Player safety decisions

In the last couple of weeks, we've seen at least 5 card decisions for safety issues (the YC against France in the first NZ test, the two head collisions not given against NZ in the same test, the red card against France in the 2nd NZ test and the incident in the JRWC Final that resulted in a penalty but no card). There were also a few less serious incidents (e.g. the repeated penalties against Itoje in the 1st SA test).

In those 5 incidents, as far as I can see only one of them was correctly dealt with by the referee - the French red card in the 2nd test. I'm increasingly concerned that referees are not consistently enforcing laws designed to protect players.

OK, this is only an internet messageboard and we don't influence anything, but I'm interested to know if other fans see the same issue.

Poorfour,

I think there is an imbalance of referees full stop. Laws are reffed differently..breakdown laws etc etc.

It all needs to be addressed.

The French red card was overturned as Fall went for the ball

marty2086 wrote:The French red card was overturned as Fall went for the ball

Whilst the all black replacement was given a retrospective YC for illegal challenge in the 1st test. I am sure that France feel great that two such decisions have been overturned afterwards when they have no impact. Introduction of TMOs and video replays was meant to stop this sort of thing.

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:The French red card was overturned as Fall went for the ball

Whilst the all black replacement was given a retrospective YC for illegal challenge in the 1st test. I am sure that France feel great that two such decisions have been overturned afterwards when they have no impact. Introduction of TMOs and video replays was meant to stop this sort of thing.

You can't get every decision right every time, I've seen citing commissioners and citing panels get it wrong

Haven't heard the ref mic on the Fall decision but given Fall didn't jump much and still had one foot on the ground it's easy to see why the red was given as it looked lazy

There really.needs to be a set list that tmo s and refs go for. Ie for a challenge in the air was anyone blocking the chasing player and affecting the challenge. Then did the player leave the ground. Etc.at the moment it's a bit ad hoc at what they look at which leads to inconsistency.

So the one decision the OP says was correct was the one decision that was over-turned on review by World Rugby!

Our laws really are a muddle eh! This is why we can't complete with football as that is just a much much easier sport to watch and play!

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:The French red card was overturned as Fall went for the ball

Whilst the all black replacement was given a retrospective YC for illegal challenge in the 1st test. I am sure that France feel great that two such decisions have been overturned afterwards when they have no impact. Introduction of TMOs and video replays was meant to stop this sort of thing.

Similar to football...how did the Tunisians get away with two rugby tackles on Harry Kane last night.

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:The French red card was overturned as Fall went for the ball

Whilst the all black replacement was given a retrospective YC for illegal challenge in the 1st test. I am sure that France feel great that two such decisions have been overturned afterwards when they have no impact. Introduction of TMOs and video replays was meant to stop this sort of thing.

You can't get every decision right every time, I've seen citing commissioners and citing panels get it wrong

Haven't heard the ref mic on the Fall decision but given Fall didn't jump much and still had one foot on the ground it's easy to see why the red was given as it looked lazy

Yeah you know I'm surprised it was overturned as to the letter of the law it was red due to the way Barrett landed and both player were not in the air.

I thought they added clarity to this after the Jared Payne incident against Saracens, which I still don't agree with as the player jumped across his running line - this was different as Fall had time to check his run.

Rules are there to be followed, laws are there to be interpreted. Rugby has laws and each referee might well and often do have different interpretations, it's just the flawed, human part of the sport. IMO a player should not have to jump to be allowed to compete for the ball. Any player keeping their eye on the ball and getting themselves to where the ball will land should be in contention. Playing the player in the air is a different matter entirely and must be punished accordingly.

I agree with that but under the directives, if you make contact with a player in the air, accidental or otherwise you are responsible for bringing him/her to ground safely.

If they land on their shoulder or above it is straight red, the lack of consistency is bizarre.

I think the game has gone safety mad and just give discretion of the refs to decide if it is deliberate or not and use some common sense.

In that regard I wouldn't even give a penalty.

Whats the latest on the proposed rule that players are not allowed to jump to field a ball?

rodders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:The French red card was overturned as Fall went for the ball

Whilst the all black replacement was given a retrospective YC for illegal challenge in the 1st test. I am sure that France feel great that two such decisions have been overturned afterwards when they have no impact. Introduction of TMOs and video replays was meant to stop this sort of thing.

You can't get every decision right every time, I've seen citing commissioners and citing panels get it wrong

Haven't heard the ref mic on the Fall decision but given Fall didn't jump much and still had one foot on the ground it's easy to see why the red was given as it looked lazy

Yeah you know I'm surprised it was overturned as to the letter of the law it was red due to the way Barrett landed and both player were not in the air.

I thought they added clarity to this after the Jared Payne incident against Saracens, which I still don't agree with as the player jumped across his running line - this was different as Fall had time to check his run.

Actually the law is

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position

Fall went for the ball, only problem is that Barrett jumped over him. Think WR included mitigation due to an AB knocking Fall off his running line but he got his timing wrong so law says a penalty

rodders wrote:I agree with that but under the directives, if you make contact with a player in the air, accidental or otherwise you are responsible for bringing him/her to ground safely.

If they land on their shoulder or above it is straight red, the lack of consistency is bizarre.

I think the game has gone safety mad and just give discretion of the refs to  decide if it is deliberate or not and use some common sense.

In that regard I wouldn't even give a penalty.

One I was surprised was overlooked was Folau in the 1st test, he jumped for a high ball and put his foot out to block the on coming runner who I think was Earls and caught him in the chest

Saw a red given in Super Rugby not too long ago

marty2086 wrote:

rodders wrote:I agree with that but under the directives, if you make contact with a player in the air, accidental or otherwise you are responsible for bringing him/her to ground safely.

If they land on their shoulder or above it is straight red, the lack of consistency is bizarre.

I think the game has gone safety mad and just give discretion of the refs to  decide if it is deliberate or not and use some common sense.

In that regard I wouldn't even give a penalty.

One I was surprised was overlooked was Folau in the 1st test, he jumped for a high ball and put his foot out to block the on coming runner who I think was Earls and caught him in the chest

Saw a red given in Super Rugby not too long ago

Yeah a red was given to one of the big Fijian wingers for exactly that.
I do think that the player taking to the air in those congested areas has to sometimes accept some of the blame for what happens to him whilst there's only the laws of physics at play. As I said, if you're fielding a high ball is it now almost obligatory to take to the air or you'll risk being sent off. Perhaps they should look a little closer at dangerous aerial skills.

The rules are there to try and protect players - and that principle is laudable, as the last thing anyone wants is a tetraplegic player (which is the possible consequence of landing from a height on your head or neck) or repeated concussions from head impact. However the difficulty is policing them effectively - so that dangerous play is stopped or at least decreased. The thing I have a problem with in the taking a player out in the air is the importance given to the way the tackled player lands - when a more relevant factor should be intent. Surely it would be more important to discourage (by penalising) someone who takes an aerial player out by "deliberately" hitting them while they are in the air, rather than an accidental contact where the tackler is genuinely going for the ball rather than the man - yet the former could escape with a lesser sanction simply because the tackled player has his wits about him or has sufficient acrobatic ability to twist while falling so he lands on his arm or his back. An example from last weekend was the tackle on Kearney (I think) which resulted in the Australian yellow card - because Kearney put his arm down first - lesser sanction despite the tackle being a lot closer to a "piledriver" where he was lifted and then directed towards the ground head first. Yet Faul was red carded for what subsequently was decided to be an accidental contact - I'm not criticising the ref here as it was probably an understandable interpretation of what appeared to happen without detailed video analysis.

The problem with a lot of the aerial incidents (and no, not the Rod Hull sort) is determining who the challenger is in time. It seems that the person who jumps highest (and therefore is able to touch the ball first and lay claim to it) becomes the player in possession and the other person then becomes the challenger. So it seems to be related to who can jump highest. An exact same scenario, with the same two players later in the game, could be reversed and the 2nd player manages to jump highest and all of a sudden the first player is instead the challenger and has to get that person down to the floor safely. In reality I bet neither player is thinking about returning anyone to ground safely as they both intend to catch the ball and be the man in possession. So simply by jumping ability, or lack thereof, one could find themselves in a punishable situation that they probably do not know before making the jump. It’s such a difficult thing to predict. I understand and support the need for safety but if I’m running in for a high ball and I’m jumping against, for example, Dylan Hartley (I’m only 5’10” and about 12 stone) I have no way of knowing until the event has occurred whether I will jump highest and receive the ball. And neither will he. So it makes it very difficult, with us both airborne, to be able to decide in that split second when we jump who will end up the player who needs to bring the other down safely. And nigh on impossible to action when already off the ground!

It would be ridiculous to not allow jumping in the sport. It would be ridiculous to only allow the kicker to jump (imagine all of the cross field kicks to score tries in the in-goal area. They’d score every one!). I think the law needs to be looked at and to ask is it practical.

I always remember that whenever Lee Byrne jumped for the ball he'd always stick his leg out at a dangerous angle so nobody was able to challenge. Can't remember if the laws were different then (probably) as I never once saw him pinged for it. Thought it was dangerous back then, probably more so now.

Mr Bounce wrote:I always remember that whenever Lee Byrne jumped for the ball he'd always stick his leg out at a dangerous angle so nobody was able to challenge. Can't remember if the laws were different then (probably) as I never once saw him pinged for it. Thought it was dangerous back then, probably more so now.

Dangerous, but never led to any injuries as far as I remember. Whereas now, we’ve seen a lot of players competing equally for the ball and some players coming off worse and falling on their necks and getting injured. Hmmmm...... maybe Byrne was on to something!

The Oracle wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:I always remember that whenever Lee Byrne jumped for the ball he'd always stick his leg out at a dangerous angle so nobody was able to challenge. Can't remember if the laws were different then (probably) as I never once saw him pinged for it. Thought it was dangerous back then, probably more so now.

Dangerous, but never led to any injuries as far as I remember. Whereas now, we’ve seen a lot of players competing equally for the ball and some players coming off worse and falling on their necks and getting injured. Hmmmm...... maybe Byrne was on to something!

I think it lead to a trend of players doing this when jumping. And didn't a Scottish player knock out/get knocked out doing this?

marty2086 wrote:

rodders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:The French red card was overturned as Fall went for the ball

Whilst the all black replacement was given a retrospective YC for illegal challenge in the 1st test. I am sure that France feel great that two such decisions have been overturned afterwards when they have no impact. Introduction of TMOs and video replays was meant to stop this sort of thing.

You can't get every decision right every time, I've seen citing commissioners and citing panels get it wrong

Haven't heard the ref mic on the Fall decision but given Fall didn't jump much and still had one foot on the ground it's easy to see why the red was given as it looked lazy

Yeah you know I'm surprised it was overturned as to the letter of the law it was red due to the way Barrett landed and both player were not in the air.

I thought they added clarity to this after the Jared Payne incident against Saracens, which I still don't agree with as the player jumped across his running line - this was different as Fall had time to check his run.

Actually the law is

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position

Fall went for the ball, only problem is that Barrett jumped over him. Think WR included mitigation due to an AB knocking Fall off his running line but he got his timing wrong so law says a penalty

The referee's explanation was that Fall wasn't in a realistic position to be able to contest the ball. On the replay, his jump was so late and so token that it did look bad. The comparison with Payne is interesting as I think it's a very similar case. In both cases, both players were genuinely going for the ball, but Fall and Payne appear to have been targeting catching it further along its trajectory and didn't make enough allowance for the possibility that the opposing player might leap higher to get the ball earlier.

The onus is now on all players to consider what might happen and aim to play safely considering what other players might do. This is harder for the chasing player than the receiving one, because they are moving faster and it's harder to convert their forward momentum upward, so they will naturally target a lower catch. But if we are serious about player safety, they will have to learn to adapt - just as tacklers are having to learn to allow for the possibility that a player might fall into the tackle.

However, we will only get it right if referees are consistent, and they're not. Makes me wonder if there's an application for Hawk-Eye here. Could they project the movement of a human relative to the ball or another player as they do with the ball in cricket? Would we get better decisions if the ref and TMO had a graphic that shows whether the offending player actually had a realistic shot at the ball or would have made legal contact but for a slip?

yappysnap wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:I always remember that whenever Lee Byrne jumped for the ball he'd always stick his leg out at a dangerous angle so nobody was able to challenge. Can't remember if the laws were different then (probably) as I never once saw him pinged for it. Thought it was dangerous back then, probably more so now.

Dangerous, but never led to any injuries as far as I remember. Whereas now, we’ve seen a lot of players competing equally for the ball and some players coming off worse and falling on their necks and getting injured. Hmmmm...... maybe Byrne was on to something!

I think it lead to a trend of players doing this when jumping. And didn't a Scottish player knock out/get knocked out doing this?

He was knocked out and then yellow carded when he came to for a tackle in the air

I am pretty sure it was Geoff Cross and it was before Byrne used to jump as he did. I was under the impression that he started jumping like that after he was tipped.

Thought it was Southwell who got KO'd then carded. Always thought that the way Byrne jumped should have been penalised under the auspices of dangerous play - if you raised a foot like that in possession you'd be pinged, so why was it tolerated in the air?

At the time, rugby league fullbacks were using a technique of raising a knee while jumping to give them some space around the catch, but Byrne's technique was certainly more extreme.

Hmmmmm, I honestly couldn't tell you. Just a vague memory, so was basically just a guess

I've just looked. It was Cross. Southwell got a boot to his face and no yellow card seemingly.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/knocked-out-and-yellow-carded-for-my-troubles-i-ve-learned-from-a-nightmare-debut-1-1532320

Scots have a thing for blaming our players when their players commit a foul against ours. First it was Byrne, then it was Finn Russell on Biggar. Russell was lucky to escape with a YC at the time, can't remember if he was banned thereafter.