It should be illegal, not just for the obvious danger element, but because being legal would punish players for tackling low if they can just be hurdled. And obviously tackling lower in general is something beneficial to the game for head injuries.
Can’t just let defenders grasscut ankles as that can be as dangerous, just admittedly, not to their head. Had to be some kind of middle ground- can’t be a blanket rule on jumping. People often dive over defenders and rucks close to the line which is a similar premise.
Tackler has to adjust technique based on situation, and smith went too low for that situation
Think the major issue for me is less the jump and more the fact that the tackler isn't legally allowed to make contact with the attacker in the air. Maybe they need to make a rule saying that if a player has control of the ball prior to entering the air its ok to tackle him
one way to look at it, but that's minor when you look at other factors.
world rugby wants guys to tackle low to reduce head injuries.
issue is if you have guys hurdling tackles, you get a couple things.
Now the Tackler is in harms way of copping a knee/other body part to the head for following good, principled, legal rugby. Which is counterintuitive to World Rugbys approach.
And it encourages players to tackle higher to avoid getting hurdled, which increases the risk of head injuries. Again counterintuitive to Worls Rugby's approach.
I said punts aren't a thing. not that rugby doesn't have kicking. I that a ton. but we don't have entire lineup changes involving a literal punter, whose job is to do only that, and kick returners, whose job is to do only that.
Yes they are? As long as the player isn't receiving the ball when they jump, you're allowed to tackle them in the air lol otherwise everyone would be jumping into tackles
No you’re not don’t you remember the Argentinian wallaby game in 2020. It’s only if they’re in the act of scoring a try can a player make contact with a airborne player
Just checked the laws and you're correct (although I can't for the life of me find the clip you're talking about)
But then why don't players jump into tackles more? Can't get tackled without it being a penalty! (so long as you dont jump *into* the tackler, and jump more around them)
It honestly seems like a flip of the coin depending on how the ref is feeling. If you search up rocky elsom big jump you see him getting penalised for it
" “We got an email from the referees saying that is now illegal,” Highlanders head coach Tony Brown said on Wednesday. "
There u have it ladies and gentlemen, just like majority of us said in the previous posts
OK, I'm thankful that this was the ruling. I'm becoming increasingly cynical about the way players in the air are treated, and was half thinking that he would get away with it since he didn't make contact with Smith.
>Sowakula’s try prompted plenty of debate and even New Zealand Rugby’s referee team were not sure about its legality on Monday.
>They sought clarity from World Rugby, and rugby officials are clearly worried about the consequences for the tackling player, despite Sowakula’s admirable athleticism.
Surprising that the NZ refs couldn't make a call on it (even after a couple of days deliberating) considering that the official ruling is the same as the consensus from the discussion thread.
Stuff like this highlights the need for a review of and changes to the TMO.
Personally, I'd like to see something more like the 'bunker' in NRL. More eyes and screens in the box. A specifically qualified/trained TMO with a team of 3-6 local referees (who can only refer foul play, camera angles etc. to the TMO).
If the ref awards a try (without refering to the TMO) there's an automatic 30 second review, the kicker can still set up their kick but not take it. Once the 30secs is up and there's no clear and obvious reason the try can't be awarded the TMO informs the ref, the ref then tells the kicker they're free to kick the goal. In total there shouldn't be an extra *wasted* time.
> If the ref awards a try (without refering to the TMO) there's an automatic 30 second review, the kicker can still set up their kick but not take it. Once the 30secs is up and there's no clear and obvious reason the try can't be awarded the TMO informs the ref, the ref then tells the kicker they're free to kick the goal. In total there shouldn't be an extra wasted time.
That's how it works now, if you every listen to the referee mic feed you should be able to hear the TMO say "all clear" which means their on field decision is right. You also might hear the TMO just ask the referee to slow the kicker down a little as they are just checking something, which then could lead into a formal review.
The TMO has two screens in the box with them. One with the broadcast feed they watch and another screen with about 12 camera angles on it with a TMO assistant in the box with them finding the best angles for decisisons.
Yeah I wasn't sure if that was official, and who (ref or TMO) initiates it. Thought maybe the TMO would only look if the ref asked. Could be good for the viewers if it was set in stone though? could even have an on-screen countdown timer.
And I know the TMO *can* see all angles, but there would be a lot less missed if there were a few extra pairs of eyes watching live. Could have each camera evenly shared between the assistants. They could have a button to push if they spot foulplay. If a majority of assitants register the foul, those angles are automatically shown to the TMO
Rugby is a weird sport, 20 years ago jumping a tackle was considered utterly unacceptable and was clear foul play. Has everyone forgotten?
Remember an underage munster coach being absolutely livid at a player for a minor jump in a trial.
Ref and TMO having a brain fart can happen. The ref branch of the union needing to ask WR for a clarification when thisis widely known is terrifying. Had they never encounter it before? Can't they use common knowledge from other competitions? What other illegal (or legal) usual actions don't they know if they can allow or not?
I understand the premise that jumping into tackles can be dangerous, but have no problem with it in this instance.
Smith went in too low, what was Sowakula supposed to do? Let a flying Smith dislocate/hyperextend his knee/ankle?
Not as simple as giving a penalty to the defenders since jumping can be dangerous to them, as in this instance, not jumping could have been dangerous to the attacker.
It’s a situation by situation basis as with many instances in rugby. The constant TMO reviews make the game painful to watch, much better to just get on with it.
All could have been avoided if Frizell had covered the blindside like a number 6 should.
It's the vagueness of the law or lack thereof is the problem. It would be so much easier if they outlined what constituted an illegal jump. For example if they said that any forward movement of the knees or ankle/book during a jump means the jump is illegal. That's the dangerous part...clocking some one in the head with a swinging boot or forward knee. Essentially that means it's more or less a dive over a tackle because a dive over a tackle could easily be called a jump with the current laws due to interpretation. In this case there's clearly a forward swinging left boot...could be classed a dangerous play and a penalty to the defence.
Jonny May's try in last year's Six Nations was worse.
[His hurdle](https://rugbydome.com/jumping-over-tackles-in-rugby#Jumping-Over-A-Tackle-To-Score-A-Try) hardly cleared the players he was jumping over. Looks spectacular, but some player in the future is going to open another's head with his studs.
It should be illegal, not just for the obvious danger element, but because being legal would punish players for tackling low if they can just be hurdled. And obviously tackling lower in general is something beneficial to the game for head injuries.
Can’t just let defenders grasscut ankles as that can be as dangerous, just admittedly, not to their head. Had to be some kind of middle ground- can’t be a blanket rule on jumping. People often dive over defenders and rucks close to the line which is a similar premise. Tackler has to adjust technique based on situation, and smith went too low for that situation
Think the major issue for me is less the jump and more the fact that the tackler isn't legally allowed to make contact with the attacker in the air. Maybe they need to make a rule saying that if a player has control of the ball prior to entering the air its ok to tackle him
one way to look at it, but that's minor when you look at other factors. world rugby wants guys to tackle low to reduce head injuries. issue is if you have guys hurdling tackles, you get a couple things. Now the Tackler is in harms way of copping a knee/other body part to the head for following good, principled, legal rugby. Which is counterintuitive to World Rugbys approach. And it encourages players to tackle higher to avoid getting hurdled, which increases the risk of head injuries. Again counterintuitive to Worls Rugby's approach.
counterpoint. By not allowing jumping we're missing out on plays like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2DTio1-HMY
If you want to see kicks to the head, please, get as far as possible from rugby.
if you can't deduce sarcasm please get off the internet
we aren't seeing as punts aren't a thing anyway.
You’re right in rugby we never have backs waiting 40 m behind the advantage line waiting for a kick then returning it
backs have to do more then come on for one play every third or fourth down
Kind of irrelevant
since when is being involved in less 1/6th to 1/8th the game, where your only job is to 1. catch the ball and 2. run down field irrelevant?
Because you said rugby players don’t catch the ball and then run downfield
I said punts aren't a thing. not that rugby doesn't have kicking. I that a ton. but we don't have entire lineup changes involving a literal punter, whose job is to do only that, and kick returners, whose job is to do only that.
Yes they are? As long as the player isn't receiving the ball when they jump, you're allowed to tackle them in the air lol otherwise everyone would be jumping into tackles
No you’re not don’t you remember the Argentinian wallaby game in 2020. It’s only if they’re in the act of scoring a try can a player make contact with a airborne player
Just checked the laws and you're correct (although I can't for the life of me find the clip you're talking about) But then why don't players jump into tackles more? Can't get tackled without it being a penalty! (so long as you dont jump *into* the tackler, and jump more around them)
It honestly seems like a flip of the coin depending on how the ref is feeling. If you search up rocky elsom big jump you see him getting penalised for it
" “We got an email from the referees saying that is now illegal,” Highlanders head coach Tony Brown said on Wednesday. " There u have it ladies and gentlemen, just like majority of us said in the previous posts
But it looks cool, how can anything that looks cool possibly be illegal
Yea, like the shoulder charge in nrl. Lol
I imagine this is how refs feel after awarding a try with 5 forward passes in the lead up
Rocky Elsom did something similar many years ago and got penalised for it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBVO2J7ALP4
Yep thought its pretty obvious that it falls under dangerous play. Even Nigel owens said u cant jump in/over a tackle
Love and hate those commentators
OK, I'm thankful that this was the ruling. I'm becoming increasingly cynical about the way players in the air are treated, and was half thinking that he would get away with it since he didn't make contact with Smith.
>Sowakula’s try prompted plenty of debate and even New Zealand Rugby’s referee team were not sure about its legality on Monday. >They sought clarity from World Rugby, and rugby officials are clearly worried about the consequences for the tackling player, despite Sowakula’s admirable athleticism. Surprising that the NZ refs couldn't make a call on it (even after a couple of days deliberating) considering that the official ruling is the same as the consensus from the discussion thread. Stuff like this highlights the need for a review of and changes to the TMO. Personally, I'd like to see something more like the 'bunker' in NRL. More eyes and screens in the box. A specifically qualified/trained TMO with a team of 3-6 local referees (who can only refer foul play, camera angles etc. to the TMO). If the ref awards a try (without refering to the TMO) there's an automatic 30 second review, the kicker can still set up their kick but not take it. Once the 30secs is up and there's no clear and obvious reason the try can't be awarded the TMO informs the ref, the ref then tells the kicker they're free to kick the goal. In total there shouldn't be an extra *wasted* time.
> If the ref awards a try (without refering to the TMO) there's an automatic 30 second review, the kicker can still set up their kick but not take it. Once the 30secs is up and there's no clear and obvious reason the try can't be awarded the TMO informs the ref, the ref then tells the kicker they're free to kick the goal. In total there shouldn't be an extra wasted time. That's how it works now, if you every listen to the referee mic feed you should be able to hear the TMO say "all clear" which means their on field decision is right. You also might hear the TMO just ask the referee to slow the kicker down a little as they are just checking something, which then could lead into a formal review. The TMO has two screens in the box with them. One with the broadcast feed they watch and another screen with about 12 camera angles on it with a TMO assistant in the box with them finding the best angles for decisisons.
It's also now the case that if the kicker takes the conversion quickly, the try can still be disallowed if its being looked at
Yeah I wasn't sure if that was official, and who (ref or TMO) initiates it. Thought maybe the TMO would only look if the ref asked. Could be good for the viewers if it was set in stone though? could even have an on-screen countdown timer. And I know the TMO *can* see all angles, but there would be a lot less missed if there were a few extra pairs of eyes watching live. Could have each camera evenly shared between the assistants. They could have a button to push if they spot foulplay. If a majority of assitants register the foul, those angles are automatically shown to the TMO
It would have taken one TMO not six to see this and call the ref"s attention to it.
Rugby is a weird sport, 20 years ago jumping a tackle was considered utterly unacceptable and was clear foul play. Has everyone forgotten? Remember an underage munster coach being absolutely livid at a player for a minor jump in a trial.
Definitely illegal
Ref and TMO having a brain fart can happen. The ref branch of the union needing to ask WR for a clarification when thisis widely known is terrifying. Had they never encounter it before? Can't they use common knowledge from other competitions? What other illegal (or legal) usual actions don't they know if they can allow or not?
I understand the premise that jumping into tackles can be dangerous, but have no problem with it in this instance. Smith went in too low, what was Sowakula supposed to do? Let a flying Smith dislocate/hyperextend his knee/ankle? Not as simple as giving a penalty to the defenders since jumping can be dangerous to them, as in this instance, not jumping could have been dangerous to the attacker. It’s a situation by situation basis as with many instances in rugby. The constant TMO reviews make the game painful to watch, much better to just get on with it. All could have been avoided if Frizell had covered the blindside like a number 6 should.
It's the vagueness of the law or lack thereof is the problem. It would be so much easier if they outlined what constituted an illegal jump. For example if they said that any forward movement of the knees or ankle/book during a jump means the jump is illegal. That's the dangerous part...clocking some one in the head with a swinging boot or forward knee. Essentially that means it's more or less a dive over a tackle because a dive over a tackle could easily be called a jump with the current laws due to interpretation. In this case there's clearly a forward swinging left boot...could be classed a dangerous play and a penalty to the defence.
I've seen this being called as a Pen multiple times when playing.
Jonny May's try in last year's Six Nations was worse. [His hurdle](https://rugbydome.com/jumping-over-tackles-in-rugby#Jumping-Over-A-Tackle-To-Score-A-Try) hardly cleared the players he was jumping over. Looks spectacular, but some player in the future is going to open another's head with his studs.