Planet Rugby Forum

Eh, the article you posted says 4 weeks.

Harsh, IMO.

It was an ugly incident.

Deserved a long ban, as rather than him being in the wrong place unaware of Leyds jumping for the ball, it looked to me like he actively raised his arms to hit him mid air. Deserves a long break IMO, as Leyds could have doid.

Zakar wrote:It was an ugly incident.

Deserved a long ban, as rather than him being in the wrong place unaware of Leyds jumping for the ball, it looked to me like he actively raised his arms to hit him mid air. Deserves a long break IMO, as Leyds could have doid.

I think the raising of the arms was instinctive & didn't contribute in anyway to the danger of the situation. If anything he looked like he was trying to grab him once he'd realised his mistake, but hey ho.

Poor kid, looked like he recognised he couldn't compete but then froze up with no idea what to do in that split second ending up clumsily grasping at the player. Instincts kick in at that speed and the instinct is not to dive/pull out of the way.

If I were a Blues supporter I would be hoping he spends 8 weeks learning how to challenge for a high ball

Wow. Red card, sure, but a ban as well?

We was going for the ball, realised late he wasn't going to get to it, Stormer jumped over him, instinctively he put his arms up.... It was accidental. What else could have have done? Even if he hadn't thrown his arms up, the clash would have been just as bad. Struggling to see how a red card was not deemed to be punishment enough.

Enzedder wrote:If I were a Blues supporter I would be hoping he spends 8 weeks learning how to challenge for a high ball

Half of me says a 4 week ban is the right incentive to make sure players develop the skills they need to compete safely.
The other seven eights says poor bastard, no way was he trying to tip the guy up, that's a really harsh penalty for no intent.

Sensible Stephen wrote:Wow. Red card, sure, but a ban as well?

We was going for the ball, realised late he wasn't going to get to it, Stormer jumped over him, instinctively he put his arms up.... It was accidental. What else could have have done? Even if he hadn't thrown his arms up, the clash would have been just as bad. Struggling to see how a red card was not deemed to be punishment enough.

Agreed, seems harsh. Very similar incident in the Super Rugby final in 2017 when the Lions player was red carded. The on field red seems like punishment enough but I guess they are trying to stamp this sort of thing out with these harsh penalties.

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Zakar wrote:It was an ugly incident.

Deserved a long ban, as rather than him being in the wrong place unaware of Leyds jumping for the ball, it looked to me like he actively raised his arms to hit him mid air. Deserves a long break IMO, as Leyds could have doid.

I think the raising of the arms was instinctive & didn't contribute in anyway to the danger of the situation. If anything he looked like he was trying to grab him once he'd realised his mistake, but hey ho.

Could be, hard to guess intent based in a replay. In any event, he pled guilty for tackling a player in the air. That's our best source for understanding what happened.

merlin the happy pig wrote:

Enzedder wrote:If I were a Blues supporter I would be hoping he spends 8 weeks learning how to challenge for a high ball

Half of me says a 4 week ban is the right incentive to make sure players develop the skills they need to compete safely.
The other seven eights says poor bastard, no way was he trying to tip the guy up, that's a really harsh penalty for no intent.

This. High ball contests is now about jumping forward rather than properly contesting. You can be completely reckless at jumping but as long as you catch the ball and don't accidentally kick the defender you're fine.

So many of these incidents see the ball catcher jump forward into the space.

I wonder if there should only be a vertical leap law, because as it currently stands we could have a guy standing right under where the ball would land and get jumped into by an attacker he's unaware of because he's got his eye on the ball and if the attacker catches the ball and topples to the ground the defender who is just standing there will get carded. If the defender puts his hands up in a reactionary to move protect himself than he'll likely get a rest for a few weeks.

guy smiley wrote:Now that I have your attention through the use of a ridiculous thread title, why do you think it is that WR are clamping down so hard on an admittedly potentially dangerous action while continuing to turn a blind eye to bodies flying into rucks in clear conflict with the Laws of the game?

I dunno. Jesus?

UncleFB wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

Enzedder wrote:If I were a Blues supporter I would be hoping he spends 8 weeks learning how to challenge for a high ball

Half of me says a 4 week ban is the right incentive to make sure players develop the skills they need to compete safely.
The other seven eights says poor bastard, no way was he trying to tip the guy up, that's a really harsh penalty for no intent.

This. High ball contests is now about jumping forward rather than properly contesting. You can be completely reckless at jumping but as long as you catch the ball and don't accidentally kick the defender you're fine.

So many of these incidents see the ball catcher jump forward into the space.

I wonder if there should only be a vertical leap law, because as it currently stands we could have a guy standing right under where the ball would land and get jumped into by an attacker he's unaware of because he's got his eye on the ball and if the attacker catches the ball and topples to the ground the defender who is just standing there will get carded. If the defender puts his hands up in a reactionary to move protect himself than he'll likely get a rest for a few weeks.

Yeah. In this case, my first thought was the guy making the situation dangerous was the player jumping. He jumped from a long way back, collecting the Chiefs shoulder through his trajectory.

A vertical jump requirement does seem like a sensible answer to this.

Imagine if the jumping players knee knocked the other guy out cold. The concussed guy would probably still go to the bin under the current laws.

I still have a problem with this thread title. It got my heart going.

Given I was swearing at the laptop when he did it, 4 weeks is a bit harsh but probably in line with this kind of thing. Clearly didn't have a clue what to do when he realised he was beaten to the ball. He is young and with a bit of training, he will recognise that when he is too far away he is better not to run faster to make up for it.

Eight weeks (before the discount) is in line with similar offences recently, isn't it?

Hard to complain, every player should know to keep their noses as clean as possible under the high ball by now. Safest tactic there is to just let Leyd's land then smash him into touch - though Tele'a must have been surprised by just how much air he got, that was quite a leap.

Is Leyds injured?

Sensible Stephen wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

Enzedder wrote:If I were a Blues supporter I would be hoping he spends 8 weeks learning how to challenge for a high ball

Half of me says a 4 week ban is the right incentive to make sure players develop the skills they need to compete safely.
The other seven eights says poor bastard, no way was he trying to tip the guy up, that's a really harsh penalty for no intent.

This. High ball contests is now about jumping forward rather than properly contesting. You can be completely reckless at jumping but as long as you catch the ball and don't accidentally kick the defender you're fine.

So many of these incidents see the ball catcher jump forward into the space.

I wonder if there should only be a vertical leap law, because as it currently stands we could have a guy standing right under where the ball would land and get jumped into by an attacker he's unaware of because he's got his eye on the ball and if the attacker catches the ball and topples to the ground the defender who is just standing there will get carded. If the defender puts his hands up in a reactionary to move protect himself than he'll likely get a rest for a few weeks.

Yeah. In this case, my first thought was the guy making the situation dangerous was the player jumping. He jumped from a long way back, collecting the Chiefs shoulder through his trajectory.

A vertical jump requirement does seem like a sensible answer to this.

Imagine if the jumping players knee knocked the other guy out cold. The concussed guy would probably still go to the bin under the current laws.

Penalising those with no peripheral vision. I can live with that.

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

Enzedder wrote:If I were a Blues supporter I would be hoping he spends 8 weeks learning how to challenge for a high ball

Half of me says a 4 week ban is the right incentive to make sure players develop the skills they need to compete safely.
The other seven eights says poor bastard, no way was he trying to tip the guy up, that's a really harsh penalty for no intent.

This. High ball contests is now about jumping forward rather than properly contesting. You can be completely reckless at jumping but as long as you catch the ball and don't accidentally kick the defender you're fine.

So many of these incidents see the ball catcher jump forward into the space.

I wonder if there should only be a vertical leap law, because as it currently stands we could have a guy standing right under where the ball would land and get jumped into by an attacker he's unaware of because he's got his eye on the ball and if the attacker catches the ball and topples to the ground the defender who is just standing there will get carded. If the defender puts his hands up in a reactionary to move protect himself than he'll likely get a rest for a few weeks.

I tried to argue exactly that line last time there was a shitfight over this sort of penalty and got shouted down. The Irish start yelling about AFL and the English get very rigid about the philtrum.

Wasn't that a shit-show.

Pasty skinned driveway concreter standing under the ball, being held aloft by some weak-armed knacker gets clattered into by a man, nay Greek God, who is competing for the ball and whose arm brushes the chest of pasty skinned driveway concreter who falls to the ground due to inability to stay aloft (see weak-armed knacker) and then gets a yellow card.

If I had no self-preservation mechanism I'd be flying into every aerial contest at high speed hoping to get flipped on my noggin. I honestly don't know what the solution is.

If he didn't put his arms up he would have copped a boot or knee to the face. Its instinctive and he pulled up as soon as he realised he was unable to challenge. But the collision was inevitable so a red card was justified. 8 weeks seems very harsh as there was no intent to harm, only self preservation.

No problem with the card nor the punishment.

Guy - as for your ulterior motive, I’d say one infringement at a time

Defender who is under the ball should have all rights to be left to a clean catch. Anything else is asking for somebody to get badly hurt. same should apply at restarts with catchers and lifters. The attacking player is bringing all the danger with his forward speed so should asses the safety of HIS actions before he commits.

kiwinoz wrote:If he didn't put his arms up he would have copped a boot or knee to the face. Its instinctive and he pulled up as soon as he realised he was unable to challenge. But the collision was inevitable so a red card was justified. 8 weeks seems very harsh as there was no intent to harm, only self preservation.

Could he not have ducked, or had a basic level of awareness of an oncoming player? He had to expect it would be contested based on where the kick was landing.

The laws are pretty black and white. But every situation is pretty grey. Jump the highest and you're all good. I really like uncle fucken bully's vertical jump requirement. Its not perfect, but it would be better than what we currently have.

guy smiley wrote:Do you mean my reference to flying into rucks, HK?

I didn't mean to suggest an ulterior motive, more of the sort of inconsistency we see some complain of so often. Both are dangerous acts and the Laws around the ruck are very specific... for all the talk of changes to how we allow play there we already have sound definitions to control the actions of players.

sorry - bad choice of words - suffering jet lag. What I meant to imply is that WR appear to struggle with focusing on more than one area of law at one time.

l coached Tanielu for a few years at school, he doesn't have a malicious bone in his body. You can see that from his immediate reaction. 4 weeks is harsh but fair given the potential for serious injury. He won't make that same mistake again, smart player altogether.

The sanction is too harsh given the facts of this incident

blackblackblack wrote:l coached Tanielu for a few years at school, he doesn't have a malicious bone in his body. You can see that from his immediate reaction. 4 weeks is harsh but fair given the potential for serious injury. He won't make that same mistake again, smart player altogether.

I;mm sure that is true but until and unless players stop this type of dangerous play, the bans will continue to be as they are.

Hong Kong wrote:

blackblackblack wrote:l coached Tanielu for a few years at school, he doesn't have a malicious bone in his body. You can see that from his immediate reaction. 4 weeks is harsh but fair given the potential for serious injury. He won't make that same mistake again, smart player altogether.

I;mm sure that is true but until and unless players stop this type of dangerous play, the bans will continue to be as they are.

I think those that endanger themselves ought to shoulder some responsibilty for doing so. As it stands the law is lopsided in it's weighting.

Zakar wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:If he didn't put his arms up he would have copped a boot or knee to the face. Its instinctive and he pulled up as soon as he realised he was unable to challenge. But the collision was inevitable so a red card was justified. 8 weeks seems very harsh as there was no intent to harm, only self preservation.

Could he not have ducked, or had a basic level of awareness of an oncoming player? He had to expect it would be contested based on where the kick was landing.

Indeed. I'm fine with bans for idiotic play like that. You can't run towards a high ball like a headless chicken with no awareness of play around you.

If a player uses his brain, he sees that he can't make it to contest, so he waits and tackles (or absolutely smashes) the player once he lands. Mindlessly running through the landing zone without a care in the world is dangerous, so he can have a few weeks to reflect on it.

It’s all a game of chance these days.
A red card lottery of sorts.
Intent is irrelevant, luck is the only factor.

Flametop wrote:It’s all a game of chance these days.
A red card lottery of sorts.
Intent is irrelevant, luck is the only factor.

He wasn't unlucky to blindly blunder through the drop area from a high ball, completely ignoring the presence of anyone contesting the ball.
He was careless, and it could have resulted in serious injury. Red card is absolutely correct.

guy smiley wrote:cut in half thanks to his good record, as well as his guilty plea.

Tanielu Tele'a banned for 3 games following dangerous tackle
June 06, 2018

New Zealand U20s centre Tanielu Tele'a has been banned for three games following his no-arms tackle on Ioan Nicholas in their match against Wales.

Telea was sent to the sin-bin for 10 minutes during the clash and has been subsequently banned for the rest of the World Rugby U20s tournament.

Insane_Homer wrote:

guy smiley wrote:cut in half thanks to his good record, as well as his guilty plea.

Tanielu Tele'a banned for 3 games following dangerous tackle
June 06, 2018

New Zealand U20s centre Tanielu Tele'a has been banned for three games following his no-arms tackle on Ioan Nicholas in their match against Wales.

Telea was sent to the sin-bin for 10 minutes during the clash and has been subsequently banned for the rest of the World Rugby U20s tournament.

But he doesn't have a malicious bone in his body...

guy smiley wrote:Now that I have your attention through the use of a ridiculous thread title, why do you think it is that WR are clamping down so hard on an admittedly potentially dangerous action while continuing to turn a blind eye to bodies flying into rucks in clear conflict with the Laws of the game?

Just in reference to that, Ireland flanker Dan Leavy is now out of the world cup because of exactly. Injuries are rumoured to be: "hammy and calf torn off bone ripped ACL, PCL, LCL, MCL, broken fibula". Who the fcuk knows how long the recovery (if possible) will be on that... All because of a body flying in to a ruck.

The video is out there but it ain't pretty (the TV broadcasters didn't even show any replays or any angle where it can be seen, it's that bad). In at the side off his feet dive to the ground misses the intended target who adjusts slightly and lands straight on the knee of a stationary, braced leg of another player, bending it the wrong way.

Horrific, isn't it? Sadly was inevitable that something like this would happen, and it has. In what would have been in a very high profile way which may have finally been a push for change but for the fact the footage won't be and hasn't been widely seen.

According to Ben Ryan, they're trialing laws to prevent the flying bodies phenomenon at the moment. Not sure they need any laws other than nobody with shoulders below hips in the ruck. Just need to enforce.

I don't disagree. You could widen the gate slightly, but if you enforce those rules, this wouldn't be an issue.

guy smiley wrote:

Zakar wrote:According to Ben Ryan, they're trialing laws to prevent the flying bodies phenomenon at the moment. Not sure they need any laws other than nobody with shoulders below hips in the ruck. Just need to enforce.

This is what I was driving at on the previous page (and I think HK was on the money when he suggested WR seem to only have the capacity to deal with one issue at a time)...

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15

Joining a ruck
An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.
A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.
A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
Players must join the ruck or retire behind their offside line immediately.
Players who have previously been part of the ruck may rejoin the ruck, provided they do so from an onside position.

What new Laws do we need?

None. It's been an issue for a long time now. You'll find the laws are much more enforced at amateur level. Which is weird that professional refs are clearly not enforcing it. When I did my last referee course it's even discussed don't ref the rucks like on TV, especially when referring children who see it on TV. So it's known in referee circles that the rules are not enforced and nto enforecd seemingly by intent.