Is this a red card?

MajorRage

I don't think it was red, as 2 things quite clearly happened - eyes were on the ball and he slipped. 
 
I don't entirely blame the ref for giving it, but it doesn't look red to me.

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="576279" data-time="1462154769">
<div>
How they land should have zero bearing on the punishment.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You don't think the level of dangerousness is relevant? Wow.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="576284" data-time="1462155592">
<div>
You don't think the level of dangerousness is relevant? Wow.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
So you are saying they should be punished severely if there is a higher level of dangerousness or say, potential (or conversely, if they make a dangerous play and the guy lands perfectly safely punishment should be minimal)
 
Surely you hit a guy, accidentally in mid-air, all have potential to be very dangerous, regardless of how they land..it is just luck (for the one being hit) if they land better than say Le Roux.
 
We already have a judiciary that is wildly inconsistent, you want to give them jurisdiction to start determining potential outcomes too?

Hooroo

The thing for me is that both never take their eyes off the ball at any stage. Why does one person have more responsibility to pull out over another? Does it all come down to who can jump the highest?
 
To me it is an awful accident and not even worthy of a penalty.

Toddy

These are the rulings that were released last year regarding challenges in the air (this may have been updated now?)
 
Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
<ul><li>Play on â€“ Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only â€“ Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul> 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended'>http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended</a>
 
I guess the TMO doesn't take into account the accidental slip and purely looks at if it was a fair challenge (which it wasn't).

Crucial

I like the new criteria for sanctions but still question why a player that leaps into contact holds no responsibility for his own demise. Rugby is a game to be played on the feet and a catcher should be allowed to stand on the ground to make a catch. If someone then leaps at them they shouldn't be held accountable.
It has become that you have to leap and leap well to be sure of being judged as challenging for the ball even if no one else has yet leaped as well.
I don't know the answer just feel that there is room to take these things into account.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="576290" data-time="1462155920">
<div>
These are the rulings that were released last year regarding challenges in the air (this may have been updated now?)
 
Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
<ul><li>Play on â€“ Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only â€“ Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul> 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended'>http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended</a>
 
I guess the TMO doesn't take into account the accidental slip and purely looks at if it was a fair challenge (which it wasn't).
</div>
</blockquote>
 
^^^^ This.
 
The key question is then if the slip mitigates the consequences. He clearly slipped and that prevented him from getting off the ground. For me, a fair outcome would be yellow as it was unintentional (and not readily able to be anticipated), but the effect is dangerous.
 
 
Would an analogy be going in for a tackle, slipping and inadvertantly tripping the opposing player. Unintentional, but inarguably (apparent) foul play based on a close reading of the rules.

Siam

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="576288" data-time="1462155905">
<div>
The thing for me is that both never take their eyes off the ball at any stage. Why does one person have more responsibility to pull out over another? Does it all come down to who can jump the highest?
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yep, who has precedent?
Also in a couple of the incidents the comment by the ref was you were never in a position to take the ball - easy to say afterward but what is the player thinking as he runs with eyes on the ball?
 
Of most importance is, what is being communicated to players and coaches about these situations?
 
Does everyone know who has right of way as it were? A defender standing his ground has what rights?
 
What thoughts should being going through a player as he waits or as he chases. If they're making the players judge if they can contest or not, what coaching and guidance have they offered to clarify what the players should do?
 
Mucky area and agree with Barbarian, red cards should be for when someone goes troppo and knowingly and intentionally tries to hurt someone

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="576286" data-time="1462155792">
<div>
So you are saying they should be punished severely if there is a higher level of dangerousness or say, potential (or conversely, if they make a dangerous play and the guy lands perfectly safely punishment should be minimal)
 
Surely you hit a guy, accidentally in mid-air, all have potential to be very dangerous, regardless of how they land..it is just luck (for the one being hit) if they land better than say Le Roux.
 
We already have a judiciary that is wildly inconsistent, you want to give them jurisdiction to start determining potential outcomes too?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
See Toddy's post; how/where on the body they land is relevant:
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="576290" data-time="1462155920">
<div>
These are the rulings that were released last year regarding challenges in the air (this may have been updated now?)
 
Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
<ul><li>Play on â€“ Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only â€“ Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul> 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended'>http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended</a>
 
I guess the TMO doesn't take into account the accidental slip and purely looks at if it was a fair challenge (which it wasn't).
</div>
</blockquote>

Crucial

Maybe keeping RCs only for deliberate (and not accidental) acts is the way to go. Put incidents on report to be looked at properly later on.
This wouldn't help in lower levels though and WR likes to have one rule for all.

Crazy Horse

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="576291" data-time="1462156441">
I like the new criteria for sanctions but still question why a player that leaps into contact holds no responsibility for his own demise. Rugby is a game to be played on the feet and a catcher should be allowed to stand on the ground to make a catch. If someone then leaps at them they shouldn't be held accountable. 
It has become that you have to leap and leap well to be sure of being judged as challenging for the ball even if no one else has yet leaped as well. 
I don't know the answer just feel that there is room to take these things into account.</blockquote>
 
Not sure I would want to see it but if they are really serious the only way they can fully protect players is to ban jumping. There is something theatrical in seeing a well taken leaping catch that I would hate to see removed from the game.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="576297" data-time="1462157145">
<div>
See Toddy's post; how/where on the body they land is relevant:
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
that wasn't the question, you questioned MY statement, I gave you MY answer.
 
If Le Roux had managed to do a complete somersault and come down on his feet, would Emery's punishment have been the same (RC and 4 weeks) IMO it should be.
 
The rule book doesn't go into detail quite like that about the 'level' (page 69, same rule10.4 (i))
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/World_Rugby_Laws_2016_EN.pdf'>http://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/World_Rugby_Laws_2016_EN.pdf</a>

Stargazer

RC for the offence
Punishment dependent on other circumstances, such as accidental, deliberate, reckless. I'd expect that Zas doesn't get any further punishment.

Crucial

I'd be mightily pissed off if I was standing lined up to take a catch in the first minute of a game and a chaser took a flying leap at my head tipping himself over in the process and I got red carded.
This is the type of incident that isn't covered by the guidelines provided to referees.

No Quarter

As long as he posts a public apology on his website and/or twitter then I'm fine with it.

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="576301" data-time="1462157365">
<div>
Not sure I would want to see it but if they are really serious the only way they can fully protect players is to ban jumping. There is something theatrical in seeing a well taken leaping catch that I would hate to see removed from the game.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Well I actually see this as progression towards a 'fair catch' law like they have in the NFL. 
 
I agree the emphasis on the landing position of the player is fraught. If Zas never had his eyes on the ball but jumped into Foley and clattered into him, forcing him to land backwards on his arse, he would have only got a YC, even though the play would have been far more reckless and cynical.
 
I think there is way too much grey area here, and there needs to be a greater emphasis on intent rather than result. IMO if your intent was to make a fair rugby play you should never be red carded, regardless of result.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="576288" data-time="1462155905">
<div>
The thing for me is that both never take their eyes off the ball at any stage. Why does one person have more responsibility to pull out over another? Does it all come down to who can jump the highest?
 
To me it is an awful accident and not even worthy of a penalty.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It's a bit of a strange one. If both players leap, it is never penalised. You just need to make sure you jump. Even if you jump and take the other player out, you will probably get away with it.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="576337" data-time="1462164051">
<div>
Well I actually see this as progression towards a 'fair catch' law like they have in the NFL. 
 
I agree the emphasis on the landing position of the player is fraught. If Zas never had his eyes on the ball but jumped into Foley and clattered into him, forcing him to land backwards on his arse, he would have only got a YC, even though the play would have been far more reckless and cynical.
 
I think there is way too much grey area here, and there needs to be a greater emphasis on intent rather than result. IMO if your intent was to make a fair rugby play you should never be red carded, regardless of result. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Then Emery stays on the field though. I think you should be able to get red carded if your action is dangerous. If Le Roux did a somersault and landed on his feet, then Emery would have only got a yellow which seems strange.

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="576340" data-time="1462166397">
<div>
Then Emery stays on the field though. I think you should be able to get red carded if your action is dangerous. If Le Roux did a somersault and landed on his feet, then Emery would have only got a yellow which seems strange.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But tackling a player in the air is not a 'fair rugby play' to me. Neither is a tip tackle. If you break the law in those ways, a red card should certainly be on the table if the outcome is dangerous.

Bones

I find it odd people think eyes only on the ball is a reason to allow dangerous play. That's a shit excuse. In any case has no one got peripheral vision?

The Silver Fern

Is this a red card?