General Rugby Discussion

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 04:16PM

molloyjh wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Except he's failed to do it due to his own carelessness and inability to be aware of the receiver.

Which is going to continue to happen despite all the best intent in the world. Once a player is in the air, be he the chaser or the defender, he's in an incredibly vulnerable position. Even if 2 players challenge legally, both get into the air at the same time and both get as high as the other they are still both in a very vulnerable position. They can do everything right and still not be any safer for it. This isn't like a tackle or a scrum where you can train for it and develop skills to help ensure safety. It's a bit of a lottery really.

It's absolutely not a lottery.

I'm sorry, that's just completely misinformed. It is within your control and it's possible to prevent if you're approaching the situation correctly.

EDIT: Just to say, there's a difference between two guys in the air colliding legally and what happened here. If both guys go up the same time and are competing legally it's much safer. We've seen this in other sports in much greater detail than our own, AFL is a good example

22-04-2016 04:18PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's absolutely not a lottery.

I'm sorry, that's just completely misinformed. It is within your control and it's possible to prevent if you're approaching the situation correctly.

Who gets right of way if and when both players jump at the same time?

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 04:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Who gets right of way if and when both players jump at the same time?

Neither, noone needs right of way? (Also that's why i edited!)

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 04:20PM

So the semi-final this weekend is the same time as the Leicester City game? That's really really really stupid

22-04-2016 04:22PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Neither, noone needs right of way? (Also that's why i edited!)

So if and when mid-air collisions occur and players hit the deck hard, do we ask the TMO to check the timing of the leap? And the player second off the ground is penalised?

But if there is no discernible difference in the timings of their jumps, we play on with no penalty offered to either side?

Zzippy · 22-04-2016 04:23PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So the semi-final this weekend is the same time as the Leicester City game? That's really really really stupid

Is that criticism of EPRC? :eek:

molloyjh · 22-04-2016 04:23PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Neither, noone needs right of way? (Also that's why i edited!)

But if one jumps higher than the other won't that lead to something similar to this situation? If they collide in mid-air shoulder to shoulder that's one thing (and even at that there's no guarantee that you won't land awkwardly), if they collide shoulder to hip that's another, no?

molloyjh · 22-04-2016 04:25PM

Zzippy wrote: »

Is that criticism of EPRC? :eek:

You must be joking. IBF!? No, he clearly means that the Euro SF was scheduled well in advance of the Leicester game. So it was incredibly stupid by the Premiership, on the EPRCs behalf. Or something...

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 04:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So if and when mid-air collisions occur and players hit the deck hard, do we ask the TMO to check the timing of the leap? And the player second off the ground is penalised?

But if there is no discernible difference in the timings of their jumps, we play on with no penalty offered to either side?

Well what does "hit the deck hard" mean? Do we need to take readings from the players' accelerometer?! :pac:

It's not just down to the timing of leap and the TMO isn't really needed, I don't remember a case where it has been that necessary. Normally the TMO is only needed to determine the outcome of the landing. Which is important, because the rules have to work at all levels.

If two players are competing in the air for the ball it's not going to end up being a penalty. But obviously noone is going to claim that has happened in the above example.

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 04:28PM

Zzippy wrote: »

Is that criticism of EPRC? :eek:

It's not the first time I've criticised them. Hopefully people will be less protective of them than they were of the precious ERC, although they're extremely similar organisations in many ways.

Zzippy · 22-04-2016 04:31PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's not the first time I've criticised them. Hopefully people will be less protective of them than they were of the precious ERC, although they're extremely similar organisations in many ways.

Relax, I know you have. Although for all the ERC's faults, at least they didn't force fans to fork out on the double to watch games on tv. That would be the biggest criticism of EPCR I would have

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 04:33PM

Zzippy wrote: »

Relax, I know you have. Although for all the ERC's faults, at least they didn't force fans to fork out on the double to watch games on tv. That would be the biggest criticism of EPCR I would have

That wasn't their choice

22-04-2016 04:34PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well what does "hit the deck hard" mean? Do we need to take readings from the players' accelerometer?! :pac:

Nope, just can't see how if a player jumps a millisecond earlier than he has, that it is any less dangerous whatsoever, and that the outcomes are likely to be any different. However the thinking seems to be that jumping at the same time means its not a penalty, jumping slightly before the other means you're likely to win a penalty, and jumping slightly after the other means you're likely to give away a penalty?

Players are just as likely to be hurt by someone who's left the ground at the same time as them as those who are just slightly later.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's not just down to the timing of leap and the TMO isn't really needed, I don't remember a case where it has been that necessary. Normally the TMO is only needed to determine the outcome of the landing. Which is important, because the rules have to work at all levels.

You've just told us that if the leap is timed properly that it's not a penalty. And that if it isn't, it can be a red. Serious polarisation of options for the players there!

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If two players are competing in the air for the ball it's not going to end up being a penalty. But obviously noone is going to claim that has happened in the above example.

Nobody has. We're discussing the abstract here. The rules say a red card because it's dangerous play, that's what Payne got sent off for. However there appears to be a way for this play_that_is_dangerous to not be considered dangerous play (& red) and that's to jump at the ball at the same time.

Which would make sense if it wasn't dangerous. But.. Here's the problem. It is!

22-04-2016 04:35PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That wasn't their choice

T'was of course!

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 04:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope, just can't see how if a player jumps a millisecond earlier than he has, that it is any less dangerous whatsoever, and that the outcomes are likely to be any different. However the thinking seems to be that jumping at the same time means its not a penalty, jumping slightly before the other means you're likely to win a penalty, and jumping slightly after the other means you're likely to give away a penalty?

Players are just as likely to be hurt by someone who's left the ground at the same time as them as those who are just slightly later.

You've just told us that if the leap is timed properly that it's not a penalty. And that if it isn't, it can be a red. Serious polarisation of options for the players there!

Nobody has. We're discussing the abstract here. The rules say a red card because it's dangerous play, that's what Payne got sent off for. However there appears to be a way for this dangerous play to not be considered a red and that's to jump at the ball at the same time.

Which would make sense if it wasn't dangerous. But.. Here's the problem. It is!

The timing of the leap isn't as important as you're making out, it's just often a guideline. It's just about being able to contest the ball in the air with the opponent. Players are capable of judging this and slowing, people need to give players of the game a bit more credit here.

The timing of the jump on it's own though could actually be irrelevant in some situations, for example a guy might be on a downward trajectory competing with a guy on an upward trajectory or something along those lines, so it's not really a good basis for a black and white ruling. I didn't ever actually say it was though.

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 04:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

T'was of course!

Their choice was to sign two TV contracts?

Everyone is completely aware that's not what happened.

Winters · 22-04-2016 04:47PM

"it's what the fans want"

Zzippy · 22-04-2016 04:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

T'was of course!

Oh jesus! It's Friday afternono, I'm outta here...

Bazzo · 22-04-2016 04:57PM

I'm with IBF on the competing in the air argument. If both players can get to a position where they're competing in the air it's really not that dangerous for either of them. If one player can't it's really not that hard for him to check his run to put in a tackle instead, anything else is carelessness on their part and dangerous.

Yeah_Right · 22-04-2016 05:56PM

I was watching some NRL earlier and one of the commentators made a good point. It's a collision sport. So is rugby. People will get hurt. Make it as safe as possible but bones will still be broken.

JPNelsforearm · 22-04-2016 06:00PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I was watching some NRL earlier and one of the commentators made a good point. It's a collision sport. So is rugby. People will get hurt. Make it as safe as possible but bones will still be broken.

Unfortunately its getting less so every year. League removed the shoulder charge to appease the shirking violets that make up the casual TV audience.

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 07:57PM

Grenoble on telly now. Hoping they'll win and we might have Irish representation in that final.

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 08:13PM

Also Johnny Justice is refereeing so worth tuning in

Zzippy · 22-04-2016 09:05PM

Not sure about that grounding, ref didn't even have a second look but I wouldn't mind seeing the slo-mo

irishbucsfan · 22-04-2016 09:08PM

Joe Marler is such a fool

Adbrowne · 22-04-2016 10:09PM

conor oshea claims marler kicking the grenoble hooker in the head isnt red card offence like wtf?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 22-04-2016 10:26PM

You can't really tell if he made contact from all the one angle I've seen but I suppose that's irrelevant. ... unless you're Mike Brown.

molloyjh · 22-04-2016 10:32PM

Just back from suspension and kicking out at players faces. Good man Marler.

I was only half watching the game. Seemed pretty crappy from what I saw. Grenoble were very poor. Evans high five after his try was class though in fairness.

RobbieRuns · 22-04-2016 11:06PM

Adbrowne wrote: »

conor oshea claims marler kicking the grenoble hooker in the head isnt red card offence like wtf?

Add your reply here.

What would you say if you didn't want your prop banned for the final?

.ak · 22-04-2016 11:55PM

swiwi_ wrote: »

Paging .ak to explain why that wasn't a red card...

Well running at that pace whilst struggling to take on oxygen can result in blurred vision, also technically speaking is WLR leading with his feet? Hmmm..

General Rugby Discussion

Comments