Barrett says rugby high kicks are perilous

Outlaw the jump - take the hit both feet on the ground ...no jumping, no rights....take the ball on the grounds and a well times sidestep avoids the tackle. Easypeasy - and the game moves on. End of debate.

The continual contest for possession is a core rugby tenet. Keeping continuity in the game’s fabric, whilst rewarding prior superiority, yet legislating enough fairness into the contest; this is rugby’s complex and lovely conundrum. If you are forced to kick for touch, you do not also get the throw. If I dislodge the ball forward in tackling you, you cannot put the ball into the ensuing scrum. Yes, the team with the throw has an advantage, but a fair contest awaits, not an equal contest, but the defending always has a chance to steal a lineout, scrag the scrumhalf, win a tighthead or a scrum penalty, or put the possession in doubt. This delicate balance of contestability and continuity is tested with each new style in the code. Aerial contests for kicked ball are not part of rugby lore. For a century, defending teams defused garryowens with grim fullbacks on terra firma, absorbing gargantuan hits from chasers who had no need to time a leap or a contesting arm. “Line him up and absolutely stuff him.” In fact, this was a large part of why a player was chosen to be a fullback. The ability to set yourself, both feet on the ground, and catch a heavy leather ball, knowing you were about to be belted with maximum force, was a core positional role. As long as you had caught the ball already, and as long as the tackle was not high, you could be annihilated, and you just had to survive the obliteration. At some point, the catchers had a light bulb moment: if a player cannot tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground, it would be smart for the receiver to jump and catch the ball in the air. Chasers were then forced to allow the leaping player to land first, before smashing into them. Ground-to-air collisions were by definition “violations” by the chaser. But then both catcher and chaser started to go airborne. Aerial collisions ensued. Overarching rugby doctrines, such as the edict that no player should do anything reckless and dangerous in the contact zone or the prohibition on charging an opponent without grasping them, seemed not to describe these high-flying contests. Leaving your feet is a decision, but after that initial decision, you are typically unable to change your trajectory much, and whatever happens next is often left to Lady Luck. But anyone running at full speed is “off the ground” for most of the time of the run; many tackles on wings, especially in the act of trying to score, are on players fully in the air. And so the laws around the “jump-to-catch” started to develop. Lineout law had started to outlaw “push-and-pull” of the jumper in the Sixties: at close quarters, without proper lifters, this was a loosely-enforced law, to put it charitably. Transporting this philosophy into the wider spaces of the backline, especially when both players started to be in the air, at around the same time, was more complicated. When both men are in the air, and collide, how do we follow the larger principles of rugby (continuity with a fair, but not necessarily equal contest for possession)? There is not really a “tackle” to adjudicate. Nobody has actually claimed possession, for the first part of the contest, often even including the collision. If the collision is “square” and the players land gracefully, it’s “play on.” When a player lands badly, the referee and the TMO start to analyse what happened. Let’s think through the concepts those officials, the commentators, the pundits, and fans tend to embrace. First, the rugby powers say they are working off the principle that player safety is of “paramount importance.” This is clearly not a precise statement, particularly when it is put in juxtaposition with the idea that “intent does not matter.” Saying that safety is the top priority, and hence, intent is immaterial, is saying almost nothing. Rugby is not safe. Clean rugby is not safe. Sometimes, totally clean rugby is less safe than dirty rugby. Intent matters for reasons beyond safety. Safety cannot and will never be the guiding principle for rugby. Trying to take some of the unnecessary risk out of rugby? Yes. But even the cleanest tackle can paralyse you. Even the least-illegal ruck can result in a compound fracture. A scrum can crumple a neck, without anyone being guilty of foul play. Concomitantly, a 130 kg prop can try to punch an opponent, or even the referee, in the back of the head, with a running start, miss, and fall down, and hurt nobody. That player deserves to sit for a year. Intent does matter. Intent should always matter. And yes, so does safety, but safety is obviously pretty far down the list of rugby priorities, or we would be playing chess. Consequently, it also matters whether the chaser has his eyes on the ball. Yes, it does. Perhaps it is obvious, but a player who ultimately contests for the ball and has kept his eye on the ball the whole time was clearly, uncontrovertibly trying to catch the ball. This is a legal rugby play. Catching a kick you chased is a very good rugby play. Also, it means the chaser cannot easily have seen what the receiver has done. He will not have known exactly when the receiver left the ground. He will not know how high the receiver has jumped, compared to him. He will not know the body position of the receiver. He may not really even know if the receiver has jumped, will jump, or is in a realistic position to catch it. To put the safety of the receiver fully in the hands of the chaser is not allowing a fair contest for possession. To be clear, a chaser should not just run through the zone where the ball is likely to land, with head down, likely to undercut the legs of any would-be jumper. But if he keeps eyes on the ball, is locked in on the ball, has his hands and arms cradled for the catch, jumps but then happens to collide with a leaping receiver, why is the player with less vision of the play’s development charged with more responsibility than the receiver, who can see almost everything peripherally, whilst still timing his leap? Why is a chaser handicapped in this contest? Isn’t the fact that he is running with his head cocked up and to the side enough of a disadvantage? Could a jump ever be dangerously high? Could a receiver overleap, misjudge and try to catch it at waist height, whilst the chaser more correctly judged it, but toppled the defender, landing him on his head? Why is intent to “contest” or catch relevant on the one hand, but then, intent is irrelevant if the injury is bad enough? Any jumper is taking on more risk. Staying on the ground is also risky; the tackle can be massive. The solution I would apply is: • Three referees, as in the NBA • One stays in each backfield of one team; the third (the chief) is policing the rucks and contact zone • The backfield referee shouts “Jump” if a player jumps, to help the chaser know whether to pull out Intent should actually be the main issue. Injury should not.

Running blindly is very dangerous in itself as what if he barrells the Ref? What about his own players? What about barrelling an opposition player without the ball? Sorry but he knew where he was and just decided to barrell thru anyway...and by looking at the ball he is faking it. His arms did not even get to neck height so no real attempt to catch the ball at all

I was waiting for that response and it’s not correct. There are regularly contests with players running in opposite directions in AFL, one with the fight of the ball and one towards the ball. I don’t buy that argument. Happens multiple times in every AFL game. If players have eyes for the ball it should be play on. If they play the man, then sure, penalise them. And if/ when it’s penalised in AFL it’s a penalty not a send off as so doesn’t affect the game to the same degree.

The objection some like me have is the way the ruling is worded. The point being made is that Fall did have a realistic chance of catching the ball. Yet he was red carded for not having a realistic chance of catching the ball. However apparently the guideline considers vertical distance and BB jumped much higher. Hence the wording. At the end of the day the automatic red card has been shown to be flawed. Hansen idea of a report might be better.

If you've got your eyes on the ball, how on earth are you supposed to also know where opposition players are or what they are going to do? I would argue that Barrett put himself in a dangerous position simply because of the height of his leap, which was impressive even in AFL terms.

Nah, he wanted one we Hanson said a call was wrong, favored the ABs AND then they lost. HE reckoned it was just Hanson playing goodsportsman when the ABs won.

Timbo you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts

Outlaw the jump - I say again - outlaw the jump and problem solved.

I agree with Mad Mick. The problem is not the contest for the ball but the falling from height. Remove the height issue and you will make the contest safer. The law should be changed so that the player that creates the unsafe situation is penalised. This is different from a line out where both jumper should be supported.

No David he put Barrett in a very dangerous position because of his actions.....Looking at the ball has nothing to do with "not getting to the ball and endangering a player"

how can you red card the player who got there first? Not a clever comment as not 1 player in history has ever been penalised for puting them selves in danger.......A tackler gets it wrong and you want him sent off for hurting himself?

" But by the current guidelines, under the ball doesn’t necessarily mean a realistic chance of competing as they take into account verticality" I didn't know this. This is the point that I disagreed with the ruling. Fall was in position and he would have caught the ball if BB didn't jump on top of him. So in my mind, Fall had a realistic chance of catching the ball. That was also clearly the French play - i.e. the team intention. This is the problem with the guideline. Both catchers are watching the ball, not other payers. If a player jumps over the top of another player then what are the other catchers supposed to do about it in the mill seconds that this occurs? I would feel differently if Fall had put out his arms to tip BB over. But that is not what happened. From Fall's point of view, he had the ball lined up to catch it and then someone jumped into his view of view and on top of him. BB was already contacting the ground by the time Fall could have reacted to anything.

The emphasis is obviously on making the game look dynamic and full of action with these high Aussie rule type catches. However the reality is that injury is very near as was demonstrated by the Barrett incident, discounting the law surrounding this incident and looking at what transpired, if u had no knowledge of the game one would think that the player who was on the ground looking skyward at the ball was well within his rights to be there, enter Barrett who is airborne going for the same ball, one would think that he is putting himself at risk by leaping into the air and then coming into contact with the grounded player who also was watching the ball!! So what is to happen?? How then do players determine who actually has rights to the ball??

Where's Drongo, he was looking for just such an occurrence last week!

I agree. Barret was the one acting carelessly and placing his own well being in jeopardy.. Both teams should have the same right to possession once the ball has been kicked. The answer to the problem may be no jumping allowed but that would take away some of the spectacle of the game. maybe n Barrett should have been red carded for being reckless.

The same way you drive a car (at 5 times the speed) check your mirror, check your blind spot all before changing lanes. Fall ran 40 metres he could and should have been "scanning" all the way.

Why is it any more nonsense than if BB wasn't there he would have caught the ball? BB was there he as above him and in a vulnerable position.

How can you keep your eye on the ball and run forward to catch it whilst also watching the opposition player? The answer is you cant. Whether you jump or take it on the ground you cant gurantee anyone's safety, not even your own...

if anyone saw closely,Fall was actually checked and nudged by ALB who was 2 or 3 metres from Barrett when he was chasing thru.which wouldve put him out of timing of getting up for the contest.had the incident not happened,the ABs probably wouldve put another 50 on the frogs if Barrett was still on.cos MacKenzies not a 10!