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.

In his defense it happened so quickly he hardly had time to react. Thats the problem with these incidents.



He did see Biggar before he turned around which is obviously why he turned around probably to protect himself which is understandable but and I dont completely agree it to be honest, previous rulings dictate that it is his duty to protect the guy in the air.

GunsGerms wrote:In his defense it happened so quickly he hardly had time to react. Thats the problem with these incidents.

It is undoubtely a problem area. I think there are very few instances of "intent" or "deliberate" foul play, so there always ends up being a discussion around whether the conduct was "reckless". From a practical perspective it's bordering on strict liability whenever a player in the air is touched by a player on the ground.

Pretty tricky for a ref, and for all the mistakes made by Jackson on the day, I don't think he did particularly badly with the Russell and JD2 incidents.

I think Russells options were limited. I'm not sure he had time to react.

The fact remains, it won't be long until someone is seriously hurt or worse. Simple rule change for me.

Jump to catch a high ball, penalty.

Jump to catch a high ball and injure yourself or someone else, red card.

Player safety has to come first. I think a yellow was harsh at the time. I think a citing is overkill.

I should add though that I think the citing is going too far (albeit I'm not surprised). The ref saw it on TV and dealt with it at the time.

I think it can almost be stated with certainly that it wasnt deliberate foul play so for me a red would have been harsh.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: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.

agreed. calling for a red card is pure bad sportsmanship, gatland im not at all surprised, but if Warburton also did it during the game im surprised, and disappointed.

If i saw a Scottish captain doing that id take the captaincy away. its not cricket

In the current interpretation of the rules, he was always going to get a yellow and it was marginal for a red. If the welsh player had landed worse than he did, he probably would have got one. He had to make that call to go for it or pull right out and unfortunately he did neither. There was no intent there but he tipped him nevertheless and it was dangerous. We have this same argument every time this happens, remember the Payne incident.

I don't have a problem with people jumping for the ball. It is a skill all modern rugby players need to learn and after watching the game on sunday, Scottish ones in particular, we were gash at it all afternoon. It is thrilling though and is one of the few times in rugby these days where there is a genuine one on one contest for the ball.

I am not surprised he got cited and he will be lucky if he plays against Italy. I don't think he will get a long ban, first offense and all that, but he is likely to get 2-3 weeks. The JD one was not as bad, but having given one, he had no choice but to give the other. I am not surprised he did not get cited. Hopefully yesterdays game will be a great learning opportunity for young Finn in many ways.

For all the indignant Scottish supporters out there, of which I am one, that incident did not lose us the game on its own. We made plenty more mistakes throughout the game and it was still quite winnable even after that.

alive555 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: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.

agreed. calling for a red card is pure bad sportsmanship, gatland im not at all surprised, but if Warburton also did it during the game im surprised, and disappointed.

If i saw a Scottish captain doing that id take the captaincy away. its not cricket

100% agree. The next step is rugby players waiving imaginary cards at the ref to get fellow players off the pitch. When that becomes the norm I'll stop watching.

If Warby got a red for the RWC semi then this could have been a red for the 'reckless' aspect of it but there was obviously no intent and no injury caused. A load of rubbish and we continue to destroy this game with over zealous post match scrutiny in slo mo which makes everything look 10x worse.

GunsGerms wrote:

reallybored wrote:

GunsGerms 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?

he was but he definitely looked at the Wales guy before the collision and after he glanced at him he turned his back. He should have tried to catch the Wales guy and bring him down safely.

Watch the clip, that image is a split-second before the contact.

In that split-second, you believe he should/could have caught, yes CAUGHT, a 90kg man with forward momentum and who's knees are at head height.  If you think that is even possible, you're mental.

If you watch the clip again you will see that he definitely looks at the Welsh guy before he spins around. There may not have been much he could do but by doing nothing at all he only had himself to blame based on the precedents out there. That isnt to say I think it was malicious or that I agree with such decisions but it is clear that he was aware of the guy flying through the air.

Not saying he doesn't but we're talking split-seconds here, it's a nature reaction to protect your head which is exactly what he does.

Watching the clip from the beginning, you can see that Russell doesn't take his eyes of the ball until a split-second before impact. The problem seems to be his positioning was wrong and as the ball is coming down he darts forward to get underneath it, which is why he hasn't jumped for it.

BigGee wrote:For all the indignant Scottish supporters out there, of which I am one, that incident did not lose us the game on its own. We made plenty more mistakes throughout the game and it was still quite winnable even after that.

Agree - looking back at the game with a cooler head, the two really key moments for me, entirely within our control, were the Dunbar/Bennett fluffed try in the first half, and Laidlaw not getting over the line right at the death of the first half.

14 points right there.

What does him 'looking at the Welsh guy' prove anyway. Of course he looked, he was about to get bombed by a flying Biggar, he then turns away and tries to protect himself from being kneed - we all know its coming right when we compete - Russell deserved a yellow, no more no less, end of. No intent and no injury.

GunsGerms wrote:I think it can almost be stated with certainly that it wasnt deliberate foul play so for me a red would have been harsh.

That is not the question being asked though. The answer to that will almost always be no, the question is was it reckless, which is far harder to answer.

Scotland were 7 shades of excrement yesterday on the high ball, that's not why I want it changed.

What if Biggar landed on his head and been seriously injured? A red card would have swung the match in Wales favour. The fans would be delighted.

Is any of that worth a young man potentially being paralyzed or worse? For a game?

You can still have the thrill of a one on one high ball chase and contest but keep the players feet on the ground, for their own safety.

reallybored wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

reallybored wrote:

GunsGerms 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?

he was but he definitely looked at the Wales guy before the collision and after he glanced at him he turned his back. He should have tried to catch the Wales guy and bring him down safely.

Watch the clip, that image is a split-second before the contact.

In that split-second, you believe he should/could have caught, yes CAUGHT, a 90kg man with forward momentum and who's knees are at head height.  If you think that is even possible, you're mental.

If you watch the clip again you will see that he definitely looks at the Welsh guy before he spins around. There may not have been much he could do but by doing nothing at all he only had himself to blame based on the precedents out there. That isnt to say I think it was malicious or that I agree with such decisions but it is clear that he was aware of the guy flying through the air.

Not saying he doesn't but we're talking split-seconds here, it's a nature reaction to protect your head which is exactly what he does.

Watching the clip from the beginning, you can see that Russell doesn't take his eyes of the ball until a split-second before impact. The problem seems to be his positioning was wrong and as the ball is coming down he darts forward to get underneath it, which is why he hasn't jumped for it.

so we all agree he was under the ball and not competing late. good !

so now imagine biggar hadn't caught the ball (which was very possible) and russell had. (he was right underneath the ball as you can see from the clip.). Biggar crashes into Russell at head height. Red card Biggar. almost 100pc.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Scotland were 7 shades of excrement yesterday on the high ball,  that's not why I want it changed.

What if Biggar landed on his head and been seriously injured?  A red card would have swung the match in Wales favour. The fans would be delighted.

Is any of that worth a young man potentially being paralyzed or worse?  For a game?

You can still have the thrill of a one on one high ball chase and contest but keep the players feet on the ground,  for their own safety.  

On that basis no one would hit a ruck or tackle hard. It's a contact sport.

Anyone who's played in the back 3 will tell you there are ways to handle this situation without taking the man out in the air. While Russell might not have intended for the outcome to be as bad as it was, to me he definitely intended to take the contact. Reckless play.

And the talk of taking jumping out of the game is rediculous. If we do that we might as well play touch rugby incase somebody gets hurt in a tackle.

If 2 players compete in the air for the same ball this sort of thing will inevitably happen. Ban high kicks immediately

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Scotland were 7 shades of excrement yesterday on the high ball,  that's not why I want it changed.

What if Biggar landed on his head and been seriously injured?  A red card would have swung the match in Wales favour. The fans would be delighted.

Is any of that worth a young man potentially being paralyzed or worse?  For a game?

You can still have the thrill of a one on one high ball chase and contest but keep the players feet on the ground,  for their own safety.  

To be fair, jumping for a high ball is just one of many ways a player can get seriously injured playing rugby. It is a contact sport and there will always be risks, good technique and some obvious safety rules should hopefully minimise the risks. We could be left with a very unexciting game to watch if we take to much out.The incidents we see with these professional players are far more spectacular than the ones you see in the local park, but they are also so much better conditioned to deal with it. I don't think there is that much wrong with the rules. Russell made a bad call, I bet it is a long time till he does it again.

Gwlad wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Scotland were 7 shades of excrement yesterday on the high ball,  that's not why I want it changed.

What if Biggar landed on his head and been seriously injured?  A red card would have swung the match in Wales favour. The fans would be delighted.

Is any of that worth a young man potentially being paralyzed or worse?  For a game?

You can still have the thrill of a one on one high ball chase and contest but keep the players feet on the ground,  for their own safety.  

On that basis no one would hit a ruck or tackle hard. It's a contact sport.  

I disagree, it is a contact sport. No one knows this better than me to be honest. I played for 15 years and have had a wide range of injuries.

Jumping for the ball presents an unnecessary risk that could be easily mitigated. It's the same reason jumping up/over/away from tackles.

Did Wales make the kick Biggar chased?

Yes, Biggar chased his own kick.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Scotland were 7 shades of excrement yesterday on the high ball,  that's not why I want it changed.

What if Biggar landed on his head and been seriously injured?  A red card would have swung the match in Wales favour. The fans would be delighted.

Is any of that worth a young man potentially being paralyzed or worse?  For a game?

You can still have the thrill of a one on one high ball chase and contest but keep the players feet on the ground,  for their own safety.  

On that basis no one would hit a ruck or tackle hard. It's a contact sport.  

I disagree,  it is a contact sport. No one knows this better than me to be honest.  I played for 15 years and have had a wide range of injuries.

Jumping for the ball presents an unnecessary risk that could be easily mitigated. It's the same reason jumping up/over/away from tackles.

agreed thats pure common sense. its only a matter of time before a serious injury occurs on an international pitch.
better ban jumping now its absolutely not worth it; might also encourage less kicking which is all good !!!

Biltong wrote:Did Wales make the kick Biggar chased?

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

CurlyOsp wrote:Yes, Biggar chased his own kick.

If I compare that to SA in November, we chased our kicks and the referee took the "safety issue" with the receiver every time. We got penalised 4 times and carded twice, even tough it was nowhere near full contact.

CurlyOsp wrote:Anyone who's played in the back 3 will tell you there are ways to handle this situation without taking the man out in the air. While Russell might not have intended for the outcome to be as bad as it was, to me he definitely intended to take the contact. Reckless play.

And the talk of taking jumping out of the game is rediculous. If we do that we might as well play touch rugby incase somebody gets hurt in a tackle.

Could not agree more. Finn Russell knew he was losing the contest for the ball, but tried to put Biggar off regardless, I very much doubt he wanted it to end up as it did, but it was reckless never the less, reckless play that could result in serious injury should be dealt with accordingly, a yellow was definite anybody saying otherwise are talking rubbish, it very well could have been a red for the recklessness of the situation, he knew what he was doing, and he could have easily prevented it, why didn't he jump for the ball ? Or jump out of the way ? It was reckless however you try to polish it.

Up and unders have always always been part of the game. Many a full back was laid out cold in the old days when you had to plant your feet to make a mark and the whole of the opposition was charging towards you. I can remember Finlay Calder laying out the Irish full back in the world cup many years ago. When the next high one went up he could see several balls coming down and unsurprisingly he missed. It was considered a relatively legitimate practice and made full back one of the bravest positions on the pitch. It still is!

If you are standing still and an 18 stone flanker is running straight at you, you are still risking serious injury. Taking out jumping is just going to change the context of how someone can get mashed!

Biltong wrote:

CurlyOsp wrote:Yes, Biggar chased his own kick.

If I compare that to SA in November, we chased our kicks and the referee took the "safety issue" with the receiver every time. We got penalised 4 times and carded twice, even tough it was nowhere near full contact.

I think they generally will favour the receiver and I think that is fine, they are the ones most at risk. Russell's problem was that he was not in position to receive the ball and he should have realised that.

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

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

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

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

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

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

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

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

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

Then how about Cuthbert, North or Banahan? I guess there should be no place for the little winger anymore? Every back 3 player will be 6'4+ favouring height over skill. There's another code of rugby for that kind of thing.

It's all getting somewhat theatrical.  The leaps are getting higher, the feet are rising higher and if physics were taken into account, the act of pulling your feet up - tucking your legs up - uses energy, cuts down slipstreaming and doesn't help much in achieveing the sought for height to collect a ball.  In any other sport that requires leaping high, you don't see players produce such a pronounced under-carriage fold-up as the rugby guys increasingly perfect.

So it isn't done to get height, and it isn't done to escape attention, it's done to catch out a challenger.  It's dangerous, it should be stamped out and it often looks pretty damn cheap.

So yes, continue to keep the game safe and continue to punish offenders who take players out in the air.  But also begin to warn players that raising themselves into very vulnerable positions is only looking for trouble and that the trouble they might get if they persist is a yellow or red of their own.

Isn't tucking your knees up and jumping into a player on the floor so your knees hit his head equally dangerous?

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

russell had both feet on the ground directly under the trajectory of the ball.

if biggar had missed the catch in the air and crashed into russell. id put my house it would have been a RED card for biggar.

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.

I don't know what the answer is guys. I'd rather see less kicking.

I just don't want to see to many more incidents like we saw on Sunday. Someone is bound to get hurt badly unless something is done.

Russell/Biggar and Beattie/JD are the tip of the iceberg. I seriously doubt any of the players I mentioned intended to injure, however accidents happen and surely we want a safer game.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't know what the answer is guys. I'd rather see less kicking.

I just don't want to see to many more incidents like we saw on Sunday. Someone is bound to get hurt badly unless something is done.

Russell/Biggar and Beattie/JD are the tip of the iceberg. I seriously doubt any of the players I mentioned intended to injure, however accidents happen and surely we want a safer game.

I find my self completely dumbstruck when i read this…..this is rugby, a contact sport, by definition unsafe. Lets remove jumping, tackling, scrummaging, kicking in the air. My god, are you actually serious, the game is totally screwed if we start along this route. When every pro player goes out to play he is not thinking safety. Lets all stay in bed and hold our manhoods instead, much safer.

Also, just in case the idea could be any more ridiculous, what do you think the injury rate would be if teams spent all day hoisting the ball up in the air, so that their back row could LITERALLY line up a player from 40 yards and have a free run at him knowing he'd just have to stand there like a f****n' lemon waiting to get destroyed??
Nobody would have a head left after 20 mins.
Think a few posters need to go through concussion protocols.

Gwlad wrote:
I find my self completely dumbstruck when i read this…..this is rugby, a contact sport, by definition unsafe. Lets remove jumping, tackling, scrummaging, kicking in the air. My god, are you actually serious, the game is totally screwed if we start along this route. When every pro player goes out to play he is not thinking safety. Lets all stay in bed and hold our manhoods instead, much safer.

Lately we have seen "low tackles" getting penalised on safety grounds, this is absolutely ridiculous and players like Lydiate might as well retire.

I have noticed the game becoming softer for the last 3-4 years, this must stop.

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.

https://youtu.be/AOW2r4i671I

How many times have you seen a run of the mill tackle,  ruck or scrum end up with this kind if impact? I could name a bundle of these incidents from just the last couple of seasons. Sorry Jared Payne I'm using you as an example.

No one is disputing rugby is a contact sport, but do you seriously believe this sort of thing is acceptable?

We don't want to see the game ruined with red cards and life changing injuries because of accidental collisions so let's simplify things.

Is it really so horrible to enforce players keep their feet on the ground when competing for the high ball?

I am not saying that the Biggar catch in the air was not dangerous. But i think it was an unfortunate accidcent.

Russell was going for the ball then suddenly realised he was not going to get the ball when he seen Biggar leaping in the air like some african Gazelle, and tried turn away from him(BIGGAR) that is.

Was it dangerous? YES I SUPPOSE.

Was it deliberate? NO I DON'T THINK SO.

Should jumping for the ball be banned? I don't think so. But the laws may need tweaking a little.

I don't really think the body shape of
The jumper would make that much difference, lineout jumpers go up straight, take their legs and they land on their head.

VinceWLB wrote:

Gwlad wrote:
I find my self completely dumbstruck when i read this…..this is rugby, a contact sport, by definition unsafe. Lets remove jumping, tackling, scrummaging, kicking in the air. My god, are you actually serious, the game is totally screwed if we start along this route. When every pro player goes out to play he is not thinking safety. Lets all stay in bed and hold our manhoods instead, much safer.

Lately we have seen "low tackles" getting penalised on safety grounds, this is absolutely ridiculous and players like Lydiate might as well retire.

I have noticed the game becoming softer for the last 3-4 years, this must stop.

Really? when? if so the game is done, mark my words

The ability to jump and catch a high ball is what makes the difference between a very good full back/winger to a world class one, you take that out of the game, you immediately hand the advantage to an inferior player, and take it off a superior player. If people do not like what they are watching in rugby then they should watch rugby league.

LordDowlais wrote:The ability to jump and catch a high ball is what makes the difference between a very good full back/winger to a world class one, you take that out of the game, you immediately hand the advantage to an inferior player, and take it off a superior player. If people do not like what they are watching in rugby then they should watch rugby league.

Why would I want to watch league? I'm trying to debate a rule change to protect players. The threat of cards doesn't seem to be enough to deter reckless acts or accidents.

Gwlad wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:

Gwlad wrote:
I find my self completely dumbstruck when i read this…..this is rugby, a contact sport, by definition unsafe. Lets remove jumping, tackling, scrummaging, kicking in the air. My god, are you actually serious, the game is totally screwed if we start along this route. When every pro player goes out to play he is not thinking safety. Lets all stay in bed and hold our manhoods instead, much safer.

Lately we have seen "low tackles" getting penalised on safety grounds, this is absolutely ridiculous and players like Lydiate might as well retire.

I have noticed the game becoming softer for the last 3-4 years, this must stop.

Really? when? if so the game is done, mark my words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-AMTycuv0

Coombs got penalised recently for the Dragons against Zebre, this is ridiculous

LordDowlais wrote:The ability to jump and catch a high ball is what makes the difference between a very good full back/winger to a world class one, you take that out of the game, you immediately hand the advantage to an inferior player, and take it off a superior player. If people do not like what they are watching in rugby then they should watch rugby league.

Yes, but should challengers in the opposition be forced to have a smoke as they wait for the in possession player to come down??

I mean, if people want fair contests all over the field in a fair but tough game not meant to appeal to softies..........then where do you draw the line?  

Surely that means that if you want to rise into the air to show your superiority, then the opposition have a right to 'compete' there to stop you - and that means attempting to rise with you in close proximity and at a risk to both players.  
But would that be considered a fair conclusion to the conundrum of allowing a player to rise into the air unopposed and allowing him time to come down on his own terms?  Is that not too 'softyish' an idea too for us rugged rugby men?

VinceWLB wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:

Gwlad wrote:
I find my self completely dumbstruck when i read this…..this is rugby, a contact sport, by definition unsafe. Lets remove jumping, tackling, scrummaging, kicking in the air. My god, are you actually serious, the game is totally screwed if we start along this route. When every pro player goes out to play he is not thinking safety. Lets all stay in bed and hold our manhoods instead, much safer.

Lately we have seen "low tackles" getting penalised on safety grounds, this is absolutely ridiculous and players like Lydiate might as well retire.

I have noticed the game becoming softer for the last 3-4 years, this must stop.

Really? when? if so the game is done, mark my words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-AMTycuv0

Coombs got penalised recently for the Dragons against Zebre, this is ridiculous

not using arms though Vince.