Taking the player out in the air.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 16 Feb 2015, 11:37 am

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.

by lostinwales Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:20 pm

clivemcl wrote: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.

Both these things, plus the debate about the jumping comes down to a contest between two players and how much time it takes one of those to adapt what he is doing to the other.

Almost nobody has complained about the North incident. It was an accident (and a rare one), and there was sod all Attwood could do once he had committed to trying to hack the ball.

I do remember someone being knocked out trying a charge down, but not the exact incident. You could very easily say that the responsibility on that is all the player trying to charge down. It is also a rare event.

The competition for the high ball as being debated here is not a rare event, and interpretations of the laws surrounding it can potentially be exploited, so it is worthy of discussion.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:21 pm

Poorfour wrote:
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.

I refer you to November last year when the Boks played Ireland, Kearney jumped awkwardly in the air, our player jumped in such a manner as to not hit him full on, attempted to knock the ball and Kearney fell on his back, we got carded.

Now if you remove the South African player the likelyhood that Kearney would have landed on his feet would have been miraculous if he did, considering his body position.

The next match again we got carded for making contact whereby our play, I think it was Hendricks almost dislocated his finger (that was the extent of his contact with the player) and he got carded.

Habana recieved two penalties for merely touching the player in the air, even though both times they landed on their feet.

In all four those examples we chased.

by dummy_half Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:22 pm

I don't think Russell had time to move out of the way once he realised Biggar was going to make the catch. He also didn't really move forwards, more just try to tuck himself up to avoid damage as DB made contact.

Now you can argue that he should have realised earlier (similar with the Payne incident last year) and held back to make the tackle on Biggar as soon as he landed, but it's easy to be wise after the event - Russell made a slight misjudgement, mostly in thinking that Biggar wasn't going to make the ground up and that he would be taking an unopposed catch on the ground (which he was perfectly positioned for). Mostly I think it was bad luck that he found himself in such a problematic position - stationary, on the ground under the line of flight of the ball and with an opponent coming at pace through the air at him.

No problem with this being a yellow card because of the safety implications, but anything more would be very harsh.

by SecretFly Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:24 pm

Biggar was part of the problem... his fury and desire to compete is as much a part of the incident as Russell chickening out and awkwardly handling of things from there.
But TWO players created the 'dangers' pertinent to the incident - not One.

On no occasion should the solution be to keep the jumper/chaser safe by stepping aside and letting him through. The charge by both sets in train a sequence of events that can lead to dangerous consequences.... the chaser has responsibility too. But the chaser shouldn't believe that the more he injects pace, the more the law will be on his side when he rises into the air. That's a get out of jail card that chasers are increasingly using...and it not only makes them feel right is on their side as they charge, but it also increases the speed of the chase.

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:24 pm

dummy_half wrote:No problem with this being a yellow card because of the safety implications, but anything more would be very harsh.

I agree, but if it were to be a red, you could still argue either way.

by lostinwales Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:25 pm

Taking another approach, a sanction is there to help educate players in what the shouldn't do, so what exactly should Russell have done?

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:26 pm

SecretFly wrote:Biggar was part of the problem... his fury and desire to compete is as much a part of the incident as Russell chickening out and awkwardly handling of things from there.
But TWO players created the 'dangers' pertinent to the incident - not One.

On no occasion should the solution be to keep the jumper/chaser safe by stepping aside and letting him through. The charge by both sets in train a sequence of events that can lead to dangerous consequences.... the chaser has responsibility too. But the chaser shouldn't believe that the more he injects pace, the more the law will be on his side when he rises into the air. That's a get out of jail card that chasers are increasingly using...and it not only makes them feel right is on their side as they charge, but it also increases the speed of the chase.

SecretFly, the difference is though, that Biggar did nothing wrong or illeagal, Finn Russel did, so there in lies the answer. Finn Russel got it all wrong, that is why HE was punished and not Biggar.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:27 pm

dummy_half wrote:I don't think Russell had time to move out of the way once he realised Biggar was going to make the catch. He also didn't really move forwards, more just try to tuck himself up to avoid damage as DB made contact.

Now you can argue that he should have realised earlier (similar with the Payne incident last year) and held back to make the tackle on Biggar as soon as he landed, but it's easy to be wise after the event - Russell made a slight misjudgement, mostly in thinking that Biggar wasn't going to make the ground up and that he would be taking an unopposed catch on the ground (which he was perfectly positioned for). Mostly I think it was bad luck that he found himself in such a problematic position - stationary, on the ground under the line of flight of the ball and with an opponent coming at pace through the air at him.

No problem with this being a yellow card because of the safety implications, but anything more would be very harsh.

I disagree, a player realises he isn't going to get to the ball, takes instinctive evasive action and a card is justified because (a) his evasive action was not sufficient to the opinion of a TMO, or (b) he should have stood back 5 meters, waited for abiggar to collect, land safely, have support runners to offload to, and then make a tackle?

by clivemcl Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:28 pm

lostinwales wrote:Taking another approach, a sanction is there to help educate players in what the shouldn't do, so what exactly should Russell have done?

This is the thing. Since it all happens so fast, and you don't have time to pull out (as evident in the video), the only logical lesson is

You Must Always Jump To Catch

Write that out 100 times.

You must always jump to catch! Why? Because they might. And you won't have time to react. And you will get a yellow card.

That's effectively the message the laws are giving to players so IRB may as well say it!

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:29 pm

lostinwales wrote:Taking another approach, a sanction is there to help educate players in what the shouldn't do, so what exactly should Russell have done?

Either get it right in the first place, or try and be more careful otherwise. The difference in getting the decision right or wrong is the difference between a good player and a not so good player, if you are not so good, that does not give you the excuse to be reckless, they are pro's and they all know the laws before they walk onto the pitch.

by lostinwales Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:30 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Biggar was part of the problem... his fury and desire to compete is as much a part of the incident as Russell chickening out and awkwardly handling of things from there.
But TWO players created the 'dangers' pertinent to the incident - not One.

On no occasion should the solution be to keep the jumper/chaser safe by stepping aside and letting him through. The charge by both sets in train a sequence of events that can lead to dangerous consequences.... the chaser has responsibility too. But the chaser shouldn't believe that the more he injects pace, the more the law will be on his side when he rises into the air. That's a get out of jail card that chasers are increasingly using...and it not only makes them feel right is on their side as they charge, but it also increases the speed of the chase.

SecretFly, the difference is though, that Biggar did nothing wrong or illeagal, Finn Russel did, so there in lies the answer. Finn Russel got it all wrong, that is why HE was punished and not Biggar.

So what exactly should Russel have done? What would you do if you were in his shoes?

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:31 pm

Hypothetically what would happen in this scenario, because I'm getting a bit confused

Player X (a Halfpenny sized fullback) Punts the ball long.

Player Y (a George North Sized winger) on the opposite team looks to be in the ideal position to make the catch.

Player X screams towards the landing zone of the ball at full tilt.

Player Y hasn't seen him.

Player X heroically claims the ball in the air, at this point player Y having run towards the ball keeps his feet on the ground but now has no choice but to catch player X while he is in the air.

Player Y tackles him to the ground, safely and in full control as per the letter of the law and is fully responsible for the sfate player X. See Gavin Hensons tackle on that Tait in 2006 as an example

Do we penalize player Y for taking the player in the air? Or is to be commended for being responsible and bringing player X down safely?

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:32 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Taking another approach, a sanction is there to help educate players in what the shouldn't do, so what exactly should Russell have done?

Either get it right in the first place, or try and be more careful otherwise. The difference in getting the decision right or wrong is the difference between a good player and a not so good player, if you are not so good, that does not give you the excuse to be reckless, they are pro's and they all know the laws before they walk onto the pitch.

Oh come on mate, do you realise what you are saying there?

The reckless thing to do is come full tilt in the air after a ball, once in the air you have literally no control of the direction you are going, so because you cannot avoid contact the player on the ground is immediately guilty?

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:36 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Hypothetically what would happen in this scenario, because I'm getting a bit confused

A player X (a Halfpenny sized fullback) Punts the ball long.

Player Y (a George North Sized winger) on the opposite team looks to be in the ideal position to make the catch.

Player X screams towards the landing zone of the ball at full tilt.

Player Y hasn't seen him.

Player X heroically claims the ball in the air, at this point player Y having run towards the ball keeps his feet on the ground but now has no choice but to catch player X while he is in the air.

Player Y tackles him to the ground, safely and in full control as per the letter of the law and is fully responsible for the sfate player X. See Gavin Hensons tackle on that Tait in 2006 as an example

Do we penalize player Y for taking the player in the air? Or is to be commended for being responsible and bringing player X down safely?

The scenario of what you are sketching is similar to what happened this weekend, but I saw so many matches I cannot recall in which match it happened, the one airborne player didn't communicate with his own player and took him to ground with hard contact, nothing happened.

SO the law only applies to opposition players making contact, if your own player takes you out, the referee does not concern himself with that, it seems this "safety" issue has double standards.

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:36 pm

lostinwales wrote:So what exactly should Russel have done? What would you do if you were in his shoes?

As I am not a professional rugby player, I do not know if I can answer this, but I will try.

Firstly I would have made an effort to try and get it right in the first place, that is run and jump to catch the ball before Dan Biggar, if I was not good enough to beat Dan at this contest, and I knew the laws, I would have waited until he landed and then try to tackle him, if I had got it all wrong like Finn Russel did, and I knew the laws, as he does, I would have done my absolute best to get out of his way just in case I caught him in mid air and caused a potential serious injury. I do not think there is anymore I can add to that.

by clivemcl Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:38 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Taking another approach, a sanction is there to help educate players in what the shouldn't do, so what exactly should Russell have done?

Either get it right in the first place, or try and be more careful otherwise. The difference in getting the decision right or wrong is the difference between a good player and a not so good player, if you are not so good, that does not give you the excuse to be reckless, they are pro's and they all know the laws before they walk onto the pitch.

It would appear this is the message to all players hoping to catch a ball.

You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch

You must always jump to catch! Why? Because they might! And if they do, you won't have time to react. And you will get a yellow card. Or red!

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:39 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
lostinwales wrote:So what exactly should Russel have done? What would you do if you were in his shoes?

As I am not a professional rugby player, I do not know if I can answer this, but I will try.

Firstly I would have made an effort to try and get it right in the first place, that is run and jump to catch the ball before Dan Biggar, if I was not good enough to beat Dan at this contest, and I knew the laws, I would have waited until he landed and then try to tackle him, if I had got it all wrong like Finn Russel did, and I knew the laws, as he does, I would have done my absolute best to get out of his way just in case I caught him in mid air and caused a potential serious injury. I do not think there is anymore I can add to that.

If a ball is coming directly at you, you are already in the position, therefor you cannot take a running jumping catch, unless of course you run back to your tryline, and then charge Wink

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:41 pm

clivemcl wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Taking another approach, a sanction is there to help educate players in what the shouldn't do, so what exactly should Russell have done?

Either get it right in the first place, or try and be more careful otherwise. The difference in getting the decision right or wrong is the difference between a good player and a not so good player, if you are not so good, that does not give you the excuse to be reckless, they are pro's and they all know the laws before they walk onto the pitch.

It would appear this is the message to all players hoping to catch a ball.

You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch

You must always jump to catch! Why? Because they might! And if they do, you won't have time to react. And you will get a yellow card. Or red!

YOU MUST ALWAYS JUMP FIRST, JUMP THE HIGHEST AND TOUCH THE BALL FIRST

If not, then run away and cower in you corner, or fake an injury to avoid the coach dropping you.

by lostinwales Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:42 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Taking another approach, a sanction is there to help educate players in what the shouldn't do, so what exactly should Russell have done?

Either get it right in the first place, or try and be more careful otherwise. The difference in getting the decision right or wrong is the difference between a good player and a not so good player, if you are not so good, that does not give you the excuse to be reckless, they are pro's and they all know the laws before they walk onto the pitch.

What is 'right' here.

We want a fair competition for the ball

We want to avoid creating scenarios where the chances of injury are high, if they can be avoided

The current interpretation of the law is indeed that Biggar did nothing wrong, and Russel being there lead to him falling in a way that could have caused injury. No issues with the card by the current interpretation of the law. As you said, Biggar did no wrong.

But, what the issue for many of us is how responsible is the kick chaser for creating what can be a dangerous scenario? And how is the defender best able to react in order to make sure that he does his job while avoiding the penalty, or the card which may end the match as a serious competition?

by clivemcl Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:42 pm

LordDowlais wrote:

As I am not a professional rugby player, I do not know if I can answer this, but I will try.

Firstly I would have made an effort to try and get it right in the first place, that is run and jump to catch the ball before Dan Biggar, if I was not good enough to beat Dan at this contest, and I knew the laws, I would have waited until he landed and then try to tackle him, if I had got it all wrong like Finn Russel did, and I knew the laws, as he does, I would have done my absolute best to get out of his way just in case I caught him in mid air and caused a potential serious injury. I do not think there is anymore I can add to that.

You could watch this video and transport yourself back to the real world...

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

LordDowlais wrote:I would have made an effort to try and get it right in the first place, that is run and jump to catch the ball before Dan Biggar.

You Must Always Jump To Catch

LordDowlais wrote:
I would have waited until he landed and then try to tackle him.

At the point he left the ground you would not have time to realise and wait.

LordDowlais wrote:
I would have done my absolute best to get out of his way just in case I caught him in mid air and caused a potential serious injury.

No you wouldn't have, you didn't have enough time once you saw him leave the ground. You do not have super human powers.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:46 pm

clivemcl wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Taking another approach, a sanction is there to help educate players in what the shouldn't do, so what exactly should Russell have done?

Either get it right in the first place, or try and be more careful otherwise. The difference in getting the decision right or wrong is the difference between a good player and a not so good player, if you are not so good, that does not give you the excuse to be reckless, they are pro's and they all know the laws before they walk onto the pitch.

It would appear this is the message to all players hoping to catch a ball.

You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch

You must always jump to catch! Why? Because they might! And if they do, you won't have time to react. And you will get a yellow card. Or red!

Or more importantly, if you are Welsh, the opposition player might waft some air in your general direction whilst you're in the air and you can flounce to the floor and roll around for a bit clutching your white boots.....

JOKE.....

Run

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:53 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Taking another approach, a sanction is there to help educate players in what the shouldn't do, so what exactly should Russell have done?

Either get it right in the first place, or try and be more careful otherwise. The difference in getting the decision right or wrong is the difference between a good player and a not so good player, if you are not so good, that does not give you the excuse to be reckless, they are pro's and they all know the laws before they walk onto the pitch.

It would appear this is the message to all players hoping to catch a ball.

You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch
You Must Always Jump To Catch

You must always jump to catch! Why? Because they might! And if they do, you won't have time to react. And you will get a yellow card. Or red!

Or more importantly, if you are Welsh, the opposition player might waft some air in your general direction whilst you're in the air and you can flounce to the floor and roll around for a bit clutching your white boots.....

JOKE.....

Like what happened to your big no.8 after JD slightly touched him in mid air. Hug

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:55 pm

clivemcl wrote:No you wouldn't have, you didn't have enough time once you saw him leave the ground. You do not have super human powers.

Well if I was Finn Russel, instead of using my super human power to turn my back and lead into Dan Biggar with my shoulder, I would have just gotten out of the way. angel

by funnyExiledScot Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:56 pm

Fair play! Beattie went down like a big girl's blouse.

He's from Glasgow though. It's more of a football sort of City.

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:57 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Fair play! Beattie went down like a big girl's blouse.

He's from Glasgow though. It's more of a football sort of City.

Which are the ones that do not wash. Laugh

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:58 pm

clivemcl wrote:
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

Yes I have played. Whether I could run fast was always open to debate. No I wasn't a prop. And I have been in both positions in my time of being taken out in the air and have accidentally taken another player out in the air.

I'm not saying that Finn could have saved the situation he got himself into. Fact is he did get himself into that situation and it was one of quite a few things he did wrong in the game. Can't fault the guy for enthusiasim but can't fault him in his execution.

So are you "Sereiously" saying that he was completely innocent here and there was no way that situation of Biggar being cleared right out in the air could have been prevented. Hug

by TightHEAD Tue 17 Feb 2015, 1:58 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
clivemcl wrote:No you wouldn't have, you didn't have enough time once you saw him leave the ground. You do not have super human powers.

Well if I was Finn Russel, instead of using my super human power to turn my back and lead into Dan Biggar with my shoulder, I would have just gotten out of the way.

Rubbish.

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:02 pm

TightHEAD wrote:Rubbish.

Why ?

by Chunky Norwich Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:04 pm

Doesn't deserve a citing that Finn Russell one. Just an unfortunate yellow. By the time he had realised Biggar had jumped 5 foot in the air, there is absolutely no way he could have either:

1) Waited for Biggar to land then tackle him.
2) Dive out of the way like some schoolgirl terrified of rugby.

by alive555 Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:05 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:Rubbish.

Why ?

retweet alert

by clivemcl Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:05 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
So are you "Sereiously" saying that he was completely innocent here and there was no way that situation of Biggar being cleared right out in the air could have been prevented.

I've went on record before with my unpopular view. You have two options:

- Tell the players that jumping in the air is very risky and if they take that risk they..... well... take the risk! In the same way as charging down a ball has the risk of a ball (or a boot) in the face.
- You tell players they are not allowed to jump when they catch.

The latter would be very unpopular, but if we are all agreed that neck injuries are horrendous and we want them wiped out then surely it's a no brainer to ban the act of play which is most likely to cause somebody landing on their head/neck.

But of course, rather than eradicate the possibility of a paralysed player, the IRB just want to create laws so that we know which player will have a lifetime of guilt for 'inflicting' the paralysis.

by tigertattie Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:08 pm

I wonder if the beeb will prattle on about this when the next set of 6ns games come round!

by Gooseberry Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:10 pm

Since hes been cited it would be surprising if they didnt.

Law 10.4(e) which states players "must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground".
He is also accused of breaching Law 10.4(j) which prohibits "lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground".

The issue seems to be as much how Biggar contacted the ground (like a sack of poo) as the fact he took him out in the first place.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:13 pm

Jeez, prosecuting him for Law 10.4(j) is going to be a bit of a stretch!!!

by IanBru Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:15 pm

Biltong wrote:The reckless thing to do is come full tilt in the air after a ball, once in the air you have literally no control of the direction you are going, so because you cannot avoid contact the player on the ground is immediately guilty?

Exactly right. The ludicrousness of current law interpretation was illustrated in an Edinburgh match last year, against one of the Italian sides.

I'll just use letters to disguise teams and individuals, for the sake of argument, this is what happened:

Player A kicks the ball across the field, and opposition Player B is standing calmly underneath it, sideways-on, waiting to catch it.
Player A runs in at an angle, unsighted by Player B. Player A jumps for the ball, but mistimes it so that he is highly unlikely to catch the ball.
Player B still has not seen Player A, and is standing on the ground beneath the ball, waiting to catch it.
Player A lands on the head/neck player B and tumbles, without coming near the ball.
Player B is penalised, and only avoids the card because the TMO has judged that Player A landed on his front and was able to avoid injury.

If there's a dictionary definition of bu**-**it, this is surely it.

So I ask this question: what can we reasonably expect Player B to do, in order to avoid a jumping player from landing on him?

by TightHEAD Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:17 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:Rubbish.

Why ?

Because Biggar was moving at speed, Lets get one thing clear here Dan Biggars kick, chase and catch was a great bit of skill and to do it at the speed he did was great but I don't believe for one second that Russell meant to do what he did, he was going for the ball and realized too late that he wasn't going to be able to compete for it.

Rugby is a tough game sometimes and these things happen, nothing to see here move along.

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:17 pm

Gooseberry wrote:Since hes been cited it would be surprising if they didnt.

Law 10.4(e) which states players "must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground".
He is also accused of breaching Law 10.4(j) which prohibits "lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground".

The issue seems to be as much how Biggar contacted the ground (like a sack of poo) as the fact he took him out in the first place.

Since Russell did neither I'm not sure he can be cited for anything. He did not tackle the player since doing so would have been impossible with the reaction times we have seen and secondly he didn't lift a player from the ground.

by Poorfour Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:18 pm

Biltong wrote:
I refer you to November last year when the Boks played Ireland, Kearney jumped awkwardly in the air, our player jumped in such a manner as to not hit him full on, attempted to knock the ball and Kearney fell on his back, we got carded.

Now if you remove the South African player the likelyhood that Kearney would have landed on his feet would have been miraculous if he did, considering his body position.

The next match again we got carded for making contact whereby our play, I think it was Hendricks almost dislocated his finger (that was the extent of his contact with the player) and he got carded.

Habana recieved two penalties for merely touching the player in the air, even though both times they landed on their feet.

In all four those examples we chased.

I didn't see the game so I can't comment on the individual incidents, but that's exactly my point: these situations arose because of the chase. They're controversial because the guidelines are focused only on contact in the air and I suspect are strongly coloured by who wins the ball.

I'd rather have clearer expectations for what a player should do to protect themselves and others when chasing or catching a ball, so that we can know (and players can be trained) what the likely decision is from how they approached the jump.

by Chunky Norwich Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:18 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Since Russell did neither I'm not sure he can be cited for anything. He did not tackle the player

Technically he did.

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:23 pm

TightHEAD wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:Rubbish.

Why ?

Because Biggar was moving at speed, Lets get one thing clear here Dan Biggars kick, chase and catch was a great bit of skill and to do it at the speed he did was great but I don't believe for one second that Russell meant to do what he did, he was going for the ball and realized too late that he wasn't going to be able to compete for it.

Rugby is a tough game sometimes and these things happen, nothing to see here move along.

So you agree that Fin Russell lost the contest ? He, got it wrong and what followed was reckless, he decided to turn his back, rather than get out of the way, both are reactions that take a split second, Finn reacted recklessly, thus he was punished appropriately, as for the citing, well that could be argued either way, but now that he is being cited, well I just hope that consistency is shown from here on in.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:24 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Since Russell did neither I'm not sure he can be cited for anything. He did not tackle the player

Technically he did.

No he didn't, he took evasive action, but because his version of protecting himself and not the player who is hurtling at him at full tilt trough the air with no reason for his own safety, the referee took the easy way out, and penalised the player who never left the ground

by clivemcl Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:24 pm

IanBru wrote:
Biltong wrote:The reckless thing to do is come full tilt in the air after a ball, once in the air you have literally no control of the direction you are going, so because you cannot avoid contact the player on the ground is immediately guilty?
Exactly right. The ludicrousness of current law interpretation was illustrated in an Edinburgh match last year, against one of the Italian sides.

I'll just use letters to disguise teams and individuals, for the sake of argument, this is what happened:

Player A kicks the ball across the field, and opposition Player B is standing calmly underneath it, sideways-on, waiting to catch it.

Player A runs in at an angle, unsighted by Player B. Player A jumps for the ball, but mistimes it so that he is highly unlikely to catch the ball.

Player B still has not seen Player A, and is standing on the ground beneath the ball, waiting to catch it.

Player A lands on the head/neck player B and tumbles, without coming near the ball.

Player B is penalised, and only avoids the card because the TMO has judged that Player A landed on his front and was able to avoid injury.

If there's a dictionary definition of bu**-**it, this is surely it.

So I ask this question: what can we reasonably expect Player B to do, in order to avoid a jumping player from landing on him?

Like I've said before IanBru, the message from IRB surely is ALWAYS JUMP. Even if you are directly under the ball - JUMP! Because if you don't, and somebody else does, you are potentially in big trouble. Let's just ban catching with the feet ON the ground and be done with it.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:24 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Since Russell did neither I'm not sure he can be cited for anything. He did not tackle the player

Technically he did.

I can just about stretch to a "tackle", but not "lifting him off the ground and driving him into the ground". That's absurd given the circumstances.

by Chunky Norwich Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:25 pm

Biltong wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Since Russell did neither I'm not sure he can be cited for anything. He did not tackle the player

Technically he did.

No he didn't, he took evasive action, but because his version of protecting himself and not the player who is hurtling at him at full tilt trough the air with no reason for his own safety, the referee took the easy way out, and penalised the player who never left the ground

No, the evidence suggests he put his arm around the player in the air. This consitutes a tackle unfortunately for Russell.

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:25 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Since Russell did neither I'm not sure he can be cited for anything. He did not tackle the player

Technically he did.

Technically if he "tackled" Biggar, surely Biggar should be punished too for "jumping into" a "tackle"?

by clivemcl Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:26 pm

If we are all agreed that neck injuries are horrendous and we want them wiped out then surely it's a no brainer to ban the act of play which is most likely to cause somebody landing on their head/neck ie. Jumping to take a catch.

But of course, rather than eradicate the possibility of a paralysed player, the IRB would rather create laws so that we know where the finger of blame should point for the player who will have a lifetime of guilt for 'inflicting' the paralysis.

by Chunky Norwich Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:26 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Since Russell did neither I'm not sure he can be cited for anything. He did not tackle the player

Technically he did.

I can just about stretch to a "tackle", but not "lifting him off the ground and driving him into the ground". That's absurd given the circumstances.

So you've covered law 10.4(e) then. Deserves a citing.

For what its worth I think the laws need rewording.

by Chunky Norwich Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:28 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Since Russell did neither I'm not sure he can be cited for anything. He did not tackle the player

Technically he did.

Technically if he "tackled" Biggar, surely Biggar should be punished too for "jumping into" a "tackle"?

No. In the same way a lineout jumper isn't jumping into another player taking them out. Because at the time Biggar jumped, no tackle was forthcoming. Pause the video.

by LordDowlais Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:31 pm

This is getting sill now, the long and short of it is, that Dan Biggar has done NOTHING wrong, Finn Russel HAS. Although what he is being cited for seems stupid, but he was reckless and punished accordingly, I just hope and pray now, that everytime this occurs, that a citing is expected, all we want is consistency, perhaps they will look at the footage and agree with people on here who think it was an accident, perhaps it was, but Finn Russel was not put into that situation by others, he put himself into that position by not being good enough to win the contest.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Feb 2015, 2:31 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Since Russell did neither I'm not sure he can be cited for anything. He did not tackle the player

Technically he did.

No he didn't, he took evasive action, but because his version of protecting himself and not the player who is hurtling at him at full tilt trough the air with no reason for his own safety, the referee took the easy way out, and penalised the player who never left the ground

No, the evidence suggests he put his arm around the player in the air. This consitutes a tackle unfortunately for Russell.

Can you point out in this video at which time frame did he have his arm around Biggar?

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

by Sponsored content

Players jumping in the air