Is this a red card?

barbarian

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:
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://i.imgur.com/f3hnFf9.gifv'>http://i.imgur.com/f3hnFf9.gifv</a>
 
(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.

booboo

Looked like red to me. 
Especially given the Emery- le Roux clash

antipodean

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.

NTA

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.

Frye

Not a red. Yellow only. 
However this is where I contradict myself and suggest that it is worthy of a short ban.

Milk

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.

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="576268" data-time="1462151817">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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 (<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79486380/up-in-the-air-midair-collisions-create-drama-in-super-rugby '>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79486380/up-in-the-air-midair-collisions-create-drama-in-super-rugby</a> ) 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.

Rancid Schnitzel

From the angle no way it was a red. He had his eyes on the pill the entire time.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="576277" data-time="1462154700">
<div>
By the way, for comparison, look in this article (<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79486380/up-in-the-air-midair-collisions-create-drama-in-super-rugby '>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79486380/up-in-the-air-midair-collisions-create-drama-in-super-rugby</a> ) 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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
How they land should have zero bearing on the punishment.

MajorRage

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.

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="576279" data-time="1462154769">
<div>
How they land should have zero bearing on the punishment.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You don't think the level of dangerousness is relevant? Wow.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="576284" data-time="1462155592">
<div>
You don't think the level of dangerousness is relevant? Wow.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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?

Hooroo

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.

Toddy

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)
<ul><li>Play on â€“ Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only â€“ Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul> 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended'>http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended</a>
 
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).

Crucial

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.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="576290" data-time="1462155920">
<div>
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)
<ul><li>Play on â€“ Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only â€“ Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul> 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended'>http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended</a>
 
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).
</div>
</blockquote>
 
^^^^ 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.

Siam

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="576288" data-time="1462155905">
<div>
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?
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="576286" data-time="1462155792">
<div>
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?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
See Toddy's post; how/where on the body they land is relevant:
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="576290" data-time="1462155920">
<div>
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)
<ul><li>Play on â€“ Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only â€“ Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul> 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended'>http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/06/4378/referees-to-get-stricter-as-tackle-and-scrums-laws-amended</a>
 
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).
</div>
</blockquote>

Crucial

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.

Crazy Horse

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="576291" data-time="1462156441">
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.</blockquote>
 
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.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="576297" data-time="1462157145">
<div>
See Toddy's post; how/where on the body they land is relevant:
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
that wasn't the question, you questioned MY statement, I gave you MY answer.
 
If Le Roux had managed to do a complete somersault and come down on his feet, would Emery's punishment have been the same (RC and 4 weeks) IMO it should be.
 
The rule book doesn't go into detail quite like that about the 'level' (page 69, same rule10.4 (i))
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/World_Rugby_Laws_2016_EN.pdf'>http://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/World_Rugby_Laws_2016_EN.pdf</a>

Stargazer

RC for the offence
Punishment dependent on other circumstances, such as accidental, deliberate, reckless. I'd expect that Zas doesn't get any further punishment.

Crucial

I'd be mightily pissed off if I was standing lined up to take a catch in the first minute of a game and a chaser took a flying leap at my head tipping himself over in the process and I got red carded.
This is the type of incident that isn't covered by the guidelines provided to referees.

No Quarter

As long as he posts a public apology on his website and/or twitter then I'm fine with it.

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="576301" data-time="1462157365">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Well I actually see this as progression towards a 'fair catch' law like they have in the NFL. 
 
I agree the emphasis on the landing position of the player is fraught. If Zas never had his eyes on the ball but jumped into Foley and clattered into him, forcing him to land backwards on his arse, he would have only got a YC, even though the play would have been far more reckless and cynical.
 
I think there is way too much grey area here, and there needs to be a greater emphasis on intent rather than result. IMO if your intent was to make a fair rugby play you should never be red carded, regardless of result.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="576288" data-time="1462155905">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It's a bit of a strange one. If both players leap, it is never penalised. You just need to make sure you jump. Even if you jump and take the other player out, you will probably get away with it.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="576337" data-time="1462164051">
<div>
Well I actually see this as progression towards a 'fair catch' law like they have in the NFL. 
 
I agree the emphasis on the landing position of the player is fraught. If Zas never had his eyes on the ball but jumped into Foley and clattered into him, forcing him to land backwards on his arse, he would have only got a YC, even though the play would have been far more reckless and cynical.
 
I think there is way too much grey area here, and there needs to be a greater emphasis on intent rather than result. IMO if your intent was to make a fair rugby play you should never be red carded, regardless of result. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Then Emery stays on the field though. I think you should be able to get red carded if your action is dangerous. If Le Roux did a somersault and landed on his feet, then Emery would have only got a yellow which seems strange.

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="576340" data-time="1462166397">
<div>
Then Emery stays on the field though. I think you should be able to get red carded if your action is dangerous. If Le Roux did a somersault and landed on his feet, then Emery would have only got a yellow which seems strange.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But tackling a player in the air is not a 'fair rugby play' to me. Neither is a tip tackle. If you break the law in those ways, a red card should certainly be on the table if the outcome is dangerous.

Bones

I find it odd people think eyes only on the ball is a reason to allow dangerous play. That's a shit excuse. In any case has no one got peripheral vision?

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="576346" data-time="1462168011">
<div>
I find it odd people think eyes only on the ball is a reason to allow dangerous play. That's a shit excuse. In any case has no one got peripheral vision?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But an action can be both dangerous and legal. You could say that about 90% of our game.

NTA

Thing is, eyes only for the ball is a fairly shit excuse - you need to be aware of your opponent in that situation (said the prop who never chased a kick in his life).

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="576355" data-time="1462169470">Thing is, eyes only for the ball is a fairly shit excuse - you need to be aware of your opponent in that situation (said the prop who never chased a kick in his life).</blockquote>
Yeah but you could just throw out a big swinging arm at neck height and claim you didn't see anyone else, just a ball being passed to just out of your vision...

Nepia

Not a red to me, the player was watching the ball the entire time and the other guy jumped when they were practically standing next to each other.

Crucial

There is quite a difference between recklessly charging toward a player in the air and having someone get airborne over you when it is too late to react.
 
Yes there is an argument that you should anticipate that another player may jump but does that mean no one can ever catch the ball on the ground if a chaser is coming? Or that you have to put yourself at risk by jumping unnecessarily?

gt12

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="576288" data-time="1462155905">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.</blockquote>
 
I agree. I can't see anything there except for a horrible accident. I don't see how the player who slipped is responsible.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gt12" data-cid="576391" data-time="1462175958">
<div>
I agree. I can't see anything there except for a horrible accident. I don't see how the player who slipped is responsible.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
is that another part of SA transformation policy, to include an unco too?

mooshld

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="576278" data-time="1462154754">
<div>
From the angle no way it was a red. He had his eyes on the pill the entire time.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="576281" data-time="1462155119">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="576288" data-time="1462155905">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Its the Jared Payne precedent. Having your eye on the ball the whole time actually acts against you as you are not aware of your surroundings. Therefore deemed more reckless.

Chris B.

Looks to me that the guy's just slipped over at an unfortunate time.
 
Did he get red-carded? Seems incredibly harsh.

Stargazer

Zas gets 2 week ban, misses one Super Rugby game v Sunwolves
 
Article on Planet Rugby website: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
Two-week ban for Zas after red card 
 May 2 2016 
 Stormers winger Leolin Zas has been suspended for two weeks following his red card for tackling a player in the air last weekend. 
 The SANZAAR Duty Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton QC accepted a guilty plea from Zas for contravening Law 10.4 (i) â€“ Tackling, tapping, pushing or pulling an Opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play â€“ after he was red carded. 
 Zas made contact with Waratahs fly-half Bernard Foley who was in the air attempting to catch a ball during the match between the Stormers and Waratahs at Newlands on Saturday. 
 Zas has been suspended from all forms of the game for two weeks up to and including Saturday, May 14. 
 SANZAAR Duty Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton QC assessed the case. In his finding, Hampton ruled the following: â€œLeolin Zas (the player) and his representatives appeared before me and admitted a breach of the Law 10.4(I) charge. 
 â€œI found it was a lower end offence on the basis that the video footage showed the playerâ€s right foot slipping as he was readying to compete for the ball in the air. This resulted in him moving on through and under the opposing player, causing that player to fall dangerously to the ground. Fortunately the opposing player was uninjured. 
 â€œThe low end entry point for the sanction was a three-week suspension. There were no aggravating factors. 
 â€œAs to mitigation, I took into account the playerâ€s youth and his early guilty plea, as well as his already expressed apology and his contrition. 
 â€œI allowed a reduction of one week, making a suspension from all rugby of two weeks, up to and including Saturday, May 14.â€ 
 â€œThe Stormers have a bye next weekend. I was provided written evidence that the player would have been chosen to play for Western Province in a Currie Cup match against the Natal Sharks that forthcoming weekend. So that match should be, and is, taken into account as a match which he will be unable to play in. In addition, he will be ineligible to play in the Super Rugby match against the Sunwolves on May 14.â€
</blockquote>
 
Ha, there's the "evidence" again ...

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="576355" data-time="1462169470">Thing is, eyes only for the ball is a fairly shit excuse - you need to be aware of your opponent in that situation</blockquote> That argument applies to the bloke doing his Nureyev impersonation as well. You can't blindly leap without consideration for your own health.

TSF

Tipping

Rugby Matches

Rugby Results

Forum Links

Is this a red card?