tackle him before he jumped is put into an impossible "no-win" position.

In jumping to contest possession, players always have the option to stay out of the way, not contest, and wait for the catcher to come down. Those options simply do not exist in the scenario under discussion. You cant expect every potential tackler to wait and see if the opponent is going to jump before tacking him.

PS: I have yet to see any law that prohibits tackling a player by the legs... we were always taught that, no matter how fast your opponent is he can't run with his legs held together

Not arguing about tackling low. Nothing better than seeing a covering tackle around the bootlaces.
I'm just making the point that a tackler has certain responsibilities and being committed to the tackle will sometimes go pear shaped for the would be tackler. Had the Lions' player come back to earth just as contact was made, we would be discussing what a great tackle it was. As it stands, we are now discussing what is simply a mistiming issue by the tackler.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Not arguing about tackling low. Nothing better than seeing a covering tackle around the bootlaces.
I'm just making the point that a tackler has certain responsibilities and being committed to the tackle will sometimes go pear shaped for the would be tackler. Had the Lions' player come back to earth just as contact was made, we would be discussing what a great tackle it was. As it stands, we are now discussing what is simply a mistiming issue by the tackler.

I disagree with that last part. Mistiming is about judgement, which implies the tackler had a choice to do something else and chose not to.
In this case, the tackler simply had ZERO options.

I don't understand why on this forum of all forums, that there seems to be an inability to understand such a simple concept. If a Law places a player in a position where they will be PK if they don't have a reaction time faster than is humanly possible then that Law is fundamentally flawed.

FAT, perhaps you could explain to me how, other than not committing to the tackle at all, CF could have avoided being penalised

NOTE:
Waiting for the player come down would require not committing to the tackle, so I won't accept that as an answer.

 

[The Fat]

FAT, perhaps you could explain to me how, other than not committing to the tackle at all, CF could have avoided being penalised

NOTE:
Waiting for the player come down would require not committing to the tackle, so I won't accept that as an answer.

His only option is to time his tackle so that he is not tackling a player, who has jumped to gain possession, while he is still in the air. Whether he was already so committed to the tackle that he had zero chance of reacting in time to change the outcome is no-ones problem except the tackler's.
I maintain it is a timing issue. Half a second later and he's fine. Half a second early and he's not.
The fact the catcher had to jump to catch the ball on his chest certainly altered what the AB's player saw when he committed him self to the tackle. No argument from me there. However, once the dynamics of the situation changed, it's back to the tackler to ensure he stays legal.

 

[Ian_Cook]

His only option is to time his tackle so that he is not tackling a player, who has jumped to gain possession while he is still in the air. Whether he was already so committed to the tackle that he had zero chance of reacting in time to change the outcome is no-ones problem except the tackler's.

Sorry, FAT but that is manifestly unfair. It is physically impossible for a tackler to time a tackle to cover both possibilities

1. the opponent jumps
2. the opponent does not jump

I maintain it is a timing issue. Half a second later and he's fine. Half a second early and he's not.

And I maintain it is not, and that it cannot be fixed with timing.

In order to time something, you have to accurately anticipate when that something might occur. How is any tackler supposed to judge 0.5 second plus or minus, when the opponent unexpectedly jumps 0.1 of a second before he makes contact?

Pegleg, winchesterref and I seem to be the only ones here who have any understanding that what you are asking is both dynamically and physiologically impossible. Perhaps this little analogy will help.

You are driving along a 40 km/h limit city street at 36km/h (that's 10 m/s). You are a careful driver watching for pedestrians and other traffic, but despite that, a person unexpectedly jumps (from between two vans on the side of the road) in front of you, landing 1.2 from the front of your car. Now, you may think this is irrelevant, but I have chosen the speed and distances to closely match the relative dynamics of the tackle under discussion. I am going say that if you hit them its your fault.

Some questions

1. Is it fair that this is your fault?
2. If not, whose fault is it?
2. Would you have had any chance at all to react in time to avoid hitting the person?