Taking the player out in the air.

First topic message reminder :

Fallout from Wales vs Scotland.

This taking the player in the air is nonsense. Both yellows IMO were not worthy of getting cards. Secondly Warburton and Gatland claiming Russel should have been red carded is really really uncalled for. It was an accident, no malice (unlike Hogg last year).

So here is my suggestion.

If the ball is in the air, keep your feet on the ground.

Anyone jumping for a ball with their knees up should be penalized and yellow carded. If your not jumping in the air it's pretty hard to land on your head.

Whilst you are at it, lets bring back properly calling for the mark as a fullback. That will bring positioning back instead of being able to catch it whilst diving.

For reference here is some clarification sent round reffing circles from the IRB after the Payne incident (nicked from Ulster forum)

IRB wrote:Steps for consistency in making a decision:

Principles:
* Safety requirement - protect players in the air.

* Unintentional act does not mean no YC/RC (recklessness,
dangerous act).

* For chasing players, saying they have their eyes on the ball
is not a strong enough argument - they have a responsibility for the
safety of the receiver.

Legal actions:
* Both players are in the air at the same level/height and
contesting the ball at the same time.

* The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and
falls to floor: play on.

Illegal actions:
* A player jumps without really contesting for the ball. For
instance, he is jumping into the player who is trying to catch the ball
mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.

* A player is not really contesting for the ball. For instance,
he is running into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to
disrupt the reception of the ball.

* A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a
jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:

* Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the
tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the
player in the air.

* For any illegal action, like for a tip tackle, it is the way
in which the player falls and the part of the body that the player falls
on which is relevant. If a player lands on his head/neck, it should be a
red card.


Please view the following movie:

Collisions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CavuYu3JSSM&feature=​youtu.be

Clear red from this.

JDizzle wrote:Why else would he take a run up? You don't do that to then stand there and catch it. It matters because some people would have you believe that Russell was standing motionless under a high ball and Biggar jumped straight into him.

For clarity JDizzle, I edited my comment regarding Russell standing still immediately after I had posted it and changed it to say that he was on the ground.

Just noticed Russell leaves the ground after he's turned his back as well. Why are you rising into that instead of ducking under it?
Think it was a bit silly. Don't really think it deserves a ban.

thomh wrote:Russell didn't "choose to be reckless". He made the tactically wrong choice to try to catch the ball without jumping, and when he saw Biggar's jump he turned his back to protect himself.

I didn't use the word 'moral', nor was that what I was getting at, so save the straw-man argument. Doing an up and under kick isn't reckless. Jumping in the air while running at full speed arguably is so in a purely practical sense, and as the rules are it gives you an unfair advantage as anyone standing within a few metres of where you jump becomes duty bound to get out of your way. Russell is perfectly entitled to stand where the ball will land and try to catch it.

I know what the rules are and as the rules stand Biggar is perfectly entitled to do what he did. I'm not trying to argue it should have been a penalty to Scotland. I'm just arguing that the rules give too much of an advantage to someone jumping in the air and unfairly penalise someone legitimately aiming to catch the ball without leaving the ground.

You say that the rules are there to protect players in the air. That's true, but in practice you could argue that they just encourage more people to do it, creating more dangerous situations.

Biggar did an up and under though, just a high one. Russell didn't attempt to catch the ball, he stuck his hands out slightly then tried to move away. I also don't think Russell was trying to protect himself, but protect the player in the air. Right idea, but badly executed and therefore, reckless. Me saying he chose to was said in jest, a bit.

As I stated the laws are there to protect the player in the air with good reason. No ref can always judge malicious intent, hence they enforce the laws. Now that the official laws have been posted you can see I'm right. I've said for a while that it's a grey area and people are exploiting it. Not in the way you said but this; kicking the high ball and having a few players chase it, first one competes for the ball but really he isn't as his intention is to put off the catcher by jumping into him, intending to force an error. I've seen it go on for years, mostly at club level. Used to really bug me.

Yeh Red Card based on that. I just think it's a harsh rule that the fact that someone is moving when positioning themselves for a catch makes them fully responsible for the player choosing to jump into the air.

Saint

I never said you were wrong based on the laws. I've just been arguing about what the laws SHOULD be.

HammerofThunor wrote:For reference here is some clarification sent round reffing circles from the IRB after the Payne incident (nicked from Ulster forum)

IRB wrote:Steps for consistency in making a decision:

Principles:
* Safety requirement - protect players in the air.

* Unintentional act does not mean no YC/RC (recklessness,
dangerous act).

* For chasing players, saying they have their eyes on the ball
is not a strong enough argument - they have a responsibility for the
safety of the receiver.

Legal actions:
* Both players are in the air at the same level/height and
contesting the ball at the same time.

* The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and
falls to floor: play on.

Illegal actions:
* A player jumps without really contesting for the ball. For
instance, he is jumping into the player who is trying to catch the ball
mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.

* A player is not really contesting for the ball. For instance,
he is running into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to
disrupt the reception of the ball.

* A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a
jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:

* Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the
tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the
player in the air.

* For any illegal action, like for a tip tackle, it is the way
in which the player falls and the part of the body that the player falls
on which is relevant. If a player lands on his head/neck, it should be a
red card.


Please view the following movie:

Collisions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CavuYu3JSSM&feature=​youtu.be

Clear red from this.

Very interesting reading, a clear red if judged against those criteria.

Say a player has his eyes on the ball, another player is coming in at pace in the air to try and claim the ball. How can the player on the ground have responsibility for a player he doesn't even know is there?

Fair that you have your opinion thomh. But what you think the laws should be is pretty irrelevant, and perhaps incorrect.

If you're standing still waiting for the ball you're fine. If you move to get the ball and don't jump you have to be aware of others who may be jumping.

As I've said before, if both players jump there is much lower chance anyone will tip and risk a potential serious injury.

The Saint wrote:Fair that you have your opinion thomh. But what you think the laws should be is pretty irrelevant, and perhaps incorrect.

Pointless comment to be honest. All of our opinions are irrelevant and some are bound to be incorrect. It's a discussion forum.

It would seem here that we have a situation whereby an attacking action is perfectly legal (chasing) - and a defensive action is perfectly legal (positioning to collect a falling Garryowen) - but neither player must get in the way of the other player or all hell breaks loose on the rules and regulations front.

So.......... the solution is either to ease up on the rules and regulations that are becoming far too complicated under the backdrop, once again, of the significant increase in the SPEED of everything that happens in rugby

OR

Ban the chase.



As it stands, the rights and the rules contradict each other when placed in a real context and specifically when placed under the conditions of athletes becoming much faster and stronger.

The current rights and current rules can't exist together in the real world and the combination of the two can't pretend to be in the best interests of a fair contest.

When 6N starts up again, we'll have more 'heroic' leaping frog stuff from incoming chaser missiles.  And we will have players waiting for them and ready to compete but with a yellow card laser sight spot already on their foreheads.

Legal actions:

* The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and
falls to floor: play on.

Illegal actions:

* A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a
jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:


I suppose it is a matter of interpretation on this one.

There is a difference between "that shouldn't have been a red card" (wrong) and "it shouldn't be that's a red card" (opinion).

Biltong wrote:Legal actions:

* The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and
falls to floor: play on.

Illegal actions:

* A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a
jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:


I suppose it is a matter of interpretation on this one.

Not much of one (although if you could post a link to a video that shows Russell wasn't moving it would be nice).

HammerofThunor wrote:There is a difference between "that shouldn't have been a red card" (wrong) and "it shouldn't be that's a red card" (opinion).

Opinions are still capable of being wrong of course, otherwise they'd be meaningless.

Both defenders and chasers should be given the proper tools to work out their individual obligations and angel tolerances.

Calipers,
Compass,
Set square,
Draft paper,
pencil,
Sharpener
Calculator
Desk,
Chair
Lamp
...... ipod.

The player who finishes his task first and chooses the correct trajectory gets first shot at the ball provided he doesn't exceed speed limit.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:Legal actions:

* The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and
falls to floor: play on.

Illegal actions:

* A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a
jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:


I suppose it is a matter of interpretation on this one.

Not much of one (although if you could post a link to a video that shows Russell wasn't moving it would be nice).

Hammer, if you watch the clip that has been posted all over this site, a moment before Russell becomes aware of Biggar he halts to position himself, then sees Biggar and turns. You can disagree if you wish.

Don't know if the videos will work where you are but on the one on the link below (a few videos down), the last angle shows that Russell is never stationary. He's running forward, sees Biggar and turned his back while still moving. At no point is he stationary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/sixnations/11413911/Scotland-v-Wales-Six-Nations-2015-live.html

Edit: if from that view you still think that counts as stationary then cool beans, agree to disagree.

What I find the most interesting is that looking at the ball seems to not count as mitigation.

So: A player who is positioning himself on the ground, in an attempt to catch the ball, should be aware of any player who 'could' be trying to enter the same area from the air. This leads us to conclude that the player on the ground has to be surveying the field in front of him AND also try and work out where the ball is going to land. Does this not give a massively undue advantage to the airborne player? Presumably he doesn't have to exhibit the same behavior and can collide with whomever he pleases? Why isn't the the same duty of care applied to those jumping for the ball?

I suppose we have a different view of it, when he sees Biggar he stops and turns

HammerofThunor wrote:If you're standing still waiting for the ball you're fine. If you move to get the ball and don't jump you have to be aware of others who may be jumping.

As I've said before, if both players jump there is much lower chance anyone will tip and risk a potential serious injury.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I don't believe Russell intended to take Biggar out when he started moving forward, but he made the misjudgement and therefore he is the one who deserved to be penalised.

All this will just make players realise they must go hard at the ball in the air and let the chips (or players) fall as they may

HammerofThunor wrote:For reference here is some clarification sent round reffing circles from the IRB after the Payne incident (nicked from Ulster forum)

IRB wrote:Steps for consistency in making a decision:

Principles:
* Safety requirement - protect players in the air.

* Unintentional act does not mean no YC/RC (recklessness,
dangerous act).

* For chasing players, saying they have their eyes on the ball
is not a strong enough argument - they have a responsibility for the
safety of the receiver.

Legal actions:
* Both players are in the air at the same level/height and
contesting the ball at the same time.

* The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and
falls to floor: play on.

Illegal actions:
* A player jumps without really contesting for the ball. For
instance, he is jumping into the player who is trying to catch the ball
mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.

* A player is not really contesting for the ball. For instance,
he is running into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to
disrupt the reception of the ball.

* A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a
jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:

* Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the
tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the
player in the air.

* For any illegal action, like for a tip tackle, it is the way
in which the player falls and the part of the body that the player falls
on which is relevant. If a player lands on his head/neck, it should be a
red card.


Please view the following movie:

Collisions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CavuYu3JSSM&feature=​youtu.be

Clear red from this.

Well found! did he land on his head/neck or his arm/upper back then head?

Biltong wrote:All this will just make players realise they must go hard at the ball in the air and let the chips (or players) fall as they may

I think two people colliding in the air (see JDs yellow card) is a safer than the Biggar incident.

JDizzle wrote:

Biltong wrote:All this will just make players realise they must go hard at the ball in the air and let the chips (or players) fall as they may

I think two people colliding in the air (see JDs yellow card) is a safer than the Biggar incident.

That was mild, I am suggesting players will know if they are deemed the second player to arrive in the air they will be deemed the guilty party. The only way to avoid being penalised is to be the highest, first and therefor the intensity in the air will become much more intense.

2 week ban. No drama.

Gooseberry wrote:2 week ban. No drama.

No dramas for now, but I fear there will be in the not too distant.

Biltong wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

Biltong wrote:All this will just make players realise they must go hard at the ball in the air and let the chips (or players) fall as they may

I think two people colliding in the air (see JDs yellow card) is a safer than the Biggar incident.

That was mild, I am suggesting players will know if they are deemed the second player to arrive in the air they will be deemed the guilty party. The only way to avoid being penalised is to be the highest, first and therefor the intensity in the air will become much more intense.

No. The clear guidelines say that if both players are in the air and going for the ball it's play on. Edit: assuming the "same height" is just both jumping fully.

Biltong wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:Legal actions:

* The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and
falls to floor: play on.

Illegal actions:

* A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a
jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.
Decision:


I suppose it is a matter of interpretation on this one.

Not much of one (although if you could post a link to a video that shows Russell wasn't moving it would be nice).

Hammer, if you watch the clip that has been posted all over this site, a moment before Russell becomes aware of Biggar he halts to position himself, then sees Biggar and turns. You can disagree if you wish.

This. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the Russell case, this gives chasers a huge advantage if they are fast enough to jump to where the ball is landing. A defeinding player under a falling high ball who is doing anything other than standing stock still is liable to be carded for fielding a kick.

The interpretaton of the laws for Russell was technically correct, but the law is a ass, a idiot (to quote Mr Bumble). Rugby is a game of contest. This ruling effectively removes the contest, because if the chaser gets in the air first - which he is much more likely to do than the fielding defender - then he has a free run at it. The balance is wrong - it's too simplistic. Some responsibility needs to be put on the chaser as well.

Poorfour, the IRB guidance says if you're standing still and someone jumps into you it's play on.

Those laws are absolutely ridiculous but it is indisputable that under those conditions he deserved a red card; but it is also unarguable that either player intended the consequences, you can't fault Biggar for his jump. He jumped in the style everyone is taught to catch from an early age and will now be instinctive the fact that this jumping technique results in these scenarios needs to be dealt with but you cannot fault him for it. Nor can you fault Russell for attempting to compete for it, the rules about should he land on his head or neck etc. are just stupid. It is quite interesting though how we've all gone for one interpretation and the Welsh for another, would be interesting to know had it been the opposite would we all swap sides. Are we all really fickle or is there a a fundamentally different culture regarding high balls in different countries?

Incidentally those rules apply to the chaser and don't mention the receiver

HammerofThunor wrote:Poorfour, the IRB guidance says if you're standing still and someone jumps into you it's play on.

I know. I can read. That's why I phrased what I wrote the way I wrote it. How much movement will refs allow? What if the receiving player is half a step out and shuffles slightly in catching the ball? What if the player turns sideways to lessen the impact of a chaser in the air? How long does the player have to be static before a referee will recognise it? What if they are standing still, and flinch in the act of catching the ball so as to avoid a knee in the face, but in the process cause a jumping player to tip?

From what I saw, Russell could have opted to stand still if he hadn't tried to turn and minimise the impact. He would almost certainly have been hurt by the collision, and I doubt it would have made things better for Biggar, but under the current interpretation it would have been Russell's only option to avoid a card and a ban.

It's right there at the start of the interpretation: protect the player in the air. That statement creates an imbalance that actively encourages fast, brave kick chasers to take an action that endangers both them and the receiver: because they know that they will have primacy as long as they are jumping, it is *always* in their tactical interest to try to jump into the contest. That cannot be the right way to write the laws if we are interested in both competition and safety.

It's not as simple as saying that "the receiver can jump, too" - the receiver will generally be arriving with lower speed because they have less far to travel and would have to time their jump not just with the ball but also with any chaser. This gives the chaser another advantage in that the receiver has far less idea at the outset wherher there will be a chaser competing for the ball, whereas a chaser can be almost certain there will be a receiver. The receiver would have to spot the chaser before they jump, realise they are going to make it to the ball, adjust their own run so that they can jump to compete at the same time - which means they have to commit to their course of action seconds earlier than the chaser.

The interpretation as written actively encourages dangerous play because it creates an imbalance in the competition. The only reason we haven't seen more incidents and more injuries is that not many players are fast enough to compete for a long ball under these unequal terms. Something needs to change before we see a serious injury.

So to summarise this week in 606, the following things need to be banned:

Jumping for the ball
Mentioning Welsh players who have been carded
Choke tackles
Judo rolls
Clearing out a ruck
Being in a ruck in the first place
Suggesting any of the above should be carded
Conversions
Johnny May from the England shirt
The Saint

Exactly which bits of the game do we like?

I like halftime?
Next games really can't come quick enough to put this to bed.

Higher_Ground wrote:Next games really can't come quick enough to put this to bed.

or at least replace it with other 'controversy'.

Poorfour wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Poorfour, the IRB guidance says if you're standing still and someone jumps into you it's play on.

I know. I can read. That's why I phrased what I wrote the way I wrote it. How much movement will refs allow? What if the receiving player is half a step out and shuffles slightly in catching the ball? What if the player turns sideways to lessen the impact of a chaser in the air? How long does the player have to be static before a referee will recognise it? What if they are standing still, and flinch in the act of catching the ball so as to avoid a knee in the face, but in the process cause a jumping player to tip?

From what I saw, Russell could have opted to stand still if he hadn't tried to turn and minimise the impact. He would almost certainly have been hurt by the collision, and I doubt it would have made things better for Biggar, but under the current interpretation it would have been Russell's only option to avoid a card and a ban.

It's right there at the start of the interpretation: protect the player in the air. That statement creates an imbalance that actively encourages fast, brave kick chasers to take an action that endangers both them and the receiver: because they know that they will have primacy as long as they are jumping, it is *always* in their tactical interest to try to jump into the contest. That cannot be the right way to write the laws if we are interested in both competition and safety.

It's not as simple as saying that "the receiver can jump, too" - the receiver will generally be arriving with lower speed because they have less far to travel and would have to time their jump not just with the ball but also with any chaser. This gives the chaser another advantage in that the receiver has far less idea at the outset wherher there will be a chaser competing for the ball, whereas a chaser can be almost certain there will be a receiver. The receiver would have to spot the chaser before they jump, realise they are going to make it to the ball, adjust their own run so that they can jump to compete at the same time - which means they have to commit to their course of action seconds earlier than the chaser.

The interpretation as written actively encourages dangerous play because it creates an imbalance in the competition. The only reason we haven't seen more incidents and more injuries is that not many players are fast enough to compete for a long ball under these unequal terms. Something needs to change before we see a serious injury.

This is what I have being trying to say several times just much clearer and better written

Gooseberry wrote:So to summarise this week in 606, the following things need to be banned:

Jumping for the ball
Mentioning Welsh players who have been carded
Choke tackles
Judo rolls
Clearing out a ruck
Being in a ruck in the first place
Suggesting any of the above should be carded
Conversions
Johnny May from the England shirt
The Saint

Exactly which bits of the game do we like?

Just ban all Welsh posters from this site (if they haven't already left) and ban Wales from rugby. Then people will be happy.

The Saint wrote:Just ban all Welsh posters from this site (if they haven't already left) and ban Wales from rugby. Then people will be happy.

Aahh come on Saint, wouldn't want you banned. I know you get some grief and its sad because you do have a hell of a lot of good input.

Its interesting to see the laws posted earlier and that Russells copped a 2week ban which would indiciate it probably should have ben a red at the time (which is what I thought).

Whether the laws are the best they can be, well thats disputable.

Russell was later to the ball than Biggar, hes the one who turned away from the situation with biggar coming at him in the air, thats reckless, not intentional foul play, but its reckless and dangerous play and biggar lands horribly, another day thats a broken neck/shoulder.

If Russell had read the kick better he would have arrived in position and be stood still already to take the catch, or timed it to jump and challenge for the ball. He got it wrong and then offered no protection to the player in the air, these incidents only occur when a player misreads or mistimes there efforts to chase/catch. Its these scenarios the laws are there for, not every aerial challenge in the game.

Appreciate a lot of the comments abotu challenging for the ball but I dont really see too muh of a problem with the way they are, and I dont see that they encourage dangerous play.

Also to my fellow welshmen, can we stop saying its moaning scots, theres a fair bit of moaning but its being done by all nationalities, most of the scots I've spoken to about the game online and in person have been like a breathe of fresh air compared to the majority of posters on these threads.

Comfort wrote:

Also to my fellow welshmen, can we stop saying its moaning scots, theres a fair bit of moaning but its being done by all nationalities, most of the scots I've spoken to about the game online and in person have been like a breathe of fresh air compared to the majority of posters on these threads.  

I was going to add to Gooseberry's delicious list by suggesting we ban bad moods, firey tempers, persecution complexes and self-serving morbidity.

But Comfort beat me to it

Comfort wrote:If Russell had read the kick better he would have arrived in position and be stood still already to take the catch, or timed it to jump and challenge for the ball. He got it wrong and then offered no protection to the player in the air, these incidents only occur when a player misreads or mistimes there efforts to chase/catch. Its these scenarios the laws are there for, not every aerial challenge in the game.

Thats just about how I saw it, taking the jumping for the ball out of the game would be taking a serious skill out of the game, so for me it should stay.

All the players that play in the Pro12 or higher are pros, they all know the laws, and so they know how they should be reacting at any one point during a game, I am sorry, but as we are dicussing the situation that happened on Sunday, I will use it as an example, Finn Russel knew the law, and he did not abide by it, thus he has been punished subject to the law. It might not be fair, but it is the law, perhpas Finn Russel will be more mindfull of the laws the next time he plays. As I am sure Sam Warburton now is after the last WC.

I'll be remembering a lot of what is said here this week on this subject.

I'll be very disappointed if I see people who've argued the law so articulately this week come back in the next few weeks or months as committed haters of said laws that had one of their players removed in yet another essential game down the line.

I'll be looking for consistency of thought and emotion on this one folks.........

SecretFly wrote:I'll be remembering a lot of what is said here this week on this subject.  

I'll be very disappointed if I see people who've argued the law so articulately this week come back in the next few weeks or months as committed haters of said laws that had one of their players removed in yet another essential game down the line.

I'll be looking for consistency of thought and emotion on this one folks.........

Nobody is saying that the laws are any good SF, infact, and I agree with the people saying it, most people are saying that the laws need to be looked at and reviewed.

Also, as I have said earlier on this debate, I hope we have consistency from the citing/refereeing issues from now on.

The Saint wrote:Just ban all Welsh posters from this site (if they haven't already left) and ban Wales from rugby. Then people will be happy.

Who took the jam out of your doughnut?

LordDowlais wrote:

Also, as I have said earlier on this debate, I hope we have consistency from the citing/refereeing issues from now on.

This was consistent with the Payne incident, and the Law application guidance. Time for a celebration?

Gooseberry wrote:This was consistent with the Payne incident, and the Law application guidance. Time for a celebration?

yeh, I didn't think about that, fair enough, consistency has already happened, happy days.

The reward for a pin point up and under should be the chasing players can run on to it with a better chance to claim it, if they execute their catching correctly. Often you see up and unders that are too short, which are a mess with both teams stationary underneath trying to make a catch, or too far, where the catching team take it easily. If you execute a good up and under, I believe you should have the benefit of coming on to it at pace.

The one thing I hate about an up and under, is when players from the defending side, start running back towards their own player who is going to catch it and then slow down in front of their player blocking the the attacking player, ok they do not have to move out of the way, but they should should not be allowed to stop the player attacking going for the ball either, I have seen instances where the defending player almost has a shield of two or three of his team mates around him.

Poorfour wrote:The interpretation as written actively encourages dangerous play because it creates an imbalance in the competition. The only reason we haven't seen more incidents and more injuries is that not many players are fast enough to compete for a long ball under these unequal terms. Something needs to change before we see a serious injury.

What dangerous play does it encourage? The chaser jumping? They done that long before this interpretation was given. What it does is discourage people running around blindly (looking at the ball) when there is a high probability that players will be in the air. There have been two examples of this interpretation being implemented that I can think of (Payne and Russell). On one it's the chaser who is red carded, in the other it was the reciever. In the vast majority of casing this is no issue because both players jump and even when there are collisions at full pelt the worst thing that happens is one of the lands on their arse. When one of the players is one the ground you getting the tipping and potential neck/head injuries. It may require a fundemental change in practice of players but I can understand why it is so.