Weird Rugby Laws Confusing Everyone
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 12. 2022
- This video shows some weird, confusing, even bizarre rugby laws and there interpretations. These strange and funny rugby moments are all related to laws you don't see used that often and hence confuse players, commentators and even referees and their assistants! Hope you enjoyed the video and let me know in the comments if you want to see a part 2.
0:16 The ball is knocked on by the Toulon no. 2 which means that the ball has been played and the ruck is over. Therefore there is no offside and Connor Murray (since he was onside to begin with when the ball was knocked on) can come around the ruck and put the ball down. Try given.
What I still don’t understand about this clip is why would the try not be awarded if it wasn’t a knock on surely the Toulon player still played the ball?
1:50 Since the Dragons didn’t engage in the contact with the Munster forwards no maul was formed. The Munster pack didn’t move at all and kept the ball at the front meaning that the lineout wasn’t actually over! Therefore, offside rules still applied and if the Dragons forward moved at all towards the Munster pack it is a penalty!
2:34 No maul was formed again here and since the ball was moved to the back of the Bath forwards it was deemed to have left the lineout and Vunipola can take the ball off the ball carrier.
2:50 Law 18.2 (e) “A try is scored when an attacking player… Who is in touch or touch-in-goal, grounds the ball in the opponents’ ingoal provided the player is not holding the ball”. So a player can be fully in touch but as long as he isn’t holding the ball and just grounds the ball a try is given!
3:05 Law 20.16 “As soon as the kicker initiates movement to kick, the opposing team may
charge and try to prevent the free-kick being taken by tackling the kicker or to
block the kick.”
Law 20.17 “If the opposing team charge fairly and prevent the free-kick being taken, the kick is disallowed. Play restarts with a scrum at the mark with the opposing team throwing in.”
3:20 Law 18.2 (b) tells us that the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal if “a player jumps, from within or outside the playing area, and catches the ball, and then lands in the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
3:46 Hurdling has been deemed dangerous and should be sanctioned with a penalty kick. In both instances no sanction was given.
4:22 Law 15.18 The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line.
4:52 Law 18.37 “The lineout ends when: a. The ball or a player in possession of the ball: iii. goes beyond the 15-metre line.
4:54 Law 8.25 “Any player who intentionally touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.
Music:
Song: (FREE FOR PROFIT) FREESTYLE Type Beat | Free Type Beat | Rap Trap Beats Freestyle Instrumental Fast
Link: • (FREE FOR PROFIT) FREE...
Contact Details:
Email: rugbymanual@gmail.com
Instagram: @rugby_manual - rugby_manual
TikTok: @rugbymanual
Disclaimer: I must state that in NO way, shape or form am I intending to infringe on the rights of the copyright holder. Content used is strictly for research/reviewing purposes and to help educate. All under the Fair Use law. If you are the owner of the footage please message me and I will be happy to delete the video. "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Rugby, rugby highlights, rugby edits, rugby union, rugby manual, rugbymanual, rugby league ,rugby fights ,rugby big hits, motivation, rugby motivation, rugby tries, rugby sevens, rugby tackles, rugby bump offs, rugby step, best rugby steps, rugby world cup - Zábava
2 good calls by Nigel Owens. He could have a future as a referee.
Isn't he a former drug addict?
Yeah, he seems like the type of ref who would referee the 2015 World Cup final between New Zealand and Australia.
It annoys me so much when hurdling or jumping into a tackle isn't enforced very well (admittedly it doesn't happen very often). If we ask tacklers to get low to avoid high tackles we need to be very strict in preventing players taking unfair advantage of it. Plus it's dangerous as hell.
Agreed. Dangerous for the ball carrier too, lots of potential for them to get caught and flipped over onto their head or neck
It isn't American Football.
I think the law has changed. Now u cannot jump over a tackler anymore like that
You can hurdle a player in American Football 🏈 but you can't land on him.
@@TheMrPeteChannelActually if you're the ball carrier, in Federation rules you're not allowed to hurdle.
I love how simple, and yet how complicated the offside rule is in rugby..
I was always taught "don't run IN FRONT of the ball". That's a good rule of thumb to stick by..
But, in a scrum, maul, ruck, line out.. I bloody hope the ref knows what's happening, because I played for 7 years, and I didn't have a clue.
1:43 you can see the look on Bastareaud’s face says it all: “i’ve just been schooled on how a player sticks & scores along the chalk line of the law, how tf am i even gonna argue here..“
This is what I love about Rugby they explain the ruling for everyone to hear especially with these weird rules
They are laws, not rules. I'm a referee.
As a referee this is all the stuff I sometimes get players confused about. Some laws have slightly changed regarding the ruck and the ball being out but other than that still roughly the exact same.
This law changing crap has been going on relentlessly since 1993. Before then, there were few law changes, and some were kept for years and years. Let's face it: Rupert Murdoch wanted this game to look more like rugby league to get more people to watch in the TV, and that included a professional game, not an amateur one played by amateurs who trained twice a week only.
0:16 The ball is knocked on by the Toulon no. 2 which means that the ball has been played and the ruck is over. Therefore there is no offside and Connor Murray (since he was onside to begin with when the ball was knocked on) can come around the ruck and put the ball down. Try given. What I still don’t understand about this clip is why would the try not be awarded if it wasn’t a knock on surely the Toulon player still played the ball?
1:50 Since the Dragons didn’t engage in the contact with the Munster forwards no maul was formed. The Munster pack didn’t move at all and kept the ball at the front meaning that the lineout wasn’t actually over! Offside rules still applied and when the Dragons engaged they hit players who weren’t carrying the ball which is what the penalty was given for - as a maul wasn’t formed.
2:34 No maul was formed again here and since the ball was moved to the back of the Bath forwards it was deemed to have left the lineout and Vunipola can take the ball off the ball carrier.
2:50 Law 8.2 (e) “A try is scored when an attacking player… Who is in touch or touch-in-goal, grounds the ball in the opponents’ ingoal provided the player is not holding the ball”. So a player can be fully in touch but as long as he isn’t holding the ball and just grounds the ball a try is given!
3:05 Law 20.16 “As soon as the kicker initiates movement to kick, the opposing team may charge and try to prevent the free-kick being taken by tackling the kicker or to block the kick.”
Law 20.17 “If the opposing team charge fairly and prevent the free-kick being taken, the kick is disallowed. Play restarts with a scrum at the mark with the opposing team throwing in.”
3:20 Law 18.2 (b) tells us that the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal if “a player jumps, from within or outside the playing area, and catches the ball, and then lands in the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
3:46 Hurdling has been deemed dangerous and should be sanctioned with a penalty kick. In both instances no sanction was given.
4:22 Law 15.18 The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line.
4:52 Law 18.37 “The lineout ends when: a. The ball or a player in possession of the ball: iii. goes beyond the 15-metre line.
4:54 Law 8.25 “Any player who intentionally touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.
Thanks
I assume the commentators thought that Murray was offside or the ball was still in the ruck (not understanding the law) so thought it was knock on only - 5m scrum and no try
Thanks for the break down. Man, mauls are too bloody technical 😅
Thanks again for the reply and pinning your explanation.
As expected was very helpful.
@@pencilpauli9442 appreciate that glad you enjoyed!
The answer to your question about the first clip is very much a matter of interpretation. In the first instance, you're correct that it shouldn't matter if the ball went forward or not. However, the ruck doesn't end when the ball is played - it ends when the ball leaves the ruck. Picking up the ball to bring it out of the ruck doesn't necessarily end the ruck if the ball doesn't get there. From the clip in the video... the refs got the decision wrong. (From the perspective of a southern hemisphere referee, forget agonising about if the ruck is over, penalise Red 13 for not rolling away.)
Upon rewatch, I'd say the ball is definitely still in the ruck, because the player who knocked it on still has one hand *bound to the ruck*. I’ve been a referee for more than a decade, and decisions like this are why 90% of captains will ask me "What's your interpretation of when a ruck is over?" in our pre-match chat.
How is Red 13 not rolling material?
But handling the ball isn't allowed while the ruck continues, so referees have adopted the interpretation that the side that's "won the ball" decides whether it's in or out of a scrum or ruck by handling it in a close situation. Therefore his handling it meant the ruck had ended.
That Owen's chap should give up the farming and become a ref!
He might have a future in it
Met nigel owens on few occasions at thomond Park great guy,great stadium up munster
2:53 I’ve always known about this rule but I’ve never actually seen it happen. Feels nice to finally get some
closure
Yeah it’s always interesting when these rarely used laws get used! Just when I think I know all the rules another I haven’t seen before comes up.
Pretty sure this law has been changed as of 2-3 years ago. This would now be in touch in goal.
@@niall7376 Nope. Still a law. Law 8.2e A try is scored when an attacking player: Who is in touch or touch-in-goal, grounds the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not holding the ball.
@@alexwhite5944 that’s nuts. Never knew this.
@@darrendoheny9768 the only difference I think is that you can touch it but not drag or hold the ball, like in tennis or golf, correct me if I'm wrong pls this is hard 😂
3:20 regarding this rule, what happens if the ball is dropped or knocked on and doesn’t re-enter the field?
Usual rules apply. If it's knocked on, scrum to opposing team. If it doesn't re-enter play, line-out to the catching team (unless a 50-22 is used)
Anything played not re-entering the field of play is nothing. Law will apply under the conditions of how the ball was kicked out-like a 50-22, penalty for touch, out on the full, etc.
They've had about 177 years now to bring some basic sense & comprehensibility to this game - One begins to suspect they enjoy the confusion ....
Let's face it these things are fluid. Players are sentient beings; they find and exploit 'loopholes'.
@@rocketrabble6737 Indeed, but it's a law-drafter's job to anticipate those things. One very basic improvement, for example, would be to make sure that no technical term is introduced without first being clearly defined. They haven't even got that far.
@@Theslavedrivers To be fair I think the drafting committees do anticipate fairly well but I suppose the coaches and the players have the incentive and time to exploit them; like savvy criminals finding ways round crime-prevention measures. I do agree about the technical terms!
@@rocketrabble6737 They try to keep one step ahead, yes - The trouble is, being experts in the minutiae, they become unable to see what a casual observer would see in an instant. Just for the sake of example, on the deliberate knock-on, one can either go into great depth about what constitutes 'deliberate', or one can realise that it doesn't need to be a penalty at all, since it's a natural defensive response to a sloppy pass. Get the casual observer on that panel, folks!
@@Theslavedrivers IMO the problem with many of these law changes is they all seem to focus on making southern hemisphere teams play like northern teams - slowing down play, especially around the ruck. The deliberate knock-on law is one of the few that actually promotes flair, especially in the case of fast rucks where an offside player is put onside by their opponents. It's a particular scourge in 7s.
The first one must be so annoying but you can’t deny it’s the right call
You can definitely deny it's the right call - playing the ball doesn't necessarily end the ruck. Particularly since the player who knocked the ball forward was still bound to the ruck. Also, ping Red 13 for not rolling. (This is why you ask one question to two referees, you'll get three answers.)
Has the touch down rule been changed cuz I remember i think a may try being checked to see if he was out even though he just touched it down.
No, it's still in the current rugby rulebook. You don't see it used that often at all though.
@@RugbyManual cheers but I imagine if I try to say that’s the rule in a local game I wouldn’t be given it
@@rdc5041 yeah I’m sure that’ll probably be the case
If a player is not in possession of the ball they can ground a ball for a try if they are in touch (as seen). If you are in possession they will check. If ball is rolling/bouncing they will check to be sure you didn’t knock it on. If the ball is aerial you need a “degree of control” when applying pressure to ground it you cannot just touch it down without that or else it’s a knock on
@@rdc5041 Given that scenario is a staple in the law exams referees take, you might have better luck than you think...
the 1 one is for me( as a scrum-half, captain and son of refree) totally logic
A player standing off the pitch is considered to have left the field of play and hads to ask the referee's permission to rejoin the game.
4:46 what does the 15m mea, can you do this at any line out?
Since the ball was thrown long and it went past the 15 metre line (15 metres from the touch line) the ball was out of the lineout so there was no offside.
@@RugbyManual Not entirely true...but there is a restriction.
Do you want to elaborate?
When the ball is thrown over the 15m line or a maul/tackle/ruck from a line out goes over the 15m line, the line out is over. That is one of many ways a line out is over. When the line out is over, defenders can advance from their positions, which includes players in the line out and the players who are not in (they’re 10m back). This is why he was allowed to go forward and interfere with that pass, the ball was caught past the 15m line and was chucked down, so it was over before he ran thru
@@rugby_jtizzle The ball doesn’t have to be past 15m line before a backline player can advance. A backline player may advance before the ball crosses 15m line where they intend to catch the ball having been thrown to them. However they may be penalised for being offside if they do not get the ball.
Just another example of the OP being inaccurate.
@@decko20009 You are correct, (backs advancing as the ball is thrown in) but take it easy...
I reffed/played in the 80s-90s and the old law applied. Everyone stay beyond the 10 until the lineout was over. Whilst the new law allows for some spectacular attacks, it is difficult to referee and hard on defenders. I'm surprised international teams do not utilise it more often when attacking the try line.
Knock on but touches the opposite player who isn't rolling away or am I seeing this wrong.
Technically it hits the ground first, but yes, the player not rolling should be the first infringement.
3:00 So if a winger thinks he's going to be pushed into touch, can he throw the ball out of his own hands and then ground it from touch?
i reckon he could but it'd have to go backwards or flat only (and you'd only throw the ball out of your hands backwards, if you were in risk of going into the dead?)
Yes, so long as the ball goes backwards. You'd have to be insanely lucky for the ball to travel backwards, bounce forward, and end up in-goal close enough for you to touch it down - especially if you've been put into touch by an opponent. It happens rarely enough after the ball is kicked in-goal.
@@limothytim And you can't ground the ball from over the dead-ball line - it's only from touch or touch-in-goal.
@4:24 he is not at the back foot so when he loses his bind, which was before the ball was over the line, he’soffside
It’s close but he’s on
@3:02 you have wrong.
Whats happening here is the opposing team is allowed to charge a free kick as soon as the kicker begins his movement to kick. The kicker dodges the player, but then steps forward and takes the kick off the mark. This is deemed an incorrect kick and the sanction is a scrum to the other team
It’s not wrong because I quoted directly from the world rugby rule book.
@@RugbyManual That law exists, but thats not whats happening in that play. The kick was not blocked nor was the kicker tackled. The scrum was given for taking the kick off the mark
You’re both right actually. Technically, the referee can call it either way-“preventing the kick from being taken on the mark” (I would call this cuz that’s exactly what happened), but it could also be explained as “taking a kick off the mark.” That’s actually less likely to be called by a good referee, as we advance we need to be accurate with our explanation regarding the law book
I don't understand at 1:53 why can't they move?
Both teams can move but chose not to!
@@decko20009 it is a bit strange, isn’t it?
@@maxencedeperier9430 Strange tactic alright but I've seen similarly weird stuff!
Penalty for accidental offsides the most ridiculous law in rugby. “Accidental” events should be scrum. Utter stupidity.
2:53 never knew you’re allowed to be outside the touchline and still be deemable to score by touching down the rolling ball.. and 3:51 is PK supposed to mean penalty or yellow card?
PK is penalty kick
@@josephmackey1696 right
Sorry, did you think PK might mean Player Kill ?!
@@Kyrelel yh, maybz. That or pain killer..
Yhh I’m pretty sure if u r the only player touching the ball and u r in touch then that’s a line out or a drop out in this case
4:40 why is this not deemed as the scrum half taking back into his own try line which should award the defending team a 5m scrum?
Completely agree, the scrum half is in possession of the ball and he remains in possession of it even when downward pressure is put on it, so yeah it should be a 5m scrum attacking ball.
Because the SH has played the ball, ending the ruck. He's deemed to have played it because he handled it. There's another clip somewhere of Nigel Owens explaining that when the SH handles the ball at the back of the ruck, it means he's played it and the ruck is over. If he only uses his feet then it's still a ruck.
@@PropBoyGinge So the ruck is over because he plays it, but he still puts it on his try line which should act as taking it back over the line and award the scrum even before the try is awarded. If he had the ball in the air above the line and then the opposition slapped it down onto the line, then that would have been a try.
@@PropBoyGinge So the rule is that there is no offside on the tryline - so when the ball gets placed back onto the line by the attacking team it is no longer a ruck and open play, but the thing is the scrum half has possession of the ball (and places it on the line) so it should be a scrum not a try
This was my initial thought too. Never lost control of the ball so technically the SH grounded it - 5m attacking scrum
Is there a more technical field sport than rugby?
It would have helped if there was a commentary for those of us less conversant with the rules.
I'm left like the sagacious abbess. Nun the Wiser! lol
I left a comment explaining everything but just realised I forgot to pin it so people may have missed that. My thinking was people would be able to skip between parts and read the full explanation in the comments.
@@RugbyManual
Many thanks for your reply.
Will read your explanation and watch the time marks.
That is really helpful, thanks!
@@pencilpauli9442 Hope you can learn something!
The jumping from out of touch has since changed, you have to be in the field of play, but can land out after touching the ball
Law 18.2
The ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal if:
(b) A player jumps, from within or outside the playing area, and catches the ball, and then lands in the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
@@RugbyManual that was the law. It has changed now
@@harveys1047 The current rule book on the world rugby website still has it listed
@@RugbyManual Something that rarely happens as well.
Yeah ball has to be in contact with something outside of the field of play
So if a player gets tackled in the air while trying to hurdle a defender......
Penalty to the defending team
Penalty goes against the first offence unless the ref turns it for extenuating circumstances
@@RugbyManual Which ticks me off, because I remember Sinckler jumping into the AB's tackle on purpose with the Lions tour, should've been a penalty against him as you're not allowed to jump into a tackle.
@@ItzCoopzFtw IDK the incident you're talking about, but IF the tackle was much more dangerous than the jump, then it would be the right call. Dangerous play trumps every other kind of sanction.
You ask: What I still don’t understand about this clip is why would the try not be awarded if it wasn’t a knock on surely the Toulon player still played the ball?
I think it would have been: Nigel just didn't go into the theoretics
Because if no clear knock on, the ball wasn't out of the ruck so the opposing player can't come in that way. They needed to check if the player was on-or offside before the knock on. If he was offside then he had no right to play, regardless of knock-on, but as soon as the knock-on occur the ball was in open play (not in the ruck), and the player was onside at the point of the knock on and has right to play the ball. The opposing team have a knock-on advantage, which they took to touch it down for a try. If no clear grounding for a try it would have been a scrum with put-in. So, in general it was the knock on that caused this, without the knock-on the player couldn't have played the ball.
@@samnichols4361 Disagree. (The defender) knocking the ball on is not important - him playing the ball is. Granted: referees are generous letting #9s work the ball back with their hands (best to use your feet though), but As soon as any player (#2 here) picks the ball up, the maul is over. Which way he drops it is not so important. (If he's bound, then it's hands in the ruck: Penalty advantage). As soon as the maul is over, any player can play the ball or the player with the ball, as long as they were onside at the moment the maul ended.
@@MGoose66 Disagree the second - the ball isn't out of the ruck if the player is still bound on *even if they are engaging in an act of illegal play by handling the ball*. So while the result might have been a penalty for hands in the ruck, it still shouldn't have been a try, because the offside line still exists. So while you're definitely correct in saying it doesn't matter if there was a knock-on or not, whether the act of playing the ball in the fashion shown ends the ruck is very much a matter of interpretation. World Rugby says the ruck ends when the ball leaves the ruck, and uses the term "played away" to describe the process of ending a ruck when the ball is available, because clarity has never been their strong suit.
Maul law is bad since obstruction was legalized in mid 2000s. Before that time a maul was moved forward on attack by a ball carrier in front of maul having teammates bind on behind and push forward. Then it became legal for the ball to be transferred back with maul still going forward. And for some reason it's obstruction if the opposition doesn't contest and the maul moves forward. If he ball is with the player in the front and he's pushed from behind, no defender is being obstructed, so it should not be obstruction, but having players in front of the ball carrier should be as in before times!
Regarding the maul it is confusing lol, allow me to clarify. If the defense engages (just need 1 player) the ball can legally move back, and then the maul can advance. If the defense engages they must make contact with the ball carrier and not anyone without the ball (what Nigel penalized the black team for-taking the man without the ball). If the defense do not engage and the ball is in the front, they can still advance as there is no obstruction. But there is a law about not having more than 1 prebound player to the ball carrier, so will likely get called for that “pre bound pod/flying wedge”. If the ball moves back thru the maul but defense does not engage defense can come around and take the ball from the back (seen here), but if it does advance with ball going back it’s obstruction.
@@rugby_jtizzle What interested me was whether or not the red team had to clear the ball within 5 seconds. (Yes, I am a nerd, and also a referee) and at the stage they were at, technically the lineout hadn't finished, so they could hold it for as long as they wanted. My assumption is that the opposition player was trying to get an obstruction penalty - he couldn't easily tackle the ball carrier with two players either side.
No, long before 2000, once a maul was established, it continued until there was no longer a player on his feet and bound or caught in the maul holding the ball. Establishing the maul required a player holding it to be caught between opposing players, but continuing it didn't require that condition.
I see no confusion here at all.
Just rugby
You're either a genius or a liar.
I don't know how the uploaders of the video expect the viewer to have time to read the explanatory captions they momentarily flash up, let alone have time to process the point they're making before moving directly into the next clip. This is a common failing of rugby coverage and presentations, I've come to notice.
It’s not that hard to pause the video or skip back… just ruins the flow of the video if there’s text on the screen for ages.
@@RugbyManual : I didn't think the video was majoring on "flow"; that's what people watch a match for. I was led from the tag to think it would be majoring on analysis, explanation and clarification. Perhaps I'm easily confused!
I didn't know about jumping over a tackler, ie you cant do it... The rest I knew (as does my 14yr old : )
I don't think it's formally coded into the laws, I think it's just a consensus. Basically it would come under dangerous play laws, since by hurdling you could kick someone in the face. That said, jumping for other reasons, e.g. for a kick or for the try line (May scored one like that) is allowed, even if you jump over or into someone
Exactly
There was an instance of it a couple of years ago in the Six Nations where Jonny May vaulted a tackler and there was uproar about safety amongst pundits and on the internet. It's a weird one, though, as @saoirsedeltufo says: you could have a tackler slip as they come in and then just hope] over them over them, something I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid at.
@@saoirsedeltufo7436 It's also a corrolory to another law. If you're not allowed to tackle a player who is in the air, it follows that a player can't jump into the air for the purpose of evading a tackle :D
Actually it is specifically made illegal in law.
These are only confusing once, after that they all simply become part of the standard game.
I played rugby,slept rugby,ate rugby,dream rugby,dranked rugby live rugby,since 2022 i dont care rugby got sick ,its not rugby anymore all these cards flying 13,14 vs 15 tackles no interseptions no hookers in scrums,all these tackles became cards so i knew many left rugby and im next...Irb can keep their silly sport they created...i swear 10y ago there was 50laws today 2022 there must be 1.6million new laws....in the next 5y there will be only touch rugby......or gholfruggas...
....yeah....this sums up union!!! Way too phuqiung complex. Goodbye!!!!!
Its not WEIRD.. Its called 'CHEATING' ... thats Nigel OWENs
and yet .. there was no cheating ...
@@Kyrelel Deny it all you want! You've already LOST GOLF and possibly SOCCER so why not RUGBY too! Its better if Asian leagues run the show since ya cant play the game right
All the arguments and counter arguments in this comments section servies to prove my point. Rugby has too many complicated, confusing and sometimes unnecessary rules. Law 12 covers kick offs and restart kicks There are 18 rules governing this. 18 bloody rules just to kick the ball and start or restart the game. If that's not preposterous than I don't know what is. Rugby where are you going? Come back please, I love you very much.
You know what's really ridiculous? World Rugby supposedly simplified the laws a couple of seasons ago.
completly wrong about the hurdeling a tackle.... it's only illegal to jump into a tackle so if the other person doesnt touch you where is the tackle ?
It’s dangerous play so would be a penalty. This has been confirmed by New Zealand rugby union after the clip at 3:46. I believe world rugby also said this too
@@RugbyManual look up the rules bud how is it dangerous if a tackle is not made? thats like saying a shoulder charge is against the laws but only if you make contact with someone if you miss its not illegal
@@ashcrouch9570 That’s completely different, a player shoulder charging the air doesn’t promote any danger. A tackler shouldn’t have to worry about a player jumping over them and potentially kicking them in the face because the attacking player has decided to jump the tackle. It’s risky for the tackler getting kicked in the face and the hurdler getting flipped in the contact. Therefore dangerous play. I did look up the rules and world rugby have clarified that it’s dangerous play.
@@RugbyManual its the exact same a ball carrier shouldnt have to worry about an illegal tackle but hey ho if not conected theres nothing illegal happening..... same could be said diving for the try line whats the difference there still may be contact in the air? its a choce and a risk
@@RugbyManual and if you did look up the law you would see the law is open to interpritation so if the ref sees no contact he does not have to blow up for someone doing something illegal