Rugby Championship 2023

Why was the game on so much earlier than usual? I woke up a few minutes ago excited to watch it only to be disappointed.

Football world cup maybe?

Just caught up on the charge down debacle and I cannot for the life of me understand how so many people online seem to think it was fine because 'he made a genuine attempt at a charge down.' If you allow this sort of play and follow it to its natural conclusion you would be declaring open season on flyhalves. All I need to do is jump high and stretch out my arms to prove I'm making a genuine attempt and, when I inevitably fail in charging it down, I simply brace myself for contact with the kickers head. He's defenseless. This is not a 'rugby incident' as people are calling it because the defender is entirely in control of the outcome as the kicker is stationary and easily avoided.

Well then what are players supposed to do, not charge it down? Yes. Yes they are. If they don't think they can charge the ball down without knocking a player out and potentially ruining their career they should simply do something else. Plenty of charge downs happen without the added element of assault - they can angle their run, just stay on their feet or jump and land before contact with the kicker. I promise you the game of rugby is not being ruined because players haven't been given carte blanche to clobber at flyhalf's head.

Japan v Fiji is on rugby pass on astromalaysia for those in the know

Historically when players tried to block down a kick they dived towards the ball leaving the players foot to block it down. Jumping directly up and towards the kicker with the arms in the air and turning the hips at the last moment is incredibly dangerous and seems to be more prevalent these days. Much higher risk of hip to head contact.

Stander on Lambie (who ended up having to retire from concussion a few years later), Kleyn on Jamie Osborne earlier this year and the challenge last week are all examples of where the player on the receiving end of the ‘charge-down’ were seriously hurt. Harald Schumacher knocked out Battison, who ended up losing teeth, broken ribs and damaging his vertebrae, in the 1982 football World Cup with a similar challenge.

100% this needs to be cleaned up in the game. It shouldn't matter if a player makes contact with the ball or not, a jumping hip to head can change someone’s life forever.

Thats not at all what that logic implies and that’s a ridiculous argument to make for this scenario but I believe you already know that.

The kicker was stationary so there’s no mitigation to be applied here like a sudden drop in being hit as with high tackles. I’ll hold my hands up and admit I’m not a referee or an expert on the laws, but I would infer a general duty on the defender not to knock players out when charging the ball down. Just adjust your run.

I see nothing there about the actual incident but a lot of academic work, most of which is covered in the laws anyway.

The comment about a drop in height was to highlight how bad the incident was, not to provide an example of something 'unavoidable.' So you've went on a a tangent there and had fun with it, but I apologise if I wasn't clear. The situations you've highlighted aren't 'slightly different' in any case, your blatantly ignoring the difference in the level of control the players have.

Anyway, adjust your run, adjust your jump, tie your shoe-laces instead. Let's not legalise assault.

'Given that you're now claiming' - ugh, I retract my apologies. It was clear enough.

Didn't say the incident itself was assault, i said allowing that play to go would be equivalent to legalising ie. the open season on flyhavles stuff. Nice try though.

There was a tackle in the Leinster vs La Rochelle final that the ref allowed to play on even though their was contact with the head. Player pretty much couldn't have gone lower and the Leinster attacker, at the last moment, made an unnatural dip. I'm fine with play-on in those cases because the defender has done as much as he could reasonably have expected to do. I'm not sure what the exact laws are but I don't believe there was a citation.

As always, I'd like to take this time to encourage everyone not to knock out kickers.

This incident is no way 'equivalent' to assault - no one from the ref, to his team, to the citing team believed it was.

I never said they didn't deem it as a red card. My point was to call out the other poster's clear hyperbole throwing around the term assault.

I'll again go back to my previous example of a player going for a high ball and catching it but his hip/torso hitting the player in the head who stayed on the ground. I've never seen a ref or citing commissioner call that against the player catching the ball, however we've all seen many times the player on the ground being sanctioned if the player in the air tips.

It clearly wasnt a straightforward case for the citing team. If WR want to make contact with the kicker illegal they can take in the rules in the NFL to protect kickers, as pulling from current vague laws regarding recklessness for me isnt the right way to go about it and the citing team seemed to agree given their statement and sanction.

Again, as you didn’t understand the first two times, I did not call the incident in question assault. Allowing the play to happen unpunished would lead to tactics implementing it. Not hyperbole.

Theres nothing vague about hitting a stationary players head with no mitigation. I’m unsure what further clarification you need there.

You've absolutely twisted yourself in a knot now.

It is pretty simple, if you didn't want to imply this incident was assault then there was absolutely no reason to use the term.

No point in going around in circles any further. Maybe tone down the hyperbole a bit and there wont be misunderstandings.

I'm sure we could conjure up some sort of situation in which a chargedown allows contact with the head, but that seems like a lesson in pedanticism. I've already admitted in previous posts that I'm fine with contact with the head being going unpunished in certain, narrow, instances. The contact with the head in this case was clearly illegal though, it was reckless and dangerous because of the significant chance of serious injury to the head.

Absolutely and I never said otherwise, but the fact that you are asking that makes me question whether you have understood what I have written. Numerous times. I almost wish you just posted redundant smileys again.

Recklessness does not require a deliberate and most red cards and bans do not stem from intentional foul play. However, once again, allowing this play to go unpunished will only encourage deliberate tactics targeting kickers. Please tell me you understand that?

Of all the hills for the ‘just a rugby incident’ clan to die on, this just isn’t it.

A player stationary player was knocked out, no mitigation could be applied and it wasn’t reckless to you? That’s where we’ll never agree because that’s an incredible statement to make. Thankfully the laws don’t agree with you.

’Some other posters’ - just one actually.

targeting a kickers head is not part of the game.

‘Do you think letting this incident go would result in players targeting the kicker's head in future?’ I knew you weren’t reading what I was writing and begged you to read carefully. In my last post I literally stated that allowing this play to go unpunished would only encourage it deliberately. I’ve stated this almost word for numerous times and you still have the empty mindedness to post almost exactly what I have written, phrased as a question, and stated that I’m being unclear. Astounding.

Thankfully the laws agree with me.

But what had the possibility of him faking a kick got to do with being clobbered in the head? Like, I’m not sure of the relevance in determining whether or not this play was reckless. He didn’t fake a kick and he didn’t move enough to change the outcome for me.

Jump straight at them.