Should this even be a penalty?

The penalty against Hooker at the end of the game was a key moment. My question is - should it have been a penalty? 

Hooker was chasing a kick. Seeing he was not going to be able to compete, he stopped. Manie's momentum after catching the kick then carries him into Hooker, who isn't attempting a tackle, he is just standing there because he has nowhere to go in the fraction of a second in which this happens. How is this a penalty? The catcher wasn't "taken in the air", he simply landed on another player who had no way to avoid the collision. 

Hooker did what he could - he couldn't avoid the collision, but he avoided interfering with the player in the air and just took the hit.

The last  phto showed that Hooker took the player out while hw as in the air - he ws not just standing there doing nothing. as yu claimed aboe.   I had to wach the match again.    but te rule bok went ou of te window during the match and the Sharks got away with  it a number of times and cuased injuries to Jantjies and  Sacha in a highly questionable way.   
From real pespective the injury of Jantjies were him being hit him in the neck by the elbow when he triedsd to tackle him of the tackler.    In Jantjies case a red card was evidently necessary.

I watched he first half of the match  and he raving about Esterh uizen was zero - he did nothin g bar passing the ball and in one case acually broke a tackl and carried te ball 3 meters - with ravings on site being endless.                           

It looks like he took his legs out before he touched the ground...yes it should be a penalty...and a yellow if the tackled player lands head first.

He didn't take his legs out. He stood there while Manie landed on him because he literally couldn't do anything else. You can see when the contact happens Hooker's arms are down and Manie comes down on Hooker's head, that's the extent to which Hooker tried not to interfere with Manie. So my point is there should be a nuance, not just a knee-jerk "the guy in the air touched someone on the ground while in the air, penalize the guy on the ground". Sometimes, like here, the guy on the ground can't avoid the collision in any way, shape or form. Penalize offences, not unavoidable/accidental contact.

He couldn't, MP. That entire sequence is less than a second. Hooker also had forward momentum which he needed to check, he was chasing, remember? It's easy to look at pic or slowmo and say, oh he should have done this or that, forgetting that all this takes place in the space of around a second. See how much decisions and movement you can fit into one second.

Yeah you really don't know whether you're going to make it or not before a few meters out. If you want to lose that logic, might as well make contests in the air illegal. Receiving player has right to the ball and that's that. That would be stupid though, that's why I say there's a need for nuance. Like with Hooker's fend on Jantjies, perfectly dealt with by the officials. Then they botched the Esterhuizen injury and this. Anyhoo, makes for a bit of discussion if nothing else.

I'll have to watch it in real time Pakie. I know it's difficult to get the timing right...storming in is reckless...will have a look as soon as I actually make time to watch the match.

Cool Draad, give a shout when you've done so.

To summarize my thoughts on the distinction:

1. Did the defender play/tackle/interfere with the catcher while he was in the air? Then penalty/card.

2. Did the catcher's momentum cause him to collide with a defender while the defender was unable to take any evasive action? Then play on.

If you look at Hooker’s feet in the second image and his feet in the third image, he actually moved backwards away from Manie not towards him, just before impact. Manie by contrast moves at least two metres forward from point of reception.

I'm with Pakie on this one ........... look at Hooker's stance, meanwhile Libbok with knees up high is rapidly going forward & up high towards the stationery Hooker.

There was talk of banning jumping to catch the ball, but that would take away a spectacular  aspect of the game...we need more yes/no laws...I'm not in favour of refs having to make even more intrepatations...competing for the ball in the air and defending a player receiving a kick is already difficult...there will always be players hard done by the rules...I think the law is good as it stands.

.I'm not in favour of refs having to make even more intrepatations

Well there is a case for that Draad, but likewise I feel an automatic penalty in favour of whoever comes out second best in a fair contest is somewhat of a copout.

I think the no jumping thing is worth trialing. But heavens knows what permeations it'll have.

Ja I'm not sure that's a solution. Despite the apparent danger we rarely see injuries from this. Probably something we'll have to live with, nothing will ever be perfect. In this case it pretty much decided a game, hence why I highlighted it.

"Well there is a case for that Draad, but likewise I feel an automatic penalty in favour of whoever comes out second best in a fair contest is somewhat of a copout."

It is a copout until they can find something better with a definite y/n test...I hate when refs get to "weigh" the seriousness of offenses.

Rugby refs used to be almost invisible. But the game has become so rule bound that they now are in the game almost every 5 seconds. That lady ref on Saturday hardly stopped talking all game.

Rugby prides itself on being rugged. But go and check an NFL game….the tackles , the air contests…way tougher.

Far too much micro management and magnifying glass stuff going on, yes.

Unfortunately, looking at social media, a large part of the rugby public wouldn't mind any little infringement being carded if it's the opposition on the receiving end. Emotion overrules common sense as always.