[Law] Tackling man in air

[The Fat]

The law is clear:

10.4 (e) A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

The law is an ass? Yes, when applied to a player running with the ball. No, when protecting a player jumping to catch a kick.

Should it be applied to a player leaping to catch a ball thrown above his head? It would be easy to say "Yes! We must protect vulnerable players" but, as Ian has shown in graphic detail, the application would be impractical.

As to the tackle in question: Correct in law, wrong in application. The fact of no citing is significant.

I agree with parts of your post but not the part I have made bold. Are you talking about Ian's car accident example or his analysis of reaction times?

As the Laws stand at the moment, it is the tackler's responsibility to execute a tackle legally. This includes not tackling a player without the ball and not tackling a player who is in the air etc.
The fact of the matter is that the AB player tackled a player in the air and was penalised. Therefore, although it may not have been a popular decision, or in fact one that many grassroots refs may have let go, it was a correct decision in Law and as such cannot be viewed as a critical Law error as argued by Pegleg.

A tackler tackles an opponent on spec, believing that he was going to receive the ball but didn't = the tackler takes the risk

A tackler tackles an opponent, who has jumped to catch a ball, before he lands = the tackler takes the risk

A tackler lifts an opponent and turns the player past the horizontal = the tackler takes the risk

 

[Ian_Cook]

We only lost because the referee made one call we disagree with and gave the opposition 3 points.

Or

You only lost because you missed 3 kicks, any one of which would have won you the game.


If that penalty call had been at the start of the game no one would be suggesting it affected the result. Don't blame the referee because you played badly.

Technically, the PK at the end resulted in the match score meaning loss/win instead of the draw it was likely to have been

The reality is that we lost it in the 25th minute when an ex RL player committed a senseless and pointless act of foul play and got sent off, meaning that his team had to play the last 55 minutes of a high intensity test match with a player short.

 

[SimonSmith]

Hoo boy, common sense just left the building.

Was the PK in accordance with the black and white letter of the law?
Yes.

Was it what the law was intended for? Not sure that it was.

Was the tackle dangerous?
Not sure it reached that threshold.

Could I have lived without the PK being awardded?
Probably, yes.

 

[winchesterref]

A tackler tackles an opponent on spec, believing that he was going to receive the ball but didn't = the tackler takes the risk

A tackler tackles an opponent, who has jumped to catch a ball, before he lands = the tackler takes the risk

A tackler lifts an opponent and turns the player past the horizontal = the tackler takes the risk

And yet a tackler lines up a perfectly fair tackle, which becomes illegal due to a skill error by the attacking side without the tackler possessing superhuman ability to make any adjustment, and we still say "the tackler takes the risk"?

 

[DocY]

And yet a tackler lines up a perfectly fair tackle, which becomes illegal due to a skill error by the attacking side without the tackler possessing superhuman ability to make any adjustment, and we still say "the tackler takes the risk"?

Same thing if the BC slips resulting in a high tackle these days.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Connor Murray in all this - you'd expect a world class scrum half to be able to put a pass where he wants to, so is there a case for calling this a contrived offence?

 

[VM75]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Connor Murray in all this - you'd expect a world class scrum half to be able to put a pass where he wants to, so is there a case for calling this a contrived offence?

Look up the contrived offence Law, & see if your question applies.

 

[VM75]

And yet a tackler lines up a perfectly fair tackle, which becomes illegal due to a skill error by the attacking side without the tackler possessing superhuman ability to make any adjustment, and we still say "the tackler takes the risk"?

Yes, 100%, Absolutely. [mitigation can mean YC/RC avoidance, as per last sat]

There is no such concept of a "perfectly fair tackle" that hasn't happened yet, you have either a fair tackle or an illegal one once it's happened. If as a defender you charge up is such a way that've you've no time to react then tough luck [some might categorise as the beginnings of reckless]

This the same risk that a blitzing Green13 takes when he rushes up & engages with his oppo Blue13 whilst the cunning B12 puts a delay on his pass - if the G13 arrives before the ball then it's his fault & no one elses

You can't excuse defenders who tackle dangerously by giving them an 'unaware' exemption, that's exactly why the LAW was clarified for FinnRussell etc [too many late arrives claimed 'unable to pull out' & spun the jumper onto his head!]

 

[Camquin]

Had the lions been stringing passes together fluently all tour you might have a point.
But given the number of passes that had not gone to hand, Occam's razor suggest it is merely lack of skill.
Now why NH coaches favour strength over skil is another question.

 

[Pegleg]

You have missed my point completely. Forget it.

Oh dear. Someone is a sore winner. I have not missed your point. Rather I don't agree with you. There is a massive difference in the two. I'm not the only one who disagrees with you either.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I thought JG's (CF v KS) PK decision was poor for reasons outlined by IC and others. I particularly don't like the precedent set(?)

I'm glad the BILs won.

I was mightily impressed by KR's post match reaction - top bloke and a great player.

I was unimpressed with the behaviour of TJ Perenara an Mako Vunipola when JG was speaking to them - gobshites both.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

So taking the scenario a little further you cannot tackle a winger diving for the corner as his feet are likely to be off the ground. Penalty try, automatic 7 points and yellow card. What if two defenders try's to tackle him two yellows?
The law clearly needs clarifying.
If it had happened in my game I would have blown up immediately to avoid a flashpoint.
Guys, the tackler was committed, no intent and the catcher jumped up at last second, calm down, scrum attack.
Get on with the game

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

If it had happened in my game I would have blown up immediately to avoid a flashpoint.
Guys, the tackler was committed, no intent and the catcher jumped up at last second, calm down, scrum attack.
Get on with the game

JG blew very quickly for the PK and I immediately thought it harsh. What did concern me was the "afters" notably KS who was on his feet quickly looking to get involved in a pushing and shoving contest - would the players (KS) have reacted had JG shouted "play on" or said nothing?

Did KS react to the tackle or JG's whistle? I suppose we'll never know.

 

[winchesterref]

I think that was KS "pumped up" and looking to celebrate rather than cause aggro.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So taking the scenario a little further you cannot tackle a winger diving for the corner as his feet are likely to be off the ground. Penalty try, automatic 7 points and yellow card. What if two defenders try's to tackle him two yellows?
The law clearly needs clarifying.

If you are going to remain consistent with the view that on ALL occasions where a player is tackled when his feet are not in contact with the ground, the tackler is ALWAYS responsible for what happens in the tackle, then you MUST award a PT and YC for this. If you don't, then you have acted with duplicity, choosing only to apply your views when it suits you.

However, if you think that a player diving for the corner (which is most cases would be predictable to the tackler) can be legally tackled then why not a player who jumps a few cm off the ground to catch a pass (which is almost always unpredictable)?

IMO, any referee who would PK a tackler in the situation we are discussing, has little, if any feel for the game, and zero empathy with the players.

 

[ChuckieB]

One of the shortest law references in the book under 10.4 e dangerous tackling

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]"A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

and even differentiated from:

[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular](i)[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
Where's the difficulty, other than WR not helping themselves by using a kick ahead and a restart kick as the video examples to demonstrate the application?

There is just no wiggle room to allow a different interpretation on this incident.[/FONT]

 

[Ian_Cook]

One of the shortest law references in the book under 10.4 e dangerous tackling

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]"A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

and even differentiated from:

[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular](i)[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
Where's the difficulty, other than WR not helping themselves by using a kick ahead and a restart kick as the video examples to demonstrate the application?

There is just no wiggle room to allow a different interpretation on this incident.[/FONT]

[LAWS]10.4 (e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
.. and yet we allow some wiggle room for the referee to decide whether a tackle was more than marginally late (tackler was truly committed!!

[LAWS]10. 4 (o) Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.[/LAWS]
.. and yet we allow some wiggle room for the referee to decide whether a tackle was more than marginally late (tackler was truly committed!!

How do these fit into your idealised "everything is black and white" world

 

[The Fat]

IMO, any referee who would PK a tackler in the situation we are discussing, has little, if any feel for the game, and zero empathy with the players.

Does this comment refer to the OP Ian?

 

[Rich_NL]

It seems the danger is in flipping the BC. If a winger was diving and the defender yanked his ankles vertically causing him to land nastily on his head, we'd penalise that, no?

I've only seen unclear footage of the tackle, but my recollection was that the hit was low enough to scythe out the legs - I could be wrong. However, a defender driving into the hips would have little problem pushing the BC back.

Would it be a suggestion to have a minimum tackle height applied to tackles on jumping players, as we have a maximum height restriction?

 

[winchesterref]

It seems the danger is in flipping the BC. If a winger was diving and the defender yanked his ankles vertically causing him to land nastily on his head, we'd penalise that, no?

I've only seen unclear footage of the tackle, but my recollection was that the hit was low enough to scythe out the legs - I could be wrong. However, a defender driving into the hips would have little problem pushing the BC back.

Would it be a suggestion to have a minimum tackle height applied to tackles on jumping players, as we have a maximum height restriction?

No. I just can't see that tackling a player diving for the line with feet off the floor should be even talked about as a penalty, unless high.

In serious danger of over-sanitising the game and making it a joke.

 

[Balones]

It seems the danger is in flipping the BC. If a winger was diving and the defender yanked his ankles vertically causing him to land nastily on his head, we'd penalise that, no?

I've only seen unclear footage of the tackle, but my recollection was that the hit was low enough to scythe out the legs - I could be wrong. However, a defender driving into the hips would have little problem pushing the BC back.

Would it be a suggestion to have a minimum tackle height applied to tackles on jumping players, as we have a maximum height restriction?

As someone who used to go flying at great pace for the try line I would certainly ban the ankle tap!:smile: