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
No question they were the better team. But that is the beauty of sport isn’t it!
94 Go to commentsEveryone is into Hurling in Ireland according to Porter, but only 11 of Ireland's 32 counties enter a team into the national competition. Same old blarney.
1 Go to commentsLet’s be honest. The draw and scheduling in the World Cup was a joke but South Africa found a way after having to go the hard (nearly impossible) way to the Cup Final via France and England. NZ had a hard game against France (lost) and had 5 weeks to prepare for the Quarter, 3 weeks knowing it was Ireland. NZ theerfore had to win one big game against an Irish team who played SA and then Scotland 7 days before. They won and it was de facto a semi final because they were playing a relatively weak Argentina team and it was a walk over. In the final a very rested NZ team was playing a very tired SA team and still lost. They couldn’t score more than 11 points. Put another way SA had to find a way to win while tired and they achieved that. NZ should thank their lucky stars that they fixed the scheduling in 2015 otherwise they would be dealing with a Bok treble.
94 Go to commentsPerhaps if Bongi wasn’t targeted and removed from the game in the first 3 minutes it would have been quite a different game. Maybe if NZ also faced the same competition the Boks faced to their win NZ would have looked quite different. The final score shows who outplayed who.
94 Go to commentsRubbish article! Abuladze played most of Exeters matches when fit. He got injured against Glasgow a while ago and is out for the rest of the season, thats why he hasnt played for Exeter and Georgia recently. Do some proper research next time!
1 Go to commentsGotta love it when kids throw their toys out the pram and can’t hack it with the grown ups debate. Here’s looking at you turlough! 😉🤣
147 Go to commentsThey lost the game period move on
94 Go to commentsSpringboks won! Stop winging. You can change the game however much you and your rugby colonizing IRB want to and the Springboks will win you at that too. Your mind is colonized my friend get a life
94 Go to commentsBen, nobody gets fooled anymore by selective and biased data to support an hypothesis. Games are decided on such small margins these days that you win some and lose some, and dominance is a thing of the rugby past. Look at the RWC circle of fortune…. Ireland beats SA who beat France who beat NZ who beat Ireland. And so it goes on. Match officials help to eliminate real indiscretions. If they had been with us years before, no doubt results would have been different. Remember Andy Haden’s dive from a lineout in 1978 for which a match-wining penalty was awarded? Wales should have beaten the ABs that day. They took the loss like the gentlemen they were.
94 Go to commentsWith all the analysis and how good the all blacks were.The fundamental mistake with the ABs is that this is a test match and not an exhibition.There is no better team(country) in world rugby than the Boks that knows how to win a test match(we are post masters at this).We know our rules, we have the discipline, we tackle like beasts, we take our points and we never give up.I now have educated the ABs supporters(at least say thank you).Please stop “bitching” , accept what the outcome is and move along swiftly.
94 Go to commentsAnd they came from behind to win two big games before the final. No one can say what would have happened. Had the boks gone behind the game plan changes and the result may changes. Ifs and ands are irrelevant. The boks won. Neutral critics enjoyed the games they played. Its not a popularity contest. Get over it and move on.
94 Go to commentsI'm happy for the people of SA to get a second WC. And I mean that. I was very disappointed with this man's “stand on the hand” incident with Josh Van Der Flyer (Ireland). Ireland's downfall in the last WC was they did not rotate their first 15 as the head coach probably should have. That said, I'm happy for SA and genuinely hope it lifts the mood in their country. Ireland did beat them in the first match of the tournament. And before the trolls start trolling ….. please don't bother. Etzbeth said recently that the Irish players said after the match “see you in the final”…..this was actually wishing the SA team the best of luck in the rest, the Irish team were not dismissing the AB’s. This is what Etzbeth was implying. But he was wrong. I no longer live in Ireland. But I hope to see them lift that cup before I pass. Anyway, congratulations SA. 👍
12 Go to commentsMore bloody click bait. Dan Carter has said absolutely nothing. As he should do. Poor journalism again from a site that should know better
9 Go to commentsOh god please help these loosers get over it!!!! You lost. Doesn't matter how many times you dummies are gonna analyse the game, you still lost and we are still Rygby World Champions….get over it, you lost.
94 Go to commentsThe next Willie le Roux. SA are made not to use him.
3 Go to commentsDan has always been as controversial as tea with milk so we were never going to get any definitive answer. So DMac for the win.
9 Go to commentsGoodness. When are the All Blacks and New Zealand commentators going to stop complaining about how they could have won and just try to win next time 😂. In South Africa if you lose you get up and try again. Get over it.
94 Go to commentsHonestly, it doesn’t matter a whole lot. RSA has a ton of experienced talent in its leadership group. I am more interested in who is the new 8 man/8 men and the younger props. The captain may change but the system does not
1 Go to commentsBen, you are one of the most arrogant and self opionated rugby critics I have ever come across (next to Keohane). I hoped that after SA beating the best ranked teams in the world on their way to the WC (something not done before) that you might have the grace to admit that this is a special team that deserved the accolades coming their way. You have no humility and as has been been already pointed out, merely a troll to attract audience numbers. Count me out in the future.
94 Go to comments‘War of independence’. Such a grand name for a few skirmishes. Where were all the great battles of this ‘war’ ? Smith got goosebumps as he was being emotionally manipulated, another mushroom.
1 Go to comments