[Law] Tackling man in air

[VM75]

actually I don't believe JG decided on severity and mitigation. I believe he indicated that he was just not allowed to tackle a player whose feet were off the ground.

sounded like mitigating statements to me, listen for yourself .... https://youtu.be/quNPnVs77FM?t=2683

once you've watched the sequence, re-watch but only to read the subtitles, they're hilarious !

 

[DocY]

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!!!!

While I agree with your sentiment, that's not the way the game is going - we're told that any time a player is tipped beyond the horizontal it's 'dangerous', any time a tackler contacts a player above the shoulders it's 'dangerous', if a player's hand makes contact with an opponents 'eye area' (read 'face') in a ruck or maul, it's 'dangerous'.

I'd like to see them use common sense and let us decide, but I expect them to do the other thing.

 

[The Fat]

Not sure why there is still so much debate over this tackle.
A referee who was arguably one of the best at the 2015 RWC and has controlled somewhere in the order of 65 Tests applied the Law as it currently stands and applied some empathy by only issuing a PK.
Here is the position of the players at the point where the BIL player catches the ball. Pretty straight forward in my book.

 

[Phil E]

Not sure why there is still so much debate over this tackle.
A referee who was arguably one of the best at the 2015 RWC and has controlled somewhere in the order of 65 Tests applied the Law as it currently stands and applied some empathy by only issuing a PK.
Here is the position of the players at the point where the BIL player catches the ball. Pretty straight forward in my book.
View attachment 3567

So what's your answer to the AB Captain's question (which the ref totally ignored).

"So if I jump as I get tackled I can get a PK?"

 

[crossref]

So what's your answer to the AB Captain's question (which the ref totally ignored).

"So if I jump as I get tackled I can get a PK?"

My answer would be along the lines of
- unlikely, because deliberately jumping into a tackle is itself normally considered dangerous play, because you are recklessly creating a situation where your boots are likely to come into contact with the tackler's head
- besdides, in this case the player wasn't jumping into a tackle, he was jumping to collect a pass, which is different
- having said that I do acknowledge the sometime the difference between the two is a fine distinction, and it's something that's very hard for a tackler and a referee to judge.

But the Law here is part of a family of actions that WR have taken to improve safety, and the balance is has been deliberately struck in favour of the vulnerable player.
When you look at one particular incident it may seem unfair/unlucky for the penalised player but
- the belief is that the current Laws overall have improved player safety
- and it's the same for both teams

(on the pitch, I might shorten all that to 'Not now, Kieran -- catch me in the bar after')

 

[The Fat]

So what's your answer to the AB Captain's question (which the ref totally ignored).

"So if I jump as I get tackled I can get a PK?"

The referee doesn't have to answer the ABs Captain's question, which is exactly what he got from JG.

If it was at my level game, I might do the same as JG or I might simply say, "I'll make my decision if and when that happens".

The way I interpreted KR's question was that it implied, "If I jump just as they are going to tackle me, will I get a PK?" That suggests a ball carrier jumping into a tackle. That is probably one reason why JG ignored it. The other reason may be as I said, the referee is not obligated to answer such a question or enter into a debate about his decision. JG had already explained his decision to KR and CF.

 

[SimonSmith]

yes there is, it's existed since WWEllis !

Except no because the stipulation of not hitting a player in the air is a modern construct.

ps...Shoulder barge 'tackle-hits' never used to be widespread, whereas it was routine in League for many years, IMHO it's gradually polluted Union.

JPR begs leave to disagree with you per Gourdon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXY6Wfk0Vyg

 

[didds]

(on the pitch, I might shorten all that to 'Not now, Kieran -- catch me in the bar after')

One minute later KR clearly jumps to take a normal height pass and gets clobbered with his feet off the ground.

PK yes? you haven't advised him otherwise when he politely asked after all.

didds

 

[crossref]

well, didds, I think you are asking two separate questions in one, and they can't both be answered at the same time

- partly you (or KR) is raising a valid but complicated question about the Laws and applications as they stand, and whether it actually incentivises jumping into tackles, does it achieve the safety objectives, and does it make the game better or worse. This needs a lengthy debate and there is no easy answer

- and at the same task you are asking about what's the best way to handle KR there and then on the pitch. This does NOT call for a lengthy debate! The Fat's answer may be the right one : "I'll make my decision if and when that happens"

 

[L'irlandais]

Given that the match referee had just made a good decision, I don't think the New Zealand captain was trying to pose a valid question. He was questioning the referee's decision (and authority). I think ignoring him was the best approach. What are the odds of KR receiving a poor pass in the same game? Given that there were merely minutes on the clock, not very likely.

 

[Phil E]

Given that the match referee had just made a good decision, I don't think the New Zealand captain was trying to pose a valid question. He was questioning the referee's decision (and authority). I think ignoring him was the best approach. What are the odds of KR receiving a poor pass in the same game? Given that there were merely minutes on the clock, not very likely.

I disagree, I think the AB Skipper was genuinely confused sine he has no doubt never seen a player penalised in that way for his entire career. Neither have I.

 

[didds]

The referee doesn't have to answer the ABs Captain's question, which is exactly what he got from JG.

If it was at my level game, I might do the same as JG or I might simply say, "I'll make my decision if and when that happens".

The way I interpreted KR's question was that it implied, "If I jump just as they are going to tackle me, will I get a PK?" That suggests a ball carrier jumping into a tackle. That is probably one reason why JG ignored it. The other reason may be as I said, the referee is not obligated to answer such a question or enter into a debate about his decision. JG had already explained his decision to KR and CF.

that would depend on what KR did. If he jumped like KS did presumably he wouldn't have jumped into the tackle.

Then again had the defender been half a second quicker up onto KS would KS have been jumping into the tackle whilst jumping to catch the ball?

didds

 

[didds]

well, didds, I think you are asking two separate questions in one, and they can't both be answered at the same time

- partly you (or KR) is raising a valid but complicated question about the Laws and applications as they stand, and whether it actually incentivises jumping into tackles, does it achieve the safety objectives, and does it make the game better or worse. This needs a lengthy debate and there is no easy answer

- and at the same task you are asking about what's the best way to handle KR there and then on the pitch. This does NOT call for a lengthy debate! The Fat's answer may be the right one : "I'll make my decision if and when that happens"

I get all of that. But given you can;t give KR a response (all understood) then you you are a bit stuck if he then manages somehow to acheive the jump himself...

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Given that the match referee had just made a good decision, I don't think the New Zealand captain was trying to pose a valid question. He was questioning the referee's decision (and authority). I think ignoring him was the best approach. What are the odds of KR receiving a poor pass in the same game? Given that there were merely minutes on the clock, not very likely.

I agree with Phil. I have seen many times, players jump to catch a pass, and be tackled, but I have ever seen it PK, ever, until last Saturday night.

And BTW, in the modern game the Captain has the right to expect the referee to clarify a decision, especially a "gotcha" like that one.

 

[ChuckieB]

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?

The decision is being rubbished so let's have some fodder that might help us find some "correct" interpretation of the law From those that are having a problem with it..

 

[Ian_Cook]

This guy nicely mkes all the valid points

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lions...e-that-needs-to-be-closed-by-world-rugby.html

The rule makes sense for high balls and lineouts, where everyone knows the players will be jumping and there's time to prepare. When it comes to a normal tackle, when an opponent suddenly decides to jump, it's nonsensical. The tackler is trying to work within the laws, so if the goal posts are shifted by a late leap, they shouldn't be penalised.

In this case, it's the player that jumps making it dangerous. Maybe they should be penalised for hurting themselves.

Steve Hansen didn't complain about the penalty being given but made a strong point.

"If you look at it, Charlie's about to make a tackle. He's a big boy. He's about 133kg and he doesn't have the ability to stop halfway through," Hansen said.

The on-pitch conversation between Faumuina and Garces said it all. It's revealed a loophole. If players decide they're not going to beat a man, they might consider jumping. Why not milk a penalty?

Maybe a spate of them is needed, to show law makers that this is an area that needs to be revised. If players adapt by refusing to commit to tackles, they'll get dominated in the collision. It'll change the whole point of the game and make it a farce.

You can get penalised for anything at any time in rugby. This should not be one of those things.

I would love to see the NZ Super Rugby teams start adopting the tactic of deliberately jumping to catch any pass when there is a potential tackler near enough and committed so they wont be able to pull out... turn the games into a farce to put WR on public notice that they need to get their act together and close this loophole in the Laws.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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?

The decision is being rubbished so let's have some fodder that might help us find some "correct" interpretation of the law From those that are having a problem with it..

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.

 

[ChrisR]

If, instead of jumping, the receiver reached up above his head to catch the ball . . . . . I think that instead of the PK we'd be seeing the stretcher.

 

[ChuckieB]

This guy nicely mkes all the valid points

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lions...e-that-needs-to-be-closed-by-world-rugby.html

The rule makes sense for high balls and lineouts, where everyone knows the players will be jumping and there's time to prepare. When it comes to a normal tackle, when an opponent suddenly decides to jump, it's nonsensical. The tackler is trying to work within the laws, so if the goal posts are shifted by a late leap, they shouldn't be penalised.

In this case, it's the player that jumps making it dangerous. Maybe they should be penalised for hurting themselves.

Steve Hansen didn't complain about the penalty being given but made a strong point.

"If you look at it, Charlie's about to make a tackle. He's a big boy. He's about 133kg and he doesn't have the ability to stop halfway through," Hansen said.

The on-pitch conversation between Faumuina and Garces said it all. It's revealed a loophole. If players decide they're not going to beat a man, they might consider jumping. Why not milk a penalty?

Maybe a spate of them is needed, to show law makers that this is an area that needs to be revised. If players adapt by refusing to commit to tackles, they'll get dominated in the collision. It'll change the whole point of the game and make it a farce.

You can get penalised for anything at any time in rugby. This should not be one of those things.

I would love to see the NZ Super Rugby teams start adopting the tactic of deliberately jumping to catch any pass when there is a potential tackler near enough and committed so they wont be able to pull out... turn the games into a farce to put WR on public notice that they need to get their act together and close this loophole in the Laws.

....not ballsy enough to recommend the approach be adopted by the national team?

 

[OB..]

And BTW, in the modern game the Captain has the right to expect the referee to clarify a decision, especially a "gotcha" like that one.

That specific decision, yes, but not not to have a general discussion, or raise hypothetical points.