• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Reckless jumping

B

BikingBud


Referees in England
Poor kick from England being chased by 11 on the ground and always watching the ball.

Scotland 14 jumps laterally with high speed knees the England player in the head and falls.

Bizarrely the England player gets yellow.

What about the reckless challenge and barging?

Payer safety should be paramount and jumping into contact should be managed in accord with current laws.
 
I don't like it but: The way I understand it. The way laws are written plus the guidance etc etc means that in these situations the player nearest the ground gets pinged.
As in these games your wingers will regularly be chasing high balls and competing in the air for the ball, with all the risks as above, would it not be sensible to replace a yellow carded player to remove the risk of two yellows make a red ? The result of which is playing with 14 for half an hour or more.
 
The law makers need to look at this.
Time and a gain a reckless jump is rewarded with a penalty. Scottish winger jumps with his knees up.
I wonder what would happen if a chaser gets to where he thinks the ball is going to land, stops and then a jumper goes *arse over t*t because he hits the standing player?
p.s. I thought the first yellow was at the very least marginal.
p.p.s Scotland deserved the win.
 
From what I recall it looked like white was still running in as blue jumped. If white jumped he may have got away with fair challenge, play on (and avoided knees to the head) or changed speed/direction.

Ciaran Trainor said:
The law makers need to look at this.
Time and a gain a reckless jump is rewarded with a penalty. Scottish winger jumps with his knees up.
I wonder what would happen if a chaser gets to where he thinks the ball is going to land, stops and then a jumper goes *arse over t*t because he hits the standing player?
p.s. I thought the first yellow was at the very least marginal.
p.p.s Scotland deserved the win.
Click to expand...

All. Of. The. Above.

Not sure we’ll see the Blazers review this until we have a player who gets there first, sets up for the catch then being knocked unconscious by a jumping player and we have the farce of them being red carded on the spinal board as they’re carted off.

Just to play Devil’s advocate - would it be that bad for the game to simply ban jumping into a player, including to catch a ball?

(And yes, Scotland deserved the win.)

(And still slightly amazed at the Italy scrum - never thought I’d see Tadhg Furlong arse in the air going backwards)
 
Last edited:
An oft repeated query and debate. Harry is spot on - its how it's called until WR change their m I nd. As it is,Arundel wasn't static, but that doesn't alter the end result - and so the answer as I understand it to ciaran's query is the static player hit by the leaping player is deemed illegal.

Regulat readers I have LONG pointed out the under current rilling the best bomb is on a player already where the ball is to alight because that player actually has to run AWAY, in order to either NOT be there when the jumper arrives OR turns, comes back and jumps.

Clearly WR are happy with the lunacy. At least I suppose their view is consistent with that lunacy.

As it stands, given current standard approaches for several years at least, arundel 2nd YC was " correct". The controversy is over his first potentially. Tbis is of course why years ago the ABs were coached to clap their hands in that post tackle to jackle scenario to tackle
 
Last edited:
crossref said:
expand - which Law are you thinking of ?
Click to expand...
9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

9.15 Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.

It's need to be reasserted that dangerous play is not negated by being higher.
 
BikingBud said:
9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

9.15 Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.

It's need to be reasserted that dangerous play is not negated by being higher.
Click to expand...
Except that's how it's ruled and has been for a very long time. I'd agree that doesn't make it right but it's what happens
 
Ciaran Trainor said:
The law makers need to look at this.
Time and a gain a reckless jump is rewarded with a penalty. Scottish winger jumps with his knees up.
I wonder what would happen if a chaser gets to where he thinks the ball is going to land, stops and then a jumper goes *arse over t*t because he hits the standing player?
p.s. I thought the first yellow was at the very least marginal.
p.p.s Scotland deserved the win.
Click to expand...
We alrady know the answer. Stuart Hogg gets carded
 
BikingBud said:
9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

9.15 Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.

It's need to be reasserted that dangerous play is not negated by being higher.
Click to expand...
Except a narrow reading of those exculpates Steyn as he did none of them.

My immediate reaction was that it was a tad harsh. My second reaction was that Arundell was just stupid. He knows he's on a yellow already, he must, if he has half a brain, know that Steyn is coming in from distance, is good in the air, and will jump. He then gets into the one place that will get him into trouble.

The players should know by now how this is interpreted - regardless of personal feelings on the matter. Ultimately this is either a player faailure or coaching failure, or both.
 
didds said:
Except that's how it's ruled and has been for a very long time. I'd agree that doesn't make it right but it's what happens
Click to expand...
Given the tinkering of some laws and gross disregard of others in attempts to promote the spectacle and encourage new fans and players I am constantly bemused by the lack of appetite to apply a law effectively and demonstrate that player safety really is paramount.
 
SimonSmith said:
Except a narrow reading of those exculpates Steyn as he did none of them.

My immediate reaction was that it was a tad harsh. My second reaction was that Arundell was just stupid. He knows he's on a yellow already, he must, if he has half a brain, know that Steyn is coming in from distance, is good in the air, and will jump. He then gets into the one place that will get him into trouble.

The players should know by now how this is interpreted - regardless of personal feelings on the matter. Ultimately this is either a player faailure or coaching failure, or both.
Click to expand...
But he did run in, jumped and barged into the white player. Both bodies were moving neither was stationary.

You admit Steyn was coming in from a distance why does that get any preferential or protective treatment. The only safe way to judge it is when both players are considered dangerous, card both?

No it's a lawmaker failure.

They have the remit to ensure the Laws deliver a safe game, their persistent disregard for the mid air collisions with high lateral velocity cannot be viewed as a rugby incident when someone becomes a paraplegic or worse.

The lawmakers will be complicit.
 
Have they said it's what happens or is that just the perceived interpretation and the way the Laws are being applied?

Law interpretation and application is after all fashionable, not focussed on safety or equity.
 
BikingBud said:
Given the tinkering of some laws and gross disregard of others in attempts to promote the spectacle and encourage new fans and players I am constantly bemused by the lack of appetite to apply a law effectively and demonstrate that player safety really is paramount.
Click to expand...
All I know is that the aerial contest is gaining in importance, it's high risk/high reward and complicated with moving parts. This sort of stuff from AFL should not be the end goal.
 
shebeen said:
All I know is that the aerial contest is gaining in importance, it's high risk/high reward and complicated with moving parts. This sort of stuff from AFL should not be the end goal.
Click to expand...
This is considered the highest accolade in AFL. How there aren't broken necks, I don't know
 
shebeen said:
All I know is that the aerial contest is gaining in importance, it's high risk/high reward and complicated with moving parts. This sort of stuff from AFL should not be the end goal.
Click to expand...
If the powers that be want that free for all then rewrite the Laws to allow but you cannot argue the Laws are for player safety when you protect the reckless rather than addressing the cause.

It really is quite simple.
 
You participate in some physical sports (boxing, mma?) knowing what to expect and what the rules (or lack of them) are. I would suggest that in rugby we don’t have a clear understanding of what to expect or allow in a high ball contest. Hence the debate.
 
It's harsh on Arundell, but he was not in a position to contest the ball and Steyn was. Jumping with a knee raised is standard practice, as opposed to jumping with a boot out to 'fend'. Given the way WR want the challenge officiated, it was absolutely the right call.

What would make sense to me would be to give an in-position defending player rights to the ball, so you only get contest when the kick finds some space. In this case it would have had the same result, but Arundell would have known to hold back and time the tackle for his landing. However, that's not in the interest of promoting kicking -> broken play -> high-scoring rugby.
 
Rich_NL said:
It's harsh on Arundell, but he was not in a position to contest the ball and Steyn was. Jumping with a knee raised is standard practice, as opposed to jumping with a boot out to 'fend'. Given the way WR want the challenge officiated, it was absolutely the right call.

What would make sense to me would be to give an in-position defending player rights to the ball, so you only get contest when the kick finds some space. In this case it would have had the same result, but Arundell would have known to hold back and time the tackle for his landing. However, that's not in the interest of promoting kicking -> broken play -> high-scoring rugby.
Click to expand...
Arundell was watching the ball all the way. Why should he have to worry about a reckless player jumping into him - It is against the Laws as they actually stand.

Where does it say that you have to be airborne to compete?

In the tackle Law it says you must be on your feet to compete.

Why not apply the same principle here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top