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.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

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.

The "tackle" is what caused Biggar to tip and drop onto his head. It lifted his legs beyond the 90 degrees. Obviously Biggars momentum played a big part in that but the responsibility lies on the tackler to make sure that doesnt happen.

No attempt to wrap, player in the air, and a tip tackle. Accidental or not you can word this in a way that looks pretty bad on Russell even if in reality all that happened was he got absolutely jerked trying to field the ball then paniced when he saw Biggars boots heading for his face.

For me I would like to see if you Jump for the ball you must do so with your legs pointing downwards.

LAW X v1.0
Bringing knees or feet above chest height when competing for the ball in the air should result in a penalty.

Bringing knees or feet above chest height when competing for the ball in the air, that causes injury to any player should result in a Yellow card.

Biltong wrote:

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

Sure. Here:

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.

More to the point, he looked to have been in position to catch the ball, without jumping, before Biggar arrived. LordDowlais, I don't agree that he got it wrong or lost the contest. He was where he needed to be to catch the ball. But we've changed the rules recently so that that doesn't matter if someone else is flying through the air towards you.

In effect, we've created a situation where a player is allowed to jump into a tackle, which never used to be permitted. A similar thing happened last year in the England-Wales game when Faletau jumped to take a head-high pass and his momentum carried him into the the England defender, who was penalised. Correctly, according to the law interpretation we have now, but only the most one-eyed partisan would claim that created a sensible situation.

We've created a situation where a player is no longer allowed to stand his ground because players in the air get automatic priority. I think that's the wrong way to interpret the situation, will cause more injuries if we stick with it, and should be changed.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

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.

Yea but, if you are saying Russel is guilty despite not having foreknowledge that Biggar would jump, should Biggar not also be punished for 'Jumping into a tackle' regardless of his foreknowledge?? lol

So glad I didn't open a thread on the "Irish choke tackle"

lol!

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Do my eyes decieve me?Would you look at that. Russell is doing his utmost to bring his mate Biggar back down safely! Kudos for trying Russell!

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Biltong wrote:

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

Sure. Here:

Excellent, find me a video from the other angle and then you can show context to that photo.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Biltong wrote:

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

Sure. Here:

Thats the first time I have seen this angle, and that convinces me more than ever that he tried to impede Dan Biggar after he caught the ball, to me that does not look like somebody who is just trying to protect themself.

Biltong wrote:

Excellent, find me a video from the other angle and then you can show context to that photo.

No "context" needed in the laws as far as I'm aware. Specifically this one:

Law 10.4(e)
Dangerous tackling.
A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

Russell did that.

I'll tell you what....

If I showed the video to my mum and asked her who was the reckless party. I would bet my house on the fact she would name the 'boy in red'. She would no doubt call him an 'silly eejit'.

I suspect most non-rugby types would see the incident as one guy taking a risk and paying for it - the 'boy in red'.

LordDowlais wrote:

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.

There was no contest as he already pulled out before contact was made, as I said it was just one of those things that can happen on the field of play. and No I don't think Russell was reckless and I hope some common sense is used at his citing hearing.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:For me I would like to see if you Jump for the ball you must do so with your legs pointing downwards.

LAW X v1.0
Bringing knees or feet above chest height when competing for the ball in the air should result in a penalty.

Bringing knees or feet above chest height when competing for the ball in the air, that causes injury to any player should result in a Yellow card.

I'd change it slightly my Fifer friend!

I'd not allow legs/knees/feet to come above waist height rather than chest height.

Also, I'd make it clear that injury to any player includes the jumper himself! For reference look at the Edinburgh vs Italian club side example! Player A who went jumping and landed face first injured himself by jumping so should be given a yellow card for injuring himself! (as well as the yellow he should be made to get the jugs in after the game and publicly laughed at for being a grade A plum)

TightHEAD wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

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.

There was no contest as he already pulled out before contact was made, as I said it was just one of those things that can happen on the field of play. and No I don't think Russell was reckless and I hope some common sense is used at his citing hearing.

Ok fair enough, from now on then, if you are not good enough to out jump somebody for the ball just turn your back on them and make sure that they do not land on their feet to make a clean get away. Does that seem ok to you ?

How do we know Russell wasn't good enough to out jump Biggar? where does it say in the rule book a player has to step aside to admire a good piece of skill from an opposing player and allow him a run in under the posts just because the opposing player beat him to the ball.

You could spend a lifetime re-writing the rule book but you will never make the game totally safe or cover every potential possibility.

TightHEAD wrote:How do we know Russell wasn't good enough to out jump Biggar?  where does it say in the rule book a player has to step aside to admire a good piece of skill from an opposing player and allow him a run in under the posts just because the opposing player beat him to the ball.

You could spend a lifetime re-writing the rule book but you will never make the game totally safe or cover every potential possibility.

I agree, but we know Russel was not good enough to out-jump Biggar, because Biggar had beaten him to the ball. He does not have to stand aside and admire a good peice of skill either, but he is NOT ALLOWED to touch him in the air either, he did and he was penalised.Simples.

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:How do we know Russell wasn't good enough to out jump Biggar?  where does it say in the rule book a player has to step aside to admire a good piece of skill from an opposing player and allow him a run in under the posts just because the opposing player beat him to the ball.

You could spend a lifetime re-writing the rule book but you will never make the game totally safe or cover every potential possibility.

I agree, but we know Russel was not good enough to out-jump Biggar, because Biggar had beaten him to the ball. He does not have to stand aside and admire a good peice of skill either, but he is NOT ALLOWED to touch him in the air either, he did and he was penalised.Simples.

If you want to be technical Biggar touched him, Russell was stationary at the time.

We don't know for sure that Russell wasn't good enough to outjump Biggar.

He was entitled to go for the ball too, in fact I'd say Russells biggest mistake was not being brave enough to jump and compete for the ball.

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:How do we know Russell wasn't good enough to out jump Biggar?  where does it say in the rule book a player has to step aside to admire a good piece of skill from an opposing player and allow him a run in under the posts just because the opposing player beat him to the ball.

You could spend a lifetime re-writing the rule book but you will never make the game totally safe or cover every potential possibility.

I agree, but we know Russel was not good enough to out-jump Biggar, because Biggar had beaten him to the ball. He does not have to stand aside and admire a good peice of skill either, but he is NOT ALLOWED to touch him in the air either, he did and he was penalised.Simples.

If you want to be technical Biggar touched him, Russell was stationary at the time.

No he wasn't he turned his back, and tried to duck under him, also, as further evidence has revealed, he took a grab at Biggars leg as well.

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:How do we know Russell wasn't good enough to out jump Biggar?  where does it say in the rule book a player has to step aside to admire a good piece of skill from an opposing player and allow him a run in under the posts just because the opposing player beat him to the ball.

You could spend a lifetime re-writing the rule book but you will never make the game totally safe or cover every potential possibility.

I agree, but we know Russel was not good enough to out-jump Biggar, because Biggar had beaten him to the ball. He does not have to stand aside and admire a good peice of skill either, but he is NOT ALLOWED to touch him in the air either, he did and he was penalised.Simples.

If you want to be technical Biggar touched him, Russell was stationary at the time.

Exactly, this is where it differs from the Payne incident. Payne came charging up and made contact. The defending player (Goode) leapt into the air for the take and took a sore one.

Still absolutely unintentional I might add.

In this particular case the defending player remained on the ground and the attacking player for arguments sake jumped on top of him. I'm still confused as to what people want or thing Russel should have done.

His options as far as I can see are as follows (I'm not going to mention letting Biggar take the ball unopposed since Russell was already commited).

a) Stay on the ground and take a knee to the face and try to "protect" Dan Biggar by catching him.
b) Turn away and protect yourself from a flying knee.
c) Duck completely out of the way and let Biggar stroll under the posts. (although by the time he spotted Biggar even if he chose this option I doubt he would have time to do so)

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:How do we know Russell wasn't good enough to out jump Biggar?  where does it say in the rule book a player has to step aside to admire a good piece of skill from an opposing player and allow him a run in under the posts just because the opposing player beat him to the ball.

You could spend a lifetime re-writing the rule book but you will never make the game totally safe or cover every potential possibility.

I agree, but we know Russel was not good enough to out-jump Biggar, because Biggar had beaten him to the ball. He does not have to stand aside and admire a good peice of skill either, but he is NOT ALLOWED to touch him in the air either, he did and he was penalised.Simples.

If you want to be technical Biggar touched him, Russell was stationary at the time.

No he wasn't he turned his back, and tried to duck under him, also, as further evidence has revealed, he took a grab at Biggars leg as well.

Maybe he was trying to place him gentle back on the ground?

TightHEAD wrote:We don't know for sure that Russell wasn't good enough to outjump Biggar.

He was entitled to go for the ball too, in fact I'd say Russells biggest mistake was not being brave enough to jump and compete for the ball.

Yes again I agree with you, not being brave is the same as not being good enough, courage comes with ability, so to keep agreeing with you he was not brave enough, so does that make what came after ok ? \it was not biggars fault that Russel is not brave.

One thing is certain, whenever these issues arise the camp is severely divided in those for and against the plaintive.

I wonder what the comments would have been was the roles reversed?

TightHEAD wrote:Maybe he was trying to place him gentle back on the ground?

You honestly do not know how much I realy DO want to beleive that.

What would the comments have been if Russell didn't turn, took a knee to the face, was knocked out and Bigger scored between the posts?

I can't help but feel that if Russell had taken out Rhys Priestland, the Welsh would be less upset.

But Lord these things happen from time to time, Russell was stood still now if he had continued to run into Biggar and take him out then a Red card would have been the correct call imo, it doesn't change the fact that it was a great bit of play from Biggar that took everyone by surprise by the speed at which he jumped and collected the ball without breaking stride.

I think a yellow was the correct call and the citing officer should have backed up the Ref and TMO by using some common sense.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What would the comments have been if Russell didn't turn, took a knee to the face, was knocked out and Bigger scored between the posts?

ive asked that 3 times and the wums are silent. not surprisingly. No try dangerous play and red card to Biggar is the answer

alive555 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What would the comments have been if Russell didn't turn, took a knee to the face, was knocked out and Bigger scored between the posts?

ive asked that 3 times and the wums are silent. not surprisingly. No try dangerous play and red card to Biggar is the answer

Load of rubbish. Why would a player going to catch a ball get a red card?

Look at the Mike Brown incident. Did the Italian get a red card?

His knee was high.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

alive555 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What would the comments have been if Russell didn't turn, took a knee to the face, was knocked out and Bigger scored between the posts?

ive asked that 3 times and the wums are silent. not surprisingly. No try dangerous play and red card to Biggar is the answer

Load of rubbish. Why would a player going to catch a ball get a red card?

Look at the Mike Brown incident. Did the Italian get a  red card?

That comparison is ridiculous since the Italian didn't jump into Mike Brown.

TightHEAD wrote:His knee was high.

That's how you jump as a human being. You tend to go higher. When Biggar jumped he had no idea if anyone would be anywhere near him or if he'd be unchallenged.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I can't help but feel that if Russell had taken out Rhys Priestland, the Welsh would be less upset.

alive555 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What would the comments have been if Russell didn't turn, took a knee to the face, was knocked out and Bigger scored between the posts?

ive asked that 3 times and the wums are silent. not surprisingly. No try dangerous play and red card to Biggar is the answer

Who is wumming? Biggar, did not lead with his knee or his studs, so it is a non starter.

clivemcl wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Do my eyes decieve me?Would you look at that. Russell is doing his utmost to bring his mate Biggar back down safely! Kudos for trying Russell!

Yep, fair play to Russell. 10/10 for good intentions, 1/10 for execution though.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

alive555 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What would the comments have been if Russell didn't turn, took a knee to the face, was knocked out and Bigger scored between the posts?

ive asked that 3 times and the wums are silent. not surprisingly. No try dangerous play and red card to Biggar is the answer

Load of rubbish. Why would a player going to catch a ball get a red card?

Look at the Mike Brown incident. Did the Italian get a  red card?

That comparison is ridiculous since the Italian didn't jump into Mike Brown.

Did Biggar jump into Russel ?

LordDowlais wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

alive555 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What would the comments have been if Russell didn't turn, took a knee to the face, was knocked out and Bigger scored between the posts?

ive asked that 3 times and the wums are silent. not surprisingly. No try dangerous play and red card to Biggar is the answer

Load of rubbish. Why would a player going to catch a ball get a red card?

Look at the Mike Brown incident. Did the Italian get a  red card?

That comparison is ridiculous since the Italian didn't jump into Mike Brown.

Did Biggar jump into Russel ?

So you are suggesting that Russell with the power of nothing but his mind made Biggar levitate in the air to collide with him?

Biggar JUMPED to claim the ball. It's not Russells fault Biggar didn't see him and landed on top of him. At 6 ft 1 it's not as if Russel is inconspicuous.

Russell has taken some stick here for not seeing Biggar until it was too late, what exempts Biggar from similar criticism?

But you said, and I quote "That comparison is ridiculous since the Italian didn't jump into Mike Brown"

So you are saying that they cannot be compared because the Italian did not jump into Mike Brown, but bigger did. Unless they both never jumped into the oposition player then it CAN be compared.

LordDowlais wrote:But you said, and I quote "That comparison is ridiculous since the Italian didn't jump into Mike Brown"

So you are saying that they cannot be compared because the Italian did not jump into Mike Brown, but bigger did. Unless they both never jumped into the oposition player then it CAN be compared.

The Italian never left his Feet when Mike Brown's head collided with his knee.

Biggar was jumping 3 ft in the air when he collided with Russell with absolutely no inclination that Russel was below him. I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain it.

Anyway, I'm off this topic, it is getting rediculous, the Scotts are still finding things to whinge about, but when it is all said and done, Wales won Scotland lost, again, for the umpteenth time against us. Two yellows, if Finn Russels was not a yellow, then neither was John Davies, there we go equals. Lets wait and see what the citing commisioners say, they are the experts.

LordDowlais wrote:Anyway, I'm off this topic, it is getting rediculous, the Scotts are still finding things to whinge about, but when it is all said and done, Wales won Scotland lost, again, for the umpteenth time against us. Two yellows, if Finn Russels was not a yellow, then neither was John Davies, there we go equals. Lets wait and see what the citing commisioners say, they are the experts.

I'm not whinging Dowlais, it's the welfare of your player I'm concerned about. I have plenty to whinge about Sundays game, Russells yellow card isn't anywhere near the top of that list.

LordDowlais wrote:Anyway, I'm off this topic, it is getting rediculous, the Scotts are still finding things to whinge about, but when it is all said and done, Wales won Scotland lost, again, for the umpteenth time against us. Two yellows, if Finn Russels was not a yellow, then neither was John Davies, there we go equals. Lets wait and see what the citing commisioners say, they are the experts.

There you go, there is always that, eh?

I think Biggar was more reckless than Russell to be honest, he basically said come and get me by jumping like that with no regard for his own safety.

It must be all that pressure of knowing Priestland is on the bench!

reallybored wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

reallybored wrote:LordDowlais, is Russell looking at the ball as he's coming forward?

He was not looking at the ball when he knew he would not win the contest, on what planet would you try and duck under somebody, he knew what he was doing and he was taking Biggar out in the air whilst he was still firmly both feet planted on the ground.

So he isn't looking at the ball in that image?

LordDowlais is either a wum or someone with a short memory. To say "biggar didn't lead with his knee" a after commenting on this picture is rather odd!!!

This is exactly why the TMO should Tofficiate all the calls. Its quite clear from replays that you can reach instant consensus as to what actually happened.

tigertattie wrote:

reallybored wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

reallybored wrote:LordDowlais, is Russell looking at the ball as he's coming forward?

He was not looking at the ball when he knew he would not win the contest, on what planet would you try and duck under somebody, he knew what he was doing and he was taking Biggar out in the air whilst he was still firmly both feet planted on the ground.

So he isn't looking at the ball in that image?

LordDowlais is either a wum or someone with a short memory. To say "biggar didn't lead with his knee" a after commenting on this picture is rather odd!!!

It doesn't fit with his version of events, so it will be ignored.

LordDowlais wrote:But you said, and I quote "That comparison is ridiculous since the Italian didn't jump into Mike Brown"

So you are saying that they cannot be compared because the Italian did not jump into Mike Brown, but bigger did. Unless they both never jumped into the oposition player then it CAN be compared.

Its fine to take out someone on valentines day.

TightHEAD wrote:I think Biggar was more reckless than Russell to be honest, he basically said come and get me by jumping like that with no regard for his own safety.

It must be all that pressure of knowing Priestland is on the bench!

Agreed.

Since when did Russell become stationary and Biggar jumped into him? Funny how people's memories can mess up in such a short space of time.

Just watch the video clip.