The High Ball
-
<p>[media]
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What do people think of this? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>To me it appears that the red player is in a position to catch the ball. He hasn't entered the situation in a dangerous way, as in he has slowed, eyes on the ball and is in the spot where the ball will land. Blue player has timed his run pretty well, leaps, knocks out the red player and falls on his shoulder.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is he not in a position to catch the ball because he didn't jump? Does the jumping player have no duty of care to the players on the ground?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I've previously sided with the IRB's ruling on this but am really doubting it's the way forward now.</p> -
<p>Same old same old, if you jump then they don't really care and they call it a contest, if you don't jump and someone leaps from a distance and you collide you get carded. One's where the guy is clearly going for the ball annoy me. As you say, doesn't the jumper have a duty of care as well?</p>
-
-
<p>Great video, thanks for posting.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Kind go makes a mockery of the rules. It is an absolute lottery - go up, take a risk, don't go up, take a risk. It's crazy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>IRB needs a decent group to clarify this stuff. Seems madness to card someone who was legitimately there and jumped into.</p> -
<p>that is fucked. the onus is on the guy on the ground in a position to catch the ball, watching the ball, to get out of the way in case someone jumps into him. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>maybe they should just say only the team that didn't kick it can jump - it's a shit negative tactic anyway.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="597669" data-time="1468749356"><p>that is fucked. the onus is on the guy on the ground in a position to catch the ball, watching the ball, to get out of the way in case someone jumps into him. <br><br>
maybe they should just say only the team that didn't kick it can jump - it's a shit negative tactic anyway.</p></blockquote>
And the irony is that they are doing this to try and enhance safety<br><br>
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="597654" data-time="1468746496">
<div>
<p><strong>Same old same old</strong>, if you jump then they don't really care and they call it a contest, if you don't jump and someone leaps from a distance and you collide you get carded. One's where the guy is clearly going for the ball annoy me. As you say, doesn't the jumper have a duty of care as well?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Maybe it is. Though is this first time the jumper has badly injured the player who was still on their feet (can't say I've followed this too closely)? </p> -
They need some clarity on this , <br><br>
Competing in the air for the high ball is going to a new level as an area of the game to compete for possession , <br><br>
And the outcome whenever it looks a bit dangerous is a bloody lottery . -
<p>Should have been yellow to the guy jumping putting himself and other players into a dangerous stituation. I would also like to see teams get penalised for droping someone in a lneout ~ few times I've seen lifters let go of the lock and he comes down awkwardly if an opposition had slightly touched the lock he would have been penalised when its lifters fault.</p>
-
I knew this would fire up the rugbyrefs board. This is exactly the example given when debating the Finn Russell RC last year. <br>
Have a read of their thread here <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19819-How-do-we-feel-about-this-decision">http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19819-How-do-we-feel-about-this-decision</a> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="597945" data-time="1468851760">
<div>
<p>I knew this would fire up the rugbyrefs board. This is exactly the example given when debating the Finn Russell RC last year.<br>
Have a read of their thread here <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19819-How-do-we-feel-about-this-decision">http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19819-How-do-we-feel-about-this-decision</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree with Ian Cook. It's exactly the same argument I and many others have been making.</p> -
<p>I don't understand why a 'second man in' ruling can be made. Sure there are times when the contest will be close to simultaneous, but for instances like this one it is up to the player arriving second to have duty of care for himself and those around him.</p>
-
<p>I like Steve Hansen's perspective on it: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://soundcloud.com/nzherald/steven-hansen-on-the-drs#t=5:10'>https://soundcloud.com/nzherald/steven-hansen-on-the-drs#t=5:10</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>5:10 for the high ball contest or start <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://soundcloud.com/nzherald/steven-hansen-on-the-drs#t=3:36'>from 3:36</a> to listen to his thoughts on the judicial process in general... basically trying to bring more rugby context into how these things happen as opposed to rules made by 'gin drinkers'.</p> -
<p>That said, there are often times when players will know that they've lost the contest before they even jump... and if they don't know that yet they need to learn. In those cases they need to know to keep their feet on the ground and watch the player in the air, stay out of the way until they land... then smash them.</p>
-
<p><img src="http://www.bonappetit.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/ttss_retro_highball_v.jpg" alt="ttss_retro_highball_v.jpg"></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Perfect in hot weather if you ask me</p>
