Blues vs Stormers
-
@MajorRage said in Blues vs Stormers:
@mooshld said in Blues vs Stormers:
The only thing Tele'a did wrong is he did not jump. If he had fair competition for the ball. He should know this it's been reffed like this for nearly 5 years now. If not he has 4 weeks now to work on this. If you try and take a high ball with your feet on the ground you risk a card.
Jump every single time.
And that's the idiocy of the rule in my opinion. The law is written that for their to be a contest, both players must jump for it, and all benefit of doubt is given to the guy in the air.
"Rugby is a game played on your feet" - except when you dive head first into rucks and are expected to jump high in the air.
The Law simply says that it is dangerous to play someone in the air. It is the silly interpretation that decrees that someone can leap high and late over a player that is looking to catch the ball while on his feet and the other guy takes all the responsibility.
-
Now watched it quite a few times. About half a second before impact both players about the same distance from ball. If Tele'a had jumped like Leyds he would have had the same chance of catching the ball, but more likely there would have been one hell of a midair collision and one of them would have been quite badly hurt. Leyds jumped quite late but did not have 'the rights'. I really think Tele'a would have had to have defied the laws of physics to have been able to avoid Leyds from that point (i.e. the late jump). He put his hands up not to contest the ball but rather to protect himself/try and cushion Leyd's fall.
Where I think it fails the red card test is the requirement to be 'whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action'. In my opinion what Tele'a did was neither reckless nor foul. In fact if there was any recklessness it was on the part of Leyds.
As @mooshld said his 'mistake' under the current refereeing was not to jump. But quite frankly encouraging both players to have jumped like Leyds is both crazy and would be highly dangerous.
I would have absolutely no problem giving top refs more discretion in these matters.
-
@pakman
You could tell he knew he'd got it wrong & tried to pull out but sadly it was too late. The issue I have is that if Leyds lands on his feet, Tele'a would've got a yellow card & nothing more. It shouldn't be about the result, it should be about the action & the action in this case was not malicious in nature or overtly reckless -
Seems like the rules have removed the contest a bit IMO. Maybe the compromise is that you are allowed to tackle them in the air, but have to bring them down safely like with a tackle.
Remove some of the grey area, Tele'a would still be a red. But under my version, he could have grabbed at Leyd and helped bring him down safely, tackled.
The player can then judge the risk, and the defender doesn't get unfairly punished for a small amount of contact caused by the jumping player.
-
Argument could be made for a yellow based on the below guidelines?
Law 9.17 (Dangerous Play - A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground) with the following guidelines:
Play on - Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only - Fair challenge with wrong timing - no pulling down
Yellow card - Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card - It's not a fair challenge, with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position -
Ban. The. Box. Kick.
-
@mariner4life How? Must pass from a ruck before a kick?
-
-
If that rule came in with a new ruling that defenders could play the halfback, it would make things interesting, but without it we’d likely have even less players or teams targeting the ruck.
-
@Nogusta said in Blues vs Stormers:
@pakman
You could tell he knew he'd got it wrong & tried to pull out but sadly it was too late. The issue I have is that if Leyds lands on his feet, Tele'a would've got a yellow card & nothing more. It shouldn't be about the result, it should be about the action & the action in this case was not malicious in nature or overtly recklessPretty subjective why he stopped, which he certainly did.
An alternative explanation is that he realised to compete he'd have to jump and because both players were equidistant there was a good chance of a mid air collision and risk of a card, so he decided to stop and try and grab Leyds on landing. The unfortunate thing being that Leyd's trajectory took that option away from him.
In the book now and main thing Leyds wasn't injured badly, which was a real risk given the height he jumped and that he lifted his knees up.
-
@pakman 100% Agree. Both players running quickly toward ball almost equal distance away, one jumps and the other doesn’t. So the guy that doesn’t jump has to change what he is doing whereas the guy who took the risk by jumping gets a free ride? The intention I thought was if a player owned the space and another player jumped in then that second player had to be careful. In this case nobody owned the space, they both arrived at the same time but one in then air and the other with his feet in the ground. Yellow at worst.
-
@mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:
Ban. The. Box. Kick.
How does that change the situation?
It's not just box kicks which result in attacking and defending teams competing for a catch.Personally - I have no idea how to fix that area. Some completely ill-thought out (and drunk) ideas...
- the player with feet closest to the ground gets the benefit of the doubt?
(simplest thing I can think of which would mean - players don't semi-deliberately put themselves into peril, plus - are forced into being aware of the situation/location/movement of opposing player)
... I'm sure there would be unintended consequences,
but - whatever is done - even existing rules - the intention has to be (and I believe is the intention with the current rulings) - you have to be aware of the opposing player. If you are only watching the ball... that's an aggravating factor, NOT an alleviating one.
- the player with feet closest to the ground gets the benefit of the doubt?
-
@Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.
If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.
It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them
-
maybe allow a mark to be called anywhere, by either team...but obviously you must be on the ground to do so.
stupid I know, but it would reduce the number of high kicks and be less jumping to contest them
-
@mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:
@Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.
If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.
It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them
Yeah - but the problem is the contests in the air. That's the bit that needs to be fixed... otherwise we'll just be having this debate after fucking kick-offs.
-
@taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:
maybe allow a mark to be called anywhere, by either team...but obviously you must be on the ground to do so.
stupid I know, but it would reduce the number of high kicks and be less jumping to contest them
AFL?
-
@Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:
@mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:
@Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.
If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.
It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them
Yeah - but the problem is the contests in the air. That's the bit that needs to be fixed... otherwise we'll just be having this debate after fucking kick-offs.
i work on odds. How many instances of guys getting it really wrong do we see? Out of how many contests? I would say that number would be really, really low.
So, if we can cut the number of contests even further (just by its nature you can't get rid of them completely) then surely the small number of instances we have will reduce even further.
-
@Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and AFL uses kicks a bit differently to rugby.
I just think the way kicks are used in rugby, if you gave the free kick to either team but only on the ground it would reduce the point of a contestable box kick.
Or maybe make it if you kick it, you cannot jump for it, so there should only ever be 1 player in the air, the chasing team knows they are not going to win it in the air so then they have to be there to take the man when he hits the floor, I think that would reduce some (not all) of the accidental collisions due to timiing issues if one team knows they are just getting to the place it lands to tackle and drive the guy rather than contest it in the air.
It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.
-
@mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:
@Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:
@mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:
@Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.
If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.
It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them
Yeah - but the problem is the contests in the air. That's the bit that needs to be fixed... otherwise we'll just be having this debate after fucking kick-offs.
i work on odds. How many instances of guys getting it really wrong do we see? Out of how many contests? I would say that number would be really, really low.
So, if we can cut the number of contests even further (just by its nature you can't get rid of them completely) then surely the small number of instances we have will reduce even further.
Yeah - but that's it... the fact we can't get rid of them completely... surely address the issue, rather than reducing the odds of it happening?
I get you don't like box-kicks (I don't get the utter hatred, but, yeah - fair enough - it can get kinda boring... 80's style rugby-field-ping-pong)... but surely address the issue rather than reducing the likelihood of it occurring? -
@Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:
@mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:
@Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:
@mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:
@Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.
If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.
It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them
Yeah - but the problem is the contests in the air. That's the bit that needs to be fixed... otherwise we'll just be having this debate after fucking kick-offs.
i work on odds. How many instances of guys getting it really wrong do we see? Out of how many contests? I would say that number would be really, really low.
So, if we can cut the number of contests even further (just by its nature you can't get rid of them completely) then surely the small number of instances we have will reduce even further.
Yeah - but that's it... the fact we can't get rid of them completely... surely address the issue, rather than reducing the odds of it happening?
I get you don't like box-kicks (I don't get the utter hatred, but, yeah - fair enough - it can get kinda boring... 80's style rugby-field-ping-pong)... but surely address the issue rather than reducing the likelihood of it occurring?so tell me what the issue is
