Re: Another death in France
Posted by: Brummagem Bertie (IP Logged)
Date: 10 January, 2019 18:31
I thought the law regarding the Kerevi style challenge was clear, but obviously not. The way I understood it was if you are the defender and you put yourself into a position you'd better make sure you can get out of it without hurting someone.
I'm either wrong, or the officials have used their interpretation again. Kerevi clearly put himself into a position where contact would happen, and he decided he'd rather it hurt Leigh and not himself. However, I'm not a referee.
The referee was clearly heard at the time to say that there was no intent in Kerevi's challenge, presumably a reference to Law 9.25,
Quote:A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.
Now, I don't know how he was able to make such a judgment so quickly, without seeing it back a couple of times, but I question whether any professional rugby player at that level can manage to run into a kicker he's trying to charge down 'accidentally'.
Even if the ref was right on that point, Alun-Wyn Jones pointed out that Kerevi had a duty of care, presumably a reference to Law 9.11,
Quote:Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.
Even if Kerevi's challenge wasn't intentional, on any reasonable view it was certainly reckless and dangerous, IMHO.
There was also a guideline issued in November 2016 on reckless and accidental tackles, which talked about appropriate sanctions for contact with the head. Although it was aimed primarily at tackles it also referred to contact with the head during "other phases of play". For reckless challenges the minimum sanction was a yellow card and the maximum a red. Even for accidental contact it said the minimum sanction was a penalty and a yellow card might be appropriate.
Whatever you do, do it safely!