Itoje chargedown v Samoa

[Jarrod Burton]

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.

[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.

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

[Pinky]

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.

[Ian_Cook]

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!

[didds]

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

[Dickie E]

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.

[ChrisR]

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).

[Dickie E]

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?

[ChrisR]

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.

[Jarrod Burton]

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.