Refereeing decisions

[Scoey]

The law we are talking about 10.4 (i) relates to dangerous play of tackling a player in the air in either the lineout or general play. It specifically lists all types of contact (a player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball) so it doesn't have to be an attempted tackle. It basically covers any contact.

This is where we differ on our opinions. The specific section (10.4i) is entitled 'Tackling the jumper in the air'. If it were meant to apply to 'any contact' with a player in the air, it would be entitled 'Contacting the jumper in the air' or something similar. You can see why they didn't call it that though because every time a player jumped and was touched they would earn a penalty. This would remove any contest for the ball entirely. So they made it more specific so it was clear, the type of situation that it applied to.

It can be broken down further if you like. It lists four actions that a player must not do to another player in the air. Tackle, tap the feet, push the feet or pull the feet. Three are clearly deliberate actions and the fourth is somewhat subjective - tap the feet. All four actions relate to a player that is doing something other than contesting the ball.

 

[Scoey]

And making a valid attempt at the ball. In my mind if you are not leaving the ground around the same time you run the risk of a penalty

How is the validity of an attempt measured?

 

[D-Box]

How is the validity of an attempt measured?

Unfortunately interpretation. That is why we have fallible humans adjudicating rather than some form of AI that measures everything to the nth degree

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[Scoey]

Unfortunately interpretation. That is why we have fallible humans adjudicating rather than some form of AI that measures everything to the nth degree

Of course. But this is what it appears that Placid is being hung for so I was curious to see where you draw the line in the sand.

In a contest like this two outcomes are likely. One player will gain possession of the ball or neither player will gain possession. So if a player doesn't gain possession of the ball is it safe to say he didn't make a valid attempt? Does he need to reach a similar height as the higher of the two players jumping? Does he simply need to just jump regardless of whether he even gets close to the ball?

The point I'm trying to make is that none of these factors are mentioned in the laws of the game. There is no mention of whether (the potentially infringing) player is jumping or on the ground, there is no mention of whether they gain possession of the ball etc. What is covered in the laws is whether a player has tacked a jumper in the air. These factors aren't listed because they aren't relevant in the context of whether a sanction is warranted. As I said to BH above. I understand what you are saying but your argument isn't supported by the laws.

The incident didn't look pretty and was not ideal by any stretch of the imagination but people get hurt playing Rugby. Perhaps what has been highlighted is that the laws need slight modification? What is clear to me though, is that Placid did not break the laws of the game and should not have been penalised.

 

[Braveheart81]

Of course. But this is what it appears that Placid is being hung for so I was curious to see where you draw the line in the sand.

In a contest like this two outcomes are likely. One player will gain possession of the ball or neither player will gain possession. So if a player doesn't gain possession of the ball is it safe to say he didn't make a valid attempt? Does he need to reach a similar height as the higher of the two players jumping? Does he simply need to just jump regardless of whether he even gets close to the ball?

The point I'm trying to make is that none of these factors are mentioned in the laws of the game. There is no mention of whether (the potentially infringing) player is jumping or on the ground, there is no mention of whether they gain possession of the ball etc. What is covered in the laws is whether a player has tacked a jumper in the air. These factors aren't listed because they aren't relevant in the context of whether a sanction is warranted. As I said to BH above. I understand what you are saying but your argument isn't supported by the laws.

The incident didn't look pretty and was not ideal by any stretch of the imagination but people get hurt playing Rugby. Perhaps what has been highlighted is that the laws need slight modification? What is clear to me though, is that Placid did not break the laws of the game and should not have been penalised.

I think Placid specifically wasn't 'hung' for what happened. He was only penalised. If it had been deemed that he had taken Hayward out intentionally he would have received a yellow card.

The laws are designed to protect a player in the air. If Placid had also been in the air when the collision happened he probably wouldn't have been penalised even if he was still beaten to the ball comfortably.

The law we are talking about relates to tackling a player in the air in any situation. Clearly you can't push a competing jumper in the lineout under this law even though that is not an attempted tackle and is covered under this law.

I think that once a player has possession of the ball as Hayward did, any contact with them becomes tackle related regardless of whether the defender was intending to make a tackle or not.

There is definitely a level of interpretation here but that is common amongst most of the laws. Referees make judgements all the time as to whether things like late tackles were legitimate or illegal.

 

[EatSleepDrinkRuck]

What is clear to me though, is that Placid did not break the laws of the game and should not have been penalised.

Scoey - I sympathise with you but there's a bit of a logical fallacy.


You have stated that there needs to be clarity on the laws - because they are unclear.

Then you conclude that despite a lack of clarity, it is clear that he did not break the law.


You see how your already formed opinion on the unclear law has led you to take a narrow approach as to what conduct would be against these laws.

Whereas others, especially those vehemently arguing it is a terrible breach of the rules, have formed the opinion that its a penalty and then adopted a broad approach as to what conduct would be against these laws.

 

[Scoey]

I think Placid specifically wasn't 'hung' for what happened. He was only penalised. If it had been deemed that he had taken Hayward out intentionally he would have received a yellow card.

The laws are designed to protect a player in the air. If Placid had also been in the air when the collision happened he probably wouldn't have been penalised even if he was still beaten to the ball comfortably.

The law we are talking about relates to tackling a player in the air in any situation. Clearly you can't push a competing jumper in the lineout under this law even though that is not an attempted tackle and is covered under this law.

I think that once a player has possession of the ball as Hayward did, any contact with them becomes tackle related regardless of whether the defender was intending to make a tackle or not.

There is definitely a level of interpretation here but that is common amongst most of the laws. Referees make judgements all the time as to whether things like late tackles were legitimate or illegal.

My discussion with DBox had evolved form a position where a player in the air jumping over a stationary player was not protected by the laws of the game and that in that case the application of the same law would be distinctly different. I agree that generally the laws should and indeed do protect a player that is in the air but only from foul play. What Placid did, does not constitute foul play and the laws support this in my view.

Your earlier arguments almost completely hung on the fact that Placid failed to make an effective attempt at the contest, yet now you are saying that if he had been in the air, whether or not he was able to make an effective contest is irrelevant. I will say it again, that the laws make absolutely no mention on whether Placid needed to be in the air or not. This goes beyond interpretation.

I think that once a player has possession of the ball as Hayward did, any contact with them becomes tackle related regardless of whether the defender was intending to make a tackle or not.

This is absolutely absurd. Applying this means that 99% of all contests in the air are a 'tackling the player in the air' offences.

 

[Scoey]

Scoey - I sympathise with you but there's a bit of a logical fallacy.

You have stated that there needs to be clarity on the laws - because they are unclear.

Then you conclude that despite a lack of clarity, it is clear that he did not break the law.

You see how your already formed opinion on the unclear law has led you to take a narrow approach as to what conduct would be against these laws.

Whereas others, especially those vehemently arguing it is a terrible breach of the rules, have formed the opinion that its a penalty and then adopted a broad approach as to what conduct would be against these laws.

What I stated was that it was clear that Placid did not break the laws. I suggested (or tried to) that others may think that the law needs modification. For clarity - I think the laws are fine.

My opinion is based on what is written in the laws, I'm not sure how that makes my opinion 'narrow'.

Others have formed the opinion that what happened was a penalty and then set about going through the laws to try to adopt them to support this position. They have failed.

 

[dabiged]

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. Well mannered, civil arguments are what makes this forum so good!

I agree that generally the laws should and indeed do protect a player that is in the air but only from foul play. What Placid did, does not constitute foul play and the laws support this in my view.

Are you implying that foul play requires intent? Is it not possible that Placid was genuinely contesting the ball and inadvertently committed foul play? Not sure what the laws say in regard to intent or lack thereof.

 

[Lindommer]

On the other hand this well-mannered, civil argument's going around in circles. I can't see a consensus forming anytime soon.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

On Cottrell Yellow have a look at the reverse angle.

Clearly shows that he was using the arms but that the hit was so good the players just went back at a rate of nots meaning he couldnt wrap the arm shouldnt have been a penalty nor a yellow card.

 

[Slim 293]

This is where we differ on our opinions. The specific section (10.4i) is entitled 'Tackling the jumper in the air'. If it were meant to apply to 'any contact' with a player in the air, it would be entitled 'Contacting the jumper in the air' or something similar. You can see why they didn't call it that though because every time a player jumped and was touched they would earn a penalty. This would remove any contest for the ball entirely. So they made it more specific so it was clear, the type of situation that it applied to.

Actually, it says:

A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.

The point is you can't interfere with a player in the air.........

 

[Braveheart81]

On Cottrell Yellow have a look at the reverse angle.

Clearly shows that he was using the arms but that the hit was so good the players just went back at a rate of nots meaning he couldnt wrap the arm shouldnt have been a penalty nor a yellow card.

I agree with you.

The law in this case is that "a player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player."

The tackler only has to try and grasp the ball carrier. The position of Cottrell's right arm should have been sufficient for it to pass the threshold of trying to grasp the player he was tackling.

 

[Tip]

On Cottrell Yellow have a look at the reverse angle.

Clearly shows that he was using the arms but that the hit was so good the players just went back at a rate of nots meaning he couldnt wrap the arm shouldnt have been a penalty nor a yellow card.
View attachment 4613

I think you'll find if you do a full 180 on the angle of the photograph, Cotrell's other arm (his left, which just happens to be the shoulder that makes first contact) is no where near close enough to be considered legal. His left arm makes no attempt to wrap.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

I think you'll find if you do a full 180 on the angle of the photograph, Cotrell's other arm (his left, which just happens to be the shoulder that makes first contact) is no where near close enough to be considered legal. His left arm makes no attempt to wrap.

Your point?

It doesn't change the fact he was 'trying' to wrap the arm which means it shouldn't have been a penalty and be recognised as the bloody good hit it was


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChargerWA]

Cottrell's is also a matter of intent.

Did he intend to shoulder charge and try to disguise it with a soft grappling motion? Or did he actually intend to grasp the player and his shoulder just became the key point of contact and due to the force of the tackle his arms failed to grasp the tackled player?

I actually think his intent was stick the shoulder in and I thought the penalty was the right call. Yellow card was 50/50 because you can't be sure of his intent. But shoulder charges have been pretty close to stamped out these days and I don't mind them being tough in this instance.

But to the people trying to argue on a technicality that what Placid did shouldnt have been penalised, take off your rose coloured glasses. See above, its not illegal to admit when a player who plays for the team you support has done something worth penalising. The law quoted above clearly states you cant push the legs of a player in the air who has marked the ball. Placid's intent clearly wasn't to knock Haywards legs out from under him, which is why he was only penalised, not yellow carded.

 

[Tip]

If you watch this replay it's clear that Placid should not have been penalised.

Placid actually jumps for the ball, Hayward merely jumps earlier.

So all this debate about taking the players legs out in the air are null, since Placid does make an attempt to compete for the ball in the air. He just jumps into Haywards knee..

 

[Lindommer]

Placid's foot was on the ground at the time of contact, bloody careless. He looked as though he was GOING to jump but ran into Hayward. YC for mine.

 

[Slim 293]

Definitely a penalty at least.......

Careless.......

Marto is an idiot........

 

[Braveheart81]

Definitely a penalty at least...

Careless...

Marto is an idiot....

If it had been the other way around you could almost guarantee Marto would be calling it completely reckless and saying it warranted a card.