Laws Question? Ask here!

.ak · 19-02-2015 10:15am

Hagz wrote: »

Has it been mentioned that Russell's been banned for two weeks.

That's an absolute joke. Will he miss the next game?

.ak · 19-02-2015 10:18am

Gits_bone wrote: »

Whether he tried to tackle the ball or not doesn't matter. He was reckless and the end result was Biggar was shouldered in the air. 2 week ban is justified. Have to stamp out tackling in the air. And I also mean players just running into others in the air too.

But that's the way every rugby player is trained to play a high ball?

Gits_bone · 19-02-2015 10:24am

.ak wrote: »

But that's the way every rugby player is trained to play a high ball?

By standing under the player in mid air?

This "I'm a macho man, tackling in the air should be allowed" attitude has to stop. Thankfully the IRB don't take any prisoners in regard to it.

Buer · 19-02-2015 10:24am

.ak wrote: »

That's an absolute joke. Will he miss the next game?

Yes. Scotland have appealed. Although, given his performance overall, I'm not sure they've too much reason to. Tonks is not a good replacement though. Could be a case for throwing caution to the wind and putting Laidlaw in at 10.

Papé finds out his fate this morning following an adjournment last night.

.ak · 19-02-2015 10:29am

Gits_bone wrote: »

By standing under the player in mid air?

This "I'm a macho man, tackling in the air should be allowed" attitude has to stop. Thankfully the IRB don't take any prisoners in regard to it.

No, it's nothing to do with being a macho thing, it's to do with as a back you need to position yourself under the ball, and never take your eyes off it. If you do this you might miss the player charging in, but the important thing, as a player, is to secure the ball.

Incidentally, are you aware how hard it is to jump and compete for the ball in the air from a standing start?

Also, are you aware that Biggar could've been penalized for leading with the knee? It's been penalized before - and it's something the IRB need to look for. If you kick and the ball comes down on a player who doesn't have to move positionally, then charging in with your knees raised is dangerous.

.ak · 19-02-2015 10:30am

Buer wrote: »

Yes. Scotland have appealed. Although, given his performance overall, I'm not sure they've too much reason to. Tonks is not a good replacement though. Could be a case for throwing caution to the wind and putting Laidlaw in at 10.

Papé finds out his fate this morning following an adjournment last night.

I thought Russell has been playing very well? Was very good in Paris anyway.

Gits_bone · 19-02-2015 10:32am

.ak wrote: »

No, it's nothing to do with being a macho thing, it's to do with as a back you need to position yourself under the ball, and never take your eyes off it. If you do this you might miss the player charging in, but the important thing, as a player, is to secure the ball.

Incidentally, are you aware how hard it is to jump and compete for the ball in the air from a standing start?

Also, are you aware that Biggar could've been penalized for leading with the knee? It's been penalized before - and it's something the IRB need to look for. If you kick and the ball comes down on a player who doesn't have to move positionally, then charging in with your knees raised is dangerous.

Ah so that's why Russell got a yellow card and 2 week ban for getting hit by Biggars knee.

As a fullback he shouldn't be waiting for the ball to drop into him if there is another player jumping for it. The ball was in the air for a long long time for russell to gain some momentum to jump.

.ak · 19-02-2015 10:38am

Gits_bone wrote: »

Ah so that's why Russell got a yellow card and 2 week ban for getting hit by Biggars knee.

As a fullback he shouldn't be waiting for the ball to drop into him if there is another player jumping for it. The ball was in the air for a long long time for russell to gain some momentum to jump.

You're aware of interpretation, right? Refs get things wrong, from time to time, so do citing panels?

There is a history of inconsistent bans in this sport, it's one of the things that really annoys me. As someone mentioned above, Johnson deliberately tackles DK in the air and gets 3 weeks, but Russell gets 2 for holding his ground. There's no consistency, there's clearly mistakes being made in the interpretation.

Also, what your suggesting, for Russel to get airtime, is for him to run backwards before running forwards... So no, that's not possible or going to happen.

What's going to happen is a precedent that leads to more dangerous play. Players are going to start launching themselves into the air when they see another player in the air just to say 'oh I competed for it'.

Actually, the Davies yellow card is a brilliant example. He was NEVER going to get that ball, and just put himself into the air to take out the Scottish player. And yet he isn't cited, why? Because the law is broken. Because he was 'contesting' for the ball cuz his feet weren't on the ground. What a lot of tosh. Players will learn to get around the wording of the law, as they always have, and it will make this particular area in the game more dangerous.

sydthebeat · 19-02-2015 10:39am

Gits_bone wrote: »

Ah so that's why Russell got a yellow card and 2 week ban for getting hit by Biggars knee.

As a fullback he shouldn't be waiting for the ball to drop into him if there is another player jumping for it. The ball was in the air for a long long time for russell to gain some momentum to jump.

LOL what rubbish......

Gits_bone · 19-02-2015 10:41am

I'm glad the IRB see sense anyways!

sydthebeat · 19-02-2015 10:44am

Gits_bone wrote: »

I'm glad the IRB see sense anyways!

theres nothing sensible about ashley johnston getting 3 weeks for his tackle on DK when compared with Russell getting 2 weeks for his collision with biggar... nothing sensible at all... actually comes across like theyre making it up as they go along.

19-02-2015 10:44am

.ak wrote: »

I thought Russell has been playing very well? Was very good in Paris anyway.

Agreed, also aside from a couple of poor touch finders v Wales he was very decent.

Weirdly enough, even though I thought Laidlaw had an okay game at 9, I'd prefer to see Sam Hidalgo-Clyne start there for the next game. As Laidlaw is captain, I'd doubt very much he'd be dropped, so a Russell ban for a single 6N game (& Weir & Jackson injured) means that it's quite likely that SHC will get the 9 shirt while Laidlaw pushes one out to cover.

sydthebeat · 19-02-2015 10:45am

taking this viewpoint to the limit, a chaser can now jump into a standing catcher even if they know they arent going to win the ball first..... with the hope of getting a penalty and at least a yellow card.

Podge_irl · 19-02-2015 10:47am

sydthebeat wrote: »

taking this viewpoint to the limit, a chaser can now jump into a standing catcher even if they know they arent going to win the ball first..... with the hope of getting a penalty and at least a yellow card.

But the standing catcher shouldn't be there! He should back-peddle and then run up and jump for the ball.

19-02-2015 10:54am

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Why so? What's your call and how do you arrive at your decision?

Vunipola and the ball are in touch at 31 seconds when they are on top of the player on the ground, outside the field of play.

If not, there is the contention that team A could have their players lie down in a formation outside the pitch, and have their lightest member walk outside the pitch over them to the try line. A farcical but logical extension.

Gits_bone · 19-02-2015 10:57am

sydthebeat wrote: »

theres nothing sensible about ashley johnston getting 3 weeks for his tackle on DK when compared with Russell getting 2 weeks for his collision with biggar... nothing sensible at all... actually comes across like theyre making it up as they go along.

Have you got a link to the kearney incident?

Also what tournament was it in?

Clearlier · 19-02-2015 11:00am

sydthebeat wrote: »

taking this viewpoint to the limit, a chaser can now jump into a standing catcher even if they know they arent going to win the ball first..... with the hope of getting a penalty and at least a yellow card.

I've made a clear distinction in several posts between a standing catcher and somebody moving in to catch it and I've said several times that somebody standing underneath where the ball is landing can't be held responsible for the welfare of somebody who jumps onto them.

In this instance Russell was not a standing catcher. He didn't have to move very far but he hesitated and delayed his movement to the landing area (in order I think to take a jump and catch it). At the last moment he pulls out and turns his back on Biggar but his momentum keeps him moving forward. It's this momentum that makes it such a dangerous situation as it causes Biggar to flip 180 degrees and if he hadn't broken his fall with his arm he would have landed on his head. If he's a standing catcher he hasn't got this forward momentum and although still potentially dangerous it's much less dangerous.

It may be worth noting that a standing catcher is very rare in the modern professional game and usually when it does happen it's usually due to a miscued kick and there are lots of standing catchers so there's not usually space to launch yourself into the air.

19-02-2015 11:02am

Gits_bone wrote: »

Have you got a link to the kearney incident?

Also what tournament was it in?

1st action of the game vs Wasps in the Rugby Champions Cup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2tHI8gIxvs

Clearlier · 19-02-2015 11:04am

sydthebeat wrote: »

theres nothing sensible about ashley johnston getting 3 weeks for his tackle on DK when compared with Russell getting 2 weeks for his collision with biggar... nothing sensible at all... actually comes across like theyre making it up as they go along.

Gits_bone wrote: »

Have you got a link to the kearney incident?

Also what tournament was it in?

European Cup and syd is absolutely correct. The punishment for Johnson was too low. He went in and deliberately tackled Kearney in the air. A much more serious offence than Russell who was just inept/incompetent rather than malicious. I haven't read the judgement (if it's available) but I can only imagine that he persuaded the panel that he didn't intend to do it and it just happened.

vienne86 · 19-02-2015 11:13am

We all think punishment needs to be handed out for incidents that cause danger to other players, but the punishment should be consistent. Some of these decisions seem to be almost random.

Clearlier · 19-02-2015 11:16am

molloyjh wrote: »

What Kearney does he does when chasing the ball. Russell was not chasing it. He also didn't hesitate. He had to wait to see exactly where the ball was going to land. In that position you'll never see a player leave attackers have the ball and tackle them once they have it. It was right on the Scottish 22.

I think that we'll just have to disagree on the facts of this one. I don't think that Russell was a standing catcher. I see him move from just behind the 22 to 2 or 3 metres in front of it arriving at the same time as Biggar and the ball. Incidentally IMO Kearney would have jumped for that one.

.ak wrote: »

Actually, the Davies yellow card is a brilliant example. He was NEVER going to get that ball, and just put himself into the air to take out the Scottish player. And yet he isn't cited, why? Because the law is broken. Because he was 'contesting' for the ball cuz his feet weren't on the ground. What a lot of tosh. Players will learn to get around the wording of the law, as they always have, and it will make this particular area in the game more dangerous.

I don't understand why it's baffling. The outcome of Davies competing in the air was much less dangerous than Russell's staying on the ground. If he had stayed on the ground and just run into the Scottish player there could have been serious damage but because they were both in the air they banged off each other and hit the deck. I think that kind of competition for the ball is much safer and should be encouraged in preference to one in the air and one on the ground. Notwithstanding what I may or may not have yelled at the TV at the time of the incdient I don't on reflection think that the Davies incident was even a penalty let alone a yellow card.

aimee1 · 19-02-2015 11:18am

Gits_bone wrote: »

Whether he tried to tackle the ball or not doesn't matter. He was reckless and the end result was Biggar was shouldered in the air. 2 week ban is justified. Have to stamp out tackling in the air. And I also mean players just running into others in the air too.

But johnsons intent got him 1 week more which doesnt seem right. punishments should fit the crime so a deliberate tackle should carry a far higher penalty

thomond2006 · 19-02-2015 11:20am

30 man French squad for Wales:

Atonio, Ben Arous, Debaty, Slimani,
Guirado, Kayser,
Maestri, Papé, Suta, Taofifenua,
Chouly, Dusautoir, Goujon, Lauret, Le Roux, Nyanga.

Parra, Tillous-Borde,
Bernard, Lopez, Tales,
Bastareaud, Fickou, Fofana, Lamerat,
Guitoune, Huget, Nakaitaci, Dulin, Spedding.

Tillous-Borde is back fit and Kockott is dropped.

Nakaitaci and Dulin would greatly improve the backline. Bernard is added as a fly-half and I think he might possibly get into the 23 ahead of Tales as he is an excellent goalkicker while STB and Tales don't kick. Nyanga would give the backrow some pace in attack, while the current flankers are hard workers neither are notable ball carriers.

aimee1 · 19-02-2015 11:24am

Clearlier wrote: »

I think that we'll just have to disagree on the facts of this one. I don't think that Russell was a standing catcher. I see him move from just behind the 22 to 2 or 3 metres in front of it arriving at the same time as Biggar and the ball. Incidentally IMO Kearney would have jumped for that one.

I don't understand why it's baffling. The outcome of Davies competing in the air was much less dangerous than Russell's staying on the ground. If he had stayed on the ground and just run into the Scottish player there could have been serious damage but because they were both in the air they banged off each other and hit the deck. I think that kind of competition for the ball is much safer and should be encouraged in preference to one in the air and one on the ground. Notwithstanding what I may or may not have yelled at the TV at the time of the incdient I don't on reflection think that the Davies incident was even a penalty let alone a yellow card.

Similar incident in ireland v SA in november. Davies was a pen and yc. If that type of incident is let go it will happen a lot more. The law needs to be crystal clear. Allowing grey areas only creates even more inconsistancies.

Gits_bone · 19-02-2015 11:27am

aimee1 wrote: »

But johnsons intent got him 1 week more which doesnt seem right. punishments should fit the crime so a deliberate tackle should carry a far higher penalty

I don't look at the number of weeks as the punishment.

I look at the number of games missed.

Russell got 1 and Johnson got 3.

Should have been a red for Johnson really.

.ak · 19-02-2015 11:49am

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't understand why it's baffling. The outcome of Davies competing in the air was much less dangerous than Russell's staying on the ground. If he had stayed on the ground and just run into the Scottish player there could have been serious damage but because they were both in the air they banged off each other and hit the deck. I think that kind of competition for the ball is much safer and should be encouraged in preference to one in the air and one on the ground. Notwithstanding what I may or may not have yelled at the TV at the time of the incdient I don't on reflection think that the Davies incident was even a penalty let alone a yellow card.

My point is you can easily make it look like you're contesting the ball whilst taking someone out in the air, especially now that the law protects you. Davies was never getting that ball, so he's clearly trying to disrupt the scottish player imo. If the Scottish player landed on his head it'd be even more dangerous.

.ak · 19-02-2015 11:50am

Gits_bone wrote: »

I don't look at the number of weeks as the punishment.

I look at the number of games missed.

Russell got 1 and Johnson got 3.

Should have been a red for Johnson really.

But that's not how the citing panel look at it, or the IRB.

molloyjh · 19-02-2015 12:00pm

Gits_bone wrote: »

You will rarely see anyone get injured if 2 players contest for the same ball.
You will see players run towards the full back hold back on their run so they can hit the player hard when they return to ground. That's how it should be done.

High fielding is an art. Do you want to see play like Halfpenny and Biggars disappear from the game?

Did I ever say it should disappear from the game? You're talking about full backs holding back on their run to tackle a player. The only person running in this incident was Biggar. Why does he not have to hold back his run in case Russell jumped? Why does Biggar get a free pass in terms of responsibility here?

Gits_bone wrote: »

By standing under the player in mid air?

This "I'm a macho man, tackling in the air should be allowed" attitude has to stop. Thankfully the IRB don't take any prisoners in regard to it.

He 100% did not tackle Biggar in the air. So you can drop that line straight away. And he didn't stand under a player in mid air. Biggar jumped after Russell had stepped into that space. So Biggar jumped into him when you look at it chronologically.

Gits_bone wrote: »

Ah so that's why Russell got a yellow card and 2 week ban for getting hit by Biggars knee.

As a fullback he shouldn't be waiting for the ball to drop into him if there is another player jumping for it. The ball was in the air for a long long time for russell to gain some momentum to jump.

Russell isn't a full back for starters. And secondly there wasn't another player jumping for it when he took his last step. Review the footage again. Biggar started to jump after Russell took his last step to get under the ball. As soon as Russell realised what was happening he tried to avoid it but could do nothing about it.

Also the length of time the ball was in the air is irrelevant to momentum. Distance run and speed are. There were a few metres between where Russell was and where the ball was going to land. So he could never have built up momentum. It would have been impossible.

sydthebeat wrote: »

taking this viewpoint to the limit, a chaser can now jump into a standing catcher even if they know they arent going to win the ball first..... with the hope of getting a penalty and at least a yellow card.

Exactly, players can now play for penalties in this area of the game. It's madness.

Clearlier wrote: »

I think that we'll just have to disagree on the facts of this one. I don't think that Russell was a standing catcher. I see him move from just behind the 22 to 2 or 3 metres in front of it arriving at the same time as Biggar and the ball.

I said he was for all intents and purposes a static player, not that he literally was. He wasn't running in to challenge for anything. He took a step or two to get under the ball. Watch restarts and up and unders over the next few weeks. Players often take the ball on the ground in and around their 22. It's a pretty common occurrence. In this circumstance the other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that Russell actually tried to avoid the collision where-as Biggar did nothing to avoid it. Neither player knew in advance what the other player was going to do. Yet because Biggar jumped he's suddenly deemed to have less responsibility over the incident than Russell. That is what I find bizarre.

molloyjh · 19-02-2015 12:11pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

surely the kicker also has some partial responsibility....

if he kicks the ball straight down the throat of a player who does not have to move to catch the ball, (adjusting feet wouldnt count) then that player shouldnt be penalized for standing the ground in order to receive the ball. It would actually be reckless on the kicker if he jumped knee first into a standing catcher.....

That's exactly what gets me. The responsibility in this case is on 1 party and 1 party alone. The other party has none. It's completely and utterly lob-sided.

Gits_bone · 19-02-2015 12:22pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

surely the kicker also has some partial responsibility....

if he kicks the ball straight down the throat of a player who does not have to move to catch the ball, (adjusting feet wouldnt count) then that player shouldnt be penalized for standing the ground in order to receive the ball. It would actually be reckless on the kicker if he jumped knee first into a standing catcher.....

Except you're allowed to jump to get the ball. A player will know if another is contesting for it, it's expected the opposition will jump to get it.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments