Blues vs Stormers



  • The only thing Tele'a did wrong is he did not jump. If he had fair competition for the ball. He should know this it's been reffed like this for nearly 5 years now. If not he has 4 weeks now to work on this. If you try and take a high ball with your feet on the ground you risk a card.

    Jump every single time.



  • @mooshld said in Blues vs Stormers:

    The only thing Tele'a did wrong is he did not jump. If he had fair competition for the ball. He should know this it's been reffed like this for nearly 5 years now. If not he has 4 weeks now to work on this. If you try and take a high ball with your feet on the ground you risk a card.

    Jump every single time.

    And that's the idiocy of the rule in my opinion. The law is written that for their to be a contest, both players must jump for it, and all benefit of doubt is given to the guy in the air.



  • @MajorRage said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mooshld said in Blues vs Stormers:

    The only thing Tele'a did wrong is he did not jump. If he had fair competition for the ball. He should know this it's been reffed like this for nearly 5 years now. If not he has 4 weeks now to work on this. If you try and take a high ball with your feet on the ground you risk a card.

    Jump every single time.

    And that's the idiocy of the rule in my opinion. The law is written that for their to be a contest, both players must jump for it, and all benefit of doubt is given to the guy in the air.

    "Rugby is a game played on your feet" - except when you dive head first into rucks and are expected to jump high in the air.

    The Law simply says that it is dangerous to play someone in the air. It is the silly interpretation that decrees that someone can leap high and late over a player that is looking to catch the ball while on his feet and the other guy takes all the responsibility.



  • Now watched it quite a few times. About half a second before impact both players about the same distance from ball. If Tele'a had jumped like Leyds he would have had the same chance of catching the ball, but more likely there would have been one hell of a midair collision and one of them would have been quite badly hurt. Leyds jumped quite late but did not have 'the rights'. I really think Tele'a would have had to have defied the laws of physics to have been able to avoid Leyds from that point (i.e. the late jump). He put his hands up not to contest the ball but rather to protect himself/try and cushion Leyd's fall.

    Where I think it fails the red card test is the requirement to be 'whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action'. In my opinion what Tele'a did was neither reckless nor foul. In fact if there was any recklessness it was on the part of Leyds.

    As @mooshld said his 'mistake' under the current refereeing was not to jump. But quite frankly encouraging both players to have jumped like Leyds is both crazy and would be highly dangerous.

    I would have absolutely no problem giving top refs more discretion in these matters.



  • @pakman
    You could tell he knew he'd got it wrong & tried to pull out but sadly it was too late. The issue I have is that if Leyds lands on his feet, Tele'a would've got a yellow card & nothing more. It shouldn't be about the result, it should be about the action & the action in this case was not malicious in nature or overtly reckless



  • Seems like the rules have removed the contest a bit IMO. Maybe the compromise is that you are allowed to tackle them in the air, but have to bring them down safely like with a tackle.

    Remove some of the grey area, Tele'a would still be a red. But under my version, he could have grabbed at Leyd and helped bring him down safely, tackled.

    The player can then judge the risk, and the defender doesn't get unfairly punished for a small amount of contact caused by the jumping player.



  • @Kirwan

    Argument could be made for a yellow based on the below guidelines?

    Law 9.17 (Dangerous Play - A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground) with the following guidelines:

    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 - It's not a fair challenge, with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position



  • Ban. The. Box. Kick.



  • @mariner4life How? Must pass from a ruck before a kick?



  • @Machpants said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mariner4life How? Must pass from a ruck before a kick?

    yes.



  • @mariner4life

    If that rule came in with a new ruling that defenders could play the halfback, it would make things interesting, but without it we’d likely have even less players or teams targeting the ruck.



  • @Nogusta said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @pakman
    You could tell he knew he'd got it wrong & tried to pull out but sadly it was too late. The issue I have is that if Leyds lands on his feet, Tele'a would've got a yellow card & nothing more. It shouldn't be about the result, it should be about the action & the action in this case was not malicious in nature or overtly reckless

    Pretty subjective why he stopped, which he certainly did.

    An alternative explanation is that he realised to compete he'd have to jump and because both players were equidistant there was a good chance of a mid air collision and risk of a card, so he decided to stop and try and grab Leyds on landing. The unfortunate thing being that Leyd's trajectory took that option away from him.

    In the book now and main thing Leyds wasn't injured badly, which was a real risk given the height he jumped and that he lifted his knees up.



  • @pakman 100% Agree. Both players running quickly toward ball almost equal distance away, one jumps and the other doesn’t. So the guy that doesn’t jump has to change what he is doing whereas the guy who took the risk by jumping gets a free ride? The intention I thought was if a player owned the space and another player jumped in then that second player had to be careful. In this case nobody owned the space, they both arrived at the same time but one in then air and the other with his feet in the ground. Yellow at worst.



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    Ban. The. Box. Kick.

    How does that change the situation?
    It's not just box kicks which result in attacking and defending teams competing for a catch.

    Personally - I have no idea how to fix that area. Some completely ill-thought out (and drunk) ideas...

    • the player with feet closest to the ground gets the benefit of the doubt?
      (simplest thing I can think of which would mean - players don't semi-deliberately put themselves into peril, plus - are forced into being aware of the situation/location/movement of opposing player)
      ... I'm sure there would be unintended consequences,
      but - whatever is done - even existing rules - the intention has to be (and I believe is the intention with the current rulings) - you have to be aware of the opposing player. If you are only watching the ball... that's an aggravating factor, NOT an alleviating one.


  • @Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.

    If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.

    It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them



  • maybe allow a mark to be called anywhere, by either team...but obviously you must be on the ground to do so.

    stupid I know, but it would reduce the number of high kicks and be less jumping to contest them



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.

    If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.

    It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them

    Yeah - but the problem is the contests in the air. That's the bit that needs to be fixed... otherwise we'll just be having this debate after fucking kick-offs.



  • @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:

    maybe allow a mark to be called anywhere, by either team...but obviously you must be on the ground to do so.

    stupid I know, but it would reduce the number of high kicks and be less jumping to contest them

    AFL?



  • @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.

    If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.

    It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them

    Yeah - but the problem is the contests in the air. That's the bit that needs to be fixed... otherwise we'll just be having this debate after fucking kick-offs.

    i work on odds. How many instances of guys getting it really wrong do we see? Out of how many contests? I would say that number would be really, really low.

    So, if we can cut the number of contests even further (just by its nature you can't get rid of them completely) then surely the small number of instances we have will reduce even further.



  • @Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and AFL uses kicks a bit differently to rugby.

    I just think the way kicks are used in rugby, if you gave the free kick to either team but only on the ground it would reduce the point of a contestable box kick.

    Or maybe make it if you kick it, you cannot jump for it, so there should only ever be 1 player in the air, the chasing team knows they are not going to win it in the air so then they have to be there to take the man when he hits the floor, I think that would reduce some (not all) of the accidental collisions due to timiing issues if one team knows they are just getting to the place it lands to tackle and drive the guy rather than contest it in the air.

    It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.

    If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.

    It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them

    Yeah - but the problem is the contests in the air. That's the bit that needs to be fixed... otherwise we'll just be having this debate after fucking kick-offs.

    i work on odds. How many instances of guys getting it really wrong do we see? Out of how many contests? I would say that number would be really, really low.

    So, if we can cut the number of contests even further (just by its nature you can't get rid of them completely) then surely the small number of instances we have will reduce even further.

    Yeah - but that's it... the fact we can't get rid of them completely... surely address the issue, rather than reducing the odds of it happening?
    I get you don't like box-kicks (I don't get the utter hatred, but, yeah - fair enough - it can get kinda boring... 80's style rugby-field-ping-pong)... but surely address the issue rather than reducing the likelihood of it occurring?



  • @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.

    If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.

    It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them

    Yeah - but the problem is the contests in the air. That's the bit that needs to be fixed... otherwise we'll just be having this debate after fucking kick-offs.

    i work on odds. How many instances of guys getting it really wrong do we see? Out of how many contests? I would say that number would be really, really low.

    So, if we can cut the number of contests even further (just by its nature you can't get rid of them completely) then surely the small number of instances we have will reduce even further.

    Yeah - but that's it... the fact we can't get rid of them completely... surely address the issue, rather than reducing the odds of it happening?
    I get you don't like box-kicks (I don't get the utter hatred, but, yeah - fair enough - it can get kinda boring... 80's style rugby-field-ping-pong)... but surely address the issue rather than reducing the likelihood of it occurring?

    so tell me what the issue is



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse mainly because if you have to pass it back, to have everyone on-side, you have to hang them back as well.

    If you kick from the base, basically everyone is on-side, and right at the advantage line. If you have to pass it back to stick the bomb up, it becomes a less attractive option, as to get the same level of contest, you need to drop how much ground you make.

    It won't end contests in the air, but it will cut down on them

    Yeah - but the problem is the contests in the air. That's the bit that needs to be fixed... otherwise we'll just be having this debate after fucking kick-offs.

    i work on odds. How many instances of guys getting it really wrong do we see? Out of how many contests? I would say that number would be really, really low.

    So, if we can cut the number of contests even further (just by its nature you can't get rid of them completely) then surely the small number of instances we have will reduce even further.

    Yeah - but that's it... the fact we can't get rid of them completely... surely address the issue, rather than reducing the odds of it happening?
    I get you don't like box-kicks (I don't get the utter hatred, but, yeah - fair enough - it can get kinda boring... 80's style rugby-field-ping-pong)... but surely address the issue rather than reducing the likelihood of it occurring?

    so tell me what the issue is

    I'm smashed, half-agreeing with you...
    I would say the issue is the current rulings (actually - rules) - about contests in the air.
    Players don't know what the fuck, so they're just running towards the ball, with their eyes on the ball, sometimes jumping, sometimes not.
    When two players with their eyes on the ball arrive in the same area, at the same time... shit often happens.
    The rules.... then can become a complete fucking lottery.
    And that's not cool.
    I would say that whatever happens... the one effect necessary - is that players keeping their eyes on the ball, and not being aware of their surroundings and other players - should be the main thing to be drilled out of play.



  • @mariner4life

    It’s hard, but it’s also often related to having so many bodies around that ppl often can’t even get a good look to see the danger.

    Perhaps, a ruling is needed that you can’t jump into the space; you have to be there to compete - so in the example we saw last week, the Stormers player would be penalized for jumping into the space. It’s the best I can think of on a crowded train.

    That wouldn’t mean players couldn’t jump for the ball - just that they couldn’t come flying in from 3 or more meters away at full tilt trying to get the space.

    Of course, it would also mean that players in the space should take care not to pull down arriving players - who should be penalized anyway.

    It’s messy.



  • @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and > It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.

    Yeah - the "AFL" call was a facile comment,
    But anyway - at the moment - which "one person" has all the rights? Some people seem to think it's the person who jumped first, some who think it was who jumped the highest, some who think it's who was in place first. And generally - it turns out to be (in the ref's eyes) who got least injured in some sort of potentially career-ending collision.
    It's fucked.
    And yeah, your particular suggestion - I'm not sure I agree with it being the best one, but it's certainly an option. Possibly one that achieves the effect both I was thinking of, and Mariner's.



  • I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.

    Yeah - fair enough.
    It just seems like something that would be so easily sorted out.
    If only to stop the fucking Stephen-Jones-esque outcry after the Fall-Barrett red card, etc.



  • @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.

    Yeah - fair enough.
    It just seems like something that would be so easily sorted out.
    If only to stop the fucking Stephen-Jones-esque outcry after the Fall-Barrett red card, etc.

    the amount of fucks i give about another anti-AB whine in the paper is a very, very small number.

    Also, nothing in rugby is easy to sort out, due to the nature the sport; the nature of unintended consequences, and smart coaches and players that will push every rule out there to find an advantage.

    Fuck being a law maker.



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.

    I agree with all of this, except the last sentence.

    I don't think it's a big problem at all and I actually quite like the kicking.



  • The simple solution is to permit players to be tackled in the air. They'll be less likely to leap to the heavens then.



  • @Kruse yep, the one person is the one the ref deems to be the one with the rights, usually the one who jumped higher, or the one who caught the ball, not the guy who mis-timed his jump by 1/10th of a second, or just as he went to jump, realised he was not gonna get it, and now realised he was too late to pull out of the contact area and smashes into the guy in the air.

    Agree though, isnt a huge problem, but when a collision occurs, it makes people question the processes



  • @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and > It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.

    Yeah - the "AFL" call was a facile comment,
    But anyway - at the moment - which "one person" has all the rights? Some people seem to think it's the person who jumped first, some who think it was who jumped the highest, some who think it's who was in place first. And generally - it turns out to be (in the ref's eyes) who got least injured in some sort of potentially career-ending collision.
    It's fucked.
    And yeah, your particular suggestion - I'm not sure I agree with it being the best one, but it's certainly an option. Possibly one that achieves the effect both I was thinking of, and Mariner's.

    If I were involved in the rule setting I'd get a couple of AFL experts in and ask how within their rules they ensure people don't break their necks. Those jokers climb up each other's backs, but I'm not aware (perhaps because of sheer ignorance) that lots of neck/back injuries result.



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.

    I think you're being harsh on Tele'a. I think he thought the jump was 50:50 and backed out. Leyds recklessly went ahead and won the ball, but was lucky not to get hurt.

    Thinking about it, until reckless jumping players get carded they will continue to put themselves (and others) at risk.

    Point about incidence of injuries well made, though.



  • @pakman said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and > It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.

    Yeah - the "AFL" call was a facile comment,
    But anyway - at the moment - which "one person" has all the rights? Some people seem to think it's the person who jumped first, some who think it was who jumped the highest, some who think it's who was in place first. And generally - it turns out to be (in the ref's eyes) who got least injured in some sort of potentially career-ending collision.
    It's fucked.
    And yeah, your particular suggestion - I'm not sure I agree with it being the best one, but it's certainly an option. Possibly one that achieves the effect both I was thinking of, and Mariner's.

    If I were involved in the rule setting I'd get a couple of AFL experts in and ask how within their rules they ensure people don't break their necks. Those jokers climb up each other's backs, but I'm not aware (perhaps because of sheer ignorance) that lots of neck/back injuries result.

    This a good question, would prefer a skills based solution



  • @Kirwan said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @pakman said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and > It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.

    Yeah - the "AFL" call was a facile comment,
    But anyway - at the moment - which "one person" has all the rights? Some people seem to think it's the person who jumped first, some who think it was who jumped the highest, some who think it's who was in place first. And generally - it turns out to be (in the ref's eyes) who got least injured in some sort of potentially career-ending collision.
    It's fucked.
    And yeah, your particular suggestion - I'm not sure I agree with it being the best one, but it's certainly an option. Possibly one that achieves the effect both I was thinking of, and Mariner's.

    If I were involved in the rule setting I'd get a couple of AFL experts in and ask how within their rules they ensure people don't break their necks. Those jokers climb up each other's backs, but I'm not aware (perhaps because of sheer ignorance) that lots of neck/back injuries result.

    This a good question, would prefer a skills based solution

    Mainly because they're jumping in the same direction, leaping upwards as opposed to forwards. The increase in forward velocity in rugby contests in the air make someone invariably unstable and easier to rotate when they hit another player who becomes a fulcrum. The faster both players in rugby are travelling at each other, the greater the moment (turning force) when they collide.


Log in to reply