Was it THAT boring?

[Treadmore]

I had said "COULD" -p and provided my own example of exactly what I meant later to better explain.

Are you saying that COULD not happen, ever? I concede I may have misunderstood this edict/protocol.

didds

But what "edict/protocol" are you referencing?

There are people on this board and elsewhere who are wanting to interpret recent decisions (which don't involve a would-be non-jumping receiver stood still) as implying that WR would support the outcome you gave in your example.

Personally I think that is an unwarranted extrapolation about WR...

 

[didds]

ISTR some time back in 2014 there being a hoo-hah about a jumping defender colliding with a jumping chaser, and the defender getting a card because the chaser fell badly after the clash-in-the-air. It came to light then 9to me) that there was some guidance or edict or whatever that had been recently released that said if similar stuff happened then the LOWER of the two jumpers was to be held responsible.

that has now extended to players on the ground as defending receivers no longer jump for the ball.

That must have come from somewhere because it was sucha hoo-hah back in late (N H) summer/early autumn.

didds

 

[didds]

well, Ok... cos I am actually really just trying understand exactly WHAT is the advice/ruling/edict/whatever surrounding these clashes. We've gone from both jumpers clashing and play on, to clashing jumpers ending up with a card to one of them, to defenders never jumping, to collisions with standing players ending in a card. there must be some rationale and protocol behind it so "reductio ad absurdum" what SHOULD happen in my scenario?

Play on?
card for the static defender? which colour?
card for the chasing jumper? which colour?

does this then alter depending on whether the chasing jumper has control of the ball when he collides with the static defender?

or something else?

didds

 

[The umpire]

ISTR some time back in 2014 there being a hoo-hah about a jumping defender colliding with a jumping chaser, and the defender getting a card because the chaser fell badly after the clash-in-the-air. It came to light then 9to me) that there was some guidance or edict or whatever that had been recently released that said if similar stuff happened then the LOWER of the two jumpers was to be held responsible.

that has now extended to players on the ground as defending receivers no longer jump for the ball.

That must have come from somewhere because it was sucha hoo-hah back in late (N H) summer/early autumn.

didds

Is this it?
Principles:
· Safety requirement – protect players in the air.
· Unintentional act does not mean no YC/RC (recklessness, dangerous act).
· For chasing players, saying they have their eyes on the ball is not a strong enough argument – they have a responsibility for the safety of the receiver.
Legal actions:
· Both players are in the air at the same level/height and contesting the ball at the same time.
· The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and falls to floor: play on.
Illegal actions:
· A player jumps without really contesting for the ball. For instance, he is jumping into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.
· A player is not really contesting for the ball. For instance, he is running into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.
· A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:
· Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the player in the air.
· For any illegal action, like for a tip tackle, it is the way in which the player falls and the part of the body that the player falls on which is relevant. If a player lands on his head/neck, it should be a red card

 

[Ian_Cook]

Is this it?
Principles:
· Safety requirement – protect players in the air.
· Unintentional act does not mean no YC/RC (recklessness, dangerous act).
· For chasing players, saying they have their eyes on the ball is not a strong enough argument – they have a responsibility for the safety of the receiver.
Legal actions:
· Both players are in the air at the same level/height and contesting the ball at the same time.
· The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and falls to floor: play on.
Illegal actions:
· A player jumps without really contesting for the ball. For instance, he is jumping into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.
· A player is not really contesting for the ball. For instance, he is running into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.
· A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:
· Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the player in the air.
· For any illegal action, like for a tip tackle, it is the way in which the player falls and the part of the body that the player falls on which is relevant. If a player lands on his head/neck, it should be a red card

This is excellent. Why on God's green Earth is this not available on World Rugby's website?

Why does stuff like this seem to only get promulgated via crossref's "secret memos"?

 

[crossref]

Googling the text I can see it has surfaced in a number of places. Here's a good one

http://www.munsterfans.com/threads/...thread/page7?p=1371610&viewfull=1#post1371610

MODS -- if one of you could give me permission to add pages to the WIKI I will add this guidance to our store of simlar unpuiblished guidelines

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/wiki/index.php/IRB_Communications

 

[crossref]

the gudiance is interesting

• Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the player in the air.

This guidance takes for granted that the chasing player is on the ground, and it's the oppo who is making a jumping catch.

The recent 6N incidents have invovled the chasing player being the one doing the jumping...

 

[didds]

<SNIP>
A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
<SNIP>
Decision:
· Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the player in the air

That is great - cheers.

It still doesn't cover my scenario though. The defender is not a chasing player. he is standing still, never having moved. He is not taking out the jumping player - he is waiting for the ball to arrive.

So does he have to move? Or is this actually totally legal?

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Googling the text I can see it has surfaced in a number of places. Here's a good one

http://www.munsterfans.com/threads/...thread/page7?p=1371610&viewfull=1#post1371610

So munsterfans forum is the official source for world-wide dissemination of WR protocols and guidelines.

How silly of me not to realise

But didds is right, the guideline only considers the defending (non-kicking) player as the jumper, and does not speak to the scenario of the kicking player jumping and the chaser not moving.

 

[crossref]

safety would dictate that it's the defending player who has to give way, as he is the person who can see the whole situation - ie the ball and the chaser, whereas the chaser is having to look back over his shoulder at the ball...

equity would suggest that the the defender has priority as all he is doing is standing still waiting for the ball to land, and why should he concede his ground to an incoming, leaping chaser?

 

[didds]

safety would dictate that it's the defending player who has to give way, as he is the person who can see the whole situation - ie the ball and the chaser, whereas the chaser is having to look back over his shoulder at the ball...

equity would suggest that the the defender has priority as all he is doing is standing still waiting for the ball to land, and why should he concede his ground to an incoming, leaping chaser?

Yes - except that in the safety aspect the chasing jumper should see that his landing spot is already taken well in advance due to the poor direction of the kicker. safety would surely suggest NOT to endanger the player already in position by leaping at him?

CF : generally pedestrians should not be standing in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway. But that doesn't mean an approaching driver has any right to run them over then claim for damage to the vehicle from the pedestrian.

didds

 

[crossref]

it's a tricky one, certainly.

 

[didds]

<repeated post>

 

[crossref]

play on...
..and subsequently cite the stationary player who then gets a ban.

:redface:

 

[didds]

play on...
..and subsequently cite the stationary player who then gets a ban.

:redface:

indeed potentially.

Under what criteria though?

didds

 

[Browner]

Browner one defence against a maul is to tackle the ball carrier even if he has teammates bound on. Grasping him below the waist does not form a maul and if the ball carrier is off his feet, then tackle is made and he cannot then be lifted back to his feet and pushed over the goal line.

Pinky, if you are saying that a tackled player shouldn't be able to be hauled back to his feet by teammates without having released the ball 1st, then I agree with you.

However if your saying that no other referee at that level to have allowed that (the specific passage of play referred to) play to continue, then I doubt that.

 

[RobLev]

safety would dictate that it's the defending player who has to give way, as he is the person who can see the whole situation - ie the ball and the chaser, whereas the chaser is having to look back over his shoulder at the ball...

Yeah - that worked out for Jared Payne, didn't it...

equity would suggest that the the defender has priority as all he is doing is standing still waiting for the ball to land, and why should he concede his ground to an incoming, leaping chaser?

...and that of course worked out well for Finn Russell.

 

[Browner]

Is this it?
Principles:
· Safety requirement – protect players in the air.
· Unintentional act does not mean no YC/RC (recklessness, dangerous act).
· For chasing players, saying they have their eyes on the ball is not a strong enough argument – they have a responsibility for the safety of the receiver.
Legal actions:
· Both players are in the air at the same level/height and contesting the ball at the same time.
· The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and falls to floor: play on.
Illegal actions:
· A player jumps without really contesting for the ball. For instance, he is jumping into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.
· A player is not really contesting for the ball. For instance, he is running into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.
· A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:
· Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the player in the air.
· For any illegal action, like for a tip tackle, it is the way in which the player falls and the part of the body that the player falls on which is relevant. If a player lands on his head/neck, it should be a red card

Who issued this guidance?

 

[Pinky]

Pinky, if you are saying that a tackled player shouldn't be able to be hauled back to his feet by teammates without having released the ball 1st, then I agree with you.

However if your saying that no other referee at that level to have allowed that (the specific passage of play referred to) play to continue, then I doubt that.

Browner, for me the critical issue with that passage of play is whether a maul had formed and thus there were rights to the attacking team. As I said the defence against a maul forming is for the first player to tackle the ball carrier, grasping below the waist. (If he grasps above the waist he forms the maul) IMO the first Scot did this, although the ball carrier ended up sitting on him. However under 15.3 b he had been brought to ground. So tackle law should have been applied and Italy should not have been able to pull him back to his feet and continue to maul over the line.

Should elite refs spot this? I think so. It was (again in my view) a critical incident where the ref got it wrong.

 

[Browner]

Browner, for me the critical issue with that passage of play is whether a maul had formed and thus there were rights to the attacking team. As I said the defence against a maul forming is for the first player to tackle the ball carrier, grasping below the waist. (If he grasps above the waist he forms the maul) IMO the first Scot did this, although the ball carrier ended up sitting on him. However under 15.3 b he had been brought to ground. So tackle law should have been applied and Italy should not have been able to pull him back to his feet and continue to maul over the line.

Should elite refs spot this? I think so. It was (again in my view) a critical incident where the ref got it wrong.

pinky, I agree he was a tackled player, 'sitting' on the tackler.

I dont understand what you're getting when you say ........

the defence against a maul forming is for the first player to tackle the ball carrier, grasping below the waist. (If he grasps above the waist he forms the maul)

Surely its whether or not a tackle (as defined) is effected, that precludes a maul being formed, rather than the exact location of his grasping???