All Blacks vs Wales Test #2

Catogrande

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="590046" data-time="1466421160">
<div>
Sorry ... back on topic ... do we ban jumping for the ball in the air?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's a difficult one isn't it? I sort of think the laws as they are are probably as near to what we want as is possible but the interpretation of them is such a grey area. Someone above mentioned how good Ben Smith's judgement seems to be in respect of when to contest and when to wait and tackle as the jumper lands. You'd think that all professional players would have a degree of the same good judgement. If that was the case we'd see far fewer occurrences like the Williams/Naholo one. It really would then just be down to the times when there is a proper contest.
 
So. Short answer is I don't know.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="590051" data-time="1466421707">
<div>
I can't find video of the challenge, but IIRC Naholo didn't even manage to grab a piece of the ball. You've at least got to get some of it IMHO to make it a bonafide 50/50
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Disagree. You can position yourself perfectly and someone else can get some part of their body in the way.

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="590056" data-time="1466422322">
<div>
Disagree. You can position yourself perfectly and someone else can get some part of their body in the way.
</div>
</blockquote>
I'm happy to agree to disagree. Challenge was sloppy though, it deserved the penalty. It helped that Williams went down like he got shot but so did our man

kiwiinmelb

I think it is a grey area , is it the action or the intention that is punished , 
 
How many times do you hear commentators say , but his eyes are on the ball only , 
 
Is that actually relevant or not , ive got no idea ?

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="kiwiinmelb" data-cid="590059" data-time="1466422483">
<div>
I think it is a grey area , is it the action or the intention that is punished , 
 
How many times do you hear commentators say , but his eyes are on the ball only , 
 
Is that actually relevant or not , ive got no idea ? 
</div>
</blockquote>
It is grey. I can only give it the eye test and at the time it looked bad to me

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="590049" data-time="1466421470">
<div>
How do they deal with this in Aussie Rules?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
They have some simple rules around the contestability of marks. Ultimately they're not too dissimilar in that as long as you're contesting the mark and not playing the man, you're fine. They also have a much better approach that you're responsible for your own health if you leap and fall awkwardly in a contest. Even if you managed to leap much higher than someone else.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="590049" data-time="1466421470">
How do they deal with this in Aussie Rules?</blockquote>
 
I did have my tongue partially in my cheek then (not completely ... maybe it is a solution) but ... 
Good question. I follow the game superficially so i couldn't tell you the rulings. 
As far as i can tell if players are going for the ball anything goes ... but the sort of bad landings we're getting in rugby don't seem to happen in Strayan Roolz. 
Quite spectacular when you see some guy climbing up someone elses back. 
Players are often coming from the same direction towards the ball rather than on a collision course. 
No hands in the back. Tiniest pressure there puts the opponent off his stride. 
Players fall from a great height often. 
Mark gets awarded for having control for the minimal amount of time. You don't have to bring it to earth with you. 
Don't get these collisions in loigue either. Perhaps due to the nature of the bombs to the in goal when players are reasonably stationary.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="590058" data-time="1466422450">
<div>
I'm happy to agree to disagree. Challenge was sloppy though, it deserved the penalty. It helped that Williams went down like he got shot but so did our man
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Agree the challenge was sloppy and Naholo going down probably saved him from a card.
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="590064" data-time="1466423213">
<div>
Players are often coming from the same direction towards the ball rather than on a collision course.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Coming from the direction of the kick is penalisable. Basically what makes it safer is that both players are moving towards the ball.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="590065" data-time="1466423402">
Agree the challenge was sloppy and Naholo going down probably saved him from a card. 
Coming from the direction of the kick is penalisable. Basically what makes it safer is that both players are moving towards the ball.</blockquote>
 
Yeah that was essentially my point. In rugby players by nature of the game have to be moving towards each other. Creates an element of danger. Mitigated in league with the high kicks to in goal as they are generally from close enough for the contesters from both sides to set themselves under the ball. Or often given the nature of the game defenders have to come forward while ball is in hand and then have to retreat back, so players aren't heading towards each other at a million miles an hour. 
Didn't know that was illegal to come from the diection of the ball in AFL.

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="590065" data-time="1466423402">
Agree the challenge was sloppy and Naholo going down probably saved him from a card. 
Coming from the direction of the kick is penalisable. Basically what makes it safer is that both players are moving towards the ball.</blockquote>
 
It is? Nick reiwoldt has made a career of it. The history of bravest marks are running with the flight

antipodean

If you make contact with another player coming forward it's a free kick; "frontal contact". It would be different if you came down with the ball I guess.

reprobate

i didn't know that about afl either - just assumed it was a case of it being easier to catch a ball while running towards it rather than away, so with no offside line (and the kicks generally being low flat 'passes') it seldom happened. not much there to help the rugby situation though i guess.
 
i don't like the idea of cards being dished out for guys simply being beaten to the ball. would need to see a replay to assess that particular incident though.
 
if defending players went up like AFL players do, hands overhead, the attacking player would hardly ever be in a position to catch the ball by comparison, and would therefore always be in potential card territory. first guy to do it will get nailed a couple of times by someone flying in knees up for a traditional catch though.

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="590074" data-time="1466424772">
<div>
i didn't know that about afl either - just assumed it was a case of it being easier to catch a ball while running towards it rather than away, so with no offside line (and the kicks generally being low flat 'passes') it seldom happened. not much there to help the rugby situation though i guess.
 
i don't like the idea of cards being dished out for guys simply being beaten to the ball. would need to see a replay to assess that particular incident though.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The distinction is being beaten to the ball in the air & knowing you are beaten before you jump.
 
For example here the guy is probably going to catch it if you magically take away the jump, has eyes on the ball but he has clearly "lost" the contest & instead recklessly takes out the guy who has won.

Same again here, loses the jump (slips) and cleans out the guy who has won the jump

Red seems pretty harsh...
 
Both those cases the guy jumping has won the jump, guy coming through has zero chance of beating his opposition to the ball.
 
Contrast with this, Pom loses the jump so rather than clean out Smith tackles him when he comes down
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='

'>

</a>
 
While this is pretty much a perfect fair contest -
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='

'>

</a>

TeWaio

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="590026" data-time="1466416944">
<div>
I agree, it doesn't.
 
Most guys now are taught to jump no matter what, so they jump even when they are far too late & have zero chance of actually contesting, its cynical & dangerous & should be pinged. The application is usually "did he have any chance of contesting? No? Penalty. In doing so did he put the other player at risk of serious injury (ie he landed on his head)? Yes? Yellow card."
 
If you listen to the ref mike that exactly the process he goes through (that may have been tough on NZ commentary with Marshall shouting "whoom-PA!" over the top & Nisbo saying "well, whats happened there? That doesn't look good, I wonder what the outcome of this will be" as the ref explains it all.)
 
Genuine 50/50's are not usually penalised, Naholo's was not a 50/50, he was late, had no chance & just auto-jumped because that what they get told in practice. The one later on was an actual 50/50.
 
In contrast Ben Smith regularly sees he won't get there in time to contest, checks his run makes the tackle the second the guy hits the deck & rolls him. McCaw used to do the same. 
</div>
</blockquote>

Finally, someone cuts through the BS and actually explains the situation properly. Thank you.

taniwharugby

I still don't agree with the ref ruling potential for injury as a determining factor in the penalty sanction. 
Like the RC that Lima got in Super rugby, then the YC Ngatai got to this one, all due to the landing, all theoretically have great potential for injury but all landed differently, so there we have 3 levels of penalty.

Disgusted of TW

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="590108" data-time="1466448913">I still don't agree with the ref ruling potential for injury as a determining factor in the penalty sanction. 
Like the RC that Lima got in Super rugby, then the YC Ngatai got to this one, all due to the landing, all theoretically have great potential for injury but all landed differently, so there we have 3 levels of penalty.</blockquote>
 
Yes, luck and/or the resilience of the wronged player shouldn't determine the sanction.

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="590072" data-time="1466424612">
<div>
If you make contact with another player coming forward it's a free kick; "frontal contact". It would be different if you came down with the ball I guess.
</div>
</blockquote>
I read the laws (the AFL laws are surprisingly well laid out) and i can't find any mention of "frontal contact". I think you can run back with the flight, but you have to be going for the ball (most free kicks you see the guy takes his eyes off the ball and looks at the player he bumps), and if you make contact, it better not be high, and the ball better be close. The AFL have a 5m rule for the ball being "close". 
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/2016 Laws of Australian Football.pdf'>http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/2016 Laws of Australian Football.pdf</a>
 
Page 44
 
The real difference between AFL and rugby is, the catcher isn't immediately given a free if they tumble over the top of a player when they take the mark. So a guy can take (or miss) a speccie, fall flat on his head, but it could be play on, if they guy underneath didn't deliberately do anything to cause it. Unlike rugby, where being under the ball and getting jumped over can get you a yellow card.

antipodean

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-marking-contests'>http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-marking-contests</a>

mariner4life

cheers for that. I'm actually pretty confused now about "frontal contact" because you see that every week. Did they deem he wasn't going for the ball in that? 
 
would this be free kicked?
 
[media]

kiwiinmelb

With afl contest in the air is important , obviously , it's a major part of the game . 
Any hint of playing the man , not the bsll is a big no. 
Tunnelling is considered dangerous , which is going under the players legs while he is in the air , 
If this contest was in afl , I think it would come down to the umpires discretion , was naholo going for the ball , and not trying to spoil the man . 
You do get plenty of examples every week where the player with the better sit for the mark doesn't take it and the guy jumping lower down marks it instead .

The Silver Fern

All Blacks vs Wales Test #2