Taking the player out in the air.

First topic message reminder :

Fallout from Wales vs Scotland.

This taking the player in the air is nonsense. Both yellows IMO were not worthy of getting cards. Secondly Warburton and Gatland claiming Russel should have been red carded is really really uncalled for. It was an accident, no malice (unlike Hogg last year).

So here is my suggestion.

If the ball is in the air, keep your feet on the ground.

Anyone jumping for a ball with their knees up should be penalized and yellow carded. If your not jumping in the air it's pretty hard to land on your head.

Whilst you are at it, lets bring back properly calling for the mark as a fullback. That will bring positioning back instead of being able to catch it whilst diving.

VinceWLB wrote:From the 20 pages of the Payne-Goode thread i thought the consensus was clear, jump but at your own risk. It's any player's right to compete for the ball on the ground.

This is exactly how I would have the law. Feel free to compete, but if you jump the risk is yours.

I think too much protection (or perhaps preference) is given to the jumping player. Remember that no one forces a player to jump - it is the very definition of placing one's self in a dangerous position. If you jump and collide with another player, you are almost bound to come off worse, unless the other player happens to have jumped to the exact same height.

For me, the problem with the law is actually best illustrated by the circumstances surrounding Davies' yellow card. Beattie is under the ball and jumps, Davies jumps too and takes out Beattie, so penalty and card against Davies. If, however, Beattie had not jumped and Davies had landed on Beattie, Davies would naturally have tumbled and Beattie would have been carded. In effect, the direction of the penalty and card seems to depend on whether the defending (i.e. receiving) player jumps or not. It seems strange that you bring a penalty upon yourself by not jumping and thereby placing risk upon yourself.

I should say, I feel the Russell yellow card was correct as the law currently stands. However, I would ask one thing: once Biggar had jumped, what could Russell have done to avoid a penalty or card? He is running towards the likely landing spot of the ball, which he is entitled to do. If Biggar has already jumped, Russell cannot hope to jump subsequently and reach the same height in time to avoid causing Biggar to tumble. As a collision is inevitable because of their collective momentum, Russell is doomed to a card as soon as Biggar jumps. As I said above, it seems wrong for Russell to have been carded because his opponent has chosen to jump.

It all hinges on whether we think it is a legitimate action to choose not to jump when receiving a high ball.

I don't think you can put the onus on the jumper but you can't also accuse a player of dangerous play if he jumps and competes and a collision occurs, this is rugby not square dancing. If injuries occur then a post match review should take place but the ref should be calling the shots without televised big screen slow moo's. They are just the worst way of judging this game, believe me my wife putting on lipstick in slow mo looks like someone is being murdered. Horrific.

Gwlad wrote:believe me my wife putting on lipstick in slow mo looks like someone is being murdered. Horrific.

So true!

Well, that is... not about your wife. I'm sure she's awesome.

I'll just stop typing now.

IanBru wrote:

Gwlad wrote:believe me my wife putting on lipstick in slow mo looks like someone is being murdered. Horrific.

So true!

Well, that is... not about your wife. I'm sure she's awesome.

I'll just stop typing now.

Noted.

(you should see her snoring)

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

optimist wrote:The ball comes towards Charteris (6ft 11in), he reaches up and takes it with his size 15s firmly planted on the ground. No penalty. The ball comes towards Halfpenny (5ft 10in), he jumps to take it, otherwise the opposition gets it. Penalty - tut tut Halfpenny! How daft is that?

I have watched rugby for nearly 25 years and have never seen a fullback competing for the ball in the air against a lock. So don't talk to me about daft!

As far as I'm concerned if Charteris can chase down a kick and beat the back three or the centres to the ball he can win it unopposed as far as I care!

Who said anything about them competing? Two separate incidents - one doesn't get penalised for the way he takes the ball, the other does - because one doesn't need to jump and the other does. Daft, as I said!
As for longevity in the game, I first played in the mid-1950s and am still following rugby 60 years later.

First off, the laws say nothing about what cards should be given. The IRB sometimes give guidance on what cards they'd like to see but that's it.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:To honest I thought Russel was getting a red and was quite surprise he didn't. I would have penalised Davies and no more.

EDIT: But I would all for your not jumping thing.

Taking a player out in the air is taking the player out in the air. Whether someone is injured or not have no significance on who gets carded and who doesn't.

Yes and that's why it would be a penalty. For me if the player comes down upright it's a penalty. If they're horizontal then it's yellow. If it's tipped then it's red.

Biggar landed badly and was thankfully not hurt. The only saving grace for the Ref was he was at least consistent.

This jumping for the ball is dangerous and it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. These are big, brave blokes who seem to have no regard for their personal safety.

The IRB need to address this very quickly.

The IRB have looked at addressing it. The recommendations are now supposed to be that if you don't jump for a ball you take responsibility. This is what happened with Payne (before these new recommendation made the media).  If both players jump they're much less likely to tip than if one player is on the ground. So it's either both jump or neither do.

HammerofThunor wrote: If both players jump they're much less likely to tip than if one player is on the ground. So it's either both jump or neither do.

They have to think about all that in a hot game?  "Is this guy going to jump for it, or am I? - Is he??..... Is he?......  I'm getting closer and looking at the ball and can't really get a good look at him!!!!.......  But is he going to jump??? ....... I think I might jump but I can't see him now, I'm looking up at the ball.......  If I take my eyes off the ball to look for him then the ref will see intention on my part to not go for the ball but the man!"

Choices - choices.

If you always jump (and go for the ball) you'll always be safe (from the fuzz, not from having your neck broken)

Solution seems to be that ref has to stop play when the ball is in the air and whoever is closest after it bounces gets the ball. The game can be restarted with a lean on scrum - we dont want any injuries at scrum time anymore - and then whoever gets possession gets to run in a try (no diving in case you get a blade of grass up your nose) - no more rucks/mauls or tackling due to safety considerations

Nachos Jones wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I thought Biggars jump was dangerous, both knees up and charging forward, Russel had no choice but to pull out unless he wanted to be knocked out.

And that's the other way to look at it, quite rightly as well. That can also be seen as dangerous play.

I've noticed Halfpenny has a very exaggerated jump too, the knees come up and he lunges right forward every single time unless ironically nobody is near him, not saying it's intentional but could be far more dangerous than what JD2 did for example.

No complaints with the Russell yellow card, wasn't malicious but was badly mistimed and he should have been in better control of what he was doing.

Nematode wrote:Both were the same offence and both didn't have any malice. Both yellows.

This. Both mistimed tackles - Russell realised he was going to get beaten to the ball - pulled out and turned his head but was too close and "made a back" for Biggar. Yellow card because he did not follow thru hence no Red.

Welsh guy - same - mistimed tackle - went with his hands but nowhere near the ball put hit the jumper hard enough to topple him. yellow card Again not red 'cos he did not hit him hard.

BigGee wrote:

Biltong wrote:Did Wales make the kick Biggar chased?

Yes, and the bottom line is that it was a very good kick which Scotland did not deal with very well. Russell got himself into a mess and the rest is history. We did not catch a ball in the air all afternoon, I hope that they will be practising this next week!

He didn't get himself into a mess at all, he was perfectly positioned to receive the ball, he is under no obligation to jump and take it the air just because Biggar has. It's a really tricky situation, the person who has caused the dangerous play is Biggar himself but again he's done nothing, Russell not wanting to take a knee to the face turns away and Biggar goes over the top of him.

Gwlad wrote:I don't think you can put the onus on the jumper but you can't also accuse a player of dangerous play if he jumps and competes and a collision occurs,

Its not a pen if both competing for the ball - several examples in the game usually won by 1/2p. You have to get your hands on or very near the ball - its not dangerous and players don't go flying as they are the same height in the air..

Hammersmith harrier wrote: he is under no obligation to jump and take it the air just because Biggar has.

Very good point.

The fact remains that in a man's game, that most people here say the don't want going too soft, you can't be forced to put a red carpet out to your tryline for the opposition simply because their player chooses to jump for a ball and you decide to try to wait for its trajectory to get to you. There is no law insisting you jump to compete, is there?
If there is then we might as well add in a rule that you must do a swan dive before a try is legit

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

BigGee wrote:

Biltong wrote:Did Wales make the kick Biggar chased?

Yes, and the bottom line is that it was a very good kick which Scotland did not deal with very well. Russell got himself into a mess and the rest is history. We did not catch a ball in the air all afternoon, I hope that they will be practising this next week!

He didn't get himself into a mess at all, he was perfectly positioned to receive the ball, he is under no obligation to jump and take it the air just because Biggar has. It's a really tricky situation, the person who has caused the dangerous play is Biggar himself but again he's done nothing, Russell not wanting to take a knee to the face turns away and Biggar goes over the top of him.

He did make an utter mess of it - complete mistime. he thought he was going to get there and was watching the ball then you can see in the replay he realises he is not going to make it and tries to pull out. You can see the panic on his face. By stopping however he made sure he did not get a red and most importantly minimised the risk to Biggar. If he had carried on running or jumped it would have been a very nasty collision.

He hasn't mistimed it because he doesn't know Biggar is there until the final second, as far as Russell is concerned the ball is going straight into his arms. It's a penalty but no more.

I'm sorry, but you know full well if someone is chasing up their kick, He knew where Biggar was.

CurlyOsp wrote:I'm sorry, but you know full well if someone is chasing up their kick, He knew where Biggar was.

But again, does chasing up a kick give you the Right to that ball? - and, is the only way to avoid a cardable collision the opening up of a clear avenue right to your tryline?

You must be given a right to defend - and defending usually means a player will place himself in the sphere of the falling ball - and that usually means that the player will be directly in front of the player 'chasing his kick'.  There is very little time then to avoid collisions whilst legally giving yourself a chance to defend.

He may have known in a general sense Biggar was chasing but in the replay you can see his eyes clearly and you see him catch sight of Biggar, realise he is going to mistime it and attempt to stop and duck out of it. He realise too late to miss him completely but didn't follow thru. As the law is now yellow is right.

3rd option for me. I cringed when Biggar landed this weekend and I don't blame the Jock whatsoever as he clearly attempted to pull out. I'd question lifting in the lineout too.

SecretFly wrote:

CurlyOsp wrote:I'm sorry, but you know full well if someone is chasing up their kick, He knew where Biggar was.

But again, does chasing up a kick give you the Right to that ball? - and, is the only way to avoid a cardable collision the opening up of a clear avenue right to your tryline?

You must be given a right to defend - and defending usually means a player will place himself in the sphere of the falling ball - and that usually means that the player will be directly in front of the player 'chasing his kick'.  There is very little time then to avoid collisions whilst legally giving yourself a chance to defend.

No - You stay on the ground in front of him, or you compete for the kick - either go for the ball and get to it or stay on the ground and time the tackle as he lands. Russell realised too late to do the latter that he has messed it up.

You make a judgement call, whether to go up or wait for the player to come down. To me Russell got caught in between, but decided to hold his line, knowing there would be a collision. I think a yellow was fair, but a collision definitely could have been avoided without giving Biggar a free run to the line as some are suggesting.

CurlyOsp wrote:You make a judgement call, whether to go up or wait for the player to come down. To me Russell got caught in between,

agree

CurlyOsp wrote:but decided to hold his line, knowing there would be a collision. I think a yellow was fair, but a collision definitely could have been avoided without giving Biggar a free run to the line as some are suggesting.

I don't think he thought that much - I just think he went " oh shhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttt" and tried to pull out.

TJ wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

CurlyOsp wrote:I'm sorry, but you know full well if someone is chasing up their kick, He knew where Biggar was.

But again, does chasing up a kick give you the Right to that ball? - and, is the only way to avoid a cardable collision the opening up of a clear avenue right to your tryline?

You must be given a right to defend - and defending usually means a player will place himself in the sphere of the falling ball - and that usually means that the player will be directly in front of the player 'chasing his kick'.  There is very little time then to avoid collisions whilst legally giving yourself a chance to defend.

No - You stay on the ground in front of him, or you compete for the kick - either go for the ball and  get to it or stay on the ground and time the tackle  as he lands.  Russell realised too late to do the latter that he has messed it up.

He was pretty much still on the ground when Biggar arrived.  

Like I say, these decisions are happening at split second intervals.  You don't suddenly decide 'I'm not going to make it, let me pull out of this' in plenty of time.  You back yourself competitively to the last millisecond and then it gets messy.  But you are in theory only backing yourself as much as the guy 'chasing his kick'.  You are not being more wreckless than the guy chasing his kick.  You both have a right to challenge for the ball.

The guy 'chasing his kick' is an equal operator in the unwritten 'safety' agreement between both sides.  But he's not caring as much about timing his run right though - he instinctively knows that, in the eyes of the ref, he'll have more rights to the ball than the defender.  He has more leverage to charge into danger - endangering not just himself but also the defender.

The rule observaion is too b&w to cater for the realism going on on the field when two players have equal rights to both attack and to defend.  Right now the guy 'chasing his kick' has the right to be wreckless in his driving jumps, legs up, knees out - yet the defender is a little in a damned it I do and damned if I don't situation

Some of us are old enough to remember a time before people jumped for the ball in open play and before lifting in the lineout was permitted (is the lifting for restarts actually allowed in the laws or just tolerated?).

The law banning playing the man in the air was explicitly brought in to tide up the lineouts. Coaches however are clever beasts, and looking at other similarish ball games, who realised the law change could be used in ways otherwise not thought of.

We now have the current situation.

Along with several posters I would like deliberately leaving the ground at any time other than a lineout or diving downwards for the try line to be outlawed. The added benefit would be the end of the swallow dive.

Something to add;

"Worker's have a duty to take care of their own health and safety and that of others who may be affected by your actions at work."

http://www.hse.gov.uk/workers/responsibilities.htm

Jumping for the ball is a skill that modern rugby players and 3/4 in particular have to learn and master. Russell did mistime it, he has not perfected his skills there as have not other Scottish players on the evidence of sunday. When Halfpenny or Kearney go up for such a ball, you know that they are odds on to come down with it. Halfpenny proves it is not just about height, it is so much more about timing and technique and not a little bit of bravery thrown in.

It is a thrilling part of the game now and an alternative to seeing two rows of men running at each other and making their tackles, which these international teams will do more often than not. It is also a chance to suddenly alter the course of play, turning defence immediately into an attacking opportunity and breaking the defensive deadlocks that can strangle games. I think we would lose a lot if that was taken out ofthe game now.

Should the guy jumping for the ball not also have a duty of care. Most of the guys best at it do tend to lead with their studs.

I'm a back three player and for me it's pretty simple, if you're under the ball or coming towards it, you jump and you jump early, then when you're up in the air you don't keep hold of anything that isn't the ball.  If you don't follow those basic rules you know there's a good chance you could be carded.

Anyone jumping takes the well known accompanying risks, but personally I'd much rather chance my arm colliding with another mid-air player with even the smallest amount of time to brace myself for any fall than have to field all kicks from the ground and collide with competing players travelling at a greater speed and with force from their traction with the ground but no arms as in a tackle.  This latter scenario is the biggest incident I've had playing rugby, myself and the opposition player running towards and with eyes on the ball collided heads.  Both of us were knocked out, he fractured his skull and I had 8 staples put into a wide laceration on my scalp.  I've jumped for the ball ever since (almost a decade) and the worst outcome has been a dead arm.

But, if one guy is running in to catch a ball and expects to catch it at full speed, while the other coming from the opposite direction jumps - why is it the player who is on the ground responsible for getting out of the way of the guy who you can argue jumps into him.

Just my opinion, but currently the law is an ass.

LT, you're absolutely right, in my opinion. We act as though the player on the ground has the responsibility, while the player who chooses to jump is a victim, despite effectively surrendering control of his trajectory.

LondonTiger wrote:Should the guy jumping for the ball not also have a duty of care. Most of the guys best at it do tend to lead with their studs.

Exactamente.  

Duty of care is not a one way street...or at least shouldn't be.  

In suggesting the jumpers are to be protected all round by rules and surrounding players, that presumes the advantage of ball collection is always with them.
But they too have an obligation to the safety of players around them - they have as much potential to fall dangerously at speed on a prone player as that player has the potential to injure them by disrupting them in the air.
Just because you're in the air doesn't suddenly absolve you of all responsibility for your own safety and the safety of players beneath you.
Too much of the debate always veers away from the discussion of how jumping players, by their own actions in rising and pulling up their legs and presenting hard knees, are wilfully putting themselves in danger and indeed others around them.

Yes, they have a right to compete for the ball but how they sometimes do so is inherently dangerous activity in its own right.  Jumpers add the burning pace, the furious momentum and the obvious risks into the action of their jumps.  They ain't always complete innocents

LondonTiger wrote:But, if one guy is running in to catch a ball and expects to catch it at full speed, while the other coming from the opposite direction jumps - why is it the player who is on the ground responsible for getting out of the way of the guy who you can argue jumps into him.

Just my opinion, but currently the law is an ass.

Because there is less chance of him coming away with the ball, he is in the less competitive position. If two people are in the same general physical space but one is jumping, that's the most likely person to claim the ball. When multiple players have a chance of claiming an aerial ball it's a given that someone will be jumping and not to do likewise is putting yourself out of contention and into an interfering role with the person that gets to the ball first.

Players have known for a while now that they can't collide with or grab aerial players, so to try and compete for a ball where you can be almost certain someone will be airborne without jumping yourself is thoughtless play. You may not like the law (as my previous post indicates, I personally think it's right, safest and provides better play), but professionals certainly have no excuse to be surprised by it.

I don't like the leading with the studs for sure and that could be looked at.

I think the clamp down has had a real effect tho - its a while since I've seen a player cartwheeled thru the air. Players are taking more responsibility. Russell might have run thru Biggar and completely ragdolled him. a telling off ten years ago, a red card now. I saw in a match a few weeks ago a player mistime a contest for a catch in the same way - he effectively caught the jumping player realising he couldn't avoid the collision

the key thing is the person who gets to the ball first. Both kicking team and receiving team have an equal chance to compete for the catch. You have to time a run and leap

LondonTiger wrote:Some of us are old enough to remember a time before people jumped for the ball in open play and before lifting in the lineout was permitted (is the lifting for restarts actually allowed in the laws or just tolerated?).

The law banning playing the man in the air was explicitly brought in to tide up the lineouts. Coaches however are clever beasts, and looking at other similarish ball games, who realised the law change could be used in ways otherwise not thought of.

We now have the current situation.

Along with several posters I would like deliberately leaving the ground at any time other than a lineout or diving downwards for the try line to be outlawed. The added benefit would be the end of the swallow dive.

I would love to see the end of the Swan dive!
But no one has yet addressed my point: who on their right mind is going to stand flat footed with their eyes on a ball, waiting to be hammered by a 20 stone forward who's had a 40 metre run up?

niwatts wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:But, if one guy is running in to catch a ball and expects to catch it at full speed, while the other coming from the opposite direction jumps - why is it the player who is on the ground responsible for getting out of the way of the guy who you can argue jumps into him.

Just my opinion, but currently the law is an ass.

Because there is less chance of him coming away with the ball, he is in the less competitive position.  If two people are in the same general physical space but one is jumping, that's the most likely person to claim the ball.  When multiple players have a chance of claiming an aerial ball it's a given that someone will be jumping and not to do likewise is putting yourself out of contention and into an interfering role with the person that gets to the ball first.

Players have known for a while now that they can't collide with or grab aerial players, so to try and compete for a ball where you can be almost certain someone will be airborne without jumping yourself is thoughtless play.  You may not like the law (as my previous post indicates, I personally think it's right, safest and provides better play), but professionals certainly have no excuse to be surprised by it.

well that argument falls flat if you consider had biggar missed the catch, and collided with finn russell, a player on the ground. That would have been a red card to Biggar.

Some good comments and some fairly outrageous ones.

For me a yellow looks about right - good kick and chase by Biggar and an excellent take (I have no issue with his position in the air, it was fairly natural considering his running at pace - knees or studs not raised in an exaggerated manner). Russell mis-judges it by getting too far under where the ball is coming down and so having no space to jump himself, and sees Biggar too late to either hold back and smack him on landing or to avoid some contact. Turning and ducking was probably not the safest course of action, but it was reckless rather than dangerous.

The comparison with the Jared Payne incident is appropriate, in that the player on the ground did not intend for the collision to occur but got into a position where they were unable to avoid it.

alive555 wrote:

well that argument falls flat if you consider had biggar missed the catch, and collided with finn russell, a player on the ground. That would have been a red card to Biggar.

Indeed it would have been - its all about who reaches the ball first

dummy_half wrote:Some good comments and some fairly outrageous ones.

For me a yellow looks about right - good kick and chase by Biggar and an excellent take (I have no issue with his position in the air, it was fairly natural considering his running at pace - knees or studs not raised in an exaggerated manner). Russell mis-judges it by getting too far under where the ball is coming down and so having no space to jump himself, and sees Biggar too late to either hold back and smack him on landing or to avoid some contact. Turning and ducking was probably not the safest course of action, but it was reckless rather than dangerous.

The comparison with the Jared Payne incident is appropriate, in that the player on the ground did not intend for the collision to occur but got into a position where they were unable to avoid it.

The difference is ( from memory) that Payne did not pull out?

Cards are always going to be a matter of opinion. I think Russell would have got a yellow most days for that and that another day JD2 might have got away with it but neither can complain really about the yellow.

For me the law is about right now with the provisio that the jumper has a duty of care as well in that they can't jump "studs up" or into a crowd

Had Biggar missed the ball and basically delivered a flying knee to Russel I wonder what the ref would have done?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Had Biggar missed the ball and basically delivered a flying knee to Russel I wonder what the ref would have done?  

We could all do what ifs though couldn't we ? Biggar did nothing wrong, he did not lead with his knee or with his studs, it was Finn Russels actions that were reckless, why can people not see this ? For me, jumping and taking the high ball is an art in rugby, I would hate to see it taken away, Finn Russel was reckless, a yellow was probably right, for the recklessness of it, it could have been a red, because he was being reckless in the fact he got everything wrong with the situation, for people saying Dan Biggar could have had a red for it is just plain silly, Dan did nothing wrong, the only person who was in the wrong was Finn Russel, a yellow card is appropriate, we will just have to wait and see what the citing committee do and hope that we have consistency afterwards.

Lord. We just discussing hypotheticals - IF Biggar had mistimed it what would happen - would he be penalised for jumping into the player on the ground? No one is really argung that Russell shouldn't have been penalised BECAUSE Biggar caught the ball - but IF he had missed the catch what happens next?
You are right - a couple of the 1/2p takes were things of beauty and a part of the game.

TJ wrote:Lord.  We just discussing hypotheticals - IF Biggar had mistimed it what would happen - would he be penalised for jumping into the player on the ground?  No one is really argung that Russell shouldn't have been penalised BECAUSE Biggar caught the ball - but IF he had missed the catch what happens next?
You are right - a couple of the 1/2p takes were things of beauty and a part of the game.

If Biggar did not catch the ball but everything else that happened stayed the same, then it should be the same outcome, it is not as if Biggar decided to just jump for the sake of jumping, the only time jumping should be deemed a dangerous act is when a player jumps at another player for no reason, the ball was there to be won, Fin Russel chose not to contest it, after he made that choice, his next choice of action was reckless, thus he was punished correctly, but if a red was shown, I think the ref could have had a case because of the recklessness of Fin Russels decision.

Higher_Ground wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Some of us are old enough to remember a time before people jumped for the ball in open play and before lifting in the lineout was permitted (is the lifting for restarts actually allowed in the laws or just tolerated?).

The law banning playing the man in the air was explicitly brought in to tide up the lineouts. Coaches however are clever beasts, and looking at other similarish ball games, who realised the law change could be used in ways otherwise not thought of.

We now have the current situation.

Along with several posters I would like deliberately leaving the ground at any time other than a lineout or diving downwards for the try line to be outlawed. The added benefit would be the end of the swallow dive.

I would love to see the end of the Swan dive!
But no one has yet addressed my point: who on their right mind is going to stand flat footed with their eyes on a ball, waiting to be hammered by a 20 stone forward who's had a 40 metre run up?

Arguably this happens regularly at ruck time as some orc comes diving in to do a 'clear out'.

It does! That's definitely an area of the game that needs looking at.

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:Lord.  We just discussing hypotheticals - IF Biggar had mistimed it what would happen - would he be penalised for jumping into the player on the ground?  No one is really argung that Russell shouldn't have been penalised BECAUSE Biggar caught the ball - but IF he had missed the catch what happens next?
You are right - a couple of the 1/2p takes were things of beauty and a part of the game.

If Biggar did not catch the ball but everything else that happened stayed the same, then it should be the same outcome, it is not as if Biggar decided to just jump for the sake of jumping, the only time jumping should be deemed a dangerous act is when a player jumps at another player for no reason, the ball was there to be won, Fin Russel chose not to contest it, after he made that choice, his next choice of action was reckless, thus he was punished correctly, but if a red was shown, I think the ref could have had a case because of the recklessness of Fin Russels decision.

But if Russell catches the ball then biggar lands on him? IE biggar mistimes the jump ?

Let's assume the chaser and the receiver jump simultaneously and there is contact in the air.

Both players go to ground, one is injured.

Does the TMO then award points for best effort in the air and recommend the one with the least points get carded?

LondonTiger wrote:Some of us are old enough to remember a time before people jumped for the ball in open play and before lifting in the lineout was permitted (is the lifting for restarts actually allowed in the laws or just tolerated?).

The law banning playing the man in the air was explicitly brought in to tide up the lineouts. Coaches however are clever beasts, and looking at other similarish ball games, who realised the law change could be used in ways otherwise not thought of.

We now have the current situation.

Along with several posters I would like deliberately leaving the ground at any time other than a lineout or diving downwards for the try line to be outlawed. The added benefit would be the end of the swallow dive.

That's how it was when I started playing, and I remember players being penalised for dangerous play if jumping to avoid a tackle as well. Even if the danger was more to them than the player running into them. And in response to Bathman I also recall a lot of what is currently deemed clearing out was also penalised as charging into a ruck/maul, you could run up to it but had to bind on before driving - not sure if that was a specific offence, or also clumped into the broader interpretation of the dangerous play offence.

Trying to be constructive about this, I've been reflecting on this quite a lot, and I think we may need to put more responsibility on the chasing player(s) not to behave recklessly towards receiving players - possibly to the extent of it having equivalent weight to the "player in the air" consideration.

Here's my reasoning.

The ball is in the air for the same amount of time for everyone, but it's been kicked towards the receiver and will generally be closer to his start position than to the chasing team's. That means that the receiver will usually be travelling more slowly than the chasers.

Where that gets dangerous is where the chaser is just about fast enough to get to the ball. They are coming in at full speed and have to be fully committed to the chase to have a chance of getting it. If they're not quite fast enough, you can get a Payne/Goode type collision. If they are just fast enough, you get Biggar/Hogg. (If they actually have time to spare, you get something more like a kick off where several players are contesting the ball but no one is running at top speed).

That there's a difference between the chaser and the receiver is highlighted by the reactions to those incidents. Most neutrals on here have had much more sympathy for Hogg's situation than for Payne's. Hogg (and Goode) were positioning for a defensive catch of a ball kicked to them, Biggar (and Payne) were trying to regather possession they'd kicked away. Payne realised he wasn't going to be first to the ball and carried on regardless.

It looked to me as if Hogg had actually reached the ball's landing point first and would have caught it (and a boot in the face) if he hadn't tried to minimise the collision with Biggar. I think that makes quite a difference. The ball's path was such that Hogg didn't need to jump for it.

To avoid the risk of a card, he would have had to realise that Biggar was on a collision course much earlier in his own run (and some people have said he may have been unsighted - I haven't seen the incident enough to have a view), check his run, and time his jump so as to compete/collide with Biggar. Even if he could have reacted that early and that fast (doubtful, in my opinion) it doesn't sound like a recipe for safety.

That suggests that we should recognise that a chasing player is likely to have a speed (and therefore momentum - which is the danger factor) advantage, and be willing to penalise the chasing player if their approach to the ball was likely to endanger the (slower, therefore more vulnerable) receiving player, and that should apply even if the chaser is in the air.

That would allow a receiver to position to receive a kick knowing they had some protection from the chasers. It would also give some protection from clumsy or early tackles once the ball was caught.

While I was writing this I was trying to think of any instances of dangerous collisions that haven't involved a chaser near the limits of their speed. I couldn't come up with one, but I'd be interested to know if anyone else can.