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.

I personally dont have a problem with the laws.
If you are going to challenge for the ball, challenge for it. If you arent, get out of the way.
If you are going to run in on the ground make sure you firmly establish your standing position.

The danger situations tend to come from semi committed players or those arriving late. The deliberate take outs seem to have been pushed out of the game through the tougher stance, which is great.

I personally dont see a great inherent danger from jumping that isnt present from running, you get nasty collisions form two players on the ground ball watching in rugby and even in soft sports like soccerball. Players in the air are actually likely to be moving more slowly than one on the ground accelerating at full pelt, and the worst collisions for an in air player tend to occur where one player contacts low on the other and tips them, the laws seek to reduce that type of contact without promoting two players running into each other head first on the ground.

Banning jumping for up and unders would make the long ball chase down more attractive (where the defender is best placed to receive, but without jumping will be more vulnerable to getting nailed) but reduce the shorter "up and unders" (where the attacking side can chase aggressive to retain possession directly)

In all situations we want to see both sides able to contest the ball aggressively. Thats the point of the sport. Let them jump for it, and if they arent then get the hell out of the way.



I still feel Russell was a touch unfortunate in this incident but he lost his head and caused a nasty collision as a result of chasing  a ball he wasnt going to get. Biggar showed great skill and athleticism in getting up to claim that ball , lets not seek to rid the game of that.

Gooseberry wrote:I still feel Russell was a touch unfortunate in this incident but he lost his head and caused a nasty collision as a result of chasing a ball he wasnt going to get. Biggar showed great skill and athleticism in getting up to claim that ball , lets not seek to rid the game of that.

Agree 100%

HammerofThunor wrote:

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.

The dangerous play it encourages is a chasing player jumping into the path of the ball, knowing that in nearly every case they will have the advantage. If both players have jumped, the chasing player will be moving faster; if only the chaser has jumped then unless the receiver is stock still on the ground the chaser will win at least a penalty.

They also gain what I regard as an unfair advantage in that the receiver effectively has to commit to what they are going to do well before the chaser. To be in the air at the right point, the receiver has to see that there is a chaser with a good chance to compete the ball and change their whole run up to be in the air when the ball comes down. With a well-judged kick the receiver's option to simply stand his ground and catch the ball has been removed, because there's almost no way he can guarantee being stationary enough to ensure the ref won't card him.

I fully acknowledge the skill involved in placing the kick and chasing it up that effectively. The very fact that this doesn't happen more often is testament to Biggar's ability (and Payne's example shows how hard it is - a less well-placed kick, a less well placed run up).

But that doesn't alter the fact that Biggar went into that chase knowing there was a very good chance that he would collide with someone and a very good chance he'd collect at least a penalty. The placement of the kick meant that whoever fielded it would probably look to take it on the ground; Russell got to a position where he would have caught the ball without having to jump - you can see that from where and how Biggar fielded the kick.

It encourages players to take a big risk and it unbalances the contest. I am not saying that jumping for the ball should be outlawed - but I am saying that the basic presumption that the player in the air is in the right and has no responsibility for his actions is both overly simplistic and excessively dangerous.

Poorfour wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

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.

The dangerous play it encourages is a chasing player jumping into the path of the ball, knowing that in nearly every case they will have the advantage. If both players have jumped, the chasing player will be moving faster; if only the chaser has jumped then unless the receiver is stock still on the ground the chaser will win at least a penalty.

They also gain what I regard as an unfair advantage in that the receiver effectively has to commit to what they are going to do well before the chaser. To be in the air at the right point, the receiver has to see that there is a chaser with a good chance to compete the ball and change their whole run up to be in the air when the ball comes down. With a well-judged kick the receiver's option to simply stand his ground and catch the ball has been removed, because there's almost no way he can guarantee being stationary enough to ensure the ref won't card him.

I fully acknowledge the skill involved in placing the kick and chasing it up that effectively. The very fact that this doesn't happen more often is testament to Biggar's ability (and Payne's example shows how hard it is - a less well-placed kick, a less well placed run up).

But that doesn't alter the fact that Biggar went into that chase knowing there was a very good chance that he would collide with someone and a very good chance he'd collect at least a penalty. The placement of the kick meant that whoever fielded it would probably look to take it on the ground; Russell got to a position where he would have caught the ball without having to jump - you can see that from where and how Biggar fielded the kick.

It encourages players to take a big risk and it unbalances the contest. I am not saying that jumping for the ball should be outlawed - but I am saying that the basic presumption that the player in the air is in the right and has no responsibility for his actions is both overly simplistic and excessively dangerous.

Your premise that the chaser will have the advantage if both jump is disproved when you consider that SA was carded and penalised 4 times in November whilst chasing, Kearney himself was penalised for taking lr Roux out when chasing.

There are too many inconsistencies in the manner it is officiated. The only consistency I find is the one jumping the highest has gotten the benefit of the doubt every time.

Biltong wrote:

There are too many inconsistencies in the manner it is officiated. The only consistency I find is the one jumping the highest has gotten the benefit of the doubt every time.

Thats a battle Adrian Strauss will never win.

For me this incident sums up why the law just doesn't work the way it is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbRSFj5tpIQ#t=5692

Rob Kearney jumps in a situation where there is absolutely no need to do so,he does this in the knowledge that he can buy a penalty for his team.Read makes the mistake of tackling him but why should Kearney be protected here.

Biltong wrote:
Your premise that the chaser will have the advantage if both jump is disproved when you consider that SA was carded and penalised 4 times in November whilst chasing, Kearney himself was penalised for taking lr Roux out when chasing.

There are too many inconsistencies in the manner it is officiated. The only consistency I find is the one jumping the highest has gotten the benefit of the doubt every time.

As I said before, I didn't see the match and so I can't talk about it. But even so, one game doesn't invalidate the premise. We all know that refereeing is inconsistent. I assume that in those scenarios, both players were in the air. In those cases, it's often a judgment call based on who got hands on the ball first.

But I was reacting to the interpretation that was posted - if that really is what referees are expected to apply, then I think it's wrong and dangerous.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:For me this incident sums up why the law just doesn't work the way it is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbRSFj5tpIQ#t=5692

Rob Kearney jumps in a situation where there is absolutely no need to do so,he does this in the knowledge that he can buy a penalty for his team.Read makes the mistake of tackling him but why should Kearney be protected here.

That is a very good example. shows the laws are completing tosh...

asoreleftshoulder wrote:For me this incident sums up why the law just doesn't work the way it is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbRSFj5tpIQ#t=5692

Rob Kearney jumps in a situation where there is absolutely no need to do so,he does this in the knowledge that he can buy a penalty for his team.Read makes the mistake of tackling him but why should Kearney be protected here.

Correct.

Why don't defending teams just take this as an opportunity to develop a new tactic. If a player kicks the ball up in the air and chases it, why not have 2 players on the opposite team meet him on landing. One player can initiate a 'hit' and his teammate can team up with him to smash him back, thus initiating a defending/counter maul. A bit like when a team chooses not to contest a lineout and instead concentrates on driving the maul back once the player lands. The opposition will soon get bored of the up 'n under if they're losing ground and, potentially, giving a scrum away if the ball does not come out (put in going to the team going forward).

Griff wrote:Why don't defending teams just take this as an opportunity to develop a new tactic. If a player kicks the ball up in the air and chases it, why not have 2 players on the opposite team meet him on landing. One player can initiate a 'hit' and his teammate can team up with him to smash him back, thus initiating a defending/counter maul. A bit like when a team chooses not to contest a lineout and instead concentrates on driving the maul back once the player lands. The opposition will soon get bored of the up 'n under if they're losing ground and, potentially, giving a scrum away if the ball does not come out (put in going to the team going forward).

But they still get the benefit of having kicked for territory and recovered the ball, even if they lose some of the territory and sometimes the ball. If you know they're just waiting for the tackle, you make sure you have secondary chasers to clear out the ruck.

Being able to recover your own kick on a regular basis because the laws give you an edge is a huge benefit.

Poorfour wrote:

Griff wrote:Why don't defending teams just take this as an opportunity to develop a new tactic. If a player kicks the ball up in the air and chases it, why not have 2 players on the opposite team meet him on landing. One player can initiate a 'hit' and his teammate can team up with him to smash him back, thus initiating a defending/counter maul. A bit like when a team chooses not to contest a lineout and instead concentrates on driving the maul back once the player lands. The opposition will soon get bored of the up 'n under if they're losing ground and, potentially, giving a scrum away if the ball does not come out (put in going to the team going forward).

But they still get the benefit of having kicked for territory and recovered the ball, even if they lose some of the territory and sometimes the ball. If you know they're just waiting for the tackle, you make sure you have secondary chasers to clear out the ruck.

Being able to recover your own kick on a regular basis because the laws give you an edge is a huge benefit.

Much harder to have secondary chasers in my opinion. Firstly they all have ve to be behind the kicker, then they have to know that their team mate will definitely kick, then they have to be as quick as him (often a full back or 10 kicking, who are usually pretty quick, so you'd need your wingers running off their wings to join the pacy 10/fullback).

On your second point. I agree. But will we see a law change? Will it be soon? What about the next few 6N games? Until a law change the defending team will probably always/often get penalised for challenging. Therefore, why risk the likely penalty and/or yellow card when you could negate the tactic with my suggestion. I known it's not perfect, but better than a penalty and yellow card. Plus, the opposition will get bored of not winning penalties (surely now this is seen as an attacking tactic, making use of the protection the kicker/jumper is given?) and not making the anticipated ground and front foot ball and may decide to quit with the aerial ping pong.

All good points, Griff.

Interesting here is a poll of 560 rugby fans. That's a pretty decent sample size .

80pc said it wasn't a red. Thats a landslide

http://www.therugbyblog.com/poll-is-finn-russells-ban-a-fair-punishment

As one fan rightly says the taffs will say it was a red and everyone else would say it was too harsh . Boy was he right

Question is why ?

Being pedantic, but actually 81% said it (the ban) was too harsh. Not 95%. But still quite high. However, saying the ban was too harsh is different to they saying it wasn't a red. There was no option for 'it wasn't a red'.

Also, 'boy was he right' - how can you say that about the 'Taffs' voting for red and everyone else voting the other way? Firstly, as already pointed out there was no survey optipn about the red; and secondly it was an anonymous survey!

I counted all a yis in.. and I counted all a yis out!

48 Welsh men voted and 108 of them voted for red with a six month ban.

Griff it's all scientific here.

Don't Fly, they'll believe those maths and add it as another branch to the proverbial tree that they're beating us with!

I feel like a witch in a witch hunt!

asoreleftshoulder wrote:For me this incident sums up why the law just doesn't work the way it is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbRSFj5tpIQ#t=5692

Rob Kearney jumps in a situation where there is absolutely no need to do so,he does this in the knowledge that he can buy a penalty for his team.Read makes the mistake of tackling him but why should Kearney be protected here.

So what are you saying? Players shouldn't jump or you should be allowed to tackle players in the air?

HammerofThunor wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:For me this incident sums up why the law just doesn't work the way it is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbRSFj5tpIQ#t=5692

Rob Kearney jumps in a situation where there is absolutely no need to do so,he does this in the knowledge that he can buy a penalty for his team.Read makes the mistake of tackling him but why should Kearney be protected here.

So what are you saying? Players shouldn't jump or you should be allowed to tackle players in the air?

Players shouldn't jump,it's already the law when carrying the ball so why does it change when the ball is in the air.It's an example of the law book contradicting itself and leads to more penalties and cards ruining games while providing no real benefit to the game that I can see.

Griff wrote:Being pedantic, but actually 81% said it (the ban) was too harsh. Not 95%. But still quite high. However, saying the ban was too harsh is different to they saying it wasn't a red. There was no option for 'it wasn't a red'.

sorry your right corrected

Griff wrote:Also, 'boy was he right' - how can you say that about the 'Taffs'  voting for red and everyone else voting the other way? Firstly, as already pointed out there was no survey optipn about the red; and secondly it was an anonymous survey!

there was a survey about the red :-


red card correct
Yes, it is the right length 90 votes (15 pc)
or
No it was not harsh enough 24 votes (4 pc)

red card not correct
no it was too harsh 472 votes (81pc)

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/wales-countries/scotland-vs-wales-analysis-six-big-decisions-from-glen-jackson-43148

Superb article on Rugby world about Glen Jacksons performance.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/wales-countries/scotland-vs-wales-analysis-six-big-decisions-from-glen-jackson-43148

Superb article on Rugby world about Glen Jacksons performance.

Yes, a very good article. I'd agree pretty much with all points. Both jumping incidents, under the current laws and directives, could/should attract a yellow - even if we think it's a bit soft (dems the rules, etc.). Wales could have got a yellow for repeated infringements, so Jackson not great there. Interesting that they say the time up at the end of the game was fine. That won't go down well with some.

Also, and I'm going to get slated here, but the more I see the Rhys Webb tackle the more it looks like his arm slides over the top of the Scottish player's head, almost like a missed high tackle. Some good replays on the article. So not quite the neck breaking Samoa-esque high tackle I'd been led to believe. I'd give a penalty for a high tackle only, not a penalty try personally.

Overall the article seems to vindicate Jackson in the main, saying he's learning and will get better and that he was just perhaps a bit lenient on the Welsh infringements. Every other contentious decision they seem to side with the ref. Interesting.

I have just read that article as well, it seems that Jackson was not running around with a whistle whilst wearing a red jersey with three feathers on it and just punishing anything in a navy jersey with a thistle on it as we were all being made to believe.

It was a bad performance but the article is correct in saying Jackson shouldnt be shunned for it.

The article says it was only 2 bad decisions, not an overall bad performance. That pretty much happens every match with every ref. The other contentious decisions the article agrees were fine.

Yeah. I think it was a bad performance not saying the writer does. was agreeing with the sentiment that Jackson will get better.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/wales-countries/scotland-vs-wales-analysis-six-big-decisions-from-glen-jackson-43148

Superb article on Rugby world about Glen Jacksons performance.

absolutely spot on article.

at last someone who really knows the laws of the game, and how to apply them

alive555 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/wales-countries/scotland-vs-wales-analysis-six-big-decisions-from-glen-jackson-43148

Superb article on Rugby world about Glen Jacksons performance.

absolutely spot on article.

at last someone who really knows the laws of the game, and how to apply them  

So where was the red card then?

alive555 wrote:Interesting here is a poll of 560 rugby fans. That's a pretty decent sample size .

80pc said it wasn't a red. Thats a landslide

http://www.therugbyblog.com/poll-is-finn-russells-ban-a-fair-punishment

As one fan rightly says the taffs will say it was a red and everyone else would say it was too harsh . Boy was he right

Question is why ?

560 out of all the rugby fans in the UK is a poor size. Were all the voters from Scotland btw? Probably...

The taffs know the law, as by the letter of the law it was in actual fact a red. that's why Russell was cited and banned. These incessant whinging posts from Scots across multiple forums is getting tiresome to say the least.

The Saint wrote:

alive555 wrote:Interesting here is a poll of 560 rugby fans. That's a pretty decent sample size .

80pc said it wasn't a red. Thats a landslide

http://www.therugbyblog.com/poll-is-finn-russells-ban-a-fair-punishment

As one fan rightly says the taffs will say it was a red and everyone else would say it was too harsh . Boy was he right

Question is why ?

560 out of all the rugby fans in the UK is a poor size. Were all the voters from Scotland btw? Probably...

The taffs know the law, as by the letter of the law it was in actual fact a red. that's why Russell was cited and banned. These incessant whinging posts from Scots across multiple forums is getting tiresome to say the least.

Do you know what else is tiresome? Your failure to give the benefit of the doubt to a player who collided with Biggar by accident. I totally CBA going through it all again. Russell had no chance to move. It's a yellow card, judging by the mitigating circumstances. Thank goodness no one was hurt.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/wales-countries/scotland-vs-wales-analysis-six-big-decisions-from-glen-jackson-43148

Read through the article again. An impartial writer thinks it was the right call. You bleating on about a red is frankly as embarrassing as Biggars outburst after the incident. You won the match, isn't that enough?

You also got the benefit of the doubt from the referee more times than Scotland (again consult the impartial article) or do you enjoy pulling more legs off the spider?

If you are tired of reading of reading "whinging posts", stay away! Nobody is forcing you to come on here and comment!

What's interesting here is that the Rugby World analysis explicitly makes the point that Russell was stationary - and he certainly looked to have planted his feet to catch the ball in the GIF they used.

Watch the GIF carefully. Russell didn't "lose the contest" as some posters have suggested: he was the first player in position to catch the ball and only moved when he realised Biggar was hurtling towards him through the air.

Biggar won the ball, which was a great piece of skill, but the penalty and card may not have been justified even under the current interpretation. As the World Rugby interpretations posted earlier put it:

World Rugby wrote: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.

Which comes back to the point that I've been making on this thread: how stationary does a stationary player have to be? If Russell hadn't turned his back, would he have avoided a card (while possibly trading it for a concussion)? I doubt it.

If a guy with his feet planted isn't stationary, what does he have to do? Are we turning rugby into a game of grandmother's footsteps? Is a defensive player no longer allowed to stand his ground and (try to) catch the ball that's been kicked to him if someone is jumping towards him?

Poorfour I fully agree with you on this issue, but unfortunately there is far too much emotion involved in this and even as an outsider I find it hard to debate this constructively.

I fear for rugby when World Rugby suggests this should have been a red card. They are over reacting much like Biggar did and a good number of posters here.

I would love to hear how WOrld RUgby suggest he get out of the way in a millisecond.

Poorfour wrote:What's interesting here is that the Rugby World analysis explicitly makes the point that Russell was stationary - and he certainly looked to have planted his feet to catch the ball in the GIF they used.

Watch the GIF carefully. Russell didn't "lose the contest" as some posters have suggested: he was the first player in position to catch the ball and only moved when he realised Biggar was hurtling towards him through the air.

Biggar won the ball, which was a great piece of skill, but the penalty and card may not have been justified even under the current interpretation. As the World Rugby interpretations posted earlier put it:

World Rugby wrote: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.

Which comes back to the point that I've been making on this thread: how stationary does a stationary player have to be? If Russell hadn't turned his back, would he have avoided a card (while possibly trading it for a concussion)? I doubt it.

If a guy with his feet planted isn't stationary, what does he have to do? Are we turning rugby into a game of grandmother's footsteps? Is a defensive player no longer allowed to stand his ground and (try to) catch the ball that's been kicked to him if someone is jumping towards him?

The only thing I can think of that explains why russell was deemed to be moving was that he was stationary but then by turning his back to protect his face from Biggars flying knee, he is deemed to have moved and thats why the book has been thrown at him!

Could they mean a player who was stationary when the jumping player took off?

Thats the way I see it, you have to have established a position prior to the jumper jumping to avoid being penalised, you cant just run into the space they are going to occupy and cant avoid landing in and take out their legs...deliberate or not.


This all really comes down to whether they want to encourage jumping to contest the ball (encourages attacking kicks) or effectively outlaw jumping to contest the ball (encourages speculative defensive kicks).

Are you allowed use the force of your knees as a weapon to fend off a player or to wilfully injure him?

No, you're not - and the Heaslip incident is the latest confirmation of that.

But the more I look at Biggar sailing in on Russell in that analysis gif.......... the more I query why such a high jump, with a player extending his knees to normal player head height and just careless leading in with those knees - and they came razor sharp close to contact with Russell's head - why is that action seen as less dangerous?

Russell didn't force Biggar's pace onto him.  Biggar did give quite a few glances ahead of him to see where obstacles might be when he was doing his run - so he was conscious of a player being in the area of the falling ball (you'd predict it in any case even if you didn't look forward). And Russell didn't force Biggar into the air at such an high level and at such a pace.
But Russell almost paid as heavy a price for that pace and that jump as Biggar almost paid.

I still can't see how Russell is considered negligent and to have acted in a way contrary to the safety of another player whilst nobody sees that Biggar almost kneed Russell out of the game too. You can say that's part of the game and the risks involved in allowing jumps to occur.  Yes, but risks are everywhere on a rugby field, yet dangerous play is still considered dangerous play wherever it occurs on that same field.  And Biggar's knees were within a whisker of proving quite dangerous to Russell's wellbeing.

I don't blame Biggar for being competitive and competing for the ball.  But neither do I blame Russell for being where he was when Biggar tumbled over him at high speed and at such a high altitude.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

alive555 wrote:Interesting here is a poll of 560 rugby fans. That's a pretty decent sample size .

80pc said it wasn't a red. Thats a landslide

http://www.therugbyblog.com/poll-is-finn-russells-ban-a-fair-punishment

As one fan rightly says the taffs will say it was a red and everyone else would say it was too harsh . Boy was he right

Question is why ?

560 out of all the rugby fans in the UK is a poor size. Were all the voters from Scotland btw? Probably...

The taffs know the law, as by the letter of the law it was in actual fact a red. that's why Russell was cited and banned. These incessant whinging posts from Scots across multiple forums is getting tiresome to say the least.

Do you know what else is tiresome? Your failure to give the benefit of the doubt to a player who collided with Biggar by accident. I totally CBA going through it all again. Russell had no chance to move. It's a yellow card, judging by the mitigating circumstances. Thank goodness no one was hurt.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/wales-countries/scotland-vs-wales-analysis-six-big-decisions-from-glen-jackson-43148

Read through the article again. An impartial writer thinks it was the right call. You bleating on about a red is frankly as embarrassing as Biggars outburst after the incident. You won the match, isn't that enough?

You also got the benefit of the doubt from the referee more times than Scotland (again consult the impartial article) or do you enjoy pulling more legs off the spider?

If you are tired of reading of reading "whinging posts", stay away! Nobody is forcing you to come on here and comment!

Hilarious . I've already stated that I didn't think Russell had malicious intent - so that's pretty much me unintentionally giving him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately for you though the laws are not there to give guys the benefit of the doubt, but they are there to promote fairness and player safety however; therefore the law dictates a red card should have been issued - even though I personally have accepted the yellow because I know the incident was not done with malicious intent.

I don't think I'm bleating on about it. I'm certainly not bleating as much as the folk saying a yellow was unfair and 'we woz robbed' - also there is no sufficient evidence to suggest Biggar asked for a red card as has been mentioned. I do think Biggar whines at refs a lot as he has done throughout his career. In this situation I think he was right in having an outburst because someone caused him to almost break his neck/shoulder. I'm simply alluding to the fact that a red could/should have been issued - the laws back that up as does the citing and subsequent ban. Why are Scotland appealing? I'm sure if Wales appealed we would be called sore losers, etc.
We won the match yes. Is it enough? No. I'm particularly worried about we'll fair against France and Ireland when we are: a) not playing very well, b) not executing smart tactics, c) not selecting form players.

The article fails to allude to a forward pass for Hogg's try, JD getting pushed by Visser, Visser pulling back Cuthbert, the high penalty count in the zone from Scotland within 20 minutes which IMO are also significant. It's a biased article. But if they did pick up on everything that went wrong it likely be 100 pages long. I think the article's purpose is to support Jackson and all referee's when they come under scrutiny.

I looked at two other forums, and some facebook groups. It was full of 'we woz robbed' - seems I can't catch a break .

SecretFly wrote:Are you allowed use the force of your knees as a weapon to fend off a player or to wilfully injure him?

No, you're not - and the Heaslip incident is the latest confirmation of that.

But the more I look at Biggar sailing in on Russell in that analysis gif.......... the more I query why such a high jump, with a player extending his knees to normal player head height and just careless leading in with those knees - and they came razor sharp close to contact with Russell's head - why is that action seen as less dangerous?

Russell didn't force Biggar's pace onto him.  Biggar did give quite a few glances ahead of him to see where obstacles might be when he was doing his run - so he was conscious of a player being in the area of the falling ball (you'd predict it in any case even if you didn't look forward). And Russell didn't force Biggar into the air at such an high level and at such a pace.
But Russell almost paid as heavy a price for that pace and that jump as Biggar almost paid.

I still can't see how Russell is considered negligent and to have acted in a way contrary to the safety of another player whilst nobody sees that Biggar almost kneed Russell out of the game too. You can say that's part of the game and the risks involved in allowing jumps to occur.  Yes, but risks are everywhere on a rugby field, yet dangerous play is still considered dangerous play wherever it occurs on that same field.  And Biggar's knees were within a whisker of proving quite dangerous to Russell's wellbeing.

I don't blame Biggar for being competitive and competing for the ball.  But neither do I blame Russell for being where he was when Biggar tumbled over him at high speed and at such a high altitude.

SecretFly wrote:I don't blame Biggar for being competitive and competing for the ball.  But neither do I blame Russell for being where he was when Biggar tumbled over him at high speed and at such a high altitude.

Quite. The issue is that the law interpretations as written give Biggar a big incentive to jump high, into an area where he can reasonably expect a player to be stationary when he lands, to contest the ball.

All it would take to change that would be to place some responsibility on the jumper to consider the likely impact of their actions. The aim of the laws is to protect the player in the air, not to encourage them to endanger themselves and others. If the ref is allowed to consider whether the jump itself was reckless, then it forces the player to consider how (and when) to jump more safely.

The Saint wrote:

alive555 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/wales-countries/scotland-vs-wales-analysis-six-big-decisions-from-glen-jackson-43148

Superb article on Rugby world about Glen Jacksons performance.

absolutely spot on article.

at last someone who really knows the laws of the game, and how to apply them  

So where was the red card then?

u didnt read it  

In short, Jackson has an extremely complex call to make. In the end, a sin-binning upholds the commitment to keep catcher Biggar safe, punishing the perpetrator sufficiently. Red cards should be absolute no-brainers. Whatever the citing and appeal results, Jackson went with sound, and fair instincts. Good decision.

The Saint wrote:

Elaborate Saint. Or do you want me to place Kearney's name into the places where I slotted in Biggar's before you can see my point more clearly? I'd quite happily do that for you as Kearney too often does a Biggar and glides into trouble high up and knees forward at head height.

So elaborate the Picard bit for me.

alive555 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

alive555 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/wales-countries/scotland-vs-wales-analysis-six-big-decisions-from-glen-jackson-43148

Superb article on Rugby world about Glen Jacksons performance.

absolutely spot on article.

at last someone who really knows the laws of the game, and how to apply them  

So where was the red card then?

u didnt read it  

In short, Jackson has an extremely complex call to make. In the end, a sin-binning upholds the commitment to keep catcher Biggar safe, punishing the perpetrator sufficiently. Red cards should be absolute no-brainers. Whatever the citing and appeal results, Jackson went with sound, and fair instincts. Good decision.

I read it. The law dictates it was a red so really it wasn't a good decision. Not sure what you don't get? It seems like a biased article.

SecretFly wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Elaborate Saint.  Or do you want me to place Kearney's name into the places where I slotted in Biggar's before you can see my point more clearly?  I'd quite happily do that for you as Kearney too often does a Biggar and glides into trouble high up and knees forward at head height.

So elaborate the Picard bit for me.

When they go training they partake in an exercise called box jumps. Hence the jumping style. Not sure why knees keep getting mentioned, it just seems like more people are trying to pin blame on biggar, again. Lee Byrne has also been mentioned as of late. When we stuffed Scotland in 2009 he was taken out too, because some idiot ran full pelt into him and also put himself on the floor. Result was yellow card, though I'm not sure if the laws were different at the time - funnily enough we had some whinge threads after that match with comments saying Byrne should have been red carded, etc. Red carded for being taken out ILLEGALLY, just beggars belief. I'm sure your post (which has been done to death already) had good intentions fly, but you sure do speak in riddles sometimes. The Saint struggles to keep up.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:For me this incident sums up why the law just doesn't work the way it is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbRSFj5tpIQ#t=5692

Rob Kearney jumps in a situation where there is absolutely no need to do so,he does this in the knowledge that he can buy a penalty for his team.Read makes the mistake of tackling him but why should Kearney be protected here.

So what are you saying? Players shouldn't jump or you should be allowed to tackle players in the air?

Players shouldn't jump,it's already the law when carrying the ball so why does it change when the ball is in the air.It's an example of the law book contradicting itself and leads to more penalties and cards ruining games while providing no real benefit to the game that I can see.

That would be the simpliest and safest answer

Regarding whether he's stationary or not, in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWIOPJIZpvc&t=0m39s
at around 50s, that is what I would call moving.  Trying to plant your feet a fraction of a second before impact does not make you stationary. You need to be waiting for the ball...a sensible rule would be in the same position when the jumping player leaves the floor.

The second example in this video (against Scotland) is an example of stationary (although there isn't a jumper).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7r5fbuHcGg

No I speak clearly enough, Saint.  I don't use one sentence to fully explain my point - correct - because I've found if you try to explain your point in only one or two lines - people can use what you didn't say to score points off you!  

"You say that now, Fly - but that's not what you said two posts ago"  
"I merely didn't include it because I thought it was self-evident"  
"How can something that you don't clarify be self-evident, Fly?  You're just trying to cover up for the fact that you never thought about it"  

So I've been there, Saint, when you run the risk of keeping it so simple and still get told you 'know nothing'.

But why...................... why Saint......................... is Wales and Welsh players Always right?  And rulings that go against them always wrong (Warburton World Cup red) and rulings that go with them Always right (Biggar)?

Actually, even that judgement is wrong because it 'should have been Red' and Wales should have played against 14 for the rest of the game - again.

You see, I can understand loyalty - I have it in buckets myself.  But why the Absolute Resistance to step away from Wales Defence even once?  
Why the resistance to looking outside the limited sphere of influence a few times and simply try to see an argument in General terms, in objective terms?  

Forget the names, forget the game - and talk about the event in isolation as a discussion in rules, not a discussion that is in any way Anti-Welsh - or set up to get at the Welsh - or a continuing conspiracy against the Welsh.

It's a discussion about rules and I'd personally slot in Kearney or an English jumper just as easy to discuss this seeming contradiction in rules of safety.

SecretFly wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Elaborate Saint.  Or do you want me to place Kearney's name into the places where I slotted in Biggar's before you can see my point more clearly?  I'd quite happily do that for you as Kearney too often does a Biggar and glides into trouble high up and knees forward at head height.

So elaborate the Picard bit for me.

Fly, I dont want to get involved in a squabble as such, but I don't think jumping with knees up and/or feet out is unnatural. Quite the opposite in fact. Ever watched a high jumper, long jumper or triple jumper? Those guys are the pros at jumping high/long and they're all about the high knees and feet out! It's not very safe to land with straight legs (less cushioning) and taking off with straight legs doesn't get much height. I just tried!

Leaving the one foot up in someone's face is a bit different though. There should be sanctions there, but leading with the knees is, for me, a relatively natural positon from a strong leap and ready for a safe landing. It's just bent legs, essentially.

SecretFly wrote:No I speak clearly enough, Saint.  I don't use one sentence to fully explain my point - correct - because I've found if you try to explain your point in only one or two lines - people can use what you didn't say to score points off you!  

"You say that now, Fly - but that's not what you said two posts ago"  
"I merely didn't include it because I thought it was self-evident"  
"How can something that you don't clarify be self-evident, Fly?  You're just trying to cover up for the fact that you never thought about it"  

So I've been there, Saint, when you run the risk of keeping it so simple and still get told you 'know nothing'.

But why...................... why Saint......................... is Wales and Welsh players Always right?  And rulings that go against them always wrong (Warburton World Cup red) and rulings that go with them Always right (Biggar)?

Actually, even that judgement is wrong because it 'should have been Red' and Wales should have played against 14 for the rest of the game - again.

You see, I can understand loyalty - I have it in buckets myself.  But why the Absolute Resistance to step away from Wales Defence even once?  
Why the resistance to looking outside the limited sphere of influence a few times and simply try to see an argument in General terms, in objective terms?  

Forget the names, forget the game - and talk about the event in isolation as a discussion in rules, not a discussion that is in any way Anti-Welsh - or set up to get at the Welsh - or a continuing conspiracy against the Welsh.

It's a discussion about rules and I'd personally slot in Kearney or an English jumper just as easy to discuss this seeming contradiction in rules of safety.

RE rwc 2011 Warburton; I thought it was a good tackle. The law is correct and Rolland applied the law to the situation. Around the time there was a distinct lack of clarity around this particular law but quite the opposite afterwards as this had happened on the big stage. I do however remember a lot welsh posters getting shouted down for mentioning it, and other posters just constantly posting how the law was the greatest decision ever made, etc. Funny that when it's the other way around, such as this current Biggar Russell situation, that everyone is against Wales and saying how bad the law is. Something fishy there eh.