New High Tackle Directive for the New Year

[Ragey Erasmus]

I like this, and it could be easily adapted to apply to Rugby.

The player is allowed to jump provided the space between his take off and landing is clear at the time of the jump.

If its not clear, and he clatters an opponent who was already in that space at the time he jumped, the jumper is PK for dangerous charging.

If it is clear, but an opponent moves into that space after the jumper has jumped, then the opponent is PK for playing a player in the air.

Simple, straightforward and easy to officiate.

This, surely it could be achieved with a simple modification of the jumping into a tackle rule? A player may not jump into a tackle OR into a space already occupied by another player. Any player who is stationary on the ground will not be at fault for any collision between himself and a player who jumped into them unless of course they moved into that position after the other player had already jumped and then stopped. This may make it harder to try to regain your own ball from a kick but tackling the player waiting on the ground is perfectly viable. I'd also consider a situation in which a player who is stationary jumps at the last second as a tackler is already committed to attempt to get a penalty as an act of recklessness too.

 

[Blindside]

Why do players jump for the ball ? Having no one in the area you are jumping negates the need to jump. A player that jumps for a ball when there is no one near him is an idiot, because it merely makes the gathering of the ball more difficult for no gain.

 

[Mike Rolls]

But if somebody arrives a tad late it may earn a penalty - and I think that it gets set into the mindset - although I agree with you in general terms
Mike

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Cause if you are standing still somewhere that puts another person in danger that's reckless.

That's what the laws of the game say but it is hard to reconcile that with what common sense and logic dictate.
I mean, apply the same principle to other things: if someone throws a punch at you then you are reckless for not moving your head and should be penalized if the puncher injures his hand.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

See that Barrington's been cleared and can play again immediately while Barrett has picked up a 3 week ban. That's right in my book, but it does make you wonder when you consider how many replays the match officials saw and how long they took to make the decision.....

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

That's what the laws of the game say but it is hard to reconcile that with what common sense and logic dictate.
I mean, apply the same principle to other things: if someone throws a punch at you then you are reckless for not moving your head and should be penalized if the puncher injures his hand.

Cause jumping for a ball and punching someone are at all similar. Save us the false equivalencies.

And you guys want to bring to the least consistently called rule in the world (block/charge) to rugby?

 

[duncanb]

Laws not rules we don't follow Wendy ball gents.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Laws not rules we don't follow Wendy ball gents.

There's no practical difference.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Laws not rules we don't follow Wendy ball gents.

wendy ball, that's very clever

how's that working out for you?

 

[duncanb]

I agree no practical difference but get correct terminology it is a basic of our game for 100 yrs +.
Pedantic or not it is correct .
And I'm being polite referring to them as Wendy ballers who have rules which to quote are made to be broken.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I agree no practical difference but get correct terminology it is a basic of our game for 100 yrs +.
Pedantic or not it is correct .
And I'm being polite referring to them as Wendy ballers who have rules which to quote are made to be broken.

Who used rules when law should have been used?

I was referring you bringing a basketball rule to rugby.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It might be correct, but it's not in any way important.

 

[duncanb]

As always in your opinion only others may disagree and have a right to express.
Such is the definition of a forum a place where views and counter views are exchanged.
Again to quote what did the Roman's ever do for us.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Explain why it matters then.

 

[duncanb]

O

 

[duncanb]

Obviously because we have a law book and not a rule book
I'm sure if some posted great touchdown by x in match you would polity point out the correct terminology is a try.
Does it matter only you know if correct terminology makes replying much easier.

 

[ratsapprentice]

You have a point, but try is an almost universally used and accepted term.

The distinction between rules and laws in informal conversation isn't.

I don't see how any confusion could occur over someone substituting the term law/s for rule/s. Unless you're Sige.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I'm still trying to figure out who used rule improperly?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Cause jumping for a ball and punching someone are at all similar. Save us the false equivalencies.

The principle is exactly the same. Again, you consider someone standing and not moving reckless, so i ask again, besides the laws of the game saying so, what is the logic behind that.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

The principle is exactly the same. Again, you consider someone standing and not moving reckless, so i ask again, besides the laws of the game saying so, what is the logic behind that.

The principles are nowhere near the same.

In rugby the point is to get the ball.

A guy punching someone in the face is just trying to ping you in the face.

I honestly can't tell if you are being serious.