TMO Involvement

[BikingBud]

European Cup - UBB v Saints

I cannot remember so many decisions overturned due to in-situ replays where the ref observed what had happened and where the TMO came in to interject. Whilst there is much discussion about the need to get decisions correct this really interrupted the flow of the game.

Are we in danger of losing, indeed have we already lost, the spirit of the game?

I would also highlight the tactic of Penaud, a class player in most respects, but his running jumps into conflict seem to be accepted as safe whereas the stationary defender always get pinged. UBB supporters clamouring for a PT yesterday when he launched himself at speed to retrieve a ball and clattered into Freeman, another case where his arms got intertwined with Mitchell who was waiting to retrieve the ball - Protection should be given to players on the ground not those barging in:

• 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.

We need to stop this presumption of blame on the player on the ground waiting to catch.

There was at least one other instance very close to the end where he deliberately jumped a tackle, he will continue to endanger himself and others if his behaviour is not challenged. And perhaps more importantly youngsters will copy and expect the same leeway to be given.

 

[Volun-selected]

We need to stop this presumption of blame on the player on the ground waiting to catch.

This has been something which has got under my skin for quite a while, and it needs a rebalance. Yes, we want dynamism and attacking rugby but, for me, too often a leaping player gets away with a reckless/indifferent/dangerous action that puts the defender at risk.

If the player on the ground is positioned to catch the ball, the jumping player should not get a free hit.

Not sure we’ll see any change until we have the farce of a player unconscious on the ground, surrounded by frantic medics, being shown a red card while the jumper complains about how the defender’s face hurt their knees.

 

[Balones]

I have always been an advocate of the notion that the game is played by players on their feet. We apply it in relation to players on the floor so why not in the air, since they are also ‘not on their feet’. If you are not on your feet you are liable to sanction; down or up.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

• 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.

And yet we allow the "Hand -Off."

 

[BikingBud]

And yet we allow the "Hand -Off."

Not sure what prompted that response:

Hand-off - A permitted action, taken by a ball-carrier to fend off an opponent, using the palm of the hand.​

​

9.15 is two players not in possession!​

​

Allowing high speed lateral jumps does not present a fair competition. The jumper is endangering themselves and the player on the ground waiting to catch.​

​

I feel we have been around there a number of times and I currently see no appetite to change the obviously dangerous situation, it's not about whose fault it might have been when there is a paraplegic and the game has done nothing to improve the situation.​

​

But any thoughts about the broader context of the OP, the number of times there was intervention and if this was fair, reasonable and required?​

 

[Marc Wakeham]

In 2011, WR (IRB) changed the wording from:

"a player must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball."
to the current
"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."

For years they ignored "their" law by allowing the hand off and finally, in 2011, they made an" honest woman" of the hand off by enshrining it into law.

If they could allow that before. what, in their eyes, does this one matter?

The law is what WR want it to be, Whatever the wording.

 

[BikingBud]

In 2011, WR (IRB) changed the wording from:

"a player must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball."
to the current
"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."

For years they ignored "their" law by allowing the hand off and finally, in 2011, they made an" honest woman" of the hand off by enshrining it into law.

If they could allow that before. what, in their eyes, does this one matter?

The law is what WR want it to be, Whatever the wording.

Doesn't that old Law, replaced over 14 years ago, make the playing of the game impossible?

But I do feel that the change gives firm grounds for penalising high speed lateral jumps into contact with players waiting to catch a ball. As always there is interpretation that presumes outcomes and doesn't always consider the reckless events.

Running towards a prostrate player and being surprised when they sit up and you clatter into them, malicious or reckless or just one of those things? Any claims to be interested in player safety would demand that this is treated quite severely. There were no restrictions on where Buros could run but he chose to run straight toward Furbank! Very difficult to say its a rugby incident when the ball is bouncing away from the area:



I would welcome thoughts about the interventions

 

[Marc Wakeham]

How would outlawing hand offs make the game unplayable.

Back to the actul topic. Yes the law makers need to sort this area of the contest out. It is skewd and created reward to the player causing the problem. However, The throwin shows the laws are not written clearly See futher the tap tackle, technically illegal as there is no attempt to bind. But would any ref ping a player for it? NO. It is time for a proper re-write that is PROOF READ afterwards unlike the 2018 simplification.

 

[BikingBud]

I didn't say outlawing hand off would make it unplayable!

I commented upon the old Law that you listed: "a player must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball."

If you have the ball then the game is all about the physical challenge and confrontation but even in these situations when carrying the ball (and the way your old Law was constructed) contact was, it appears, illegal. Yes there is a limit with regards to raised forearms, leading with elbows up and again after this weekend perhaps onus on ball carries to be aware of where their own head is.

Now even with the clarification of players not carrying the ball it all occurs, all of the time: taking people off fringes of rucks/mauls before they have joined, stepping into the opposing line to wander round the wrong side of the breakdown, dummy runners always in front of the ball with the deliberate intent of pulling defenders into early contact, and my biggest personal bug bear deliberate jumping into opponents at high speed.

We know there are lots of other issues in showcase rugby and they will tinker with those forever but not really change anything just add confusion.


But the safety issues must be addressed, off the ball incidents such as running into a player on the ground was wholly avoidable and reckless, it shows extremely clumsiness at best and based upon the premise that professional athletes know what they are doing it cannot be disregarded as a rugby incident.

I understand that UBB No1 has been cited for events after the game.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

the law did and does inclued "Except...." to allow fro scrums rucks mauls etc.

The point of the post is that the law badly word as it may or may not have been, has always been interpreted and not read strictly. It is actually difficult to say the law does or does not allow something unlerss there is a very specific wording. Those occasions are rare. We have, if you like "Statute law" ie the law book and "Common Law" the interpretation that referees use by agreement or via "secret meetings". All in all it makes it very difficult for spectators / new players and new referees to see and us consistancy. We need the book properly reviewed and corrected so that the book reflects practice.

We allow the tap tackle eventhough a strict reading says NO
We allow the crocked feed into the secod row even though a strict reading says NO
WE allow player to encroach onto the pitch at line out throws even though the law says NO
WE allowed player to hand off even though the law said NO. And then we changed the law to formally allow it.

We "justify" our inaction. "bigger fish to fry", "Look for reasons NOT to blow the whistle", "Not material" etc. But at the end of the day " winger was only a foot offside and 50vmetres away from the scrum becomes oh he was only 1" 1" in front. To only 1' 2" befor long the two wingers are chatting to each other while the ball is fed to the no 8. "Can't happen" you say? Well there was a time when the ball went straight into the scrum. Over time and inch by inch we have the nonsense we have today.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

However, A simple law change:

"When a side kicks the ball, NO player from the kicking side may contest the ball by jumping. They must only contest whilst having one foot on the grourd or whilst running."

So only the defenders can jump.

 

[crossref]

However, A simple law change:

"When a side kicks the ball, NO player from the kicking side may conted the ball by jumping. They must only contest whilst havingone foot on the grourd or whilst running."

So only the defenders can jump.

That's an interesting idea, I would like to see that trialled

 

[didds]

That's an interesting idea, I would like to see that trialled

It would certainly see cross field kick passes almost die out, if that is seen as desirable.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It would certainly see cross field kick passes almost die out, if that is seen as desirable.

Kicking would need to be better targeted into space for the chaser to have a better chance of reclaiming possession rather than hopeful kicks like the box kick.

 

[Volun-selected]

It would certainly see cross field kick passes almost die out, if that is seen as desirable.

If the law was worded around efforts to jump and contest the ball, that should leave the attacker free to leap for a cross-field kick as long as a defender isn’t nearby?

For the original issue, a ban of leaping attackers would work, but do we want to stop all the jumps or just the ones that allow free hits?

I was thinking about how I’ve seen attackers charging to chase and put pressure on a defender but still able to pull up if a successful mark is taken. Maybe all we need is a simple clarification that a static defender who has taken up a position with a realistic chance to catch the ball can only be prevented from playing the ball by being tackled once in possession of the ball.

If both players are running and want to contest, they can both leap and we have fair contest as we see now with no concern (though occasionally they both end up laid out but we treat it as fair contest.

If the attacker is ahead of the defenders they can jump and the onus is on the defender to time their tackle, again as we see now.

If the defender gets their first and is in position, the attacker cannot leap into contact, or tackle them off the ball. If they do, it’s foul play.

So, in the last case if the Attacker clatters into the defenders body, it’s a tackle off the ball. Strike their head, then it’s foul play, head contact, high degree of danger, off you go.

Would this remove the imbalance but still allow fair competition?

 

[Harry]

Could we have: Except in a line out, no player may jump when close to or aproaching another player.

That could cover jumping over a tackle and jumping onto another player to catch a high ball, but still allow an unmarked winger to jump to catch a crossfield kick.

 

[BikingBud]

If the law was worded around efforts to jump and contest the ball, that should leave the attacker free to leap for a cross-field kick as long as a defender isn’t nearby? - So what is the contest and why the need to jump? Nobody nearby, catcher with feet planted on the ground, field the kick, play on!

For the original issue, a ban of leaping attackers would work, but do we want to stop all the jumps or just the ones that allow free hits? - I would like to see a determined effort to make the game safer, just apply Law 9.15

I was thinking about how I’ve seen attackers charging to chase and put pressure on a defender but still able to pull up if a successful mark is taken. Maybe all we need is a simple clarification that a static defender who has taken up a position with a realistic chance to catch the ball can only be prevented from playing the ball by being tackled once in possession of the ball. - Current laws; 9.14, 9.15, should be applied to achieve this outcome.

If both players are running and want to contest, they can both leap and we have fair contest as we see now with no concern (though occasionally they both end up laid out but we treat it as fair contest. - Both laid out both injured? It's OK if they are both injured because it was a fair contest? But what about the direction of running? Along the same path, shoulder to shoulder or merging at high speed? Here the assumption is that the defender is always the problem and the cause.

If the attacker is ahead of the defenders they can jump and the onus is on the defender to time their tackle, again as we see now. - Current laws, 9.14, 9.15 and 9.17, should be applied to achieve this outcome.

If the defender gets their first and is in position, the attacker cannot leap into contact, or tackle them off the ball. If they do, it’s foul play. - Current law, 9.14, 9.15 and 9.17, should be applied to achieve this outcome.

So, in the last case if the Attacker clatters into the defenders body, it’s a tackle off the ball. Strike their head, then it’s foul play, head contact, high degree of danger, off you go. - If they run in stop and jump I am less concerned but yes, the dangerous and reckless act is not jumping per se it is jumping with high lateral speed, they are a projectile. But as always what can (should) be allowed as a fair contest drifts and we get unfair and more seriously, dangerous play.

Would this remove the imbalance but still allow fair competition? It is not about imbalance it is about applying the Laws as currently written to increase player safety, to penalise the players that act recklessly.

 

[BikingBud]

Could we have: Except in a line out, no player may jump when close to or aproaching another player. - I have no issue with players all stood around the corner flag pogoing like they were at a Sex Pistols concert but the dangerous aspect I have highlighted before.

That could cover jumping over a tackle and jumping onto another player to catch a high ball, but still allow an unmarked winger to jump to catch a crossfield kick. - Current laws, 9.11, 9.14, 9.15 and 9.17, should be applied to achieve this outcome. - But what is the contest and why the need to jump to catch? Nobody nearby, catcher with feet planted on the ground, field the kick, play on! Someone nearby get their first and dominate the space or wait until defender has caught and tackle. If the kick is inside the defender's 22m and a mark is called re-apprise your kicker about their required skills!

Any thoughts on the cause of the Furbank injury?

Interesting that people seem not to want to comment, again I consider it a far more likely occurrence than some of the rabbit holes that are explored on here but there is reticence to discuss it.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Could we have: Except in a line out, no player may jump when close to or aproaching another player.

That could cover jumping over a tackle and jumping onto another player to catch a high ball, but still allow an unmarked winger to jump to catch a crossfield kick.

How close is close etc? This opens up so much wriggle room for the referee to cop out. and fancy lawyer to argue in hearings.

A well executed cross kick into space, should you need to jump?

 

[Harry]

Mostly the law book says one metre is close. But if you collide with another player you must be close.
I've never done a well executed cross kick. So you might need to jump to catch it.