High-ball fielding in rugby

Thought I might start a thread here on peoples thoughts about the current fielding of high-balls in rugby, how is it ref'd and what changes could be made.

There are few better sights in rugby than a player fielding a garryowen. The anticipation and nerves of the crowd in the seconds before, waiting to see will the players mess it up, followed hopefully from a player taking the ball with authority and setting off the next attacking play of the game.

But can the current situation be left to remain as is? Collisions, inconsistent interpretations of the rules, player safety, et al has meant a lot of debate on this. Rugby fans, and 606v2 posters are passionate people and it usually decends into reaction/over-reaction of the natural bias of supporters in any particular scenario. Even if your team isn't in the incident being debated, subconsciously we all reference it back to a similar incident with our own team or nation where we were harshly treated or something was missed. Let's leave that for another thread.

I'd like to get peoples views on how we could improve the rules around fielding of high-ball.

Recently, the way refs ping players, its become a case of players making sure they are in the air prior to contact looking at the ball. That has resulted in two 100kg players, mid air, colliding with each other. But this makes things way more dangerous as you now have 2 unstable objects in the air. That is not sustainable either.

I understood the old premise that if you tackled a guy in the air (or lifted a player into the air) then you were responsible for bring him back to the ground safely.
I liked this premise, is there a way to refine it. Should this still stand but be modified so that it doesn't count for any player who choses to jump into the air? The fullback for example could still jump for the spectacular high-field and secure possession but they know doing so puts them at risk of injury and they don't have the cushion of getting a penalty if someone makes contact with them. How many would recklessly jump into situations? At the minute, the interpretation of the rules means a fullback has to leave the ground when fielding a ball (because it puts everything in his favour, win a penalty, relieve pressure, maybe have an opponent sent off). If he stays on his feet to field a ball he gets no protection (opposition will just plough into him).

Or do we take the rule that players can't jump for high-ball fielding, but can call for a fair-catch (a la nfl) where if they secure the ball the opposition can't give them a hosptialising hit (the penalty being a yellow card and penalty from where the ball was kicked). That way we don't have the mid-air collisions. The game kind of loses something with this option.

What do you think?

Worst injury that ever happened in a game I played in (badly fractured femur) occurred for a player jumping to catch a kick off and being run into (accidentally / carelessly) by one of my team mates. No malice and no attempt to tackle a player in the air, just one of those unfortunate things.

I think there is a distinct difference between lifting someone in the act of committing a tackle, where as the tackler you should have some reasonable control of the situation, and making contact with a player high in the air. I don't think that at the pace the modern professional game is played that a player on the ground can reasonably control how a player already in the air will fall after contact.

It's an issue I'm rather torn on - in an ideal world, I think the rules should say that players are not allowed to jump while receiving a kick (with the exception of restart kicks), but I think that is now probably unenforceable and also would result in the kick receiver getting their ribs rearranged on a regular basis. However, safety of the players in the air has to be a big issue.

If players are going to leap to catch kicks, it's much safer to have collisions between two players in mid air than one in the air and one on the ground - while both may lose balance, they are less likely to be tipped over into dangerous positions than when a player on the ground goes underneath them (e.g. the Daly red card).

I do feel that there is a flaw in the current interpretation of the laws, in that the severity of the sanction depends on the outcome of the contact, when that outcome is largely down to luck (same England v Argentina game, Johnny May was hit in the air but got a leg underneath him prior to hitting the ground - correctly to the letter of the Law given as a penalty kick only).

Clearly there must be some discretion on the part of the referee regarding the intent of a tackling player - heavy sanction for a case like Daly (or the Argentinian) who basically takes the legs out from under a player at the top of their leap through dangerous / reckless play (I think it's very rarely intentional, more a lack of awareness or misjudgement), down to a penalty only if a tackler is aiming to get the receiver as they land but just gets there a fraction early and no sanction if it is contact between two players both legitimately in the air competing for the ball..

I do think the refs should also be prepared to penalise players who jump in a reckless or dangerous manner - not something I've often seen, but there was the example of Lee Byrne and Hugo Southwell a few years ago where Byrne jumped with a leg extended and Southwell made contact with that leg. In that case I always thought that Byrne was exploiting the letter of the Laws excessively to draw the penalty and get Southwell sent off.

Codify it. only the recieving team can compete in the air, the kicking side can tackle once the player lands.

Gwlad wrote:Codify it. only the recieving team can compete in the air, the kicking side can tackle once the player lands.

Nice idea but stifles attacking option and is difficult to ref.

When does a garryown because a chip over the defense ?? - what level of trajectory ??? - will a ref need a sextant on the pitch ????

Easy, no jumping off the ground by either team to catch a kicked ball!

geoff999rugby wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Codify it. only the recieving team can compete in the air, the kicking side can tackle once the player lands.

Nice idea but stifles attacking option and is difficult to ref.

When does a garryown because a chip over the defense ?? - what level of trajectory ??? - will a ref need a sextant on the pitch ????

It does reduce the attacking options, but it's fairly easy to ref as the attacking team cannot jump, and takes one of the variables away.

A grubber will obviously not need to be jumped for and a chip over the top is normally kicked to land or caught on the run, so no need to jump their either. It's just the contestable "up-and-under" which will become less attractive, but if that forces teams to run rather than kick the ball 50m in the air, is that such a bad result?

Gwlad wrote:Codify it. only the recieving team can compete in the air, the kicking side can tackle once the player lands.

You have just killed a legitimate attacking option and as a consequence improved defences - the last thing we need

geoff999rugby wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Codify it. only the recieving team can compete in the air, the kicking side can tackle once the player lands.

You have just killed a legitimate attacking option and as a consequence improved defences - the last thing we need

Not sure about that. The ruck is dead now the attacking team just goes off their feet to protect the ball, very hard for defences. Don't agree with removing competition from the game though.

Competing in the air is all about 'occupying' or owning the space where the ball will be. If a rule specifically says that the chasing player (from the team that kicked) cant jump into the air then you are guaranteeing that there will be a more dangerous situation than 2 players competing fairly in the air.

A rule where both players are not allowed to jump into the air would be a fairer ruling.

However, there are far too many rule changes at the moment anyway so I would leave it as is for present.

propdavid_london wrote:
A rule where both players are not allowed to jump into the air would be a fairer ruling.  

Not being pedantic but define jumping

Is it just your feet leaving the ground? Do you have to go above a certain height? Is it an interpretative issue?