Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 70

Thread: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

      
  1. #41

    Referees in Australia
    Jarrod Burton's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    TRU
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    19 Jun 13
    Posts
    309
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    29

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    so its OK to dive head first towards a grubber?

    Just checking.

    and if the kicker kicks the diver's head? Or trips over the diver's torso/arms?

    didds
    Studs first dives are not acceptable to me, mainly due to the possible level of impact on a players ankles. As for the approach head first, if a player decides to tackle low and put his head in a position where he may get accidentally booted in the head, that's their problem, not mine.

    For me its all about a player understanding that if they want to undertake a course of action that may injure themselves, then they have made that choice to risk themselves. If you want to take a course of action (which is not in the spirit of the sport) that has a high likelihood of injuring another player who hasn't made the decision to take that risk,then you have to accept the possibility of sanction.

  2. #42

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,108
    Thanks (Received)
    48
    Likes (Received)
    798

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarrod Burton View Post
    Studs first dives are not acceptable to me, mainly due to the possible level of impact on a players ankles. As for the approach head first, if a player decides to tackle low and put his head in a position where he may get accidentally booted in the head, that's their problem, not mine.

    For me its all about a player understanding that if they want to undertake a course of action that may injure themselves, then they have made that choice to risk themselves. If you want to take a course of action (which is not in the spirit of the sport) that has a high likelihood of injuring another player who hasn't made the decision to take that risk,then you have to accept the possibility of sanction.
    But he hasn't tackled low and got his head the wrong side etc.

    He has dived goal keeper style to stop a grubber. the discussion is that if a player cannot dive feet first (fair enough) then what can he do?

    And having dived like that he MAY collect a boot to the head.

    He may also end up with the grubber kicker falling over his body. Is that not in the spirit of the sport? If that is also deemed illegal then we are effectively saying that if you can;t stand upright in fornt of the grubber so it hits your legs then then you cannot stop the grubber.


    Is that correct?

    didds
    Last edited by didds; 28-11-17 at 22:11.

  3. #43

    Referees in Scotland
    Pinky's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Edinburgh Rugby Referees Society
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    09 Apr 10
    Posts
    1,226
    Thanks (Received)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    122

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    Didds, there are many things in open play you cannot defend against other than by trying to get into a position to tackle a player with the ball, so I don't see a need to justify any action to defend a grubber if that action itself is illegal or dangerous. Throwing yourself on the ground to block a kick may be OK, but if the main intent appears to be tripping up the kicker of chaser, expect to get penalised. Similarly they don't even like feet first (eg over the ball) tackles in football, and there they let players have pretty solid protection, so I would not be keen on letting a kicking (each other's feet) contest happen.

  4. #44

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    12,947
    Thanks (Received)
    99
    Likes (Received)
    1332

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarrod Burton View Post
    Studs first dives are not acceptable to me, mainly due to the possible level of impact on a players ankles. As for the approach head first, if a player decides to tackle low and put his head in a position where he may get accidentally booted in the head, that's their problem, not mine.

    For me its all about a player understanding that if they want to undertake a course of action that may injure themselves, then they have made that choice to risk themselves. If you want to take a course of action (which is not in the spirit of the sport) that has a high likelihood of injuring another player who hasn't made the decision to take that risk,then you have to accept the possibility of sanction.
    THIS!
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  5. #45

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,108
    Thanks (Received)
    48
    Likes (Received)
    798

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinky View Post
    but if the main intent appears to be tripping up the kicker of chaser, expect to get penalised.
    Fair enough of course.

    So the referee IS judging intent?

    I reiterate I haven't an issue with the feet first block being deemed dangerous. But as a general query, what was Itoje's actual intent ? To stop the ball or to trip the opponent?



    didds

  6. #46

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    11,685
    Thanks (Received)
    88
    Likes (Received)
    1067

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    Fair enough of course.

    So the referee IS judging intent?

    I reiterate I haven't an issue with the feet first block being deemed dangerous. But as a general query, what was Itoje's actual intent ? To stop the ball or to trip the opponent?



    didds
    For me, intent is a crucial element. Players have an accidental head clash = play on. Liverpool kiss = see you later.

    So in this case, the way I see it:
    1. did Itoje actually foul the opponent? : No
    2. did Itoje intend to foul the opponent? : No

    Therefore, play on, with maybe a chat on the run.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  7. #47
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    3,133
    Thanks (Received)
    28
    Likes (Received)
    298

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    I see three separate issues here.

    1. Was it dangerous play. I'd say yes because of the proximity to the opponents feet. I'd see this as similar to a player fly-hacking a ball next to a player's head. Didn't make contact but still dangerous.

    2. Sliding feet first to block a grubber (but not dangerously close to the opponent). Not a problem for me but then I'm not in the camp of "Off his feet? Out of the game!". If the player stays on his feet does it make a difference? If the player makes contact before he goes to ground does it make a difference? As an aside the reason 'charge down' is defined in law is to differentiate it from a knock-on. Anything that doesn't use arms/hands is just a block.

    3. Catching his own deflection while on the ground (and ignoring any possibly knock-on). Again, OK by me coz I'm not in the OHFOOTG camp.

    So, PK for me, for #1, but not a card (reckless but not intentional).

  8. #48

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    11,685
    Thanks (Received)
    88
    Likes (Received)
    1067

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisR View Post
    1. Was it dangerous play. I'd say yes because of the proximity to the opponents feet. I'd see this as similar to a player fly-hacking a ball next to a player's head. Didn't make contact but still dangerous.
    Red SH puts up a box kick and Blue fullback flies high to catch it. Red chaser, at the last second, realises he is going to clatter Blue fullback in the air, swerves slightly, and misses Blue fullback by a whisker. Penalise Red player under the proximity protocol?
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  9. #49
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    3,133
    Thanks (Received)
    28
    Likes (Received)
    298

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    Red SH puts up a box kick and Blue fullback flies high to catch it. Red chaser, at the last second, realises he is going to clatter Blue fullback in the air, swerves slightly, and misses Blue fullback by a whisker. Penalise Red player under the proximity protocol?
    No, totally different. In the OP and the fly hack the player doesn't make the effort to avoid contact which the player in your example did.

    I get what you are saying as the actions in my post are only dangerous, in my opinion, because of 'proximity'. Perhaps we should debate whether 'dangerous play' can be 'dangerous' even when it produces no harm. Should there be a 'reckless' category? Maybe a 'lucky near miss'?

    Ultimately the referee has the responsibility of trying to keep the game safe and as such will be faced with acts unspecified (in law) that he'll deem dangerous. He has to act on his best instincts.

  10. #50

    Referees in Australia
    Jarrod Burton's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    TRU
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    19 Jun 13
    Posts
    309
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    29

    Default Re: Itoje chargedown v Samoa

    If sliding in feet first to stop a grubber is acceptable, at what height is a player using their feet no longer acceptable? Can a player use their leg to stop a kick at hip level? Or can a player on a charge down leap in the air and assume throw their legs around to try to stop the ball? What would be the sanction if that player then makes contact with the kicker with his feet?

    Using the excuse that an action isn't dangerous until it results in contact that causes injury means that an attempted stomp is not dangerous or that a player that tips another in a tackle but gently places them on the floor rather than drops them on their head hasn't infringed.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •