Taking a leap of faith with law changes
As has become an annual tradition, the powers that be have decided that the rules need a little bit of a shake-up. Though normally done to improve the quality of the rugby product, it looks like safety is the main motivation for the latest mooted changes. The major change that is now being trialed in the U20-Championship is lowering the maximum allowed height for a legal tackle (to the nipple line), but it’s another law that has been causing issues for a number of years now that is also potentially up for discussion: jumping to compete for high balls.
Mind-bogglingly high leaps have been one of the hallmarks of many great players’ games, particularly fullbacks. You only have to have seen the Waratahs play the Chiefs over last weekend to see how much of a bonus it can be having a player who’s capable of performing almost gravity-defying jumps. Israel Folau did his best to keep the Waratahs in the game by taking a number of kick-offs he had no right to stake a claim to.
Over the years, the law interpretations seemed to have regularly changed when it comes to competing for the ball in the air. The current law stipulates that “a player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground” – it seems fairly clear that you can’t intentionally take out a jumping player, but things get a bit murkier when there’s no intention involved – for example, when multiple players are competing for the ball.
Seemingly left to the referee’s interpretation, it’s hard to predict who’s going to be penalised when two players are competing for the ball in the air. To an observer, the general interpretation seems to be that when competing for high ball, a player that jumps second will be punished if they collide with the first jumper. If both players jump at the same time then either no one is punished, or the player who fails to catch the ball is punished. Basically, don’t jump unless you know that you’re going to get the ball – otherwise you’re risking a penalty or worse.
In the heat of the game it can obviously be quite difficult to judge whether or not you’re going to win the air battle, which creates a bit of a conundrum. At present, players can either compete for the ball and risk being disciplined, or not compete for the ball, thus removing a key contest from the game.
The other, potentially more infuriating issue, is how players who don’t jump for the ball are dealt with. In a situation where a jumper propels himself forward (as is almost always going to happen when the fullback rushes forward to take a high ball), players on the ground, by the letter of the law, have to actively get out of the way of the jumping player. Think back to the ITM Cup match last year between Tasman and Taranaki when Viliami Lolohea was red carded for twice being caught underneath jumping players – Lolohea never attempted tackles on either of the jumpers, but because they jumped over and into him, he was punished.
A general dangerous play law exists in the rulebook that states “players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others” – which is ostensibly a catch-all for anything the referee feels the need to punish on the day. Whilst not moving out of the way of a jumping player may fall under the category of “dangerous to others”, it seems somewhat harsh to penalise a player for standing his ground.
The fact that there are no laws designating when it is or isn’t ok to jump creates a big issue – as was seen on last year’s Lions Tour. When Connor Murray delivered a poor pass to Kyle Sinckler, Sinckler jumped to catch the ball instead of just reaching up to grab it. Charlie Faumuina was then penalised for tackling Sinckler in the air. The Lions received the benefit of Murray’s poor pass when it should have helped the All Blacks. If Murray’s pass had been straight into the breadbasket, would Sinckler have been allowed to leap into Faumuina’s arms?
There are some extremely obvious cases where it makes sense to penalise a player on the ground for taking out a jumping player, but it seems that more often than not the call is not so easy to make.
Apart from completely avoiding an area two or three metres around where a high ball should be falling, it can sometimes be impossible to avoid putting a jumping player in a dangerous position. Simply keeping clear from the impact area hardly seems like a smart solution because it will create huge open spaces for catching players to run into. This begs the question, should jumping be removed from the modern game?
Perhaps purists will argue that competing for high balls is a rugby tradition, that removing the aerial battle will remove some competition from the game, but the fact of the matter is that fitness levels and athletic abilities are higher now than ever before – jumps are higher and falls are heavier. Even if two players both observe the rules to the T, it’s inevitable that there are going to be some incredibly dangerous mid-air collisions. You could argue that the way the laws are interpreted now means that the aerial battle has already been somewhat subdued – players have to sit back and wait for a player to jump or face some pretty hefty consequences.
There will be suggestions that if jumping is banned, it won’t be long before the rest of the traditional rules are tinkered with and the game is turned soft. Rule changes are, however, almost exclusively independent of one another. There’s no reason why outlawing jumping should have an impact on any other aspect of the game.
Many will not agree with removing jumping from open play, and that’s their prerogative – they think it’s a key part of the game, for right or for wrong. But how often do you read a match report discussing how important jumping was in the match? Israel Folau’s recent work aside, it’s a fairly rare occurrence. How often do you read about how a game was marred due to a strange or inconsistent yellow card decision?
Jumping may well be a rugby tradition, but sometimes traditions need to be let go in order to move forward. Maybe removing jumping altogether isn’t the way forward, but something certainly needs to be done about the current laws.
In other news:
Comments on RugbyPass
Blackadder but no Finau! 😀 It’s Razor so you are probably right, plus Taylor at 2…
9 Go to commentsThe strongest possible AB side would actually include Aaron Smith, Bodie Retallick, Sam Whitelock, Leicester Fainga'anuku, Shannon Frizzel.. don’t get me started on the rest of the injury hit brigade that got flung on the heap so left. Many a whole not getting filled as of yet.
9 Go to commentsI don’t think anyone knows what Schmidt will do, one thing is certain it ain’t gonna be all the picks we on the keyboard will think. My impression of him is that he will be looking at who can step up and what is the best combination. He will ignore individuals as he looks for guys who can build a powerful team and not just guys who can make a flashy run or ignore the winger as they want to score themselves.
2 Go to commentsSome dumb selections there. Not Porecki Not Donaldson Not Gordon Not Lonegran - both Not Nic White - Fines instead Not Liam Wright Not Paisami Definitely not Vunivalu Other than that not bad.
2 Go to commentsI've never been convinced that Patty T is a test match all black. Otherwise I probably agree it's the best side available to beat the poms. Caveat that Codie Taylor is yet to be seen and could very likely warrant selection by June. I hope that Razor brings the young loosies, half backs and locks into the training squad and develops/ selects the best
9 Go to commentsYou doing the same thing I disliked about the example of Samisoni Taukei'aho, Nick. He’s great the way he is, you’re trying to do what modern-day coaches frustrate me doing, turning everyone into the perfect athlete. Next thing you’ll be telling me you’ll bench him until he’s hit that arbitrary marker, and can’t overtake the current guy who’s doing all his workons. He’s a young Kieran Read, through and through, plays wide and has threat, mainly (and evident in your clips) through his two hand carry and speed. Just let him work on that, or whatever he wants, and determine his own future. Play God and you risk the players going sideways, like Read did, instead of being a Toutai Kefu. I mean I was in the same camp for a while, wanting our tight five to have the size, and carry ability, as the teams they were getting beat by. Now I’m starting to believe those teams just have better skilled and practiced individuals, bigger by upwards of 5kg sometimes, sure, but more influentially they have those intrinsic skills of trust and awareness. Basically our guys just didn’t know wtf they were doing. Don’t think I’m trying to prove a point here but hasn’t Caleb Clarke been in much better form this year, or does he just ‘look’ better now that he’s not always trying to use his size?
44 Go to commentsThe pack lacks a little in height for the line out and I wouldn’t be completely convinced by some of the combinations till we see it in action.
9 Go to commentsThe side is good but lacks experience. International playing bona fides udually trumps super rugby form for good reason. And incumbents are usually stuck with. Codie Taylor should start or come off the bench. B Barrett will start at fullback. Blackadder has not earned the position, Finau has. TJs experience and competitiveness earns him a starting role, Christie or Ratima off the bench
9 Go to commentsPretty good side. Scott Barrett should be the captain. Ethan Blackadder a great choice at blindside. He is going to go from strength to strength having made a couple of starts for the Crusaders. Scott Robertson rates him highly. Perenara could start a no 9.
9 Go to commentsI question and with respect. Was enough done over the last few years to bring through new blood knowing the Whitelocks and co couldn’t last forever. There should have been more done to future proof the team. New squad new coach, he and they weren’t set up well. IMO
6 Go to commentsJacobsen will definitely be in the 23
9 Go to commentsLots of discussion points, Ben, but two glaring follies IMO: 1. Blackadder at 6. Has done nothing so far this season to justify his selection. Did you see him going backwards in contact at the weekend? Simply has not got the physical presence at 6: we need a Scott Barrett or a Finau (or wildcard Ah Kuoi), beasts who are big enough to play lock, like Frizzell. If Barret played at 6, Paddy could be joined at lock by Vai’i or one of the young giants we need to promote, like Darry or Lord (if he ever gets on the field). Blackadder best left to join the queue for 7. 2. Not even a mention for Christie? Ratima gets caught at crucial times at the back of the ruck when he hesitates on the pass. The only way he starts would be if Christie and TJ are injured.
9 Go to commentsWhat a dagg in more ways than one
6 Go to commentsRegroup come back next year but sack some of the coaching team and don't be like the ABs last minute sacking. If Crusaders don't do well ABs don't do well.
5 Go to commentsProctor Definitely inform again this year had a hell of a season last year and this year is looking even better. Still mixed feelings about Ioane tho.
4 Go to commentsDagg is still trying to get enough headlines to make himself relevant enough to get a job. The Crusaders went back to square one at all levels. Shelve this season and nail the next one.
6 Go to commentsHe was in such great form. Sad for him but only a short term injury and it will be great to see him back for the finals.
1 Go to commentsAfter their 5/0 start, I had the Crusaders to finish Top 4 only…they lost the plot in Perth but will reload and back themselves vs 4th placed Rebels…
5 Go to commentsBoth nations missed a great opportunity to book a game that would have had a lot of interest from around the world. I understand these games can’t be organised in 5 minutes but they should have found a way to make it happen. I don’t think Wales are ducking anyone but it’s a bad look haha.
3 Go to commentsIt will be fascinating to see the effect that Jo Yapp has. If they can compete with Canada and give BFs a run for their money that will be progress
1 Go to comments