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.

The Saint wrote: Around the time there was a distinct lack of clarity around this particular law

Yeah after all the IRB had only published the updated guidance the year before, then written to all of the Unions and broadcasters ahead of the event with clear guidance on what the laws were and even gone to the lengths of having a senior referee explain it on TV. Rolland had already given a similar red card and been backed by IRB on his decision that year.
I can see where the confusion came from for Warburton and the TV pundits.

Gooseberry wrote:

The Saint wrote: Around the time there was a distinct lack of clarity around this particular law  

Yeah after all the IRB had only published the updated guidance the year before, then written to all of the Unions and broadcasters ahead of the event with clear guidance on what the laws were and even gone to the lengths of having a senior referee explain it on TV. Rolland had already given a similar red card and been backed by IRB on his decision that year.
I can see where the confusion came from for Warburton and the TV pundits.

Not all RWC rugby fans pay attention to these things.
But out of curiosity; which broadcasters? Which senior referee? Which TV channel?
I remember that red card, it was discussed on here. It only came to light with Rolland once again issuing red for the same offence in the RWC. I don't remember that match between Wasps and Toulouse being particularly significant and given great attention to the extent the one at the RWC - now the ruling is clear for most fans. The application of this law still seems a bit inconsistent given some of the cards and bans I've seen for supposed tip-tackles since.

Warburton wasn't confused though he did state in a post match interview that the 'dangerous tackle' was accidental and he's not a dirty player. That and his good record never stopped you from taking great delight in bitching about the great man though did it .

Gooseberry wrote:

The Saint wrote: Around the time there was a distinct lack of clarity around this particular law  

Yeah after all the IRB had only published the updated guidance the year before, then written to all of the Unions and broadcasters ahead of the event with clear guidance on what the laws were and even gone to the lengths of having a senior referee explain it on TV. Rolland had already given a similar red card and been backed by IRB on his decision that year.
I can see where the confusion came from for Warburton and the TV pundits.

That's no guarantee of clarity or consistency, though. The RFU spent a fair bit of time last year with two different and conflicting versions of the U10 mini-rugby on its website - one in pdf, the other in aspx form.

The World Rugby laws site, which includes the clarifications, is comprehensive but it's also painful to navigate - the clarifications are listed by number and don't appear to be searchable by name, for instance.

This has been a genuinely interesting debate. I for one, as a Scotland fan, don't harbor any ill will against our Welsh brethren. Had this been a collision between Ford and Sexton or Cruden and Foley, I would have argued the same position.

My last thoughts on the matter is that by the current letter of the law, the citing is technically correct. However, both players had a right to go for the ball, one jumped and one didn't. I don't believe that the act of jumping should empower that individual with certain privileges and the non-jumping player with certain restrictions; that is what the law currently allows and I think this should be looked at.

EST,

That's a very nice, civilised and measured post. One of the best I've seen on this very long thread. Kudos. (P.s. This sounds sarcastic, but genuinely isn't!). And I agree with your points entirely.

Thing is it's not the laws. It's not the letter of the law or a technicality. It's the interpretation that the IRB have put out. Althoug plenty of people may disagree with it, just as many people disagreed with Warburton's red (only mentioned because it's a similar case), that is the way the IRB want to go. The only thing
I can see happening is them banning jumping outside of the lineout.

If a controversial try gets scored now because a player didn't want to get caught in the yellow card area, and shirks his defensive duty accordingly...then the birds will start chirping big time on this one.

Someone is gonna be seriously pi-ssed in the coming weeks because their players are 'scared to compete in a robust way'. It'll be ironic if it's Gatland!

That Kearney one is ridiculous, Owens got it right the first time by saying he jumped into contact which he did because he had no need to be in the air, he could easily have got the ball on the floor as he was unopposed.

He's a top class player but he's the worst offender as far as what I deem to be dangerous and illegal jumping, his knees are either high or his legs are stretched out.