Is this a red card?

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?

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="576346" data-time="1462168011">
<div>
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?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But an action can be both dangerous and legal. You could say that about 90% of our game.

NTA

Thing is, eyes only for the ball is a fairly shit excuse - you need to be aware of your opponent in that situation (said the prop who never chased a kick in his life).

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="576355" data-time="1462169470">Thing is, eyes only for the ball is a fairly shit excuse - you need to be aware of your opponent in that situation (said the prop who never chased a kick in his life).</blockquote>
Yeah but you could just throw out a big swinging arm at neck height and claim you didn't see anyone else, just a ball being passed to just out of your vision...

Nepia

Not a red to me, the player was watching the ball the entire time and the other guy jumped when they were practically standing next to each other.

Crucial

There is quite a difference between recklessly charging toward a player in the air and having someone get airborne over you when it is too late to react.
 
Yes there is an argument that you should anticipate that another player may jump but does that mean no one can ever catch the ball on the ground if a chaser is coming? Or that you have to put yourself at risk by jumping unnecessarily?

gt12

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="576288" data-time="1462155905">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.</blockquote>
 
I agree. I can't see anything there except for a horrible accident. I don't see how the player who slipped is responsible.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gt12" data-cid="576391" data-time="1462175958">
<div>
I agree. I can't see anything there except for a horrible accident. I don't see how the player who slipped is responsible.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
is that another part of SA transformation policy, to include an unco too?

mooshld

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="576278" data-time="1462154754">
<div>
From the angle no way it was a red. He had his eyes on the pill the entire time.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="576281" data-time="1462155119">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
<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>
 
 
Its the Jared Payne precedent. Having your eye on the ball the whole time actually acts against you as you are not aware of your surroundings. Therefore deemed more reckless.

Chris B.

Looks to me that the guy's just slipped over at an unfortunate time.
 
Did he get red-carded? Seems incredibly harsh.

The Silver Fern

Is this a red card?