Vote on Contesting High Balls

Case 1: Is this a penalty only, yellow, red or no card offence ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDa9_1X7va0

Case 2: Is this a penalty only, yellow, red or no card offence ?

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

I will start this off by saying neither in my view should have been carded.

Biggar goes high at pace, Russell is stationary then sees Biggar and turns his back, he never runs into Biggar, Biggar runs into him.

Jonothan Davies though, does run into the Scottish player, and actively removes his legs from under him.

From an intent point of view Davies had more intent in removing the legs than Russell did, but because Biggar put himself into a position where it was more dangerous and therefor more pronounced when he hit the ground, the outroar was bigger.

If anything I would card Biggar for his behaviour towards the referee.

OK, combined the two polls. I will bin the other one.

I went yellow for first and red for second. Perhaps a little harsh but I felt that both probably deserved a card under my vague understanding of the laws but case 2 was worse and could have resulted in a nasty injury to the player's neck.

SO because Biggar jumped higher Russell has to pay for it?

Ridiculous.

Oh God. Another one.

Lord will think it's really getting personal now......

Two aspects to these questions - what should be the penalty under the current laws; and are those laws (or interpretations of the laws) right and fair?

No idea on the first; but in the second no, they are not. I don't mind competing for high balls, but if you do so in such a way as to potentially put another player who may be competing for the same ball in danger you should be penalised.

Biltong wrote:I will start this off by saying neither in my view should have been carded.

Biggar goes high at pace, Russell is stationary then sees Biggar and turns his back, he never runs into Biggar, Biggar runs into him.

Jonothan Davies though, does run into the Scottish player, and actively removes his legs from under him.

From an intent point of view Davies had more intent in removing the legs than Russell did, but because Biggar put himself into a position where it was more dangerous and therefor more pronounced when he hit the ground, the outroar was bigger.

If anything I would card Biggar for his behaviour towards the referee.

Davies doesn't remove the legs from him. He contacts the upper body. Russell's was more dangerous because he took the legs from beneath Biggar. And with the laws as they are, Russell is the one who has got himself in the bad position and could have caused a serious injuy. Yellow for Finn, penalty against JD.

No Bilt, that wasn't the drive of my reasoning.. When I watched the incident during the match I felt that it was obvious Biggar was getting there first and that Russell realised that late and just protected himself rather than acting in a way that could have protected them both. This resulted in Biggar going off horizontal and landing on his head/neck. Like I said perhaps I was a bit harsh but I feel the Biggar incident was more dangerous. It's interesting how this aspect of the game is seen so differently by people.

Biltong wrote:Jonothan Davies though, does run into the Scottish player, and actively removes his legs from under him.

From an intent point of view Davies had more intent in removing the legs than Russell did, but because Biggar put himself into a position where it was more dangerous and therefor more pronounced when he hit the ground, the outroar was bigger.

I've never seen a person remove someones legs from under them via a pat on the chest before

Biltong wrote:I will start this off by saying neither in my view should have been carded.

Biggar goes high at pace, Russell is stationary then sees Biggar and turns his back, he never runs into Biggar, Biggar runs into him.

Jonothan Davies though, does run into the Scottish player, and actively removes his legs from under him.

From an intent point of view Davies had more intent in removing the legs than Russell did, but because Biggar put himself into a position where it was more dangerous and therefor more pronounced when he hit the ground, the outroar was bigger.

If anything I would card Biggar for his behaviour towards the referee.

Biltong, I totally disagree, it is not totally obvious from those angles, but it has been shown that Davies was nudged by Lamont into the other player.
As for Biggar, I've kept out of the other discussions about this episode because he is one of our players (Ospreys) and have obvious bias, from when Biggar kicks the ball and he finally hits Russell he has travelled a lot further than Russell, who obviously has had the opportunity to jump but didn't, if he had, this debate wouldn't have occurred, this law is as it is now Russell has a duty of care, he didn't.
As for him receiving a card for talking to the referee, I don't think it has been brought up in the context of, basically the same thing happened to him in the very same match LAST YEAR, and this silly boy hasn't learned the lesson of that time, I doubt if anybody who has commented on here, would have done anything different.
I know I would have done exactly the same thing, he deserved (Russell) at least a yellow, and as far as I'm concerned that was enough and deserved to be cited so that the heat is taken out of it and is now viewed impartially and hopefully left at just that.

Sorry Bilt but Finn was moving towards the ball not stationary, so yellow for him. If he had been stationary(feet planted) before Biggar jumped then yellow to Biggar. Penalty for JD as didnt get near ball but in air so less likely to tip player.

Yellow cards all round. By the letter of the law these are both yellows, that's why I want the law changed.

Surely by current laws the Russell one is a red.

I am not saying I agree that it deserves one, just that the Laws and directive indicate that it should receive a red.

From what I've seen in the game of rugby this year, the first one (JD) was not a card as he was clearly pushed by a Scottish player. Davies should have asked Jackson to confer with the TMO and check that one and if he did they probably would have played on. In the first game of the season (Glasgow vs Leinster) Harely had supposedly took out a Leinster player which was picked up by the touch judge. He said he was pushed by a Leinster player so Owens went to the TMO and reviewed it - result was play on, but could have been a penalty or yellow card had it not been checked. Everyone was praising the decision at the time. If JD hadn't been pushed then yeah I'd say it's a yellow, based on the card that the SA player got when we played them in November - I only think the first challenge by Etzebeth was reckless, not the second one which received a yellow card.

As I've said elsewhere at the time I think the Russell incident should have been red. He didn't have any malicious intent but it was just reckless play. Warburton didn't have any malicious intent at the RWC in 2011, but by the letter of the law a red card was the correct decision. Same with this really, except the Scottish aren't getting shouted down by posters of rival teams for banging on about it. Looking back, Russell actually did stop because he had realised it was dangerous position to be in, so I accept the yellow. But still reckless play is reckless play.

I'm casting no vote, as I said since before the Wales vs SA game this is becoming a greyer area and it needs a review.

Biltong wrote:

If anything I would card Biggar for his behaviour towards the referee.

Why, what did he do?

The Saint wrote:

Biltong wrote:

If anything I would card Biggar for his behaviour towards the referee.

Why, what did he do?

He went into a rant and demanded a redcard, he is quoted on the other thread

Biltong wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Biltong wrote:

If anything I would card Biggar for his behaviour towards the referee.

Why, what did he do?

He went into a rant and demanded a redcard, he is quoted on the other thread

Watch the replay Biltong. That did not happen. He slapped the ground with his hand in frustration, but that was it. I believe captain Warburton may have spoken to the ref about a red card. Certainly no rant though, just a word in his ear asking if, by the letter of the law, that should be a red. All captains do this nowadays, like it or not.

Just watched it again. He hits the ground neck first, rolls over, slaps the ground in frustration/anger, gets up and walks back and a physio runs to him to see if he needs treatment. Where is the rant???

Griff, Warbs mentioned red card, I just posted this on the other thread. What you say is true, so it's unlikely that Biggar demanded a red card as some posters are claiming. If some heard him and quoted him word for word, I'm impressed with their superman hearing to put it lightly.

Biltong, Biggar used to have a habit for similar behaviour but he's a bit more laid back these days. If you were in charge he'd have got a lot of cards by now. I think in this situation, anyone's split-second reaction would be anger and frustration. Interesting you think he should have had a red card and that you're a Springbok fan though...

I'm sure there'll be clear cut evidence soon. Biggar must've done what has been suggested though, as our impartial Scottish friends said so.

Biltong, you are taking what somebody apparently heard on a ref mic as gospel? I'm not disputing that Biggar did do it (as I know he had a rep for giving refs both barrels), but it might be better to see some real proof of this before people are so quick to criticise.

Just watch the clip above. A 'rant' involves arm waving, possibly swearing, aggressive behaviour, etc. There is none of that.

Post by jimbopip Today at 3:14 pm

Biltong wrote:
Did Biggar and Warburton really ask the referee to issue a Red Card?

Sadly, yes. I had bought the ref mike thing for young Pipetto but he couldn't follow what was being said so he gave it to me. The ball had gone out and Biggar walked along behind the ref giving him a diatribe, the gist of which was to attempt to intimidate the ref into giving a red . "Does he have to break my neck before you give a red card? That kind of tackle is ridiculous at international level. It's got to be a red , do you want my neck to get broken?" It reminded me very much of Don Revie's Leeds United and the way they were coached to browbeat referees and thereby influence the subsequent decisions. It was the only really unsavoury moment in an otherwise very enjoyable day. As I've said elsewhere it was a great day out, the Welsh fans were a smashing lot and young Pipetto had a fantastic match for his first outing. Yes Glenda Jackson made some howlers and Clownshoes Clancy continues his anti-Scottish vendetta but the result isn't that important 6 Nations rugby is, and always should be, about the celebration of our wonderful game.
However, behaviour like Biggar's musn't be tolerated.

p.s. Doc Grey thanks for the strength, good JuJu always appreciated.

Where on Earth does he get the chance to say all that. The clip clearly shows him walking away from the incident very quickly and then a melee starts, which he's far away from.

I don't see when he had the chance to do/say that either, but can check the full highlights (if any) to see. Biggar has a point with this one though. If he wasn't Welsh people wouldn't still be discussing it.

I went for penalty for Davies (I've seen nothing that says all contact in the air should be a card and I can't imagine less contact and the guy landed on his feet (unbalanced)). Went for Red for Russell as it fits the exact definition of a red for this type of instance (just like Warburton did in 2011). You may dislike the way it's done but it's exactly how the IRB want it done.

The Saint wrote:I don't see when he had the chance to do/say that either, but can check the full highlights (if any) to see. Biggar has a point with this one though. If he wasn't Welsh people wouldn't still be discussing it.

Saint, that is utter nonsense, you are too sensitive, even though I cannot speak for others, the fact that Biggar is Welsh has nothing to do with my viewpoint.

What irks me about this particular scenario is that according to the citing and card that has been dished out, the judiciary committee effectively completely exonirates the jumper and puts all the blame on the player that has not jumped.

In November Kearney takes Willie le Roux out and is only penalised, ten minutes later we get carded for the same play.

The inconstancy in this type of ruling is absolute BS. No consideration is given to the fact that two players are going for the same ball, the worse you fall, the worse the penalty.

Depending of course on which team is playing as well.

The simple fact is if you have two vectors, AB and CB, they will meet at point B, collisions are going to happen.

Weren't the Boks carded for repeat infringements (and in his case that means second, I think).

Biltong from what I've been reading on here two players made distasteful celebrations on sunday (which I didn't pay attention to at the time), one from each team. Yet only the Welsh player gets slagged off, work that one out. Never mind all the other incorrect decisions benefitting SCOTLAND being brushed under the rug, but we've moved onto this contesting high ball subject now.

I agree it's a consistent area though, one of many in the game. What can you do? Moaning and slagging off welsh players (not saying you are) is probably not going to resolve anything. With these high ball contests both players need to challenge properly, the best way to do this is by jumping for the high ball because the laws protect the player in the air, and you have a greater chance of getting the ball.

HammerofThunor wrote:Weren't the Boks carded for repeat infringements (and in his case that means second, I think).

Both teams had a couple of penalties at that stage, repeat infringement doesn't cut it as a justifiable card, sorry.

We got another card in our next match where Cornal Hendricks jumped for the ball, got his finger stuck in the sleeve of the opposing player and again the opposing player fell badly enough.

I find it saddening and frustrating, I sincerely hope Meyer tells his players to fall their asses of in the world cup every time they challenge in the air. But that will probably still get us carded.

The Saint wrote:Biltong from what I've been reading on here two players made distasteful celebrations on sunday (which I didn't pay attention to at the time), one from each team. Yet only the Welsh player gets slagged off, work that one out. Never mind all the other incorrect decisions benefitting SCOTLAND being brushed under the rug, but we've moved onto this contesting high ball subject now.

I agree it's a consistent area though, one of many in the game. What can you do? Moaning and slagging off welsh players (not saying you are) is probably not going to resolve anything. With these high ball contests both players need to challenge properly, the best way to do this is by jumping for the high ball because the laws protect the player in the air, and you have a greater chance of getting the ball.

Saint I wasn't one of them, in fact I don't pay much attention to how players act after they score a try. I will admit that there is quite a bit of this and that spite after the match on here.

If a defending player touches a scoring swandive player, who is obviously dangerously aloft................... is it yellow, red or a glass of champagne for the defender?

Poll.

SecretFly wrote:If a defending player touches a scoring swandive player, who is obviously dangerously aloft................... is it yellow, red or a glass of champagne for the defender?

Poll.

Probably all three, depending on the referee of course.

SecretFly wrote:If a defending player touches a scoring swandive player, who is obviously dangerously aloft................... is it yellow, red or a glass of champagne for the defender?

Poll.

Depends how they fall. If they land on their neck or head it's a red.

No exemptions for offender for over-zealous artistry from victim?

God, I don't know what honest, decent rugby is coming to when you can't Splat a Splash in good faith.

Personally I think that case 1 he genuinely contested for the ball and was pushed by another player so play on, but wasnt surprised by yellow. Case 2 I dont think its that bad but he didnt contest just basically protected himself and caused a take out of man in the air so has to be yellow at least really. Even though unintentional it also was a lot more dangerous a take out. Would have been a harsh red but wouldnt have been totally surprised if been shown. Both were unfortunate not malicious. As a supporter of either side I wouldnt have much complaint with either yellow.

Intent might not be there but by now, after many year or this, if a player chases after a high ball and does NOT look whats in front of him then he deserves a card.

I voted "play on" for case one, I would have voted the same for case two, but I wasnt allowed.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I voted "play on" for case one, I would have voted the same for case two, but I wasnt allowed.

for some reason it looks like it won't allow another option?

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I voted "play on" for case one, I would have voted the same for case two, but I wasnt allowed.

for some reason it looks like it won't allow another option?

also both votes combined add up to 100pc. that's why It was separated as 2 votes in the first place

nvm we get the gist !