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.

If you look at the replay, Biggar didn't have his knees up, his thighs collided with Russell's shoulder.

SecretFly wrote:

Higher_Ground wrote:If you remove jumping for high balls, players like Bowe, Kearney etc become obsolete immediately. Which is why it's a stupid idea.
We would literally have sport with no jumping. That is odd.

Jumping is grand...jumping and tucking your legs in to produce a very vulnerable 'fetus' shape is not required for collecting a high ball.  The fold usually occurs when maximum height has already been achieved and the ball is already collected.  But if an opposition player even glances off a player high up in this position then obviously, that jumping players comes down more dramatically, has further to go before his feet hit the ground and is obviously less stable and less capable of protecting himself in the fall.

I consider it a penalty magnate move - and players on all sides engage in it, some teams more than others.  I don't like it and I think players should be warned to jump with constant appreciation for their own safety.  Keep your legs extended and beneath you.

Totally agree Fly. For me this is the compromise between banning jumping in the air and leaving things as they are!

This leading with a knee, or the studs, while jumping is what is causing the problems. Problems being plural!

Problem one: As we have seen, players who lead with a knee (like Biggar did on Sunday) or players who lead with the studs up have the potential (as we have seen before) to cause injury to the opposition! It should therefore be clamped down on!

Problem two: When you lead with a knee or stud then you change your centre of gravity and often you end up making yourself top heavy! What then happens is that when there is contact, rather than bouncing off your opponent, you end up tipping over and face planting into the ground!

Solution. Make sure all players jumping in the air keep their legs straight out below them!

And don’t start saying that players lift their knees or legs to gain extra height! That’s a complete fallacy! Basketball players don’t tuck their feet under when they jump do they! Nor do the boys jumping in the line out!

So, perhaps my comrade could add another option to the poll
“Allow jumping but both jumpers must have their legs extended out beneath them like a normal person jumping and not lifting their legs to endanger themselves or others”

To me, the issue is not whether someone jumps to receive a kick. The problem I see as the cause of injuries is that someone is looking up at the ball and when doing so is defenseless. This would happen whether the person jumps or not. The impact may be somewhat harder if a jumper is knocked to the ground, but I think the worse part is someone looking up and not at someone coming at him (or her).

Also, i think it is somewhat instinctive to jump. So, I don't have a problem with it.

Usually both players are looking at the ball, Doc.

So why is only one responsible for avoiding contact?

tigertattie wrote:
So, perhaps my comrade could add another option to the poll
“Allow jumping but both jumpers must have their legs extended out beneath them like a normal person jumping and not lifting their legs to endanger themselves or others”

Ladies and gentlemen, a solution ^

LondonTiger wrote:Usually both players are looking at the ball, Doc.

So why is only one responsible for avoiding contact?

Both are supposed to be looking at the ball.  I think the problem is the chaser not knowing where he is.  If the receiver does not jump, but is still looking up at the ball, the only difference I see is that the chaser will plow through the receiver rather than run under him (if that is clear?  Need my morning coffee!).

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:
So, perhaps my comrade could add another option to the poll
“Allow jumping but both jumpers must have their legs extended out beneath them like a normal person jumping and not lifting their legs to endanger themselves or others”

Ladies and gentlemen, a solution ^

was a colusion between secretfly and myself! See what can be achieved when Scotland and Wales get along

tigertattie wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:
So, perhaps my comrade could add another option to the poll
“Allow jumping but both jumpers must have their legs extended out beneath them like a normal person jumping and not lifting their legs to endanger themselves or others”

Ladies and gentlemen, a solution ^

 was a colusion between secretfly and myself! See what can be achieved when Scotland and Wales get along

Secretfly isnt Welsh...

Morning Doc, I was at Murrayfield and both live and then on the big screen I thought Russell was hard done by. If you watch his eyes he moves across to catch the ball. He's watching it intently and then at the last moment he sees Biggar flying through the air at him. My interpretation of what happened next is that Russell instinctively flinched; he puts his chin into his chest, pulls his shoulders up to his ears and turns away from the contact. (As one of nature's cowards I recognise self-preservation in others when I see it). I don'tk it was deliberate or malicious in anyway. But I'm Scottish so may be partisan. However, I am beginning to believe tat challenging for theall in the air is inherently unsafe and so probably should be banned.
Also, if Russell is banned for this then, on a selfish note, my visit to Twickers next month will be a lot less enjoyable.

It's strange to me how some players when running after a high ball can look up, look in front, look up, look in front and seem to know they won't/ will get there in time. Tackle the ball receiving player when he hits the ground and the game continues as it should. And then there are other players who run straight, head constantly up at the ball and jump when the ball is on the way down without any consideration for anyone else. This second type of action under a high ball needs to be eradicated from the game.

As Secretfly says - it is a penalty magnate move. Players who keep their heads looking up at the ball while running towards it are trying to gain an advantage when they run into someone (claim obstruction) or if they then hit someone in the air - I was looking at the ball/ its accidental honest! They know fine well what could happen and should be penalised. The players have a duty of care to each other.

Russell got it wrong, and I don't think he can complain about the yellow card; the JD2 situation was much more marginal and maybe wouldn't have been given as yellow if the Russell one had not just been.

I do think a red for Russell would be excessive. It didn't look as though he was trying to injure, it was just clumsy. For me, a red card should be reserved for a player who the ref thinks is setting out to cause serious damage to an opponent with foul play. Similarly with the tip tackle, the sort of offence committed by Warburton at the last world cup didn't deserve red, although by the letter of the law as applied at the time the call was the right one.

Not happy with players trying to persuade the ref to give a card, although you see that a lot nowadays. It's not in the spirit of the game.

MichaelT wrote:It's strange to me how some players when running after a high ball can look up, look in front, look up, look in front and seem to know they won't/ will get there in time. Tackle the ball receiving player when he hits the ground and the game continues as it should. And then there are other players who run straight, head constantly up at the ball and jump when the ball is on the way down without any consideration for anyone else. This second type of action under a high ball needs to be eradicated from the game.

As Secretfly says - it is a penalty magnate move. Players who keep their heads looking up at the ball while running towards it are trying to gain an advantage when they run into someone (claim obstruction) or if they then hit someone in the air - I was looking at the ball/ its accidental honest! They know fine well what could happen and should be penalised. The players have a duty of care to each other.

I am going to disagree with you on the two distinctions you make.

No player looks up, down, up down when chasing a ball. I will suggest that the "innocent" player is as guilty of being reckless as the "guilty" one as both players in 99% of these occurences use their peripheral vision to be aware of what is happening around them.

The differentiation as I have observed ut over the last few months is the player first in the air is deemed the one to be protected.

Expecting the second jumper to halt his intentions when there is a mere split second difference is nonsense. Even if a player is grounded and decides to take evasive action which is in my view what Russell was doing, he is deejed the culprit which again in my view is debatable. What more must the player do in a split second from realising he isn't going to make the jump?

Vaporise?

Biltong wrote:

MichaelT wrote:It's strange to me how some players when running after a high ball can look up, look in front, look up, look in front and seem to know they won't/ will get there in time. Tackle the ball receiving player when he hits the ground and the game continues as it should. And then there are other players who run straight, head constantly up at the ball and jump when the ball is on the way down without any consideration for anyone else. This second type of action under a high ball needs to be eradicated from the game.

As Secretfly says - it is a penalty magnate move. Players who keep their heads looking up at the ball while running towards it are trying to gain an advantage when they run into someone (claim obstruction) or if they then hit someone in the air - I was looking at the ball/ its accidental honest! They know fine well what could happen and should be penalised. The players have a duty of care to each other.

I am going to disagree with you on the two distinctions you make.

No player looks up, down, up down when chasing a ball. I will suggest that the "innocent" player is as guilty of being reckless as the "guilty" one as both players in 99% of these occurences use their peripheral vision to be aware of what is happening around them.

The differentiation as I have observed ut over the last few months is the player first in the air is deemed the one to be protected.

Expecting the second jumper to halt his intentions when there is a mere split second difference is nonsense. Even if a player is grounded and decides to take evasive action which is in my view what Russell was doing, he is deejed the culprit which again in my view is debatable. What more must the player do in a split second from realising he isn't going to make the jump?

Vaporise?

Quite. And in Russell's case, he's effectively in his own territory and defending possession that's been kicked to him - but under the current interpretation doesn't have the option to stand his ground and catch the ball.

That's why I'm starting to think some burden of responsibility should be placed on the chasing players.

There is a lot to gain from a well placed kick and chase with the jump at the end. There are risks, like the big one (injury), or miss timing the run when a defender jumps first. But these guys are going to be brave.

On the other side if you gather the ball unopposed you have good field position and a broken defensive line. If the defender gets in the way there is a good chance he'll get it wrong. This could easily lead to 10 minutes (or longer) of being a man up on the other team, plus a penalty kick.

What I am trying to get at is that there is a big motivation for the attacker to jump.

Biltong wrote:

MichaelT wrote:It's strange to me how some players when running after a high ball can look up, look in front, look up, look in front and seem to know they won't/ will get there in time. Tackle the ball receiving player when he hits the ground and the game continues as it should. And then there are other players who run straight, head constantly up at the ball and jump when the ball is on the way down without any consideration for anyone else. This second type of action under a high ball needs to be eradicated from the game.

As Secretfly says - it is a penalty magnate move. Players who keep their heads looking up at the ball while running towards it are trying to gain an advantage when they run into someone (claim obstruction) or if they then hit someone in the air - I was looking at the ball/ its accidental honest! They know fine well what could happen and should be penalised. The players have a duty of care to each other.

I am going to disagree with you on the two distinctions you make.

No player looks up, down, up down when chasing a ball. I will suggest that the "innocent" player is as guilty of being reckless as the "guilty" one as both players in 99% of these occurences use their peripheral vision to be aware of what is happening around them.

The differentiation as I have observed ut over the last few months is the player first in the air is deemed the one to be protected.

Expecting the second jumper to halt his intentions when there is a mere split second difference is nonsense. Even if a player is grounded and decides to take evasive action which is in my view what Russell was doing, he is deejed the culprit which again in my view is debatable. What more must the player do in a split second from realising he isn't going to make the jump?

Vaporise?

I agree with that Billtong and thats why I thought Payne's red in the Hcup last year was nonsense. He had no clue Goode was about to land on his head.

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

MichaelT wrote:It's strange to me how some players when running after a high ball can look up, look in front, look up, look in front and seem to know they won't/ will get there in time. Tackle the ball receiving player when he hits the ground and the game continues as it should. And then there are other players who run straight, head constantly up at the ball and jump when the ball is on the way down without any consideration for anyone else. This second type of action under a high ball needs to be eradicated from the game.

As Secretfly says - it is a penalty magnate move. Players who keep their heads looking up at the ball while running towards it are trying to gain an advantage when they run into someone (claim obstruction) or if they then hit someone in the air - I was looking at the ball/ its accidental honest! They know fine well what could happen and should be penalised. The players have a duty of care to each other.

I am going to disagree with you on the two distinctions you make.

No player looks up, down, up down when chasing a ball. I will suggest that the "innocent" player is as guilty of being reckless as the "guilty" one as both players in 99% of these occurences use their peripheral vision to be aware of what is happening around them.

The differentiation as I have observed ut over the last few months is the player first in the air is deemed the one to be protected.

Expecting the second jumper to halt his intentions when there is a mere split second difference is nonsense. Even if a player is grounded and decides to take evasive action which is in my view what Russell was doing, he is deejed the culprit which again in my view is debatable. What more must the player do in a split second from realising he isn't going to make the jump?

Vaporise?

I agree with that Billtong and thats why I thought Payne's red in the Hcup last year was nonsense. He had no clue Goode was about to land on his head.

This is the point I'm making. A straight legged jump would mean that nobody is top heavy in the air and if contact is made, they'll land on their feet or at the very worst on their center mass.

I think the chances of anyone landing on their heads would be extremely remote.

The incentive to jump is there as has been indicated because it can provide good field position and have opposition players sent to the bin.

It seems to be a high risk / high reward strategy.

jimbopip wrote:Morning Doc, I was at Murrayfield and both live and then on the big screen I thought Russell was hard done by. If you watch his eyes he moves across to catch the ball. He's watching it intently and then at the last moment he sees Biggar flying through the air at him. My interpretation of what happened next is that Russell instinctively flinched; he puts his chin into his chest, pulls his shoulders up to his ears and turns away from the contact. (As one of nature's cowards I recognise self-preservation in others when I see it). I don'tk it was deliberate or malicious in anyway. But I'm Scottish so may be partisan. However, I am beginning to believe tat challenging for theall in the air is inherently unsafe and so probably should be banned.
Also, if Russell is banned for this then, on a selfish note, my visit to Twickers next month will be a lot less enjoyable.

Morning, mate! There's a lot of strength and good juju coming across the ocean at you. Just sayin'.

That's a great analysis. I thought I had a good idea, but now need to watch again. I like the idea of challenging for the ball in the air, or what happens to the garryowen? But we do need to do something. Not sure where we go from here.

Doc, I assume you saw it was a fracture to the back.

Poorfour wrote:

Biltong wrote:

MichaelT wrote:It's strange to me how some players when running after a high ball can look up, look in front, look up, look in front and seem to know they won't/ will get there in time. Tackle the ball receiving player when he hits the ground and the game continues as it should. And then there are other players who run straight, head constantly up at the ball and jump when the ball is on the way down without any consideration for anyone else. This second type of action under a high ball needs to be eradicated from the game.

As Secretfly says - it is a penalty magnate move. Players who keep their heads looking up at the ball while running towards it are trying to gain an advantage when they run into someone (claim obstruction) or if they then hit someone in the air - I was looking at the ball/ its accidental honest! They know fine well what could happen and should be penalised. The players have a duty of care to each other.

I am going to disagree with you on the two distinctions you make.

No player looks up, down, up down when chasing a ball. I will suggest that the "innocent" player is as guilty of being reckless as the "guilty" one as both players in 99% of these occurences use their peripheral vision to be aware of what is happening around them.

The differentiation as I have observed ut over the last few months is the player first in the air is deemed the one to be protected.

Expecting the second jumper to halt his intentions when there is a mere split second difference is nonsense. Even if a player is grounded and decides to take evasive action which is in my view what Russell was doing, he is deejed the culprit which again in my view is debatable. What more must the player do in a split second from realising he isn't going to make the jump?

Vaporise?

Quite. And in Russell's case, he's effectively in his own territory and defending possession that's been kicked to him - but under the current interpretation doesn't have the option to stand his ground and catch the ball.

That's why I'm starting to think some burden of responsibility should be placed on the chasing players.

Well in November South Africa's chasers copped it every time, the recievers were never penalised. So in my view there is a lot of inconsistency in how these penalties are awarded. For me there is and should be no distinction between the chaser and the reciever.

The reality is a high ball is a potential contact zone regardless of whether both jump or not. The only adjudication in my view that must be taken is the intention of both players. Contact alone does not make one more guilty than the other.

It is clear 90% of the time if a player intends to harm the other, why must it be so hard to adjudicate a high ball contact?

Yes so one or both players fall on their asses, taking to the air is taking a risk, as simple as that, you accpet that risk if you jump in the air, if you do get injured the opposing player should not automattically be penslised or carded, you have to ask what his intention was, and if not clear, the injury should not override the benefit of the doubt.

Biltong wrote: No player looks up, down, up down when chasing a ball.

I see this all the time. Mike Brown is great at doing this. So yes they do.

Biltong wrote: The differentiation as I have observed ut over the last few months is the player first in the air is deemed the one to be protected.

And so he should be. If he is first in the air and then someone leaps into him, the second player is at fault in that instance, especially if the second player doesn't even leave the ground just runs right through. One player, usually the second, is jumping forward. If he goes into someone who has gone straight up then momentum could cause injury and is reckless.

Biltong wrote: Expecting the second jumper to halt his intentions when there is a mere split second difference is nonsense.

It's not nonsense. If you are squarely under a ball and a player from both teams jumps up, then it is very unlikely an injury can occur. One player jumping forward into another can cause injury. And it is not a split second. If you make the decision to kick the ball high and forward you have to consider players under it when it comes back down. It is a decision to try to compete for the ball or tackle the player. Players should be encouraged to tackle the player when he has the ball back on the ground. Like Ashton V Apiom (sp?) from 2012.

Biltong wrote: Even if a player is grounded and decides to take evasive action which is in my view what Russell was doing, he is deejed the culprit which again in my view is debatable. What more must the player do in a split second from realising he isn't going to make the jump? Vaporise?

Individually, I don't believe Russell should have been penalised either. Biggar jumped in hope to catch and landed on Russell. This is debatable as to whether blame can be attached. I am referring to two players jumping for the ball.

That is more or less what I said re the Payne incident last year Billtong. The problem is the WR has the responsiblity to preserve a good image for their game. When they see a guy like Alex Goode fly through the air and land on his head and get badly injured they have to take measures to prevent this.

The measure they have adopted is that the sole duty is on the second person arriving to protect the person already in the air.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:
So, perhaps my comrade could add another option to the poll
“Allow jumping but both jumpers must have their legs extended out beneath them like a normal person jumping and not lifting their legs to endanger themselves or others”

Ladies and gentlemen, a solution ^

Joined this discussion late but don't need to say any more as it has already been sorted in my eyes. Well done guys. IRB get that clause in world for word now!!

I've argued this countless times before so forgive me if I don't read the whole thread.No doubt it is just the same argument round in circles about 100 times.

Here's a scenario to throw a spanner in the works. The instances where these players on the ground are penalised and carded have involved them moving into the area where the ball is to drop.

What if a player happens to already be under the ball. Feet planted. Waiting for the drop. Opposition player comes hurtling in and (crucially) jumps. This players hip collides with the face of the stationary player and knocks him out cold. The jumping player lands awkwardly on his neck.

Am I right in saying, that following the current law, the ref waits till the stationary player comes to, and then shows him a red card to go along with his concussion???

Yes.

GunsGerms wrote:That is more or less what I said re the Payne incident last year Billtong. The problem is the WR has the responsiblity to preserve a good image for their game. When they see a guy like Alex Goode fly through the air and land on his head and get badly injured they have to take measures to prevent this.

The measure they have adopted is that the sole duty is on the second person arriving to protect the person already in the air.

Yeah well that in my view is simplifying an incident because you are too lazy to think about the consequences of such a retaliation by a Union or referee.

What if the first player in the air just jumps higher? Does he then get the benefit of the doubt that he would have collected the ball and hence as of now the less athletic players should not attempt to get the ball as they know they will be penalised?

Or if there is a millisecond delay in his jump he should alter his course in mid air to avoid a penalty, or what if we open the can of worms and think like MichaelT, the first in the air is innocent, regardless of whether he actually jumped prematurely to milk a penalty?

I come back to the fact that both players know they take a risk when they go for the ball, and the intention must be clear if you are going to penalise a player.

clivemcl wrote:I've argued this countless times before so forgive me if I don't read the whole thread.No doubt it is just the same argument round in circles about 100 times.

Here's a scenario to throw a spanner in the works. The instances where these players on the ground are penalised and carded have involved them moving into the area where the ball is to drop.

What if a player happens to already be under the ball. Feet planted. Waiting for the drop. Opposition player comes hurtling in and (crucially) jumps. This players hip collides with the face of the stationary player and knocks him out cold. The jumping player lands awkwardly on his neck.

Am I right in saying, that following the current law, the ref waits till the stationary player comes to, and then shows him a red card to go along with his concussion???  

Yes, even if he is sent to hospital the judiciary will visit him.

clivemcl wrote:I've argued this countless times before so forgive me if I don't read the whole thread.No doubt it is just the same argument round in circles about 100 times.

Here's a scenario to throw a spanner in the works. The instances where these players on the ground are penalised and carded have involved them moving into the area where the ball is to drop.

What if a player happens to already be under the ball. Feet planted. Waiting for the drop. Opposition player comes hurtling in and (crucially) jumps. This players hip collides with the face of the stationary player and knocks him out cold. The jumping player lands awkwardly on his neck.

Am I right in saying, that following the current law, the ref waits till the stationary player comes to, and then shows him a red card to go along with his concussion???  

If he didn't shine the jumpers shoes as the jumper hung up there in the air, if he didn't remove the jumper's dirty socks, wash 'em and replace them,  and if he didn't have the red carpet out for the procession of the Heroic Jumper to the tryline - then YES, it's a given that he deserves a red card on his death bed.  

Don't be a fool Clive.... you're approaching this from too logical a standpoint here.  You're getting logically involved.  Keep your cool and look dispassionately on LAW.

I was a skeptic about the position of the leg thing for the jumper but the more I think about it the more it makes sense.

Biltong wrote:

clivemcl wrote:I've argued this countless times before so forgive me if I don't read the whole thread.No doubt it is just the same argument round in circles about 100 times.

Here's a scenario to throw a spanner in the works. The instances where these players on the ground are penalised and carded have involved them moving into the area where the ball is to drop.

What if a player happens to already be under the ball. Feet planted. Waiting for the drop. Opposition player comes hurtling in and (crucially) jumps. This players hip collides with the face of the stationary player and knocks him out cold. The jumping player lands awkwardly on his neck.

Am I right in saying, that following the current law, the ref waits till the stationary player comes to, and then shows him a red card to go along with his concussion???  

Yes, even if he is sent to hospital the judiciary will visit him.

Well that's just laughable. Come on - jumping into a collision is the thing that involves risk. SO by a player choosing not to jump he is choosing to stay safe. How then can it be the person who has chosen the dangerous option that is protected whist the player who chose safety on the ground gets punished?

Jumping at that speed in a contact sport is high risk as has been said. It may be worth it if you gather the ball. It's your call. Is the risk worth it? If you dont want to land on your neck then I'd suggest the avoidance of jumping high in the air in a contact sport where there are opposition players all around.

Here's another couple of farcical rules the IRB might want to adopt...

- If a loose ball is spilt on the ground and a player jumps on the ball just as an opposition player is attempting to kick the loose ball, the opposition player will be given a red card if his foot strikes the player who has jumped on the ball.

- If a player making a kick from hand find himself being charged down. The kicking player will be red carded if the kicked ball renders the player charging down unconscious.

Seriously folks! We all know the risks, the 30 grown adults on the pitch make up their own minds if it's a risk worth taking. The players who don't risk their own safety don't make it into international teams... It's part of the game.

We all need tutus, go for ballet lessons and drink Shirley Temples

clivemcl wrote:

Biltong wrote:

clivemcl wrote:I've argued this countless times before so forgive me if I don't read the whole thread.No doubt it is just the same argument round in circles about 100 times.

Here's a scenario to throw a spanner in the works. The instances where these players on the ground are penalised and carded have involved them moving into the area where the ball is to drop.

What if a player happens to already be under the ball. Feet planted. Waiting for the drop. Opposition player comes hurtling in and (crucially) jumps. This players hip collides with the face of the stationary player and knocks him out cold. The jumping player lands awkwardly on his neck.

Am I right in saying, that following the current law, the ref waits till the stationary player comes to, and then shows him a red card to go along with his concussion???  

Yes, even if he is sent to hospital the judiciary will visit him.

Well that's just laughable. Come on - jumping into a collision is the thing that involves risk. SO by a player choosing not to jump he is choosing to stay safe. How then can it be the person who has chosen the dangerous option that is protected whist the player who chose safety on the ground gets punished?

Jumping at that speed in a contact sport is high risk as has been said. It may be worth it if you gather the ball. It's your call. Is the risk worth it? If you dont want to land on your neck then I'd suggest the avoidance of jumping high in the air in a contact sport where there are opposition players all around.

Here's another couple of farcical rules the IRB might want to adopt...

- If a loose ball is split on the ground and a player jumps on the ball just as an opposition player is attempting to kick the loose ball, the opposition player will be given a red card if his foot strikes the player who has jumped on the ball.

- If a player making a kick from hand find himself being charged down. The kicking player will be red carded if the kicked ball renders the player charging down unconscious.

Seriously folks! We all know the risks, the 30 grown adults on the pitch make up their own minds if it's a risk worth taking. The players who don't risk their own safety don't make it into international teams... It's part of the game.

By the logic of that comment how can the player who stood on the ground in this particular case (Russell) be considered reckless and at fault?

Biggar new the risks when he took to the air and surely the citing commissioner is wasting his time since Biggar took a risk he considered worth taking?

I cant speak on this topic without it turning into an expletive laden rant. Should be no more than YC. The authorites have Frak up and set the precedent that means its red and probably a week or two off

Don't be bringing fukeen Fraking into it, Stand - we have enough allusions running around this headless turkey, we don't need the fecking oil business getting a mention too

You know me better than that fly!

Biltong wrote:Well in November South Africa's chasers copped it every time, the recievers were never penalised. So in my view there is a lot of inconsistency in how these penalties are awarded. For me there is and should be no distinction between the chaser and the reciever.

The reality is a high ball is a potential contact zone regardless of whether both jump or not. The only adjudication in my view that must be taken is the intention of both players. Contact alone does not make one more guilty than the other.

It is clear 90% of the time if a player intends to harm the other, why must it be so hard to adjudicate a high ball contact?

Yes so one or both players fall on their asses, taking to the air is taking a risk, as simple as that, you accpet that risk if you jump in the air, if you do get injured the opposing player should not automattically be penslised or carded, you have to ask what his intention was, and if not clear, the injury should not override the benefit of the doubt.

It's your third sentence I disagree with. The more I think about this, the more I think that we have to place more of a burden on the chaser. The chaser and the receiver aren't equal in this situation:

1) The most important difference is that most of the time the chaser will be moving faster than the receiver. They will have more momentum, and it's momentum that creates the danger. In the extreme case that the receiver is on the ground and static, an injury won't happen unless the chaser runs or jumps into him.
2) The chaser's team has chosen to kick away possession in order to gain territory. It can't be right to place a defending player in a position where they are effectively prohibited from fielding a ball that's been kicked to them because someone else has chosen to jump into the same space.

The skill of chasing a kick so well that you can contest the catch isn't one we should rule out of the game - but I do think that the chaser introduces most of the risk and therefore should have most of the responsibility.

Poorfour wrote:

Biltong wrote:Well in November South Africa's chasers copped it every time, the recievers were never penalised. So in my view there is a lot of inconsistency in how these penalties are awarded. For me there is and should be no distinction between the chaser and the reciever.

The reality is a high ball is a potential contact zone regardless of whether both jump or not. The only adjudication in my view that must be taken is the intention of both players. Contact alone does not make one more guilty than the other.

It is clear 90% of the time if a player intends to harm the other, why must it be so hard to adjudicate a high ball contact?

Yes so one or both players fall on their asses, taking to the air is taking a risk, as simple as that, you accpet that risk if you jump in the air, if you do get injured the opposing player should not automattically be penslised or carded, you have to ask what his intention was, and if not clear, the injury should not override the benefit of the doubt.

It's your third sentence I disagree with. The more I think about this, the more I think that we have to place more of a burden on the chaser. The chaser and the receiver aren't equal in this situation:

1) The most important difference is that most of the time the chaser will be moving faster than the receiver. They will have more momentum, and it's momentum that creates the danger. In the extreme case that the receiver is on the ground and static, an injury won't happen unless the chaser runs or jumps into him.
2) The chaser's team has chosen to kick away possession in order to gain territory. It can't be right to place a defending player in a position where they are effectively prohibited from fielding a ball that's been kicked to them because someone else has chosen to jump into the same space.

The skill of chasing a kick so well that you can contest the catch isn't one we should rule out of the game - but I do think that the chaser introduces most of the risk and therefore should have most of the responsibility.

I understand your thinking, but putting the responsibility on the chaser allows the reciever to milk penalties, I believe the only rationale that will bring a fair outcome is that both players must take responsibility for the actions taken, and intent is the one that must be adjudged.

Think about a normal contact between ball carrier and defender, as much as the defender must take care of how he tackles the ball carrier must take care of how he fends off the defender.

The chaser must carry an anchor around an ankle to keep his feet on the ground and slow him down. And the defender must be banished to the sideline until the chaser crawls past him with the ball.

You all over-complicate a simple problem with a simple solution

I always thought, that the law was, if you lose the contest, it is the responsability of the loser to bring the winner of the contest down as safely as possible, I could be wrong, but if I am right, then Finn Russel did not take his responsabilities correctly thus got a yellow.

LordDowlais wrote:I always thought, that the law was, if you lose the contest, it is the responsability of the loser to bring the winner of the contest down as safely as possible, I could be wrong, but if I am right, then Finn Russel did not take his responsabilities correctly thus got a yellow.

Correct.  

Russell got in trouble because he didn't use this to catch Biggar:

Biltong wrote:I understand your thinking, but putting the responsibility on the chaser allows the reciever to milk penalties, I believe the only rationale that will bring a fair outcome is that both players must take responsibility for the actions taken, and intent is the one that must be adjudged.

Think about a normal contact between ball carrier and defender, as much as the defender must take care of how he tackles the ball carrier must take care of how he fends off the defender.

I don't think that would be the case - it's hard to milk penalties in that situation which is why whenever a card is given it provokes so much debate. It's nowhere near as controversial when the two players are in relatively equal contest: when was the last time we had a debate this long about a penalty or card from contact in the air at a lineout?

By the same token, can you think of one of these incidents that hasn't involved a kick chaser moving at speed? It's a contributory factor in every instance I can think of - which means it needs to be considered.

Unless there's been a huge defensive mistake, the chaser can be sure that there will be a receiver on the end of the ball and is also better placed to see both receiver and ball, because of the arc of the ball. The receiver is more likely to have to be looking up at the ball - though that doesn't excuse them not being aware.

Perhaps you need to define some criteria for responsibility that both players need to consider:
1) Contest - was the player genuinely contesting the ball (looking at it at the time of the catch) - we already have this
2) Awareness - even if they were looking at it at the time of the catch, had they made an effort to see who might also be competing for it?
3) Priority - similar to basketball's view of who has priority in a channel, who would have got there first? If it's similar timing, priority goes to the player moving more slowly at the time of contact
4) Body position - did the player position in a way that was likely to cause damage? (to catch the knee-up / boot up merchants).

That would place responsibility on both players, but would give the defender the edge if they were in position first. I think that's fair.

LordDowlais wrote:I always thought, that the law was, if you lose the contest, it is the responsability of the loser to bring the winner of the contest down as safely as possible, I could be wrong, but if I am right, then Finn Russel did not take his responsabilities correctly thus got a yellow.

Fine, explain to me how you expect Russell to change the outcome from the moment he reacts and turns, what would you have done differently were you in his shoes?

We really ought to make rugby safer. Again, I suggest the addition of the following rules. It's simply not acceptable that we are not looked after properly when we engage in risky activities!

Can we petition IRB on these two rule additions. I want to take risks when I play, but it's not fair that I might get hurt when doing so!

- If a loose ball is spilt on the ground and a player jumps on the ball just as an opposition player is attempting to kick the loose ball, the opposition player will be given a red card if his foot strikes the player who has jumped on the ball.

- If a player making a kick from hand find himself being charged down. The kicking player will be red carded if the kicked ball renders the player charging down unconscious.

Taking a player in the air. I always go by the premise that if you are on the ground and make contact with a player in the air, it becomes your responsibility to make sure that player comes back to ground safely. If you don't want to take on that responsibility then you don't make contact with the player in the air. Where it gets tricky is if both players are in the air and if they collide in the air (with both going to regain possession of the ball) then it's a fair contest.

That simple enough rule works for box kicks, cross field kicks, restarts, lineouts.

It also work for rucks, malls and tackles where a player lifts another player off the ground. If you put the player or lift the player into the air, or make contact with him while he is in the air, you are responsible for putting him down safely.

And I'm not saying you can't make contact with a player in the air, just that if you choose to, you make damn sure he comes back to ground on his feet safely. You don't bring him back to ground safely and he lands on his side then yellow card, you don't bring him back to ground safely and he lands on his shoulders, neck or head, red card.

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I always thought, that the law was, if you lose the contest, it is the responsability of the loser to bring the winner of the contest down as safely as possible, I could be wrong, but if I am right, then Finn Russel did not take his responsabilities correctly thus got a yellow.

Fine, explain to me how you expect Russell to change the outcome from the moment he reacts and turns, what would you have done differently were you in his shoes?

I would have moved out of the way, instead of trying to put Biggar off. He could have easily moved sideways rather than turn his back and keep going forwards.

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I always thought, that the law was, if you lose the contest, it is the responsability of the loser to bring the winner of the contest down as safely as possible, I could be wrong, but if I am right, then Finn Russel did not take his responsabilities correctly thus got a yellow.

Fine, explain to me how you expect Russell to change the outcome from the moment he reacts and turns, what would you have done differently were you in his shoes?

I would have moved out of the way, instead of trying to put Biggar off. He could have easily moved sideways rather than turn his back and keep going forwards.

But that's the dilemma. It's a game. It's a sport. It's a competition. It isn't a free ride to point scoring.
Had Russell moved 'out of the way', what would Biggar have done then? Run it through for us what Biggar would have done from there.

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I always thought, that the law was, if you lose the contest, it is the responsability of the loser to bring the winner of the contest down as safely as possible, I could be wrong, but if I am right, then Finn Russel did not take his responsabilities correctly thus got a yellow.

Fine, explain to me how you expect Russell to change the outcome from the moment he reacts and turns, what would you have done differently were you in his shoes?

I would have moved out of the way, instead of trying to put Biggar off. He could have easily moved sideways rather than turn his back and keep going forwards.

And you would summarily be dropped after the game, your contract torn up and told to play tiddlywinks with your mates at home.

Besides that, how far would you be able to move sideways in a split second?

Half a step left or right, do you dive onto the floor, or do your instincts take over to protect yourself when you see a pair of boots and knees coming in your direction?

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I always thought, that the law was, if you lose the contest, it is the responsability of the loser to bring the winner of the contest down as safely as possible, I could be wrong, but if I am right, then Finn Russel did not take his responsabilities correctly thus got a yellow.

Fine, explain to me how you expect Russell to change the outcome from the moment he reacts and turns, what would you have done differently were you in his shoes?

I would have moved out of the way, instead of trying to put Biggar off. He could have easily moved sideways rather than turn his back and keep going forwards.

But that's the dilemma.  It's a game.  It's a sport.  It's a competition.  It isn't a free ride to point scoring.  
Had Russell moved 'out of the way', what would Biggar have done then?  Run it through for us what Biggar would have done from there.

Russell reacted too late. If he was doing his role properly he would have identified the competition for the ball and either (a) sped up to get to the ball first or (b) kept back and initiated a wrap up tackle on Biggar as soon as he came back to ground.

Instead Russell;
1 - realised too late he wasn't going to win the ball.
2 - turned his back to the play and ducked, taking out the legs of a player in the air.

He wasn't innocent in the incident. There was no malice either. But it was reckless.

And once he realised that he was going to make contact with the player in the air I think the player actions were all wrong, and there is something to that part of these regular incidents that something should be done about. If contact in the air is going to happen, if russell effectively caught Biggar then and brought him to ground safely there should be some mitigation in that kind of an incident. Where the infringing players act to ensure the safety of the other player would be acknowledged (maybe just a penalty instead of any cards on top of it).

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I always thought, that the law was, if you lose the contest, it is the responsability of the loser to bring the winner of the contest down as safely as possible, I could be wrong, but if I am right, then Finn Russel did not take his responsabilities correctly thus got a yellow.

Fine, explain to me how you expect Russell to change the outcome from the moment he reacts and turns, what would you have done differently were you in his shoes?

I would have moved out of the way, instead of trying to put Biggar off. He could have easily moved sideways rather than turn his back and keep going forwards.

But that's the dilemma.  It's a game.  It's a sport.  It's a competition.  It isn't a free ride to point scoring.  
Had Russell moved 'out of the way', what would Biggar have done then?  Run it through for us what Biggar would have done from there.

Russell reacted too late.  If he was doing his role properly he would have identified the competition for the ball and either (a) sped up to get to the ball first or (b) kept back and initiated a wrap up tackle on Biggar as soon as he came back to ground.

Instead Russell;
1 - realised too late he wasn't going to win the ball.
2 - turned his back to the play and ducked, taking out the legs of a player in the air.

He wasn't innocent in the incident.  There was no malice either.  But it was reckless.

And once he realised that he was going to make contact with the player in the air I think the player actions were all wrong, and there is something to that part of these regular incidents that something should be done about.  If contact in the air is going to happen, if russell effectively caught Biggar then and brought him to ground safely there should be some mitigation in that kind of an incident.  Where the infringing players act to ensure the safety of the other player would be acknowledged (maybe just a penalty instead of any cards on top of it).

Even if Russell attempted to bring Biggar down the incident would have caused much more serious injury, there was no way Biggar was going to come down in any manner that Russell could bring him down safely.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Russell reacted too late.  If he was doing his role properly he would have identified the competition for the ball and either (a) sped up to get to the ball first or (b) kept back and initiated a wrap up tackle on Biggar as soon as he came back to ground.

Instead Russell;
1 - realised too late he wasn't going to win the ball.
2 - turned his back to the play and ducked, taking out the legs of a player in the air.

Sereiously. Have you ever played? Or are you a prop? Have you any experience of running that fast? Genuine questions.

Please watch the video. Try and hit pause at the point where Biggar is just about to jump. Then hit play and watch how quickly it all happened. The idea of knowing a player will jump, or the idea of ulling out, or bringing him down safely is utterly ludicrous.

Seriously - just watch the video and then tell me if you can stand over your two points you made...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWIOPJIZpvc

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I always thought, that the law was, if you lose the contest, it is the responsability of the loser to bring the winner of the contest down as safely as possible, I could be wrong, but if I am right, then Finn Russel did not take his responsabilities correctly thus got a yellow.

Fine, explain to me how you expect Russell to change the outcome from the moment he reacts and turns, what would you have done differently were you in his shoes?

I would have moved out of the way, instead of trying to put Biggar off. He could have easily moved sideways rather than turn his back and keep going forwards.

And you would summarily be dropped after the game, your contract torn up and told to play tiddlywinks with your mates at home.

Besides that, how far would you be able to move sideways in a split second?

Half a step left or right, do you dive onto the floor, or do your instincts take over to protect yourself when you see a pair of boots and knees coming in your direction?

You could at least make it look like you have your opponents health on your mind. If Biggar had landed safely he would have either had a free run to the try line or at the least had started a very dangerous attacking situation, Finn Russel knew this, thus he tried to compensate from losing the aerial battle by putting Biggar off, it was reckless, and you can polish it up all you like, just because Russel got it wrong and Dan got it right, it does not give Finn Russel the excuse to be reckless, what he should have done was get it right in the first place, but that is the difference between a world class/very good player and a mediocre player. These players are pro's and they know the laws before they walk onto the field, they play this game week in week out, they now what they are to do, that's what they get paid for, if somebody does something better, then the opposition should not allowed to be reckless to even up the situation, simples.