Is this a red card?
-
Coming on the back of Jason Emery's red last week, this one came in the 60th minute of the Stormers vs Waratahs game.
Be interested in people's take on it. As you would expect the Saffers are frothing over it, whereas a lot of Aussies seem to think it was the right call. This is possibly the best angle:
(Anyone know how to embed this in the post?)
The gif doesn't show Foley landing, which was a key factor- he came down on his head/neck.
I actually think a red is a harsh call here, but under the Laws it was the correct one. Zas clearly slips, and only had eyes for the ball the whole time.
I generally think red cards should be reserved for particularly reckless play, where the player's intent was malicious. Tip tackles and tackles in the air both fall under this criteria, but I'm not sure if this does. It was a challenge for the ball that went slightly wrong, and I'm not sure an early shower is the appropriate sanction. YC I reckon.
-
Looked like red to me.
Especially given the Emery- le Roux clash
-
I think it was a harsh red. He has eyes on the ball, goes to compete but slips. It's not like the one where Emery tackled le Roux out of the air dangerously.And that's the key bit because a genuine contest may still have a player fall as le Roux or Foley did and that should not result in carding a player who legitimately contests for the ball.
-
To me, regardless of the slip, he was never going to be in a position to challenge for that ball, and was making the assumption there were no opponents capable of getting up there. Massive error in judgement.
I think it is only just a red card, and he'll get no further punishment*- DISCLAIMER: SANZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR JUDICIARY.
-
Not a red. Yellow only.
However this is where I contradict myself and suggest that it is worthy of a short ban.
-
I don't think it's a red. You shouldn't be red carded simply for not being able to jump as high as the other person.
-
To me, regardless of the slip, he was never going to be in a position to challenge for that ball, and was making the assumption there were no opponents capable of getting up there. Massive error in judgement.
I think it is only just a red card, and he'll get no further punishment*- DISCLAIMER: SANZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR JUDICIARY.
I agree with this. Also, recklessness or malicious intent, or the absence of it, should not be relevant for earning a red card for this offence. It should be relevant for the punishment handed-out by the SANZAAR judiciairy.
But yes, NTA is right, SANZAAR's judicial decisions are a lottery. Nadolo's punishment of 4 weeks' suspension for a low-range offence in the same week as the 4 weeks suspension of Emery for a mid-range offence proves how unpredictable and arbitrary punishments can be.
By the way, for comparison, look in this article () at the video of Vulindlu taking Boffelli out of the air. Boffelli's landing is different from those of Le Roux and Foley, he landed on his lower back, not his neck, and that is exactly the reason given by the ref for giving him yellow instead of red. Good refereeing! It's still dangerous, but less dangerous than Emery and Zas's actions, something the author of this stuff article has completely missed.
-
From the angle no way it was a red. He had his eyes on the pill the entire time.
-
By the way, for comparison, look in this article () at the video of Vulindlu taking Boffelli out of the air. Boffelli's landing is different from those of Le Roux and Foley, he landed on his lower back, not his neck, and that is exactly the reason given by the ref for giving him yellow instead of red. Good refereeing! It's still dangerous, but less dangerous than what Emery and Zas did and something the author of this stuff article has completely missed.
How they land should have zero bearing on the punishment.
-
I don't think it was red, as 2 things quite clearly happened - eyes were on the ball and he slipped.
I don't entirely blame the ref for giving it, but it doesn't look red to me.
-
How they land should have zero bearing on the punishment.
You don't think the level of dangerousness is relevant? Wow.
-
You don't think the level of dangerousness is relevant? Wow.
So you are saying they should be punished severely if there is a higher level of dangerousness or say, potential (or conversely, if they make a dangerous play and the guy lands perfectly safely punishment should be minimal)
Surely you hit a guy, accidentally in mid-air, all have potential to be very dangerous, regardless of how they land..it is just luck (for the one being hit) if they land better than say Le Roux.
We already have a judiciary that is wildly inconsistent, you want to give them jurisdiction to start determining potential outcomes too?
-
The thing for me is that both never take their eyes off the ball at any stage. Why does one person have more responsibility to pull out over another? Does it all come down to who can jump the highest?
To me it is an awful accident and not even worthy of a penalty.
-
These are the rulings that were released last year regarding challenges in the air (this may have been updated now?)
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
http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended
I guess the TMO doesn't take into account the accidental slip and purely looks at if it was a fair challenge (which it wasn't).
-
I like the new criteria for sanctions but still question why a player that leaps into contact holds no responsibility for his own demise. Rugby is a game to be played on the feet and a catcher should be allowed to stand on the ground to make a catch. If someone then leaps at them they shouldn't be held accountable.
It has become that you have to leap and leap well to be sure of being judged as challenging for the ball even if no one else has yet leaped as well.
I don't know the answer just feel that there is room to take these things into account.
-
These are the rulings that were released last year regarding challenges in the air (this may have been updated now?)
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
http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended
I guess the TMO doesn't take into account the accidental slip and purely looks at if it was a fair challenge (which it wasn't).^^^^ This.
The key question is then if the slip mitigates the consequences. He clearly slipped and that prevented him from getting off the ground. For me, a fair outcome would be yellow as it was unintentional (and not readily able to be anticipated), but the effect is dangerous.
Would an analogy be going in for a tackle, slipping and inadvertantly tripping the opposing player. Unintentional, but inarguably (apparent) foul play based on a close reading of the rules.
-
The thing for me is that both never take their eyes off the ball at any stage. Why does one person have more responsibility to pull out over another? Does it all come down to who can jump the highest?
Yep, who has precedent?
Also in a couple of the incidents the comment by the ref was you were never in a position to take the ball - easy to say afterward but what is the player thinking as he runs with eyes on the ball?
Of most importance is, what is being communicated to players and coaches about these situations?
Does everyone know who has right of way as it were? A defender standing his ground has what rights?
What thoughts should being going through a player as he waits or as he chases. If they're making the players judge if they can contest or not, what coaching and guidance have they offered to clarify what the players should do?
Mucky area and agree with Barbarian, red cards should be for when someone goes troppo and knowingly and intentionally tries to hurt someone
-
So you are saying they should be punished severely if there is a higher level of dangerousness or say, potential (or conversely, if they make a dangerous play and the guy lands perfectly safely punishment should be minimal)
Surely you hit a guy, accidentally in mid-air, all have potential to be very dangerous, regardless of how they land..it is just luck (for the one being hit) if they land better than say Le Roux.
We already have a judiciary that is wildly inconsistent, you want to give them jurisdiction to start determining potential outcomes too?See Toddy's post; how/where on the body they land is relevant:
These are the rulings that were released last year regarding challenges in the air (this may have been updated now?)
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
http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended
I guess the TMO doesn't take into account the accidental slip and purely looks at if it was a fair challenge (which it wasn't).
-
Maybe keeping RCs only for deliberate (and not accidental) acts is the way to go. Put incidents on report to be looked at properly later on.
This wouldn't help in lower levels though and WR likes to have one rule for all.
-
I like the new criteria for sanctions but still question why a player that leaps into contact holds no responsibility for his own demise. Rugby is a game to be played on the feet and a catcher should be allowed to stand on the ground to make a catch. If someone then leaps at them they shouldn't be held accountable.
It has become that you have to leap and leap well to be sure of being judged as challenging for the ball even if no one else has yet leaped as well.
I don't know the answer just feel that there is room to take these things into account.Not sure I would want to see it but if they are really serious the only way they can fully protect players is to ban jumping. There is something theatrical in seeing a well taken leaping catch that I would hate to see removed from the game.
