British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[Penne Rara]

Correct, but the difference in this particular case is that until now, the overwhelming majority of the cases there was a kick involved. Most of them were cases where team A kicks, player from team B jumps, catches the ball and the players from A have to wait till B lands to tackle him. In most cases, he is untouchable while in the air. The big if here, is that there was a kick, which generally gives all players enough time to assess the situation.
In this particular case i see two big problems: First, you are allowing a team to create a situation for which the defense has little to no response. They either had to anticipate the pass (very risky) or let the guy land and then and ONLY then tackle him. I know some might say "that's only a meter or two". That's all you need.
Second, timing. The rule was put there with kicking in mind. That gives you time. The timing for the tackler for this play is completely different. Put yourself in this mind: he charges 3/4 speed, sees the ball leave the passer, has to assess whether the pass is going to the guy he is charging (otherwise it'd be a penalty against him) and if it is, he commits, 100%. He has to do this in less than a second.

Asking him to ALSO assess at the same time if for a split second both of the attackers feet are of the ground is unrealistic.
Hopefully this is a 1/100 scenario and we won't see much of it. I can see how it can ruin games.

If it's going to happen in a decider scenario, I'd rather it be addressed with a law change as soon as possible. Rugby governing bodies need to do something or else players and coaches will begin to take advantage of that flaw

 

[ALJ]

Penalising players for tackling the opposition when they've jumped to catch is stupid but it's nothing new - every time I've seen it, like getting pinged for high tackles when the player runs with a low angle, it appears extremely unfair and needs looking at imho but it is what it is for the time being.

As for the rest, we can wrap our views up in any justification we want but it can't be a coincidence that national alignment almost universally dictates what side of the fence we're on (I'm no different).

Perhaps it would be better to accept that the officials making the decisions are actually best qualified to do so - they are independent, they have access to information/footage that we do not and their appointment would almost certainly indicate that they have the best understanding of the laws of the game and their application.
Is it perfect? Probably not but unless anyone can come up with a better solution it's what we're stuck with.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Hopefully this is a 1/100 scenario and we won't see much of it. I can see how it can ruin games.

As above this scenario happens so infrequently I don't think there really needs a rule change just the ref to judge based on how it happens at the time.

 

[The Jones Boy]

If you want to talk about clearing out recklessly, then may I remind you of the 2009 B&I Lions tour to SA, and the whole Justice4Bakkies incident....

On the past weekend's match, I thought Garces was mostly good, but he did have a couple of bad decisions too, and mostly on the penalties which resulted into points. There was knock-on by a Lions player in the air in front of the posts where he gave a penalty against the All Blacks which was an easy 3 points, and just after that, he gave a penalty against the Lions on the other side of the field but there was a forward pass by the All Blacks which he again missed.

As for the Sanctioning, I think he was spot on with the SBW incident, but I do feel that Vunipola should have gotten a red card too.

Speaking as a dyed in the wool old grognard Kiwi, I would say, yes Vunipola was naughty, but I thought the yellow was enough. He didn't transgress as badly as Sonny Bill. He did seem to irritate the ref and that never works well. I was more surprised that the swinging arm from Sean o'Brien avoided sanctioning. Thats a lucky break for SOB.
I hope the AB's don't seek vigilante retribution for that until the game is in the bag.
On the missed knock on, thats pretty standard stuff in the heat of the game. Ref's are human.

My biggest gripe about Garces' performance was how little advantage he played. Felt a bit like he didn't want the game to flow. But hey, that's more a personal issue I have than anything else. Overall he was pretty good, just like Peyper was in the first half. Hope Poite can live up to the standards...

He got the big decision right, Sonny Bill had a brain explosion and it cost us massively.
You can't be a man down for an hour against a quality team and expect not to be punished for it out wide as the stretch comes on.
Discipline is key.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I'd suggest the pass that led to the jump was intended to be perfect but sailed high. If the passer had intentionally aimed to throw it that high and made a similar level of misjudgment it would have missed the player and potentially been intercepted OR been knocked on by the jumping player. Both of which might have handed the ABs the game.

I'm close to certain we won't see any special play of intentional pass and jump any time soon.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I take the point in terms of a player taking a pass on the ground then jumping into the opponent like at an American Football endzone. But you'd look a complete pillock doing that in rugby and the ref would surely not give a penalty for that.

 

[Reiser99]

For me the big issue was with the way Faumuina tackled. If Faumuina had taken him waist or chest height or had been standing up then I don't think anyone would have thought anything if it. However he goes low, and the jump makes it worse, with Sinckler's body going forward and his legs back and he ends up on his back. Now in other circumstances, especially if Faumuina had gone lower, he could have landed on his head.

I'm not saying that the law is perfect, but I can understand it. However I don't think we'll see players intentionally jumping to get a penalty in a similar way to how props used to collapse the scrum on purpose to get a penalty risking neck injury.

 

[Penne Rara]

For me the big issue was with the way Faumuina tackled. If Faumuina had taken him waist or chest height or had been standing up then I don't think anyone would have thought anything if it. However he goes low, and the jump makes it worse, with Sinckler's body going forward and his legs back and he ends up on his back. Now in other circumstances, especially if Faumuina had gone lower, he could have landed on his head.

I'm not saying that the law is perfect, but I can understand it. However I don't think we'll see players intentionally jumping to get a penalty in a similar way to how props used to collapse the scrum on purpose to get a penalty risking neck injury.

Faumuina tackled low to prevent Sinckler from advancing. In other circumstances, the tackle would have been perfect and safe. You can't prohibit low tackles, I see nothing wrong about that, but you may penalize a player for tackling someone who's jumping. In this case, I believe it's penalty only regardless of the consequences, however harsh the call is for the infringing side. The tackler is going low, leading with his shoulders and trying to wrap the other player, which is completely fine. He doesn't have time to see that Kyle was in the air, so it wasn't even reckless. So no card. Was definitely the right call, but I felt the law was a bit too harsh. Dura lex, sed lex.

 

[The Jones Boy]

It doesn't need a pass, a player can jump into a tackle with both feet off the ground, and technically be 'in the air'.
Thats the real danger here.
The big issue for me is that here was a player running to get a pass, he's not receiving a kick, he's not in a lineout being supported in the air, he has simply jumped of his own accord to catch a pass and yet the opposition player cannot effect a tackle against the running player, who is in possession of the ball because the running player has jumped in the air.

Are you guys not seeing how bat excrement crazy this is?

You cannot tackle a player running with the ball, because just prior to the point of contact that player has jumped into the air. The running player has both feet off the ground after the jump has been made. From that point on the tackler cannot touch the advancing player at all until they have landed.
Regardless of going low or medium height, with arms extended for the wrap.
There is no way that a tackler can effect a legal tackle on a running player who has jumped into the air prior to contact.

Whats the point of putting defensive pressure on a halfback so he throws a wobbly pass to have a receiver jump in the air to take the pass and the rush defender who tackles him chest down with a legal wrap tackle being penalised for good rugby.
It's not the tackler who is being reckless here, it is the attacker putting himself in harms way by making the decision to jump prior to contact.
No boys, this is a very bad interpretation of the rules.
It leaves an area wide open for exploitation.

Example, Ben Te'o has rushed out from the defensive line, he has Sonny Bill in his sights, the AB halfback Perenara has released a long high pass and Sonny Bill has jumped to take the pass. As he is coming back down to the ground, Te'o has contacted Sonny Bill on his lower torso and and he has lost the ball forward, (no tip tackle) Watson has scooped up the ball and scampered 70 metres to score in the corner.

"Ok lets stop the game and go to the TMO to see if the player had both feet off the ground as he was tackled running at the opposition line."

Oh yes, Sonny Bill has both feet off the ground at the point of contact. Thats a penalty against Te'o for being onside and effecting a wrap tackle below the shoulders against a player running against him.

What a crock.

Lineouts and receiving kicks are protected areas for a valid reason but jumping into a tackle in the process of running with the ball?

Thats dangerous play by the attacker who makes the choice to jump into the tackle.

I would be penalising the attacker for jumping into the tackle.
That puts undue danger on both players.
It becomes very easy for the defender to take a knee to the head or neck or a boot to the face. Or to get smashed in the face by a hip.

How is the defender supposed to safely tackle a player running at him who jumps into the air at the point of contact.
According to Garces, he cannot, so the player attacking has an unfair advantage and the fall back position of a penalty.

Madness.

 

[Penne Rara]

It doesn't need a pass, a player can jump into a tackle with both feet off the ground, and technically be 'in the air'.
Thats the real danger here.
The big issue for me is that here was a player running to get a pass, he's not receiving a kick, he's not in a lineout being supported in the air, he has simply jumped of his own accord to catch a pass and yet the opposition player cannot effect a tackle against the running player, who is in possession of the ball because the running player has jumped in the air.

Are you guys not seeing how bat excrement crazy this is?

You cannot tackle a player running with the ball, because just prior to the point of contact that player has jumped into the air. The running player has both feet off the ground after the jump has been made. From that point on the tackler cannot touch the advancing player at all until they have landed.
Regardless of going low or medium height, with arms extended for the wrap.
There is no way that a tackler can effect a legal tackle on a running player who has jumped into the air prior to contact.

Whats the point of putting defensive pressure on a halfback so he throws a wobbly pass to have a receiver jump in the air to take the pass and the rush defender who tackles him chest down with a legal wrap tackle being penalised for good rugby.
It's not the tackler who is being reckless here, it is the attacker putting himself in harms way by making the decision to jump prior to contact.
No boys, this is a very bad interpretation of the rules.
It leaves an area wide open for exploitation.

Example, Ben Te'o has rushed out from the defensive line, he has Sonny Bill in his sights, the AB halfback Perenara has released a long high pass and Sonny Bill has jumped to take the pass. As he is coming back down to the ground, Te'o has contacted Sonny Bill on his lower torso and and he has lost the ball forward, (no tip tackle) Watson has scooped up the ball and scampered 70 metres to score in the corner.

"Ok lets stop the game and go to the TMO to see if the player had both feet off the ground as he was tackled running at the opposition line."

Oh yes, Sonny Bill has both feet off the ground at the point of contact. Thats a penalty against Te'o for being onside and effecting a wrap tackle below the shoulders against a player running against him.

What a crock.

Lineouts and receiving kicks are protected areas for a valid reason but jumping into a tackle in the process of running with the ball?

Thats dangerous play by the attacker who makes the choice to jump into the tackle.

I would be penalising the attacker for jumping into the tackle.
That puts undue danger on both players.
It becomes very easy for the defender to take a knee to the head or neck or a boot to the face. Or to get smashed in the face by a hip.

How is the defender supposed to safely tackle a player running at him who jumps into the air at the point of contact.
According to Garces, he cannot, so the player attacking has an unfair advantage and the fall back position of a penalty.

Madness.

Yup, it's crazy, the law is crazy and nobody's denying this I think. But until it's rectified, you have to apply it to the letter of the law, alas...

 

[ncurd]

Jones Boy it's against the laws to jump into a tackle....

What's happened here is he's jumped to receive the ball, I suspect had he jumped for any other reason it wouldn't of been a penalty.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

For me the big issue was with the way Faumuina tackled. If Faumuina had taken him waist or chest height or had been standing up then I don't think anyone would have thought anything if it. However he goes low, and the jump makes it worse, with Sinckler's body going forward and his legs back and he ends up on his back. Now in other circumstances, especially if Faumuina had gone lower, he could have landed on his head.

This is another part of the law where the defenders have to face a ridiculous decision. If they aim between the chest and waist they risk the attacker diving and being penalized for a high tackle, if they go low they risk flipping the attacker. Whatever they do, they depend to a greater or lesser extend, to what the attacker is doing. That is ridiculous.

Jones Boy it's against the laws to jump into a tackle....

That is precisely the problem. They found a way in which the attacker cannot only legally jump into a tackle but also have the defender penalized for it. Just throw the pass a tad higher on purpose.
Again, this is not something you ll see every game but in quite a few circumstances, it can be a game changer.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

As I've said, Sinckler should be penalised for jumping into the tackle. The screen cap below shows the last time Sinckler had a foot on the ground:



You can see that at this point in time he is perfectly capable of catching the pass without jumping - he doesn't have to jump at all, but he does. He should be penalised instantly. If Faumuina avoids tackling him then there is going to be a gaping hole in the All Blacks' defensive line. If Sinckler had stopped running and jumped then I would be a little more forgiving, but he leaps forward - he travels over a meter and has already made the gain line before the All Blacks can 'legally' tackle him, as below:



If this is the precedent then it becomes a genuine tactic to jump and catch the ball when hitting the ball up. The All Blacks should receive the advantage from an error from Murray - not the Lions. When lining up a player from a kick it's a different situation because the defending players are expecting the catcher to jump, it's part of the game. That's not the case here and it should not be treated the same.

For what it's worth I actually think jumping should be banned altogether - I know it removes a particular skill from the game but it also removes the ridiculous situations that we often see arising. Take jumping out and there's no grey area.

 

[Which Tyler]

As I've said, Sinckler should be penalised for jumping into the tackle. The screen cap below shows the last time Sinckler had a foot on the ground:
...

Good post, and great screencaps Thank you.
I didn't get a decent view at the rugby club I was watching, and without sky (and being fairly busy at work) I haven't rewatched the match.

Those screencaps show (to me) that Sinkler is just about a ballcarier who jumps into the tackle - which is dangerous play by Sink.
My previous understanding of what had happened was that he was jumping to receive the ball higher than that - which would be (technically) dangerous play by Faumuina.

For me - those screencaps put the issue to rest; there's too little in it; restart with a Lion's scrum (in possession).



On the larger issue of these - whether jumping to receive a pass, kick or line-out (well, maybe not the latter) I've always said that both players needs to be responsible for their own actions. So the player jumping into space that is already occupied is the person creating the dangerous situation, not the person who's been given the option of obeying the laws of rugby or obeying the laws of physics.
Of course, if you jump into someone AND they still try to take you down, wraps arms etc - then you're BOTH at fault.

It'll never happen, because you could easily get the situation where a ref is showing the red card to a player being taken off the field on a stretcher; and there's no way of making that picture on the front page of tomorrow's tabloids look good for the game. Of course, that could still happen anyway if the "tackler" receives a knee to his temple; but that's less likely than the receiver landing on his head - for now.

 

[ncurd]

Look I'll be honest this to me is mountain out of molehill stuff I think if this happened 20mins earlier in the game we wouldn't be talking about it.

Plus the Lions were so much in ascebdency at this stage I don't think it effected the outcome of the match either.

However @Trf_Mr_Fish can you get a screen grab from a few frames later when Sinckler catches the ball and possibly a frame or two before. From the single frame you have is looks like trajectory of the ball will be where his hands are and is the case its entirely correct he shouldn't of jumped (and in that case he is at fault and should of been penalised). However the one frame can be misleading and it may of been going over or towards his head in which case he did need to jump from his current position to receive the ball.

Either way I'm inclined to agree with you on jumping except within the lineout I think were seeing far too many cases of people accidentally tackling a player in the air. And as noted cases like Finn Russell where he was Yellow carded and banned for 2 weeks are showing there really is a mssive problem without a simpler answer.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Has anyone posted a real time video? I don't think slow mo or screen grabs should be used for anything other than to see if a try has been scored.

 

[Nubiwan]

Just to balance out my SBW comments because I've seen the full game now, Billy Vunipola is a ******* idiot. He tried to argue the fully committed line to his first offence when a) he wasn't fully committed and could have changed his line, and b) he shouldn't have committed because he had no reasonable chance of getting the ball. Wasn't particularly dangerous, but the pettiness really gets me. His second clearout I reckon happens more than we care to admit in the game (I often see guys clearing out players essentially out of the contest excessively because he's an easy target), but I'm glad it was called up. It was bloody reckless to hit a guy like that in the process of rolling away a millisecond after the tackle like that. Once again it wasn't even gamesmanship, it contributed ******* nothing and was pub league behavior and made it seem like he lost the head after getting pinged for his first offence. He's a very good player, but I don't want him starting in games he can't get his attitude right for. Hope it was just an anomaly for him.

That is all correct. It does happen everywhere in the match, but in an isolated context, and when the player stays down, it gets TMO checked. Vunipola should have held off. No need for what he did all the same. Was pub league.

 

[Nubiwan]

Look I'll be honest this to me is mountain out of molehill stuff I think if this happened 20mins earlier in the game we wouldn't be talking about it.

Plus the Lions were so much in ascebdency at this stage I don't think it effected the outcome of the match either.

However @Trf_Mr_Fish can you get a screen grab from a few frames later when Sinckler catches the ball and possibly a frame or two before. From the single frame you have is looks like trajectory of the ball will be where his hands are and is the case its entirely correct he shouldn't of jumped (and in that case he is at fault and should of been penalised). However the one frame can be misleading and it may of been going over or towards his head in which case he did need to jump from his current position to receive the ball.

Either way I'm inclined to agree with you on jumping except within the lineout I think were seeing far too many cases of people accidentally tackling a player in the air. And as noted cases like Finn Russell where he was Yellow carded and banned for 2 weeks are showing there really is a mssive problem without a simpler answer.

The call by the ref was correct, and he handled it well by not carding the tackler. It was still a pen, and unfortunately for NZ, was kicked.

 

[Nubiwan]

Going to go out on a "rattle throwing" limb here and request the refs and touchies collude to stop New Zealand players blocking Lions kick chasers. Both at Kick off and under the high box. It is wearing me out. Reckon the lions need to just start ploughing through black shirts finding themselves "conveniently" between their opponents and their own players fielding the kick. That will give it the attention it deserves. The obstruction is completely being ignored.

I see the offside at ruck is alive an kicking. Lions had some beauties not called against 14 men on the weekend. You play on the edge, and get what you can out of the refs performance, I suppose.

 

[Nubiwan]

I saw a lot of NZ fans on reddit saying that SOB should have seen red, I'm glad this community is a bit more level headed. Nothing in it, just unfortunate outcome.

Well, I am a Lions fan, and I thought him lucky not to get something for that. Surely it matters not the intent. His hand (forearm) hit Naholo in the head, and concussed the lad. I am glad for the tour, because I thought he had a great game. Still think him lucky. Bit surprised to be honest. Perhaps something I did not see or unaware of in the citing process.