Finn Russell controversy.

[Tricky]

Just opening this to say how unimpressed I am with the closure of the Scotland v Wales thread on this topic.

I didn't agree with a number of the comments made, and I'm sure many didn't agree with mine, but that's the beauty of friendly and frank debate.

 

[ncurd]

Tricky it had nothing to do with comments being made, most people were perfectly fine about it. However at the end Will was just baiting people in non friendly and frank debate. He was asked to tone it down and then started questioning the mods authority they had to close the thread or suspend the guy. I think they did the fairer option.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky it had nothing to do with comments being made, most people were perfectly fine about it. However at the end Will was just baiting people in non friendly and frank debate. He was asked to tone it down and then started questioning the mods authority they had to close the thread or suspend the guy. I think they did the fairer option.

(Polite tone here !) thanks for that and all understood. I do think however that it's a bit of an example of the rest of us being penalised by the unacceptable actions of one individual, so I would consider going for the other option next time. A bit like average speed cameras, minimum pricing for alcohol etc etc !

 

[LiRFCMatt]

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/...-jackson-43148

Rugby World's view on the Glen Jackson controversy.

From the Scotland vs Wales thread that was closed under hilarious circumstances.

 

[TommiG88]

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/...-jackson-43148

Rugby World's view on the Glen Jackson controversy.

From the Scotland vs Wales thread that was closed under hilarious circumstances.

I agree with it mostly however it hasn't picked up on the constant infringements for the 30 mins in which the welsh were attacking the Scottish line. I still feel Jackson didn't show a yellow in the dying minutes due to letting Scotland get away with it for the majority of the half.

 

[LiRFCMatt]

I agree with it mostly however it hasn't picked up on the constant infringements for the 30 mins in which the welsh were attacking the Scottish line. I still feel Jackson didn't show a yellow in the dying minutes due to letting Scotland get away with it for the majority of the half.

I agree that should have been mentioned, he definitely got it wrong. 30 minutes is an exaggeration though, isn't it?

 

[TommiG88]

I agree that should have been mentioned, he definitely got it wrong. 30 minutes is an exaggeration though, isn't it?

From 40 to about 67/68 it was all wales. Then there was the Scottish onslaught.

 

[SharksFan86]

I agree with the ban really, At the time I thought it was reckless more than anything ! He certainly didn't mean any harm to Welsh player but could have quite easily altered his own move so that he didn't collide in the way he did.

Finn had a good game though apart from two poor kicks when had chance to put Wales under pressure.

 

[celticc]

As I mentioned on the other thread (don't agree it should have been closed either) the one decision I think really stands out is the Hidalgo-Clyne knock-on/penalty/yellow card/penalty try. IMO it had the potential to be a big turning point, the decision was probably the least favourable to us, but it happens. Calls for YC at end of game and during Welsh pressure cancel each other out IMO.

 

[smartcooky]

I have a different view on this.

While the Law makes Jackson partially right with his yellow card and World Rugby's decision to ban Finn Russell means it should have been a red card, I have a thorough dislike for the way in which World Rugby is managing this specific focus on protecting the man in the air. IMO, it does not fit into what I consider to be the traditional fabric and spirit of the game. A player should not be penalised, let alone yellow or red carded, for essentially doing nothing other than standing still to catch the ball. As far as I am concerned, any player who recklessly jumps into the air without any regard to where or how he is going to land, and who then expects everyone else to just get out of the way, deserves whatever happens to him. Why should a player, say a fullback, who is absolutely stationary, with his feet firmly planted, eyes on the ball, be expected to get out of the way because some idiot is sprinting at him and jumps at him from 20 feet away? By all means, if the defender intentionally tackles, or strikes , interferes with or moves into the path of the jumper, then fair enough... red card. But if the defender is at the point where the ball will alight, not moving and waiting for the ball, then gets clattered by the jumper, its the jumper who should be penalised.

Personally, I would like to see the introduction of either a Law change or a protocol to deal with this. Either don't allow any players in the kicking team to jump for the ball, or bring in something similar to basketball's "charging" rule. In basketball, if a running player runs into a stationary player, the running player has committed a "charging foul". If the defender is moving when the runner runs into him, then the defender is "blocking".

There definitely needs to be a change. Sooner or later we are going to see two opposing players running in opposite directions, jump the way Biggar did resulting a horrendous collision where one or both are going to end up seriously injured.

 

[William18]

I have a different view on this.

While the Law makes Jackson partially right with his yellow card and World Rugby's decision to ban Finn Russell means it should have been a red card, I have a thorough dislike for the way in which World Rugby is managing this specific focus on protecting the man in the air. IMO, it does not fit into what I consider to be the traditional fabric and spirit of the game. A player should not be penalised, let alone yellow or red carded, for essentially doing nothing other than standing still to catch the ball. As far as I am concerned, any player who recklessly jumps into the air without any regard to where or how he is going to land, and who then expects everyone else to just get out of the way, deserves whatever happens to him. Why should a player, say a fullback, who is absolutely stationary, with his feet firmly planted, eyes on the ball, be expected to get out of the way because some idiot is sprinting at him and jumps at him from 20 feet away? By all means, if the defender intentionally tackles, or strikes , interferes with or moves into the path of the jumper, then fair enough... red card. But if the defender is at the point where the ball will alight, not moving and waiting for the ball, then gets clattered by the jumper, its the jumper who should be penalised.

Personally, I would like to see the introduction of either a Law change or a protocol to deal with this. Either don't allow any players in the kicking team to jump for the ball, or bring in something similar to basketball's "charging" rule. In basketball, if a running player runs into a stationary player, the running player has committed a "charging foul". If the defender is moving when the runner runs into him, then the defender is "blocking".

There definitely needs to be a change. Sooner or later we are going to see two opposing players running in opposite directions, jump the way Biggar did resulting a horrendous collision where one or both are going to end up seriously injured.

I agree with this. Russell deserved a yellow because he did run forward and then stopped. He didn't just stay still the whole time.

One thing that does not annoy me about the moderation of this forum is the closing of threads. If the thread was just closed because Will is baiting people then Will should just be banned. Is there a way to stop a certain poster posting in a certain thread or forum? If so I think that is the better way of going forward. A lot of discussions on here is ruined by just one poster. I know moderation can be a tough job and you don't want to band everyone but I think it is worth consideration.

 

[goodNumber10]

I have a different view on this.

While the Law makes Jackson partially right with his yellow card and World Rugby's decision to ban Finn Russell means it should have been a red card, I have a thorough dislike for the way in which World Rugby is managing this specific focus on protecting the man in the air. IMO, it does not fit into what I consider to be the traditional fabric and spirit of the game. A player should not be penalised, let alone yellow or red carded, for essentially doing nothing other than standing still to catch the ball. As far as I am concerned, any player who recklessly jumps into the air without any regard to where or how he is going to land, and who then expects everyone else to just get out of the way, deserves whatever happens to him. Why should a player, say a fullback, who is absolutely stationary, with his feet firmly planted, eyes on the ball, be expected to get out of the way because some idiot is sprinting at him and jumps at him from 20 feet away? By all means, if the defender intentionally tackles, or strikes , interferes with or moves into the path of the jumper, then fair enough... red card. But if the defender is at the point where the ball will alight, not moving and waiting for the ball, then gets clattered by the jumper, its the jumper who should be penalised.

Personally, I would like to see the introduction of either a Law change or a protocol to deal with this. Either don't allow any players in the kicking team to jump for the ball, or bring in something similar to basketball's "charging" rule. In basketball, if a running player runs into a stationary player, the running player has committed a "charging foul". If the defender is moving when the runner runs into him, then the defender is "blocking".

There definitely needs to be a change. Sooner or later we are going to see two opposing players running in opposite directions, jump the way Biggar did resulting a horrendous collision where one or both are going to end up seriously injured.

If you're stood still and a player jumps over you and topples you're fine , no? As it was his decision to jump into a static target.

However this is not what happened, Finn Russell was travelling, turned his back and protected his head and Biggar went over that.

 

[Tricky]

I have a different view on this.

While the Law makes Jackson partially right with his yellow card and World Rugby's decision to ban Finn Russell means it should have been a red card, I have a thorough dislike for the way in which World Rugby is managing this specific focus on protecting the man in the air. IMO, it does not fit into what I consider to be the traditional fabric and spirit of the game. A player should not be penalised, let alone yellow or red carded, for essentially doing nothing other than standing still to catch the ball. As far as I am concerned, any player who recklessly jumps into the air without any regard to where or how he is going to land, and who then expects everyone else to just get out of the way, deserves whatever happens to him. Why should a player, say a fullback, who is absolutely stationary, with his feet firmly planted, eyes on the ball, be expected to get out of the way because some idiot is sprinting at him and jumps at him from 20 feet away? By all means, if the defender intentionally tackles, or strikes , interferes with or moves into the path of the jumper, then fair enough... red card. But if the defender is at the point where the ball will alight, not moving and waiting for the ball, then gets clattered by the jumper, its the jumper who should be penalised.

Personally, I would like to see the introduction of either a Law change or a protocol to deal with this. Either don't allow any players in the kicking team to jump for the ball, or bring in something similar to basketball's "charging" rule. In basketball, if a running player runs into a stationary player, the running player has committed a "charging foul". If the defender is moving when the runner runs into him, then the defender is "blocking".

There definitely needs to be a change. Sooner or later we are going to see two opposing players running in opposite directions, jump the way Biggar did resulting a horrendous collision where one or both are going to end up seriously injured.

This is one of the best analyses I've read of this !

Forget Russell / Biggar or Scotland / Wales, the laws need sorted and I do agree that we need to protect a defender from flying attackers, or it is only a matter of time before we have a disaster. Without reopening the blame game on that match, if Biggar's knee had collided at full tilt with Russell's head, the outcome would not have been good. The whole area needs a re-look.

 

[smartcooky]

If you're stood still and a player jumps over you and topples you're fine , no? As it was his decision to jump into a static target.

However this is not what happened, Finn Russell was travelling, turned his back and protected his head and Biggar went over that.

Be honest now. If Russell had been absolutely stationary and then turned away to protect himself, do you really believe that the outcome (penalty + yellow card + suspension) would have been any different?

 

[g6mcg]

How would these suggested changes deal with someone like Russell, who is moving into the path of the jumping player, but seems to be only focused on the ball?

(Not a criticism, I agree with your suggestion)

 

[goodNumber10]

Be honest now. If Russell had been absolutely stationary and then turned away to protect himself, do you really believe that the outcome (penalty + yellow card + suspension) would have been any different?

yes, but that would depend on if he plays him or not.

I think if Russel is stood there waiting to catch the ball, eyes up not looking around (ala the 80's/90's Fullbacks) and Biggar jumps and beats him to the ball and in the process hits Russell and does a 180 onto his head there would have been no sanction required/awarded against Russell - and as far as i'm aware that's how it's currently reffed.

I think ulimately there has to be a bit of commonsense involved, if Russels occupies the space and is static. much like a blocking defender on a kick chase, no santion. If he moves into the Jumpers path, sanction.

 

[ncurd]

Russell traveling was also not at great speed (as he was closer to the ball) he doesn't move that much from when Biggar enters the air.

The issue here I think is both players are competing for the ball, I've heard many arguments say well Russell just need to enter the air but he doesn't have the momentum Biggar does not even close. Plus even if he did he would still of been nowhere near the ball in relation to where Biggar catches it the collision would of still have been almighty and Russell probably would of been sent off, just added risk to himself.

Personally I think the laws need to put some onus on the jumper knowing that space he is about to occupy being empty. I'm not blaming Biggar for not looking (he is after all probably not looking for the same reason Russell doesn't see him coming) as in the laws currently he has absolutely no need to do so. However had he looked just before takeoff he would seen Russell roughly where he was going to land if not exactly there. I've also seen an argument that all player jumping most be at least on the vertical plane as opposed horizontal but I don't think that works.

I posted this in the other thread
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=147177
The NHL goes at great work in recent years explaining why they dished out their suspensions. I think rugby would also greatly benefit from this kind of approach the only thing we know about their view is they felt Russell was reckless but it was unintentional. I'd like to know what they saw that I didn't that made Russell actions reckless and thus warranting something beyond the sanction of penalty kick as noted in the laws.

As noted what Russell did was completely unintentional which is what make a ban harder to understand nobody is denying
a) Russell broke the laws as they currently stand.
b) What happened was extremely dangerous.
However this an element of "What did Russell do wrong?", the only argument I've heard is Russell should of known Biggar would enter the air before he actually did. Fair enough he may have done but I don't think not anticipating another players actions is fair call for someone to be banned.
I have seen the he moved into the space argument but that's not my assessment of the footage.