As Barnes said - slipping is a very different thing to ducking. Only one of them is a deliberate act on behalf of the ball-carrier.
Basically, if **** happens, and the opponent isn't where you expect him to be, but our should have expected it, that's on you not to be reckless, (eg going highish on a player who's already being tackled)
If **** happens and the opponent isn't where you expected him to be, and there's no realistic way that you should have known, there's no blame, (eg ball-carrier simply slips on a wet surface)
If that ball-carrier reduces his height, putting his head in danger, then that's on him.
Of course, that's the interpretation of RFU referees, those in France or the Rabo might have a different take on it, and the An ref's will probably get an IRB clarification based on NH experience before they need to worry about it.
I see what you mean, but i disagree with pretty much everything you said (not that there's a problem with disagreeing
) . I don't think it is realistic.
First, the line between ducking and slipping can be, quite often, circumstantial at best.
Second, following your logic every tackler must, in order not to be penalized, factor in not only where the ball carrier is going to be but also where could he be if he slips. The defender must then tackle in a way that covers both bases without being penalized while not only tackling the ball carrier but also stopping him from scoring (close to try line situations). Slips are unpredictable (if sincere) by nature.
It's as if whoever designed such rule made so consulting MIT and NASA scientist and doing experiments in laboratory controlled conditions. That is not how things work inside the pitch. You have a split second to decide and you need to commit to the tackle otherwise you will get hurt. This is a fast paced game.
You need to give the defender a viable option to stop the attacker and asking the tackler to factor in a potential slip is simply unreasonable. In a (very literal) way, you are penalizing the defender for the ball carrier's clumsiness.
I understand and agree with most the rest of the directive, but I find the slipping part simply ludicrous.
If that ball-carrier reduces his height, putting his head in danger, then that's on him.
I know that is what Barnes said, but the directive says otherwise. If a month after the directive we've got refs saying that the way to interpret the directive is to disregard the directive (in some cases) this is going to end up in tears.
If it's the way Barnes said then WR are a bunch of idiots for not being able to communicate things properly and if WR is right then they are also idiots for not communicating the refs properly.
In either case, something is wrong.
Must admit, this is how I saw Longbottom's yellow yesterday in the Toulon v. Sale match.
We're still in January and that call is already a solid front-runner for the worst call of the year.
All day talking about WR doing this and that to avoid high tackles and then they penalize the guy who goes all in to do so low.
I was watching the commentary after the game and you've got two top tier former players scratching their heads, trying to figure out what the hell was that call about. We are talking former professionals, who comment the game for a living, talk to coaches, WR executives and refs and read all the directives and they can't figure out what happened. How is the average fan supposed to have a clue?
This kills the game. Try explaining all this to someone who's just started watching. Not being able to understand what's going on destroys the fun of watching the sport. This is paramount and WR is doing a terrible job.
I remember not that long ago when you could watch a game of rugby on a pub and, despite the lower quality and quantity of the replays all the people i was watching the game with we could all agree what should have been the right call. There was little or no doubt. The ref could miss it but we knew what to look for. Two refs called it different because they saw (or missed) the different things, but refs who saw the same thing called it the same way. Now it's as if half the calls are a bloody coin toss and, unlike in the past, they can't claim they missed the incident once it's up with the TMO.
Don't even get me started about scrums.
