PDA

View Full Version : [Law] George North - taken in the air



didds
04-12-16, 19:12
More showing the stupidity of this taken in the air sanction stuff.

http://sport.bt.com/video-01363814401986?videoid=5234656867001&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral



north land on his side.

Nano seconds later his head then wobbles and hits the ground. He is unconcious.

yellow card because the impact wasn't his head. Initially anyway.

didds

The Fat
04-12-16, 19:12
That is a concern for North.
He has been knocked unconscious before

Ian_Cook
04-12-16, 19:12
More showing the stupidity of this taken in the air sanction stuff.

http://sport.bt.com/video-01363814401986?videoid=5234656867001&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral



north land on his side.

Nano seconds later his head then wobbles and hits the ground. He is unconcious.

yellow card because the impact wasn't his head. Initially anyway.

didds

For those who cannot get the video to play..


http://vod.cms.download.performgroup.com/PRTV_Highlights/1425/LEI-V-NOR-prtv-1_1480799164647_1425.mp4

(Click on the start in the bottom left. The relevant action begins about 2:10


Yet another example of the plainly ridiculous way this Law is being interpreted.

How on earth is he supposed to predict that North will jump for the ball. If he does what he did, he gets YC. If he does nothing and leaves North alone, and North doesn't jump, then North scores in the corner. This is a no-win situation for Thomstone.

ctrainor
04-12-16, 22:12
Forget the incident. What a disgrace that a player who was clearly unconscious or pretended to be unconscious to get a red card was allowed back on the field.
Northampton should be investigated.

didds
04-12-16, 22:12
Forget the incident. What a disgrace that a player who was clearly unconscious or pretended to be unconscious to get a red card was allowed back on the field.
Northampton should be investigated.


that is totally bang on too!

didds

Camquin
04-12-16, 23:12
Should the ref have let him back onto the pitch?
Having seen the footage, should next weeks' ref let him start?

The Fat
04-12-16, 23:12
If North's lights were out, he should not have come back

Pinky
04-12-16, 23:12
When I first saw it, it looked almost like he was trying to hurdle the tackle.

He appeared to be knocked out, so how any responsible person can consider that he is not concussed after that (unless he confesses to faking it) I don't know. I feel really sorry for GN as he has had a number of head knocks in recent time and this must surely be threatening to limit his career.

SimonSmith
05-12-16, 01:12
He underwent HIA and was allowed back.

The press reports I have seen state that he was not KO; he felt a pain in his neck and so didn't move until the medical team had assessed him.

I've also read the write up about how he suffered with his last round - the speech defect thing rang true to me because that was what happened to me.

I'd be very surprised if North was that kind of dumb.

Guyseep
05-12-16, 14:12
For those who cannot get the video to play..


http://vod.cms.download.performgroup.com/PRTV_Highlights/1425/LEI-V-NOR-prtv-1_1480799164647_1425.mp4

(Click on the start in the bottom left. The relevant action begins about 2:10


Yet another example of the plainly ridiculous way this Law is being interpreted.

How on earth is he supposed to predict that North will jump for the ball. If he does what he did, he gets YC. If he does nothing and leaves North alone, and North doesn't jump, then North scores in the corner. This is a no-win situation for Thomstone.

Agree 100%.

There seems to be a massive disconnect between the people making decisions(World Rugby), the Refs, players and fans. Common sense has gone out the window and everything is being broken down to pedantic little details.

When talking about influencing the referee, this is a perfect example. Everyone sees North jump and the ensuing half tackle and Norths fall. Fans become outraged, North's teammates react as well. Now under all that the Ref has to make a decision.

Players are asked to make split second decisions while also acting on instinct. Instinct dictates that they want to stop the opposition, while they also have to factor in all aspects of the game while almost instantly having to act.

We then proceed to slow everything down and spend minutes reviewing the action and every little detail. Look at it at full speed, annd look at the totality of the situation. At most I would give a penalty for a reckless tackle, especially when considering that North is equally responsible for putting himself in that situation.

Guyseep
05-12-16, 15:12
Furthermore, lets extend the absurdity of how the law was applied in this case to something similar.

Assume a hospital pass is made to a player (ie the ball was passed high above their head). They now need to reach up to catch the ball, exposing their entire body and leaving them in a vulnerable position. The opposing player can now line them up and give them a thundering tackle to the mid section. The result is a broken rib, a concussion etc.

The attacking player and his team mate have put him in this vulnerable position, the defending player is reacting to it almost instantly. The result is serious injury.

Do we penalize this?

DocY
05-12-16, 15:12
I'd be very surprised if North was that kind of dumb.

Well he has had a lot of bangs on the head!

But in all seriousness - the medics know what they're doing and will err on the side of caution, particularly since they would have seen the incident and know his history.

Sure, if it happened in a lower level game, he wouldn't be allowed to carry on

I see walesonline has been stirring even more saying that it will be investigated independently. Every HIA is investigated independently!

Guyseep
05-12-16, 15:12
Well he has had a lot of bangs on the head!

But in all seriousness - the medics know what they're doing and will err on the side of caution, particularly since they would have seen the incident and know his history.

Sure, if it happened in a lower level game, he wouldn't be allowed to carry on

I see walesonline has been stirring even more saying that it will be investigated independently. Every HIA is investigated independently!


While I agree the medics are qualified and skilled at what they do, I wouldn't depreciate the amount of pressure that comes from coaches etc to get the player back out there. The true effects and consequences of concussion and head knocks are not fully known yet. Granted they are much better understood than say five years ago, but there is still a long way to go.

If someone is knocked out they should not be allowed to re-enter the game for any reason and they should not be allowed to return to training or subsequent games until they have received the necessary scans from an independent doctor.

talbazar
05-12-16, 16:12
:chin:
I might go on a limb here, but, would anyone think PK against North for putting himself in danger by jumping in the tackle?

The above is damn serious.

The bellow a bit less... But still, I wouldn't argue with a YC to North for putting himself and Thomstone in danger.

Let's go one step further:
:noyc: YC for North for attempting to knee Thomstone in the face

One step further yet again:
:norc: RC for North for making dangerous contact with Thomstone's head (with his hipbone)


As a side note, JPD says that he's giving a action because Thomstone "played him in the air". In other words (but that purely hypothetical), JPD might have played on if Thomstone didn't put his arm out.
Would you think so?

DocY
05-12-16, 17:12
:chin:
I might go on a limb here, but, would anyone think PK against North for putting himself in danger by jumping in the tackle?

The above is damn serious.

The bellow a bit less... But still, I wouldn't argue with a YC to North for putting himself and Thomstone in danger.

Let's go one step further:
:noyc: YC for North for attempting to knee Thomstone in the face

One step further yet again:
:norc: RC for North for making dangerous contact with Thomstone's head (with his hipbone)


As a side note, JPD says that he's giving a action because Thomstone "played him in the air". In other words (but that purely hypothetical), JPD might have played on if Thomstone didn't put his arm out.
Would you think so?

If your point was to illustrate that the current handling of these situations is borderline farcical, then I agree, but I really hope we don't get into the situation where the powers that be start saying jumpers must be penalised, though I wouldn't put it past them.

I'm of the view that if players want to be reckless with their own health, they're welcome to be so. If not, we'd start penalising players getting their heads on the wrong side in tackles for a start.

As for your other examples, this is no different to if both players were on the ground and Thomstone was attempting a tackle - a hip or knee to the head here is to be expected.

In the current climate, I doubt the arm out made any difference.

OB..
05-12-16, 17:12
This was an unusual case. Thompstone ran back to collect the ball. It bounced back over him and he turned to follow it. He had no chance to size up the situation beforehand. In hindsight his best option was probably to wait for North to catch or land, but I don't think the scenario is one that should be included in any laws about jumping for the ball. The referee should have some element of discretion.

At least the "outcome driven" approach this time only resulted in a YC.

crossref
05-12-16, 17:12
it would have been interesting if Thompstone had no had time to turn, and had his back to North - would he still have received a YC?

didds
05-12-16, 17:12
that's an excellent question CR.,.. under the current protocols presumably he would.

a card for not even being aware he was about to be clattered.

potentially a RC to boot.

Winner.

didds

DocY
05-12-16, 17:12
it would have been interesting if Thompstone had no had time to turn, and had his back to North - would he still have received a YC?

I expect so. In fact, I look forward to a high profile situation like you describe - I think that's what it will take for common sense to re-assert itself.

irishref
05-12-16, 18:12
Even though I'm of the opinion that George North was equally as culpable for jumping into a tackle, Thomston should not have carried on the tackling motion as he did. I think yellow is a fair enough call but the scant explanation given by the ref to the player doesn't encapsulate the "victim"'s role in the incident.

I would have considered a YC for the Northampton Scrum-Half for running in from a distance to cause the flare up that ensued.

Pegleg
05-12-16, 23:12
Forget the incident. What a disgrace that a player who was clearly unconscious or pretended to be unconscious to get a red card was allowed back on the field.
Northampton should be investigated.

That comment is out of order!

SimonSmith
06-12-16, 01:12
Tempted to agree.

North said that he was immobile because he had neck pain and didn't want to do anything to risk further damage sans medical attention, which seems fair enough to me. I don't think any of us were close enough to competently gainsay him

Ian_Cook
06-12-16, 03:12
that's an excellent question CR.,.. under the current protocols presumably he would.

a card for not even being aware he was about to be clattered.

potentially a RC to boot.

Winner.

didds


"A player is not entitled to run around the pitch without taking into account where other players are"
-OB..

"tongue in cheek" smiley here]

Sorry OB.., I just couldn't resist that one!!

Ian_Cook
06-12-16, 04:12
Even though I'm of the opinion that George North was equally as culpable for jumping into a tackle, Thomston should not have carried on the tackling motion as he did. I think yellow is a fair enough call but the scant explanation given by the ref to the player doesn't encapsulate the "victim"'s role in the incident.

Forget the slo-mo irishref and have a look at it in full speed.

Let me give you a clue..

...from the moment North's feet left the ground to the moment he impacted Thomstone, was THREE frames of video (which runs at 30 frames per second). You are asking Thomstone to see the danger, react to it and decide not to "carry on the tackling motion", in 1/10th of a second; less than half the average reaction time of a US Navy Top Gun fighter pilot!

Now, tell me if you honestly believe that Thomstone had any chance to change his mind after North Jumped

talbazar
06-12-16, 15:12
If your point was to illustrate that the current handling of these situations is borderline farcical, then I agree, but I really hope we don't get into the situation where the powers that be start saying jumpers must be penalised, though I wouldn't put it past them.

Yup, my point exactly.
If you look at the timing of North's jump, he's reacting to the ball's bounce and the pace of his own arrival.
It looks like he's got the choice between raising his arms, catching the ball and giving his ribs to what can potentially become the hardest hit of the game.
Or
Jumping and hoping to protect himself by the law, by his knee or by any other mean possible (I will not assume anything here)



I'm of the view that if players want to be reckless with their own health, they're welcome to be so. If not, we'd start penalising players getting their heads on the wrong side in tackles for a start.

Well, I disagree with that. That's why we can order a player off the playing area. That why we can order uncontested scrums, that's why we can order a player that always put his head on the wrong side in the tackle off the park if we believe he (and his coach) are putting his health in danger.



As for your other examples, this is no different to if both players were on the ground and Thomstone was attempting a tackle - a hip or knee to the head here is to be expected.
Fair comment and I agree with you. The post was purposely extravagant :)
What if he jumps knee first?
What if he jumps foot first?
In real life, the sacrosanct player in the air can infringe as much as anyone else.


it would have been interesting if Thompstone had no had time to turn, and had his back to North - would he still have received a YC?

In the current climate, I doubt the arm out made any difference.

Exactly my point about how the ref mentions the "arm" and the "playing in the air".
Which seems to tell me that would not have given a YC if Thomstone didn't have time to turn around.
It doesn't mean another ref wouldn't have. Nor that WR directive would dictate to give



Forget the slo-mo irishref and have a look at it in full speed.

Let me give you a clue..

...from the moment North's feet left the ground to the moment he impacted Thomstone, was THREE frames of video (which runs at 30 frames per second). You are asking Thomstone to see the danger, react to it and decide not to "carry on the tackling motion", in 1/10th of a second; less than half the average reaction time of a US Navy Top Gun fighter pilot!

Now, tell me if you honestly believe that Thomstone had any chance to change his mind after North Jumped

Even though I'm of the opinion that George North was equally as culpable for jumping into a tackle, Thomston should not have carried on the tackling motion as he did. I think yellow is a fair enough call but the scant explanation given by the ref to the player doesn't encapsulate the "victim"'s role in the incident.
That's the ref's point of view (about the "Carrying out the tackling motion") but I'm with Ian here. It's a bit like giving a penalty for late tackle because this happens just after the pass has gone.
He's committed, play on.




I would have considered a YC for the Northampton Scrum-Half for running in from a distance to cause the flare up that ensued.

I'm with you here.
I would consider too...
Btw IrishRef, you're not in France anymore?

didds
06-12-16, 16:12
Yup, my point exactly.
Well, I disagree with that. That's why we can order a player off the playing area. That why we can order uncontested scrums, that's why we can order a player that always put his head on the wrong side in the tackle off the park if we believe he (and his coach) are putting his health in danger.

I do actually agree with talbazar overall, but I do have to then also ask if that is the case how the hell is Leigh Halfpenny still on the pitch when he plays ?

didds

winchesterref
06-12-16, 17:12
His body had the characteristic limpness that you often see with a loss of consciousness. I'm suspicious.

Now this:
https://www.ruck.co.uk/northampton-saints-stand-george-north-assessment/

didds
06-12-16, 17:12
The press reports I have seen state that he was not KO; he felt a pain in his neck and so didn't move until the medical team had assessed him.


have you any lonks for those reports Simon... I'm being cvalled out elsewhere for suggesting "I read it somewhere" ie he felt a pain in the neck etc"

cheers

didds

didds
06-12-16, 18:12
s'ok - found plenty with a google!

stand down :-)

didds

winchesterref
06-12-16, 23:12
Urgent review to be held

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38227807

Maybe he was knocked out

Camquin
06-12-16, 23:12
It is a complete bugg*r's muddle.
A HIA should need to find conclusive evidence that the player is safe to go back on.
If it lacks that evidence - surely the player should always stay off for safety.

If the laws are not written that way, someone is leaving themselves open for a large compensation claim.

crossref
07-12-16, 00:12
Of course he was knocked out
I can quite easily believe he told the medics he hadn't been, and he was ok to play. That's what concussed players do, everyone knows that

Not Kurt Weaver
07-12-16, 02:12
Of course he was knocked out
I can quite easily believe he told the medics he hadn't been, and he was ok to play. That's what concussed players do, everyone knows that

Agree, agree, agree, agree

He is cooked and done. Once the head is mush it is mush.

talbazar
07-12-16, 10:12
I do actually agree with talbazar overall, but I do have to then also ask if that is the case how the hell is Leigh Halfpenny still on the pitch when he plays ?
didds

Nobody knows :pepper:

More seriously, I was more referring to age group with that last comment. Players (and coaches) at that level (or even in the weeds), will explain to you they're doing that on purpose so they can keep an eye on the ball during the tackle (or any other similar BS)

TheBFG
07-12-16, 11:12
They've made a major cock up as a team (off field), they've claimed they didn't see the footage that showed him fall "limp" to the ground?

I saw a piece they other day on BT sport with the medical team at Sarries, they were sat on the side of the pitch with two of the medical team watching an ipad type thing where they could instantly review "situations" and make a call if a player needed looking at. I can't believe that they're the only ones that do that?

talbazar
07-12-16, 19:12
I saw a piece they other day on BT sport with the medical team at Sarries, they were sat on the side of the pitch with two of the medical team watching an ipad type thing where they could instantly review "situations" and make a call if a player needed looking at. I can't believe that they're the only ones that do that?

Not surprised with that.
For the Super Rugby games in Singapore last season, the physic and medic team was dispatch in 4 different locations and all comm'ed up amongst them with the head of the team having a push to talk radio to the ref and all assistants (team of 6 officials).
Two on each side of the pitch, one group (at least two I reckon) in the stand and one or two with the TMO/TV room to review images as soon as it happened.

I don't know exactly what happened there. But it doesn't help us in the weeds: that's another "that's what they do on TV" for next Saturday's game...

crossref
07-12-16, 20:12
So far as I can tell it's only on TV that concussed players are allowed to stay on the pitch. Down in the grassroots there is always someone - captain, coach, physio, ref or even just a teammate, who takes them off

I wonder if the HIA protocol is actually causing the problem.. It gives people a licence to ignore their common sense. Perhaps it's the medical equivalent of driving your car into a river because you had disengaged your brain and ceded control to the satnav.

Ian_Cook
08-12-16, 10:12
If North's is to be taken at his word, he was not unconscious, but remained motionless because he felt pain in his neck. The actions of the first medic to arrive tends to back that view, as his first action was to place his hands either side of North's head to immobilize it - is that and automatic standard precaution or did North tell him that he had neck pain?

crossref
08-12-16, 11:12
If North's is to be taken at his word, he was not unconscious, but remained motionless because he felt pain in his neck.

but when you suspect conscussion you absolutely DON'T take the player at his word, a concussed player is very likely to feel that he is OK to play and to tell you that he wasn't knocked out... that's a very standard symptom. It's not lying, it's concussion.

Camquin
08-12-16, 11:12
Compare the treatment of George North and Paul Reiffel.

The incident took place in the 49th over when Keaton Jennings worked R Ashwin past the square-leg umpire Reiffel. From three-fourths of the way to the fence, Bhuvneshwar Kumar lobbed a throw back in for Cheteshwar Pujara, who stood between Reiffel and the stumps. The throw didn't have enough behind it, Pujara seemed to warn Reiffel late, leaving him time only to duck. Had Reiffel stood upright the ball might have glanced the top of his head; now it hit the sensitive area at the back of the head.

Reiffel quickly fell to the ground. The other umpire Bruce Oxenford, who wears an arm guard in limited-overs cricket, rushed to provide Reiffel shade with his hat. The England physio and doctor rushed out immediately, and gave him basic tests. Reiffel walked conscious, and with the help of the England medical staff before it was decided that he would be taken to a nearby hospital for further tests.

His CT scan is clear and as precaution he has been advised to take rest today

FlipFlop
08-12-16, 11:12
If North's is to be taken at his word, he was not unconscious, but remained motionless because he felt pain in his neck. The actions of the first medic to arrive tends to back that view, as his first action was to place his hands either side of North's head to immobilize it - is that and automatic standard precaution or did North tell him that he had neck pain?

It would be automatic. The first thing is to protect the player. Unconscious means head injury, so protect the next, ensure it doesn't move, especially as player comes round etc. All potential head injury cases - first step is to immobilise the neck.

In fact if you watch a lot of situations (even non-head injury) - the action of the medic is often to protect the head (especially if play is close by), and talk to the player. Preventing further injury, and getting information.

So the medic's actions tell us nothing.

TheBFG
08-12-16, 11:12
They've made a major cock up as a team (off field), they've claimed they didn't see the footage that showed him fall "limp" to the ground?

I saw a piece they other day on BT sport with the medical team at Sarries, they were sat on the side of the pitch with two of the medical team watching an ipad type thing where they could instantly review "situations" and make a call if a player needed looking at. I can't believe that they're the only ones that do that?

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/adrumm/incensed-bt-sport-bosses-blow-hole-northampton-saints-george-north-concussion-statement/

As I suspected, they're going to be in the sh!t over this one!

Phil E
08-12-16, 12:12
http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/adrumm/incensed-bt-sport-bosses-blow-hole-northampton-saints-george-north-concussion-statement/

As I suspected, they're going to be in the sh!t over this one!

MyPlayXPlay (http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/concussion-management-boosted-ground-breaking-new-system/) was available to both dugouts on the day.

TheBFG
08-12-16, 15:12
And a "law suit" from North :chin:

didds
08-12-16, 15:12
hmmm... IANAL but it strikes me that North is to some degree at least somewhat contributory to anything he may be looking to sue for. If nothing else he'd get ripped to shreds and made to look very stupid by a defense lawyer.

didds

Phil E
08-12-16, 15:12
hmmm... IANAL but it strikes me that North is to some degree at least somewhat contributory to anything he may be looking to sue for. If nothing else he'd get ripped to shreds and made to look very stupid by a defense lawyer.

didds

No he wouldn't. He would say he was suffering from concussion :wink:

didds
08-12-16, 15:12
No he wouldn't. He would say he was suffering from concussion :wink:

i was musing over that after I'd posted above Phil... and got to thinking... would concussion be a defense for

- murder
- shoplifting
- driving dangerously
- signing a contract for services (later not required)
- committing slander


etc

I appreciate I have mixed up criminal and civil scenarios in that list.

didds

SimonSmith
08-12-16, 18:12
Except he maintained the neck thing post match and having been cleared by an HIA

Camquin
08-12-16, 18:12
It does sound like the medical authorities potentially failed in their duty of care - so the medical authorities should step in
In my mind it is at least as bad as Bloodgate.

DocY
08-12-16, 18:12
In my mind it is at least as bad as Bloodgate.

Seriously?

Bloodgate was pre-meditated cheating, this was possibly - we don't know for definite yet - the medical team making a mistake.

crossref
08-12-16, 19:12
Except he maintained the neck thing post match and having been cleared by an HIA

it's not either/or though is it -- he could have had a sore neck and concussion...

Indeed given the way he landed that's exactly what you might expect.

Camquin
09-12-16, 01:12
While this is not premeditated, medically I think there is much greater hram.
And like Watergate we have cover-up
If they had put their hands up and said we made a mistake - that would be reasonable.
But to lie about TV coverage
Especially as they failed to take all the allowed time - and this was not the first time George had had a concussion and been sent back out.

The odd thing is I cannot for the life of me work out why anyone thinks a concussed player - even one with the talent of GN - will be able to play at anywhere near the capability of a non-concussed substitute. So I do not see what Northampton has to gain.

But this is not the first time this has happened, so I really do wonder how the Northampton medical staff are still registered.

Now this may be tempered by seeing my daughter getting concussed twice in three seasons.
Which means I think concussion is a lot worse than a cut.

didds
09-12-16, 09:12
So I do not see what Northampton has to gain.
.

Without condoning it AT ALL: I can think of at least two reasons

1) talisman effect for Northampton
2) Fear factor for opponents, that affects amongst other things their tactical approach to that position on the field.

didds

Paule23
09-12-16, 13:12
The whole episode is a bit of a shambles, but on the positive side the amount of publicity is a good thing and hopefully some amended protocols and treatment will come out of this.

There are some comments that the replays available to medical staff are not as comprehensive as those available to the TV audience. Simple solution here, give the medical staff both feeds.

Issue with the time take to do the HIA assessment (with Northampton taking around half the maximum time allowed). Make a mandatory minimum time off the field for the assessment. I know it's a bot of a one size fits all approach, as there will definitely be instances where the head injury is less serious and assessments can be done quicker, but this would remove some of the time pressure, or pressure on the medical staff to clear someone quickly. Make it minimum 10 minutes, then coaches cannot pressure medical staff to complete tests quickly (and potentially not comprehensively).

How these tackles should be penalised is a complete minefield, and this is one area where there is not/should not be a one size fits all approach. It is going to very scenario dependent. However, if players begin to understand they have a clear responsibility regarding players in the air, and they will be held to account for relatively accidental contact if they put themselves in a position to cause injury, then incident like this might reduce. I know there will then be issues of opposition players potentially milking the laws, jumping to avoid getting tacked etc. But the safety of players has to be paramount, and if that means some defenders are harshly punished on occasion to change behaviour, then in my book so be it.

didds
09-12-16, 15:12
if that means some defenders are harshly punished on occasion to change behaviour, then in my book so be it.


a genuine question..

what would you expect the defender to do here? Given North's jump was 0.2 seconds before the impact especailly?

didds

crossref
09-12-16, 15:12
Let's face the truth : the HIA is a device to get players back ON the field. In grass roots rugby, with no HIA there is no way players in incidents like that one would be allowed to continue

Paule23
09-12-16, 16:12
a genuine question..

what would you expect the defender to do here? Given North's jump was 0.2 seconds before the impact especailly?

didds

Anticipate and make sure he is not in a position where he could cause an incident. I know there are fine lines, and you cannot anticipate all the actions of opposing player nor be responsible for them. But in cases such as these you've got to try and get out of the way, or make no attempt at a tackle, if not you are culpable and should be punished accordingly.

Not Kurt Weaver
09-12-16, 16:12
i was musing over that after I'd posted above Phil... and got to thinking... would concussion be a defense for

- murder
- shoplifting
- driving dangerously
- signing a contract for services (later not required)
- committing slander


etc

I appreciate I have mixed up criminal and civil scenarios in that list.

didds

Would it also be a defense for adultery? , just curious


Anticipate and make sure he is not in a position where he could cause an incident. I know there are fine lines, and you cannot anticipate all the actions of opposing player nor be responsible for them. But in cases such as these you've got to try and get out of the way, or make no attempt at a tackle, if not you are culpable and should be punished accordingly.

Nothing could be more true, I would add after getting out of way, put yourself in a position to make a proper play i.e. tacvkle

Decorily
09-12-16, 17:12
[QUOTE=Not Kurt Weaver;324101]Would it also be a defense for adultery? , just curious

Not sure about the defence. ....but it can definitely be 'caused' by adultery!

didds
09-12-16, 17:12
thing is, in those scenarios (get out of the way and prepare to tackle) if North doesn't jump and collects on the run he will score - I doubt you'll make a tackle in that time.

I'm not saying your approach is wrong generically, but in these circumstances - as Ian says before - he was stuffed whatever he did.

didds

SimonSmith
09-12-16, 18:12
Would it also be a defense for adultery? , just curious



Nothing could be more true, I would add after getting out of way, put yourself in a position to make a proper play i.e. tacvkle

Research automatisim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatism_(law)

Ian_Cook
10-12-16, 12:12
Anticipate and make sure he is not in a position where he could cause an incident. I know there are fine lines, and you cannot anticipate all the actions of opposing player nor be responsible for them. But in cases such as these you've got to try and get out of the way, or make no attempt at a tackle, if not you are culpable and should be punished accordingly.


Would it also be a defense for adultery? , just curious



Nothing could be more true, I would add after getting out of way, put yourself in a position to make a proper play i.e. tacvkle

A player following this advice becomes little more than a pointsman directing traffic. If Thomstone does what you are advising, he will have absolutely no chance of being in a position to tackle North if he decided not to jump.


But the safety of players has to be paramount, and if that means some defenders are harshly punished on occasion to change behaviour, then in my book so be it.

Be careful what you wish for.

If the behaviour of players were to be changed in the way you are suggesting, then the logical conclusion to that is that ball carriers will start jumping as they are about to be tackled knowing that the player will leave them alone (and bracing themselves for the crash if they don't, with a yellow card for the opponent as a bonus prize).

If ever there was an example of Merton's Law, the path WR is going down with this tackle the air nonsense is it. I can't really see any way out of this other than a complete rewrite of some sections of the Law making it illegal to leave your feet to retrieve a ball.

Paule23
11-12-16, 06:12
A player following this advice becomes little more than a pointsman directing traffic. If Thomstone does what you are advising, he will have absolutely no chance of being in a position to tackle North if he decided not to jump.



Be careful what you wish for.

If the behaviour of players were to be changed in the way you are suggesting, then the logical conclusion to that is that ball carriers will start jumping as they are about to be tackled knowing that the player will leave them alone (and bracing themselves for the crash if they don't, with a yellow card for the opponent as a bonus prize).

If ever there was an example of Merton's Law, the path WR is going down with this tackle the air nonsense is it. I can't really see any way out of this other than a complete rewrite of some sections of the Law making it illegal to leave your feet to retrieve a ball.

Theres a clear difference between jumping to gain possession, and jumping whilst the ball carrier to avoid/penalise a tackle. In the former it is the defender likely to be punished, in the latter dangerous play by the attacker.

winchesterref
11-12-16, 11:12
Theres a clear difference between jumping to gain possession, and jumping whilst the ball carrier to avoid/penalise a tackle. In the former it is the defender likely to be punished, in the latter dangerous play by the attacker.

Which one does jumping to gain possession into a defender who has turned around on the spot and grabbed at around player leaping at his head come under?

Ian_Cook
11-12-16, 13:12
Theres a clear difference between jumping to gain possession, and jumping whilst the ball carrier to avoid/penalise a tackle. In the former it is the defender likely to be punished, in the latter dangerous play by the attacker.


Law 10.4 (e) A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

I see nothing here that indicates you clear difference.

I see a distinct possibility that players will start jumping to catch bouncing balls and passes that they could just as easily catch without jumping, because of the extra protection it affords them from would be tacklers.

Paule23
11-12-16, 20:12
Law 10.4 (e) A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

I see nothing here that indicates you clear difference.



So are you saying you would treat them the same?

Ian_Cook
12-12-16, 10:12
So are you saying you would treat them the same?

Nope, but then I didn't think we'd ever see a situation where a player who sprints, jumps for the ball with the knees at head height, with complete disregard for the safety of others, and then clatters a stationary player, that it would be the stationary player who gets red carded.

How would you handle it if a defender lines up an opponent who is about to receive a pass, only to have the receiver jump for a slightly high pass and the defender's action upends the receiver, landing him on his head?

crossref
21-12-16, 17:12
Northampton escape any sanction...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/21/northampton-saints-escape-sanction-george-north-concussion-rugby-union


sometimes it's hard to escape the impression that concussion is not really viewed as very serious in pro rugby.

Thunderhorse1986
22-12-16, 09:12
Northampton escape any sanction...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/21/northampton-saints-escape-sanction-george-north-concussion-rugby-union

sometimes it's hard to escape the impression that concussion is not really viewed as very serious in pro rugby.

Agree with this. But knowing an RFU board member they do discuss it in a lot of depth but I get the impression they are worried about the perception (already seen in a lot of the media/former players etc) that rugby is starting to move down a pathway away from the physical contact element that sets it apart from many other games. Same with the contact to the head scenarios.

Just going back to the North incident some options for Thompstone which might (not definitely would have) have meant less dangerous impact to North?

Jumping/challenging for the ball himself? His head is firmly on North, not on the ball in the moments before the incident
Not kept driving legs forward after making contact (eg taking contact more static)
Fully wrapping the arms, and therefore helping to bring the player down in a more controlled manner?

Not saying there would have worked but could have mitigated what happened...

crossref
22-12-16, 09:12
Rugby head injury assessment protocol is dangerous'

George North's latest concussion leads 5 live Sport to analyse Rugby Union's head injury assessment protocol. Dr Barry O'Driscoll joins former England internationals Paul Grayson and Scott Hazell to discuss how the sport can do more to improve player safety.
* Duration: 23:01

* Published: 21/12/2016 20:12:00

* Episode Download Link (21 MB): http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/redir/version/2.0/mediaset/audio-nondrm-download/proto/http/vpid/p04m58dh.mp3

Ian_Cook
22-12-16, 09:12
Just going back to the North incident some options for Thompstone which might (not definitely would have) have meant less dangerous impact to North?

Jumping/challenging for the ball himself? His head is firmly on North, not on the ball in the moments before the incident
Not kept driving legs forward after making contact (eg taking contact more static)
Fully wrapping the arms, and therefore helping to bring the player down in a more controlled manner?

Not saying there would have worked but could have mitigated what happened...

The thing is that this was not like other challenges in the air where the ball is coming down and both players are watching its flight and trying to judge when and if to jump. In this case, Thomstone was watching the ball land in front of him as he tracked back towards his own goal line, then it took an unexpected bounce back over his shoulder and as he turned, he finds North already (unpredictably) jumping for the bouncing ball.


Rugby players are not fighter pilots. Its not possible for the average person to process all these variables in an instant, the span of which is measured in a just a few milliseconds

I see only one solution to this problem.... make it illegal to jump or otherwise leave your feet to take possession of the ball.

DocY
22-12-16, 09:12
I see only one solution to this problem.... make it illegal to jump or otherwise leave your feet to take possession of the ball.I don't think that's the only solution.

My preferred solution is to stop with the hard and fast rules about who should get penalised and use some common sense!

Phil E
22-12-16, 10:12
I don't think that's the only solution.

My preferred solution is to stop with the hard and fast rules about who should get penalised and use some common sense!

Referees used to use their common sense; then coaches started screaming that they wanted consistency in decisions.
So World Rugby brought in hard and fast rules to standardise decisions.
Guess what? Coaches are now screaming that referees should be allowed to use their common sense :shrug:

didds
22-12-16, 10:12
_Some_ coaches....

... predominantly at the elite level, that then get copied by _some_ coaches further down the ladder...

didds

Phil E
22-12-16, 10:12
_Some_ coaches....

... predominantly at the elite level, that then get copied by _some_ coaches further down the ladder...

didds

We always make an exception for you Didds :wink:

didds
22-12-16, 10:12
Does that mean I am exceptional? ;-)

However, modesty insists that I share my approach with many other coachews :-)

didds

DocY
22-12-16, 11:12
Referees used to use their common sense; then coaches started screaming that they wanted consistency in decisions.
So World Rugby brought in hard and fast rules to standardise decisions.
Guess what? Coaches are now screaming that referees should be allowed to use their common sense :shrug:

I agree that common sense and consistency at the same time can be difficult, but having hard and fast rules is not appropriate. Every contact in the air is different, every high tackle is different, every contact with the face is different, yet they've provided a single, strict formula for each (and seems to assume that each incident is at the worse end of the spectrum), which is just not appropriate in the majority of cases.

They're resulting in situations where lack of action is leading to red cards. I struggle to see how anyone can think that's right.

OB..
22-12-16, 12:12
I see only one solution to this problem.... make it illegal to jump or otherwise leave your feet to take possession of the ball.When running you have both feet off the ground much of the time.

DocY
22-12-16, 12:12
When running you have both feet off the ground much of the time.So much the better - our fitness tests would be much easier to pass if we're to keep up with walking players! :pepper:

crossref
22-12-16, 19:12
Rugby head injury assessment protocol is dangerous'

George North's latest concussion leads 5 live Sport to analyse Rugby Union's head injury assessment protocol. Dr Barry O'Driscoll joins former England internationals Paul Grayson and Scott Hazell to discuss how the sport can do more to improve player safety.
* Duration: 23:01

* Published: 21/12/2016 20:12:00

* Episode Download Link (21 MB): http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/redir/version/2.0/mediaset/audio-nondrm-download/proto/http/vpid/p04m58dh.mp3

This is very good.. Or more specifically Barry O Driscoll is very good..

Camquin
23-12-16, 00:12
If rugby were serious about concussion the rule should be any suspected head impact and you are off for the rest of the match.
If there is evidence of impact you go through the amateur GRP.
After a second impact within a year you are off for six months.

And all professional clubs must have insurance to fully compensate players in such cases.