[Law] Tackling man in air

[didds]

So, for contributors who saw it as a decision not supported in law, if I may phrase it that way, can you please throw in your scenarios, as to where a player not being permitted to tackle a man whose feet are off the ground, where you would apply the specified law?.

when its kicked - and with a specific use, thrown (lineout). basically what we;ve all seen so far since this ever came a concept.

Meanwhile - can anybody else remember a time before last Saturday when the tackler was PKd for tackling somebody receiving a pass from their own player? Even better if there is a video link to it, but I appreciate level 11 games possibly don;t have that luxury

didds

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

when its kicked - and with a specific use, thrown (lineout). basically what we;ve all seen so far since this ever came a concept.

Meanwhile - can anybody else remember a time before last Saturday when the tackler was PKd for tackling somebody receiving a pass from their own player? Even better if there is a video link to it, but I appreciate level 11 games possibly don;t have that luxury

didds

didds

Didds, I point you to the fact that those scenarios are covered by their very own and quite separate law. Hence the challenge, i.e. to open up an understanding of situations, for this shortest of laws, where it does then do it for those with a dissenting view.

 

[ChuckieB]

Its simple, and I have already told you this

We just apply the same reasoning we use when judging if a player who tackles an opponent late, warrants a PK. In any late tackle scenario, we usually do not PK the tackler if we judge that he was committed to the tackle and could not have reasonably been expected to avoid contact. You can apply EXACTLY the same logic to a player tackling an opponent who jumps to catch a pass.

I try to use judgement and reasoning with my wife to suggest we might be late for some appointment. She uses her reasoning and judgement to suggest we will not. When we get there we then find out who was right. That then becomes fact. And I still never ever get an apology.

I don't need to use reasoning or judgement to determine whether KS was in the air. That fact is not in dispute. The law cannot be disputed as a result.

If no one questions WR then who will ever know what their intention was?

on a basis of fact and the law, the law was applied correctly. Simples!

 

[SimonSmith]

Common sense needs to be applied.

For everyone arguing that the letter of the law should be applied: justify the tackling of a player running with the ball. (Answer: you can't. Not in rigid application of the law).
Those arguing against the penalty are arguing that the law should not be rigidly applied - and that can often be the slippery slope.

The middle ground is that "can't we just apply common sense"?

What was the law intended to do? Was the PK justified using that different yardstick? My personal feeling is that a bit of common sense and empathy for the game suggests no penalty.

I'm open to counter-offers, especially from the "letter of the law" folks who might just struggle with my first point.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I try to use judgement and reasoning with my wife to suggest we might be late for some appointment. She uses her reasoning and judgement to suggest we will not. When we get there we then find out who was right. That then becomes fact. And I still never ever get an apology.

Your marriage doesn't interest me and, in any case, is not subject to the Laws of Rugby

I don't need to use reasoning or judgement to determine whether KS was in the air.


That fact is not in dispute. The law cannot be disputed as a result.

You really are hard work Chuckie, Again, you have entirely missed the point (and not for the first time in this thread). FFS, how hard can this be?

NO ONE is asking for the referee to judge whether a player who jumps for the ball is in the air. What we are asking is for the referee to be allowed to judge whether the tackler was committed to the tackle and whether he could not have reasonably been expected to avoid contact after the player jumped, just exactly the way thousands of referees do in thousands of matches every weekend all over the world

on a basis of fact and the law, the law was applied correctly. Simples!

To the letter of the law, it was correct. NO-ONE is arguing that it wasn't

What we ARE arguing is that it should not be applied that way..... Simples!!!

 

[The Fat]

The image I posted earlier clearly shows CF looking at a player who is in the air and yet he still carried through with a tackle that took the player's legs out. CF pleads his case to JG that he was committed and didn't know the BIL player was going to jump.
Now I know Ian will explain his example in physics to me again here but the fact is that CF is looking at a player who is in the air and still carries on regardless. Originally, I thought CF was further into the tackle with eyes more towards the ground when the BIL player jumped to catch the ball. The image would suggest otherwise.
What would we be discussing here if the tackle had ended with the BIL player being flipped and landing on his head? Would the mood of this discussion have been different?
I'm not interested in the scenarios being put forward about applying the same law to a ball carrier who is running or diving. We can find other laws that would be nonsensical if applied in areas where they were not intended.
Interesting how the Kiwis commentators & journos are calling it a rubbish decision whilst the NH commentators were backing the decision. I wonder what their respective views would have been if the roles had been reversed and the ABs had won the game off the back of such a situation?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The image I posted earlier clearly shows CF looking at a player who is in the air and yet he still carried through with a tackle that took the player's legs out. CF pleads his case to JG that he was committed and didn't know the BIL player was going to jump.
Now I know Ian will explain his example in physics to me again here but the fact is that CF is looking at a player who is in the air and still carries on regardless. Originally, I thought CF was further into the tackle with eyes more towards the ground when the BIL player jumped to catch the ball. The image would suggest otherwise.
What would we be discussing here if the tackle had ended with the BIL player being flipped and landing on his head? Would the mood of this discussion have been different?
I'm not interested in the scenarios being put forward about applying the same law to a ball carrier who is running or diving. We can find other laws that would be nonsensical if applied in areas where they were not intended.
Interesting how the Kiwis commentators & journos are calling it a rubbish decision whilst the NH commentators were backing the decision. I wonder what their respective views would have been if the roles had been reversed and the ABs had won the game off the back of such a situation?

Sorry, not buying it

Stills never tell the story. From that moment to collision was 0.12s (3 frames of video) - less than human reaction time. What is CF expected to do here... vanish into thin air? Let KS clatter him (for which CF would still be PK if we follow the stupid protocol WR insist on?

If you think YOU could have reacted in time, you need to start wearing a red cape and a blue suit with a big red "S" on the front.



Sorry, not buying your fantasy scenario either.. The bit about "flipping" the player over, well that is complete BS. You can flip a player over when his feet are still on the ground.

NOTE: The YC was rescinded by SANZAR who said this should not have been penalised at all.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I was watching an old(this year's) SR game - Hurricanes v Cheetahs - at 59:20 on the game clock Zeilinga throws Raymond Rule a pass he has to jump for. He (RR) is hit in the air by Goosen but gets the pass away - no PK.

I'll try and find it later on YouTube.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Sorry, not buying your fantasy scenario either.. The bit about "flipping" the player over, well that is complete BS. You can flip a player over when his feet are still on the ground.

NOTE: The YC was rescinded by SANZAR who said this should not have been penalised at all.

But in this clip both feet are slightly off the ground when contact is made...?

 

[L'irlandais]

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

This discussion was resolved by post #10
Forum members are entitled to their opinions, the continual lambasting on RRF is becoming tiresome.

 

[didds]

I
I don't need to use reasoning or judgement to determine whether KS was in the air. That fact is not in dispute. The law cannot be disputed as a result.

If no one questions WR then who will ever know what their intention was?

on a basis of fact and the law, the law was applied correctly. Simples!

except that most running ball carriers are in the air when tackled. yet those are not penalised. This is the crux -

1) should "runners" come under this law
2) if so what constitutes being in the air

The fact that nobody can apparently recall any other time when something similar occurred is testimony that very few people consider it pertinent.

Lets face it - we are not going to get any answer from WR for some time if ever.

In the meantime, if this is now a new de facto ruling what are the parameters?

TBH, I don't really care either way - but I do have concerns over how such an interpretation can be implemented.

meanwhile, all refs already have the "dangerous play" law to use for anything they consider is unacceptable if they so desire. Which may or may not include the tackle on KS... but then they can also take into account the lack of options to "pull out".

didds

 

[didds]

Common sense needs to be applied.

For everyone arguing that the letter of the law should be applied: justify the tackling of a player running with the ball. (Answer: you can't. Not in rigid application of the law).
Those arguing against the penalty are arguing that the law should not be rigidly applied - and that can often be the slippery slope.

The middle ground is that "can't we just apply common sense"?

What was the law intended to do? Was the PK justified using that different yardstick? My personal feeling is that a bit of common sense and empathy for the game suggests no penalty.

I'm open to counter-offers, especially from the "letter of the law" folks who might just struggle with my first point.

And of course by the letter of the law scrumhalves that dig out of the ruck are handling in the ruck and subject to penalty. yet they do, and are permitted to do so.

By the letter of the law the scrum feed should be "straight". Yeah, well...

So lets be careful what we wish for.

And Simon is right.

didds

 

[didds]

Now I know Ian will explain his example in physics to me again here but the fact is that CF is looking at a player who is in the air and still carries on regardless. Originally, I thought CF was further into the tackle with eyes more towards the ground when the BIL player jumped to catch the ball.

Dunno about you but when I coach people to tackle I coach them to keep their eyes on the target. Not on the ground. Which has the secondary benefit of keeping the chin off the chest - eyes on the ground may fold the chin downwards.

As I deliver this mantra on behalf of the RFU to aspiring coaches on their official CPD I don't think I'll be changing that idea.


didds

 

[didds]

whilst the NH commentators were backing the decision.

If by commentators you mean the TV people - well, when did anybody here take their word as meaning anythig?

If by commentators you mean those that make comments, then I'm from the NH and I thought it was a very bizarre decision. I try not to wear hemispherical blinkers either.

didds

 

[didds]

But in this clip both feet are slightly off the ground when contact is made...?

In the same way most runners have both feet slightly off the ground ?

So almost every tackle is a PK?

didds

 

[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 head 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]

Setting aside both the letter of the law application and my personal view and preferences, we are left with 2 discrete laws.

One of these sits in its own bubble, prior to this the situation having never been observed or the law applied in so far as many people's memory allows them to recall.
The other by all accounts, is one that has attracted copious degrees of clarification from World Rugby.

I perhaps welcome the day when NZ Rugby take to raising the issue with a request of their own for a law application guideline. I haven't checked back on the stats but I somehow doubt it will originate from them. The smart guys tend to stay out of the argument so I suspect it will be a lesser union/organisation that throws its hat into the ring.

In such an instance WR would be reasonably compelled to take a stance. Simples?

 

[DocY]

I try to use judgement and reasoning with my wife to suggest we might be late for some appointment. She uses her reasoning and judgement to suggest we will not. When we get there we then find out who was right. That then becomes fact. And I still never ever get an apology.

This made me spill my coffee!

 

[Ian_Cook]

except that most running ball carriers are in the air when tackled. yet those are not penalised. This is the crux -

1) should "runners" come under this law
2) if so what constitutes being in the air

The fact that nobody can apparently recall any other time when something similar occurred is testimony that very few people consider it pertinent.

Lets face it - we are not going to get any answer from WR for some time if ever.

In the meantime, if this is now a new de facto ruling what are the parameters?

TBH, I don't really care either way - but I do have concerns over how such an interpretation can be implemented.

meanwhile, all refs already have the "dangerous play" law to use for anything they consider is unacceptable if they so desire. Which may or may not include the tackle on KS... but then they can also take into account the lack of options to "pull out".

didds

I said, way back in 2009 when the iRB first started going down the path of mandatory cards for certain offences, that it would undermine the authority and judgement of the referee, that it will be a path fraught with inconsistencies, ambiguity and contradictions and that it would be laden with black ice and banana skins. Looks like I wasn't very far from the truth.

In staying the course they have chosen, the iRB/WR has dug a huge hole for itself, one that is going to see a lot of egg-splattered face before its over. If I was a young referee right now, I think I would be reconsidering my future in the game... League is looking better all the time.. consistent decision making, no mandatory sanctions, and when they find a problem with a Law, they change it immediately and its in force the next week, They don't piss around with lengthy trials and with the pig's breakfast of different sets of Laws in force in different countries (and sometimes in the same country).

 

[The Fat]

Dunno about you but when I coach people to tackle I coach them to keep their eyes on the target. Not on the ground. Which has the secondary benefit of keeping the chin off the chest - eyes on the ground may fold the chin downwards.

As I deliver this mantra on behalf of the RFU to aspiring coaches on their official CPD I don't think I'll be changing that idea.


didds

1.
I'll be more specific.
Originally, when the BIL player jumped to catch the ball, I thought CF was much closer and already crouched and focussing on the ball carrier's legs/target area. The Image I posted would suggest that CF was fully aware that the ball carrier had jumped to gain possession and was still in the air. No doubt Ian will again tell me that it was 3 frames and 0.12secs etc which may be true but the fact is CF knew the player was in the air which is contrary to what he said to JG.
I'll just go and find my Flak-jacket.

the following 3 points are not aimed to you didds. They are general comments/observations/questions.

2. The question of whether a running ball carrier should also be classed as being in the air is nonsensical.

3. There are several Laws that are seldom, if ever, seen but are still in the book.

4. No-one has addressed my earlier question of, if the tacklers action had flipped the player over and he had landed on his noggin, would there still be as much sympathy for the tackler taking his legs out from under him whilst in the air?

 

[Dan_A]

4. No-one has addressed my earlier question of, if the tacklers action had flipped the player over and he had landed on his noggin, would there still be as much sympathy for the tackler taking his legs out from under him whilst in the air?

But the referee can easily ping the tackler for a dangerous tackle (10.4e). We could easily change the law so that tackling in the air is forbidden when the person tackled was jumping for a kick, but not in other scenarios when they are off the ground. Then the referee can fall back on 10.4e if someone is tipped in one of the other scenarios.