Jump to content

Contact in the air


Recommended Posts

It seems to be a bit of a trend but a number of times this season, penalties have been awarded for challenging high balls in the air. Are we becoming too protective and sanitised with this?

For me the Myler challenge yesterday was perfectly legal, both going for the ball in the air. The fact that Bird then knocked the ball on meant it wasn't a try anyway, but I felt it was a particularly harsh call. There have been a few like that this year. For me, there is nothing worse than an attacking team kicking a high ball on the last, and no one bothering to challenge for it. Sadly the current interpretation of the rules is going to increasingly lead to that......

Link to comment
Share on other sites


42 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

It seems to be a bit of a trend but a number of times this season, penalties have been awarded for challenging high balls in the air. Are we becoming too protective and sanitised with this?

For me the Myler challenge yesterday was perfectly legal, both going for the ball in the air. The fact that Bird then knocked the ball on meant it wasn't a try anyway, but I felt it was a particularly harsh call. There have been a few like that this year. For me, there is nothing worse than an attacking team kicking a high ball on the last, and no one bothering to challenge for it. Sadly the current interpretation of the rules is going to increasingly lead to that......

I agree absolutely, DoubleD - a genuine aerial challenge is a great thing to watch.  The clue to whether it is really an attempt to get the ball is the angle of run, the eyes, and how the hands and arms are deployed.  A ref and a linesman between them should, by co-ordinating their efforts, be able to watch all aspects of such a contest.  Sadly, as a Dragons' fan, I must agree that Bird knocked on, but it wasn't a penalty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Moc said:

I was very relieved to see the pen call on Golding overturned vs Cas

 

 

 

The Golding one was a clear penalty on the basis that when Golding realised he wasn't getting the ball he made a tackle instead (wrapping his rms around his opponent).  Just because you are initially going for the ball it doesn't meaneed you can do what you like if you don't get it!  It wasn't contact in the air it was a tackle in the air.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gates1 said:

The Golding one was a clear penalty on the basis that when Golding realised he wasn't getting the ball he made a tackle instead (wrapping his rms around his opponent).  Just because you are initially going for the ball it doesn't meaneed you can do what you like if you don't get it!  It wasn't contact in the air it was a tackle in the air.  

######, his arms are up and around his opponent after goingg for the ball. He cant simply remove his arms from the situation

Seems ref showed some common sense, he went for the ball, it wasnt dangerous - never ever a pen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the whole I am concerned that the game is becoming soft (i.e. removal of the shoulder charge etc) but I have to say I'm pleased about this zero tolerance to aerial contact as it seems particularly dangerous. I think we were due a serious spinal injury but the risk has reduced since the new rule change.

It's difficult to see in realtime whether a player is genuinely competing for the ball or whether he's trying put the player off to force a mistake. I like that the rule forces players to show a duty of care to their counterparts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Myler one wasn't so clear cut but the fact he made his challenge for the ball so early he was back on the ground by the time it landed suggested pretty strongly he was looking to get away with pushing the defender so a penalty 

 

As for BJB that was a tough one, a genuine challenge that turned into a tackle in the air 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

Ref gave penalty.  Cummings and commentators all said penalty.  The linesman said it wasn't so Bentham changed his mind.

He can choose not to use his arms to make a tackle which is exactly what he did.

Im not sure how you can call that a tackle, more accurate description would be Goldings arms on top of the Cas winger

Benthem asked clearly “did he go up for the ball with two arms” which was a very clear yes

If genuine attempts like this, where both players attack the ball are given as pens ive no hope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wraps both arms around Hardaker after Hardaker makes the catch while still in the air.  It's irrelevant how he goes up for the ball, the foul was committed when he realised he had failed to get it.

Fortunately it didn't effect the outcome of the game anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

He wraps both arms around Hardaker after Hardaker makes the catch while still in the air.  It's irrelevant how he goes up for the ball, the foul was committed when he realised he had failed to get it.

Fortunately it didn't effect the outcome of the game anyway.

Think it's a more difficult one to call that. It's a split second movement from grasping the ball to grasping the player and can be in the same movement. He didn't jump up consciously trying to tackle the player. I thought it was a harsh call for the Golding one to be called a penalty initially. I really don't want to get to the stage where players don't compete for high balls for fear of giving a penalty away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what your saying and although I think it's an instinctive movement (moving from grabbing the ball to the player) it still makes it illegal, in the same way that an instinctive trip or high tackle is, all things which happen due split second movemenys/decisions.

I also think as usual consistency becomes the issue too as 9/10 times contact like this is penalised.  The Golding decision was in my opinion inconsistent with similar decisions. 

20170522_213828.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

I get what your saying and although I think it's an instinctive movement (moving from grabbing the ball to the player) it still makes it illegal, in the same way that an instinctive trip or high tackle is, all things which happen due split second movemenys/decisions.

I also think as usual consistency becomes the issue too as 9/10 times contact like this is penalised.  The Golding decision was in my opinion inconsistent with similar decisions. 

20170522_213828.jpg

I agree on your consistency point but where I'm coming from is challenging whether it should be deemed illegal.

Is it dangerous? No.

Was the opponent genuinely attempting to catch the ball? Yes.

In those circumstances I think a penalty is a very harsh decision. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the difficulty with changing the deployment of the rule is around accuretely determining whether a player is genuinely going for the ball, players could be very cute around this.

I also think it creates another tough area for officials to call consistently.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

I think the difficulty with changing the deployment of the rule is around accuretely determining whether a player is genuinely going for the ball, players could be very cute around this.

I also think it creates another tough area for officials to call consistently.  

But there are many other examples of this, like blockers obstructing chasing players or dummy runner attackers in the line obstructing defenders which refs already have to call on. 

I personally feel we're moving towards non contact in the air which is a shame as there's nothing more negative than an attacking team not contesting for the ball and just waiting for the defending team to field it and then smother them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

But there are many other examples of this, like blockers obstructing chasing players or dummy runner attackers in the line obstructing defenders which refs already have to call on. 

I personally feel we're moving towards non contact in the air which is a shame as there's nothing more negative than an attacking team not contesting for the ball and just waiting for the defending team to field it and then smother them

In terms of the Golding challenge,  Hardaker was the attacker,.  So in this instance the contact in the air stifled the attack because it meant despite winning the challenge Hardaker could do nothing.  With that in mind it's probably not the best example.

I'd agree players have got to be allowed to compete for the ball, don't have an issue with bodily contact in those circumstances.  I don't think you can allow players to grab players in the air even if they went for the ball initially (this would be more detrimental to attack then defence), I also think it's quite hard to differentiate between a genuine challenge in the air gor the ball and a canny player appearing to focus on the ball but been fully aware of his opponents position and creating a collision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.