Biggar Taken in Air?

[Balones]

In the incident in question in the match Biggar was tackled on his way down and the English player made a forward action to actually tackle him, and did in fact wrap his arms around him. This was not totally a case of Biggar being reckless.

[Marc Wakeham]

No jumping to catch the ball other than in the line-out?

[Balones]

No jumping to catch the ball other than in the line-out?

I have sympathy with this but unfortunately it will mean that unless you are at least 7 feet tall you won’t be selected in future

[Camquin]

Dickie E
I can understand that, after all highlight reels from the old days are full of the skillful kicks and ignore all the boring running and passing that wastes so much time in the modern game.

[Marc Wakeham]

I have sympathy with this but unfortunately it will mean that unless you are at least 7 feet tall you won’t be selected in future

That's me not selected then.

[Treadmore]

Based on previous standards and decisions given I fully expected a penalty and saw it as a let off to England

I thought he would be penalised too, however glad he wasn't, not least because white didn't dangerously topple red.

Here's what I see in the incident:

1. Underhill chases the kick, in front of him are 3 red player, the middle one of whom checks behind for white players and alters line slightly to run an obstructing line, knowing Biggar will compete for the ball.

2. before Biggar jumps it is clear that at least 3 red players and one white will be in the landing zone (ball and jump)

3. as Underhill closes and Biggar jumps, the middle red player moves laterally as Biggar jumps, exposing the slowing but oncoming Underhill to the now leaping Biggar.

4. Underhill stops and "catches" Biggar, and holds him temporarily before Biggar goes to ground safely.

So for me, I agree that Biggar knows he is jumping into people before he jumps (and if he''s not looking he's reckless), and I do not think it should be automatic that contact with him in the air should be a penalty.

Generally speaking, I'd be sympathetic to the player on the ground catching the player and bringing them to ground safely but I guess it would encourage attempts at this that might go wrong.

Halfpenny did similar actions several times too.

If World Rugby agree with Poite's decision then a clarification would be useful!

In comparison with the Finn Russell - Biggar incident, I think when Biggar jumped for that no one was in his landing zone. Yes Russell could be expected to compete for it but he wasn't in the landing zone when Biggar jumped, and he knew (should have expected) Biggar would jump.

[thepercy]

If the intent of 9.17 is to protect players from landing dangerously when they jump into the air, then contact with a player who is on the way down, and has nearly landed, and they are not put in any more danger than expected in a feet on ground tackle, is the foul play material? Can we ignore a marginal timing issue with foul play, similar to a committed tackle just after the ball has been passed? Or should any feet off the ground tackle, even minimally, be penalized? Maybe we should treat contact in the air similar to tip tackles, if the player tackled in the air land safely with their lower body hitting the ground first, and no tipping over then no PK?

I had a similar situation to the OP in a match last year. Black player jumped for the ball, and was an inch or 2 from landing, and was tackled, there was no danger, no one landed on their head or back, I played on. Black players were upset.

[OB..]

If the intent of 9.17 is to protect players from landing dangerously when they jump into the air, then contact with a player who is on the way down, and has nearly landed, and they are not put in any more danger than expected in a feet on ground tackle, is the foul play material? Can we ignore a marginal timing issue with foul play, similar to a committed tackle just after the ball has been passed? Or should any feet off the ground tackle, even minimally, be penalized? Maybe we should treat contact in the air similar to tip tackles, if the player tackled in the air land safely with their lower body hitting the ground first, and no tipping over then no PK?

I had a similar situation to the OP in a match last year. Black player jumped for the ball, and was an inch or 2 from landing, and was tackled, there was no danger, no one landed on their head or back, I played on. Black players were upset.

Marginal knock-on? Marginal offside? etc.

[Dickie E]

Maybe we should treat contact in the air similar to tip tackles, if the player tackled in the air land safely with their lower body hitting the ground first, and no tipping over then no PK?

we don't do that here. If a tackler takes the ball carrier through the horizontal then it is a minimum PK irrespective of how safely the ball carrier lands. It's about managing out poor technique, not managing outcomes.

[Rich_NL]

If the intent of 9.17 is to protect players from landing dangerously when they jump into the air, then contact with a player who is on the way down, and has nearly landed, and they are not put in any more danger than expected in a feet on ground tackle, is the foul play material? Can we ignore a marginal timing issue with foul play, similar to a committed tackle just after the ball has been passed? Or should any feet off the ground tackle, even minimally, be penalized? Maybe we should treat contact in the air similar to tip tackles, if the player tackled in the air land safely with their lower body hitting the ground first, and no tipping over then no PK?

I had a similar situation to the OP in a match last year. Black player jumped for the ball, and was an inch or 2 from landing, and was tackled, there was no danger, no one landed on their head or back, I played on. Black players were upset.

We could also ignore high tackles if the tackled player gets up straight away without any injury..?

If you manage on action rather than outcome, players adapt to avoid those actions and you have fewer potentially dangerous incidents.