World Rugby clarify some laws for the RWC

High Tackles and Neck contact - Law 10.4(e)

Every time the head or the neck is deliberately grabbed or choked, the offending player runs the risk of receiving a yellow or red card
Cleanouts around the neck must be penalised

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Scrum feed - Law 20.6(d)

Ensure that all scrum feeds are credible
FK if clearly not straight
Look for shoulders not being parallel
Manage the situation

Particularly pleased to see clarification of tackling in the air, and pleased to see some common sense in that if both players genuinely go for the ball then it is play on.

This isn't the first time they have said that scrum feeds need to be credible - will see how long that lasts!

Very good to see if it's followed through. I like the clearouts round the neck crack down as well.

Does that mean maul neck/choke clear outs as well?

Still wiggle room about what going for the ball means.

One think about the challenges in the air thing. I've noticed recently players are doing a 'token' jump up just before they catch the ball when an opposition player is simply running in hard to catch the ball themselves. It seems they're trying to draw a foul, which seems foolish and dangerous lengths to go to to win a penalty. As often the token jumper gets wiped out whilst in the air. And it's a penalty. Hopefully this is a play on situation to nip this in the bud.

ebop wrote:One think about the challenges in the air thing. I've noticed recently players are doing a 'token' jump up just before they catch the ball when an opposition player is simply running in hard to catch the ball themselves. It seems they're trying to draw a foul, which seems foolish and dangerous lengths to go to to win a penalty. As often the token jumper gets wiped out whilst in the air. And it's a penalty. Hopefully this is a play on situation to nip this in the bud.

I don't think that's a new thing. Every one is taught from a young age to jump when catching the ball - not to draw a penalty, but because it means you can't be challenged and gives you a split second to prepare for the tackle better or get the ball away.

If you stand still you will get absolutely smashed and the tackler takes the contact on their terms - if you jump you can re-gain control of the situation.

The obvious problem being that the tackler mis-times it and hits you in the air!

Yeah true, good point. But I'm talking of super duper lame token jumps like I don't recall seeing the obvious likes of in the past.

Like almost catching the ball and then jumping

I'm a little worried that the difference between getting a yellow and a red is how the player lands!

Fanster wrote:I'm a little worried that the difference between getting a yellow and a red is how the player lands!

That is a well debated point too - the fact that a player took someone out in the air should be the deciding factor, not the laws of physics dictating how the player lands.

Saying that, if you cause a car crash by dangerous driving and the person ends up in a wheelchair you will probably end up with a harsher punishment than if the person walks away from the scene...

They're also coming down on some of the mauling. Particularly some of the offside play.

The guidelines were applied last weekend and I thought they affected games. under 20 NZ v France, France got pulled up for some of their mauling as per the recommendations and NZ for some of their tackling. Both ruled out tries from memory.

SA particularly impacted by the tackle rulings.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Fanster wrote:I'm a little worried that the difference between getting a yellow and a red is how the player lands!

That is a well debated point too - the fact that a player took someone out in the air should be the deciding factor, not the laws of physics dictating how the player lands.

Saying that, if you cause a car crash by dangerous driving and the person ends up in a wheelchair you will probably end up with a harsher punishment than if the person walks away from the scene...

Not if it's a 2mph fender bender, in a car park, while the other person is reversing out and so are you!

The deciding factor between red and yellow I beleive should be a biomechanical issue, where certain body angles going into contact will determine the decision. We can't reasonably determine intent, and the way the player lands will always depend on the player in the air, and the laws of physics.

I was recently on a course and with regards to taking the ball in the air as a fullback a pro player was coaching coaches to actually lead forward into players, meaning instead of getting under the ball and jumping upwards, to come from deep and lead into where the ball is going to be, reasoning? Defender touches you even the slightest and the velocity takes you beyond him and aids the look of him going under you.

To simplify my reasoning, if a defending player touches the man in the air directly below, or beyond the spot where the ball is (toward the opposing teams line) the defending player is at fault for going under the jumper, however if he makes contact behind the spot where the ball is it has to be deemed a fair contest as the jumping players has made the decision to go into a high ball unsafely. That explenation added with the 2 players body positions would soon give us a clear cut decision that wasn't open to interpretation!

I much prefer the term 'credible' as opposed to 'straight', maybe the powers that be are starting to see the light?

What does ' manage the situation ' means?

Haha that's what I thought whocares.

Haha that's what I thought whocares.

Clarification of the tackle in the air is well needed - not so much it was wrong before but it wasn't clear to everyone. Players will change the way they play as laws evolve. One thing I have noticed is since the tackle in the air became such an issue it is happening less - players who realise they are going to be second pull out rather than risk a card this is the intent behind the laws

Under these interpretations most of the red cards we've seen for challenges in the air would be penalties only- absolutely brilliant and hopeful that it translates across into practice.

Notch wrote:Under these interpretations most of the red cards we've seen for challenges in the air would be penalties only- absolutely brilliant and hopeful that it translates across into practice.

Not so sure. All depends on how they define a fair challenge.

I don't agree Notch. I doubt it will make a lot of difference. Payne would still have got red for example ( I believe) as there was no fair challenge ( he got nowhere near the ball) and the player he hit landed on his back. Russell would still have got red - again no fair challenge and the player landed on his neck / back ( poss yellow)

However it does provide clarity and does allow for the person who jumps for the ball but just misses it not being carded.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Thank god for this, as we don't want to see another Russell vs Biggar incident and have incorrect punishment enforced (as was the case in this scenario).

whocares wrote:What does ' manage the situation ' means?  

It means "have Nigel Owens on speed dial".

Delighted to see that this practice of grabbing players round the neck and trunk to twist them off the ball at a ruck is getting clamped down on. It's been terribly dangerous for a long time now.

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:Under these interpretations most of the red cards we've seen for challenges in the air would be penalties only- absolutely brilliant and hopeful that it translates across into practice.

Not so sure. All depends on how they define a fair challenge.

I'm also interested in this notion that a card is only on the table where "there is no contest", which is language that appears from this guidance to mean the same thing as where there is "not a fair challenge".

Interesting example in last night's U20s final that showed we're not quite there yet.

The NZ 9 in the air collided with the English kick chaser, who was on the ground. The interesting bit was that the kick chaser was in the right position to catch the ball, but the 9 had overrun it completely.

The officials discussed it and awarded a penalty to NZ, which to my mind was the technically correct decision but shows that it is still very possible for the man in the air to milk a penalty whether he's got any chance of catching the ball or not.

The Saint wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Thank god for this, as we don't want to see another Russell vs Biggar incident and have incorrect punishment enforced (as was the case in this scenario).

That's an interesting example, actually, Saint. Russell didn't challenge for the ball - he just didn't get out of the way and an airborne Biggar fell over him.

How would that be assessed in accordance with the new guidance above? For a start, I would say that there was "not a fair challenge" from Russell, which puts us in the category of just deciding what colour the card is. From what I recall, Biggar landed on his side, so yellow card?

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:Under these interpretations most of the red cards we've seen for challenges in the air would be penalties only- absolutely brilliant and hopeful that it translates across into practice.

Not so sure. All depends on how they define a fair challenge.

It specifies that the player must actually be pulled down for a yellow or red card and that 'wrong timing' without any pulling down is only a penalty.

TJ wrote:I don't agree Notch.  I doubt it will make a lot of difference.  Payne would still have got red for example ( I believe)  as there was no fair challenge ( he got nowhere near the ball) and the player he hit landed on his back.

Under these guidelines, the Payne incident would have been a penalty only as it was an attempt to get the ball which got the timing wrong and there was no pulling down of the other player. A fair challenge surely equals attempting to win the ball, not take the man. Brings intent back into the equation.

"Fair challenge with wrong timing- no pulling down" could serve as a succinct description of the Payne incident. If a player mistimes his jump or even misjudges the need to jump, thats wrong timing and so long as he doesn't pull down the other player that is a penalty only. At least that's the common sense interpretation of the interpretation.

It just goes to show, even with the clarifications, there is still plenty of room for conjecture and interpretation with observers (and, more importantly, refs) seeing different things in the same incident. There's also fan bias of course

Indeed Cyril.

At a very simple level I am still not clear as to whether the guidance for cards says (a) "Not a fair challenge or there is no contest" or (b) "Not a fair challenge and there is no contest".

In other words, if you challenge for the ball but were never in a position to meaningfully compete for it, what happens?
I would think a lot of incidents fall into this category.

I was thinking that too GC. Also, it mentioned pulling down for yellow but not for red. The 'clarification' appears to be to remove the jumping bit.

Cyril wrote:It just goes to show, even with the clarifications, there is still plenty of room for conjecture and interpretation with observers (and, more importantly, refs) seeing different things in the same incident. There's also fan bias of course

Agreed. Notch has his interpretation as to how things will pan out and I have mine and they are different.

I guess we will see.

George Carlin wrote:

The Saint wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Thank god for this, as we don't want to see another Russell vs Biggar incident and have incorrect punishment enforced (as was the case in this scenario).

That's an interesting example, actually, Saint. Russell didn't challenge for the ball - he just didn't get out of the way and an airborne Biggar fell over him.

How would that be assessed in accordance with the new guidance above? For a start, I would say that there was "not a fair challenge" from Russell, which puts us in the category of just deciding what colour the card is. From what I recall, Biggar landed on his side, so yellow card?

Biggar fell head first and landed on his shoulder from what I can remember. A yellow card was issued at the time, but it should have been red - the fact that Russell was later banned confirms that too. So it fits with "Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder" - and the reaction on here was embarrassing. Hope there's less of that should any more unfortunate incidents occur in the world cup.

The Saint wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

The Saint wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Thank god for this, as we don't want to see another Russell vs Biggar incident and have incorrect punishment enforced (as was the case in this scenario).

That's an interesting example, actually, Saint. Russell didn't challenge for the ball - he just didn't get out of the way and an airborne Biggar fell over him.

How would that be assessed in accordance with the new guidance above? For a start, I would say that there was "not a fair challenge" from Russell, which puts us in the category of just deciding what colour the card is. From what I recall, Biggar landed on his side, so yellow card?

Biggar fell head first and landed on his shoulder from what I can remember. A yellow card was issued at the time, but it should have been red - the fact that Russell was later banned confirms that too. So it fits with "Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder" - and the reaction on here was embarrassing. Hope there's less of that should any more unfortunate incidents occur in the world cup.

I think that all people want is clarity as to what the rules actually mean.
It was the subjectivity with no apparent basis for making decisions that was the problem for me.

Funnily enough - I watch the Super Rugby round ups each week and there just seem to be far fewer 'jumped for the ball and got injured' incidents.
Why is this?

Anything goes in super rugby, free-flowing rugby innit.

ebop wrote:One think about the challenges in the air thing. I've noticed recently players are doing a 'token' jump up just before they catch the ball when an opposition player is simply running in hard to catch the ball themselves. It seems they're trying to draw a foul, which seems foolish and dangerous lengths to go to to win a penalty. As often the token jumper gets wiped out whilst in the air. And it's a penalty. Hopefully this is a play on situation to nip this in the bud.

I agree ebop. I've seen several occasions where it looks to me as thought the 'jumper' purposely jumps early to catch his opponent off guard and then falls over him. The law clarification will now show the perp. how to fall to elicit a red for his hapless victim.

The Great Aukster wrote:

ebop wrote:One think about the challenges in the air thing. I've noticed recently players are doing a 'token' jump up just before they catch the ball when an opposition player is simply running in hard to catch the ball themselves. It seems they're trying to draw a foul, which seems foolish and dangerous lengths to go to to win a penalty. As often the token jumper gets wiped out whilst in the air. And it's a penalty. Hopefully this is a play on situation to nip this in the bud.

I agree ebop. I've seen several occasions where it looks to me as thought the 'jumper' purposely jumps early to catch his opponent off guard and then falls over him. The law clarification will now show the perp. how to fall to elicit a red for his hapless victim.

Agree with this. There's also guys that usually pretend to catch in order to take out the other man.

George Carlin wrote:

The Saint wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Thank god for this, as we don't want to see another Russell vs Biggar incident and have incorrect punishment enforced (as was the case in this scenario).

That's an interesting example, actually, Saint. Russell didn't challenge for the ball - he just didn't get out of the way and an airborne Biggar fell over him.

How would that be assessed in accordance with the new guidance above? For a start, I would say that there was "not a fair challenge" from Russell, which puts us in the category of just deciding what colour the card is. From what I recall, Biggar landed on his side, so yellow card?

BUT - if you take that line - Russel was in a realistic position to catch the ball - it does not state he has to be in the air - so would that have changed the outcome?

Riskysports wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

The Saint wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Thank god for this, as we don't want to see another Russell vs Biggar incident and have incorrect punishment enforced (as was the case in this scenario).

That's an interesting example, actually, Saint. Russell didn't challenge for the ball - he just didn't get out of the way and an airborne Biggar fell over him.

How would that be assessed in accordance with the new guidance above? For a start, I would say that there was "not a fair challenge" from Russell, which puts us in the category of just deciding what colour the card is. From what I recall, Biggar landed on his side, so yellow card?

BUT - if you take that line - Russel was in a realistic position to catch the ball - it does not state he has to be in the air - so would that have changed the outcome?

By that definition though would any defender who touches a jumper be in a 'position to catch the ball'?

I think the new clarification has complicated things, and we'll see at least 1/2 ridiculous calls in the latter stages by nervous refs of which we have seen a dozen unpunished throughout the tournament.

The Sam Warburton incident comes to mind, correct decision or not doesn't matter, it was an inconsistent decision by a nervous ref who had over penlised given the trend of the tournament.

Fanster wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

The Saint wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Thank god for this, as we don't want to see another Russell vs Biggar incident and have incorrect punishment enforced (as was the case in this scenario).

That's an interesting example, actually, Saint. Russell didn't challenge for the ball - he just didn't get out of the way and an airborne Biggar fell over him.

How would that be assessed in accordance with the new guidance above? For a start, I would say that there was "not a fair challenge" from Russell, which puts us in the category of just deciding what colour the card is. From what I recall, Biggar landed on his side, so yellow card?

BUT - if you take that line - Russel was in a realistic position to catch the ball - it does not state he has to be in the air - so would that have changed the outcome?

By that definition though would any defender who touches a jumper be in a 'position to catch the ball'?

I think the new clarification has complicated things, and we'll see at least 1/2 ridiculous calls in the latter stages by nervous refs of which we have seen a dozen unpunished throughout the tournament.

The Sam Warburton incident comes to mind, correct decision or not doesn't matter, it was an inconsistent decision by a nervous ref who had over penlised given the trend of the tournament.

Not really - Hogg was on the ground and was where the ball would have landed in his arms - so a fair position to catch the ball. The fact he did not jump is not stated as a reason for a card in these. So in that case, there was no reason to award a card (although I do not exactly agree with that)

I am not sure these guidelines help - as it still is who jumps highest will win the penalty