As someone who used to go flying at great pace for the try line I would certainly ban the ankle tap!:smile:
Not wrapping the arms, right?
As someone who used to go flying at great pace for the try line I would certainly ban the ankle tap!:smile:
Does this comment refer to the OP Ian?
Why would it. Christy questioned the decision and didn't give an opinion one way or the other.
[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
One is an issue of absolute fact.
One is an issue of opinion/judgement and I am more than happy to accept yours may be very different to mine.
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.
Do you not think referees should try to ensure their judgements are as similar as possible?
So would you always ping a tackle where the ball carrier has two feet off the ground?
OK then, does your comment relate to the AB's v BIL incident?
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?
One is an issue of absolute fact.
One is an issue of opinion/judgement and I am more than happy to accept yours may be very different to mine.
Any tackle can be considered dangerous if the referee believes it to be so then it is.
What the problem here is a blanket treatment of tackles as dangerous without due regard for common sense and physics.
What the problem here is a blanket treatment of tackles as dangerous without due regard for common sense and physics.
WR had no choice, players were becoming too deviously skilled at 'accidentally' [or innocently protesting the same] running through the legs of a player who was up higher than he was, the jumped players were landing on their head & the referees were then faced with injured players & a host of Accidental assailants often claiming they were only looking at the ball.
WR simply had to act, for the safety of the Pro jumpers and every referee/player in the community game.
A pathetic attempt to ambush me into 'running with ball in hand'
:rc:
Well, feet are either on the ground or not. If they both aren't, what's your justification for not blowing a penalty? There isn't a running exemption...
You're talking about players jumping to compete for the ball. That is a different subject entirely.
Point accepted.
The same principles of player protection apply, as the KS incident. Players are entitled to try and catch/gather the ball, which might include jumping for it in any phase of the game, & it's 100% right that they are protected from being wiped out through the legs & upended onto their head/neck/spinal chord, it has to be considered the Tacklers responsibility, there isn't another way here.
If you or Pegleg don't agree then raise it through Pegleg's Society :smile: IMO there's no change needed, referees still decide on severity & mitigation - as did the ref on Sat.
Point accepted.
The same principles of player protection apply, as the KS incident.
Players are entitled to try and catch/gather the ball, which might include jumping for it in any phase of the game, & it's 100% right that they are protected from being wiped out through the legs & upended onto their head/neck/spinal chord, it has to be considered the Tacklers responsibility, there isn't another way here.
So...
Why are the "principles of player protection" not applied to tackling a player during "float phase", when both the player's feet are off the ground?
Why are the "principles of player protection" not applied to tackling a player when they are off their feet becasue they are diving to score a try.
If tackling a player who has jumped for the ball is dangerous, so too is tackling a player who is in float phase or diving for a try. Why are the latter two not afforded protection? Simple, neither or the two examples you cite are AS DANGEROUS as destabilising a player who is up in the air, & who [as it's been seen many times] is much more likely to land on his head than either of the two examples you offer. Even KS was only a fraction of a second from rotating further & landing on his head.
But, as always - if you wish to further your arguments, you could put your name on open memo & send it to WR & they might copy it to all the players who've landed on their head from height & suffered spinal damage. FWIW I think you're peeing into the wind with WR on this subject.
But you see, there is another way. Let the referee judge whether or not the tackle was dangerous just like we do with every other dangerous area of the game; late tackles, early tackles, tackles without the ball, shoulder charges, dangerous charges etc etc....THAT IS THEIR JOB!!!!