I feel we can go around this all night.
What an odd claim. Of course they need protection, otherwise someone could run into their legs while they're in the air and claim they were just getting into position to catch.
Sale 15 didn't run into the airborne player they were trying to position to field the kicked ball but they were barged by Sarries 14. There is nothing to protect them from unless they jump into space where it is entirely reasonable to expect someone to be "
just getting into position to catch" If you prevent the player just getting into the position to catch why? The ball is live, they are as entitled as any other player to compete and gain possession.
Your claim is that he jumps in recklessly. I don't think you'll find very much agreement that jumping to compete for the ball is reckless. If he jumps studs out, or with his knee aiming at a stationary player's head, that's reckless. If he's trying to get to the ball before the opposition, that's competing. If the opposition can't or won't compete, they shouldn't put the player who's trying to play the game in danger.
But Sarries 14 did decide to jump into that space. They should expect someone to be there stationary or otherwise. And expecting to get protection (impunity) from any impact with a player trying to field the ball that arises from their high lateral speed is wholly avoidable by remaining on the ground and hence is a reckless action.
Sale 15 wasn't stationary. Sarries 14 jumped for the ball without anyone where he would land, Sale 15 ran into that space.
So he jumped into a space not knowing if it would be clear or occupied by either a stationary or moving player. That comes with some responsibility. I would say akin to driving round a blind bend with no idea what might be around the corner. You go slow you can react and adjust, you drive too swiftly and you may not be able to stop and end up colliding with slow moving or stationary traffic. Whose fault is it?
And where does it say in Law that the defender cannot run into that space to compete. I offer that he was prevented from the fielding the ball, he was obstructed:
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. That should protect the defender, is that invalidated by something unwritten?
He is allowed, as long as doing so doesn't endanger anyone. Same with a player who stands still and drops a shoulder - it's not an offence if there's no-one else around, it's a penalty if it's done to take a kick chaser out.
So a centre running a dummy line and getting smashed is illegal? An early tackle on the same running player is also illegal? But a centre running the line and getting the ball is ok getting smashed? - Happy with that but if you run and jump into someone about to, or positioning, themselves to catch is OK? They do not have the ball, what is fundamentally different?
Watch the video again, Sale 15 is running in.
To field the ball until he was barged out of the way by Sarries 14 - Peep. Penalty against Sarries 14 - Law 9.15
If Sale 15 was on the ground and was taken out before he could catch it would you ping Sarries 14? If not why not? If so why are you giving him protection because Sarries 14 is jumping to take him out?
I appreciate that 14 jumping straight at a stationary 15 is a controversial point; how it's now reffed may well change, and a ref can call it differently according to circumstance and level, age grade, etc. But that's not at all what happened here.
When you jump you have no idea if the space will be filled by a person or not, nor if they might be stationary or not, you as the jumper take that risk. The thing that happened here is that the persistent application of something not written in the Laws appears to always favour the jumper. Without any consideration for the conduct and execution of the jump or the risk the jumper is exposing themselves to. Hence the tactic proceeds with impunity, removes fair competition and will at some point lead to a siginifcant and wholly avoidable injury.
The people that do not apply the Law to protect players on the ground and inhibit this tactic are complicit. How should an assessor view that ? Or are they willing also to become complicit?
