PDA

View Full Version : Illegal Grounding/Double Movement



thepercy
26-09-14, 15:09
I am not certain about "double movement" and/or illegal grounding. When a player is tackled short of the try line, what scenarios would result in a try and what scenarios would be illegal grounding and what sanction would you apply? Thanks.

Browner
26-09-14, 16:09
I am not certain about "double movement" and/or illegal grounding. When a player is tackled short of the try line, what scenarios would result in a try and what scenarios would be illegal grounding and what sanction would you apply? Thanks.

I always watch the hips/ knees. If they lift and shunt forward then its a "not released" PK.

If ball placement ( in any direction) happens before that, then its good, unless the BC is taking an age wriggling around under a ' buying time' charade!

Dixie
26-09-14, 16:09
Good question, The Percy

Tackled player has usually been heading for the line before being tackled short, so scenario is often that he hits the deck facing North/South in relation to the orientation of the pitch (i.e. parallel to the touchline). Let's look at the simple decisions.

- If, having hit the deck, he immediately reaches forward and grounds the ball on or beyond the goal line, award the try.
- If, having hit the deck, he recognises his reach will be insufficient, and so crawls forward and then reaches to ground the ball on or beyond the goal line, award a PK against his for failing to release the ball in the tackle.

Between these two simple decisions, there are myriad more nuanced ones. The thinking is the same though. It's either a try or a PK for failing to release in the tackle. It's impossible to legislate for every possibility, but I think it is possible to identify some principles - though some will doubtless be considered controversial.

- you can legitimately slide until you stop naturally, and then reach out to score
- if you use any part of your body to get your torso closer so your arms are within reach of the grounding, penalty against
- if you are tackled so you lie parallel to the goal line facing your own goal line, the permitted reach out can include the necessary half-roll
- if the tackler lies between you and the goal line, any attempt to score is most likely to result in a PK against
- If you reach out to score and fall short, you have exercised your option and cannot then drag it back to place it behind you - PK against for failing to release

Others will doubtless add a few, and debate a few.

crossref
26-09-14, 16:09
The thinking is the same though. It's either a try or a PK for failing to release in the tackle. .

not necessarily, one common scenario is that the ball carrier exercises his right to reach and plant the ball, but it's short of the line.. and immediately covered in a pile up of defenders who were trying to prevent the try. So it's unplayable.
You could penalise people for leaving their feet?
Or unplayable, scrum attacking team ?

thepercy
26-09-14, 17:09
How long after the tackle would you allow the tackled player to reach out to score the try.

The play which made me think about this, Black BC tackle by Red, Black BC ends up on her back. No Red players join to form ruck or grab for ball. Approx. 3 sec. later Black BC swings arms and ball up and over her head touching it down. My decision was no try, held up, scrum to Black. Should have been PK red or try?

Browner
26-09-14, 17:09
3 secs is a long time, but if as you say no defending opposition players are nearby or attempted to gain possession or were denied possession then its not exactly crime of the century .... I could easily give TRY in that example.

Dixie
26-09-14, 19:09
How long after the tackle would you allow the tackled player to reach out to score the try.

The play which made me think about this, Black BC tackle by Red, Black BC ends up on her back. No Red players join to form ruck or grab for ball. Approx. 3 sec. later Black BC swings arms and ball up and over her head touching it down. My decision was no try, held up, scrum to Black. Should have been PK red or try?

The answer depends on your thresholds elsewhere on the field. The law says "immediately" - but that's an imprecise concept. If your threshold is consistent, it's not a problem. If on halfway you'd allow a tackled player three seconds to decide whether to pass or release, then you are perfectly entitled to (and indeed should) adopt the same threshold close to the goal line.


3 secs is a long time, but if as you say no defending opposition players are nearby or attempted to gain possession or were denied possession then its not exactly crime of the century .... I could easily give TRY in that example.

I have some sympathy with this - but not because of intellectual rationalisation, but rather because of the difficulty in awarding the PK. Remember, the Failure to Release PK is really about making the ball available - particularly to the oppo. Even in a ladies game, there will be players who could easily have covered 22m in a 3-second sprint to defend the position. I suspect it only seemed that long. I doubt I could justify 3 seconds - and I doubt it would take a player 3 seconds to realise they are within arm's length of a try - but a short delay seems impossible to PK if there's no-one else around.

The scrum, however, seems just wrong. You said it was touched down, so held up seems a tough sell. If it was in-goal rather than just short (as specified in the OP), then held up is fine as there can be no tackle in-goal. But just in the field of play, the tackled player has to release, pass or get up. She did neither of the last two. If the release was OK it's a try. If not, it's a PK.

beckett50
27-09-14, 13:09
How long after the tackle would you allow the tackled player to reach out to score the try.

The play which made me think about this, Black BC tackle by Red, Black BC ends up on her back. No Red players join to form ruck or grab for ball. Approx. 3 sec. later Black BC swings arms and ball up and over her head touching it down. My decision was no try, held up, scrum to Black. Should have been PK red or try?

I believe the LotG make reference to the word immediate.

However, without wishing to get into semantics, why would your expectation of speed of action be any less for a situation near the goal line to that anywhere else in the field of play? Don't get tied up in knots just because it's close to the goal line.

Pegleg
27-09-14, 19:09
I believe the LotG make reference to the word immediate.

However, without wishing to get into semantics, why would your expectation of speed of action be any less for a situation near the goal line to that anywhere else in the field of play? Don't get tied up in knots just because it's close to the goal line.

Agreed. As you watch a tackle scenario go through your normal procedure. Tackler / Tackled player / Arriving players. Did they comply with their obligations. If so play on. If not were any offences material. If not do we "manage" with a word or are we past that by now and into PK land? If the offences were material give the PK.


The above applies to all players anywhere on the pitch, including the try zone. It's either immediate, in your opinion, or not. The try line is irrelevant to your call.

OB..
28-09-14, 12:09
I believe the LotG make reference to the word immediate.

However, without wishing to get into semantics, why would your expectation of speed of action be any less for a situation near the goal line to that anywhere else in the field of play? Don't get tied up in knots just because it's close to the goal line.


Agreed. As you watch a tackle scenario go through your normal procedure. Tackler / Tackled player / Arriving players. Did they comply with their obligations. If so play on. If not were any offences material. If not do we "manage" with a word or are we past that by now and into PK land? If the offences were material give the PK.


The above applies to all players anywhere on the pitch, including the try zone. It's either immediate, in your opinion, or not. The try line is irrelevant to your call.
I strongly disagree with both. Context is an important factor.

In midfield it makes sense to use the standard sequence tackler, tackled-player, third man in. It helps the game flow better. However it is purely a convention, not law. The laws simply say both must act immediately.

If the tackled player can simply reach out and score once released, it is ludicrously unfair on the defender to demand that he should commit rugby suicide. Fairness trumps consistency in my book particularly when the latter is just a convention being unthinkingly applied.

RobLev
28-09-14, 12:09
I strongly disagree with both. Context is an important factor.

In midfield it makes sense to use the standard sequence tackler, tackled-player, third man in. It helps the game flow better. However it is purely a convention, not law. The laws simply say both must act immediately.

If the tackled player can simply reach out and score once released, it is ludicrously unfair on the defender to demand that he should commit rugby suicide. Fairness trumps consistency in my book particularly when the latter is just a convention being unthinkingly applied.

Maybe the tackler should execute the tackle a foot further away from his own line? That way, he wouldn't have to give away a PK (or, rather, PT) by failing to release.

OB..
28-09-14, 12:09
Maybe the tackler should execute the tackle a foot further away from his own line? That way, he wouldn't have to give away a PK (or, rather, PT) by failing to release.You are trying to blame tackler for it?! Obviously he would have made the tackle earlier if it had been possible. You have to deal with the situation in front of you, not penalise the player for not dong something differently.

From the defender's point of view, he has brought off a try saving tackle, only to have the referee present the opponsition with a try based on a knee-jerk convention.

RobLev
28-09-14, 13:09
You are trying to blame tackler for it?!

Not blame...


Obviously he would have made the tackle earlier if it had been possible.

...because of the skill/speed/effort of the tackled player, it wasn't possible. Why penalise the tackled player?


You have to deal with the situation in front of you, not penalise the player for not dong something differently.

From the defender's point of view, he has brought off a try saving tackle, only to have the referee present the opponsition with a try based on a knee-jerk convention.

But it's only a try-saving tackle if he's actually saved a try. He hasn't unless you referee inconsistently, by refereeing a tackle two feet from the line differently from one ten yards from the line.

OB..
28-09-14, 14:09
...because of the skill/speed/effort of the tackled player, it wasn't possible. Why penalise the tackled player?He is not getting penalised. He has been stopped before reaching the line, so to that extent he has failed. He would simply be benefitting from a refereeing convention that I see as clearly inappropriate to the situation. To me, fairness says a quick whistle and an attacking 5m scrum is usually the best solution.

Fortunately I have never yet had to deal with such a situation, but if I did, I would discuss it with refere afterwards and if necessary note it as a Critical Incident, and then bring the problem to the attention of the society at the next meeting.


But it's only a try-saving tackle if he's actually saved a try. He hasn't unless you referee inconsistently, by refereeing a tackle two feet from the line differently from one ten yards from the line.You are putting consistency in applying a convention above fairness. I reject that approach.

RobLev
28-09-14, 14:09
He is not getting penalised. He has been stopped before reaching the line, so to that extent he has failed. He would simply be benefitting from a refereeing convention that I see as clearly inappropriate to the situation. To me, fairness says a quick whistle and an attacking 5m scrum is usually the best solution.

Fortunately I have never yet had to deal with such a situation, but if I did, I would discuss it with refere afterwards and if necessary note it as a Critical Incident, and then bring the problem to the attention of the society at the next meeting.

You are putting consistency in applying a convention above fairness. I reject that approach.

How can the Laws applying to the tackle work if you do not apply the "convention" you refer to? It is, with respect, not a convention - it is the only interpretation of the Laws that makes them work.

ddjamo
28-09-14, 14:09
agree OB...a quick whistle down there is the best approach. I also agree that we cannot uniformly apply the tackle sequence near the line.

Treadmore
28-09-14, 15:09
You are putting consistency in applying a convention above fairness. I reject that approach.
Fairness applies to both surely?

So if a defender puts in "try-saving" wrap tackle and stays wrapped so that the tackled player can't release the ball by any means, what do you give? An attacking 5m scrum?

How is it fair that illegal play has prevented the tackled player from legally scoring?

OB..
28-09-14, 17:09
How can the Laws applying to the tackle work if you do not apply the "convention" you refer to? It is, with respect, not a convention - it is the only interpretation of the Laws that makes them work.
As far as I am concerned that is completely wrong. It is very definitely a convention, not a legal requirement, since there is no sequence specified in the laws. The convention is fine except in this problem situation, where it breaks down because it is immensely unfair to the defence.

You are again putting consistency above fairness and you have no chance whatever of convincinig me that is the best approach.

OB..
28-09-14, 17:09
Fairness applies to both surely?Your view is that having pulled off a successful last-ditch tackle, the defender should see it as fair to be forced by you to allow the attacker to reach out and score? To me, the attacking 5m scrum is fair because the attacker initially failed to score due to an effective, legal takle by the defender. That is fairness in action.


So if a defender puts in "try-saving" wrap tackle and stays wrapped so that the tackled player can't release the ball by any means, what do you give? An attacking 5m scrum?

How is it fair that illegal play has prevented the tackled player from legally scoring?The flaw in your argument is the claim that the tackler acted illegally and implication the tackled player did not. Since the law actually requires both the players to act "immediately" then that is what you as a referee should require. Both should release and get to their feet before playing on. The tackled player's right to stretch out to score has been lost since he cannot do it immediately, being prevented by a legal tackle. He therefore has to release and get to his feet.

Pegleg
28-09-14, 17:09
If you want to only apply laws in certain areas of the field, at least let's be fair. Convention becomes effectively law when all participants understand that to be the case. Players expect Tackler / tackled player / arriving players as do coaches,supporters etc. S owhy confuse tham matter just because we are in the try zone? Just be firm and fair. Yes call it early if you feel that is the right thing to do. But don't let a defender abuse his position because the try line is close. If the defender wants a quick unplayable why not try to engineer a maul and hold it up before the try line. After all if the attackers don't join the maul the defenders will certainly do so and drive the attacker back.

All players have choices, the law gives then those choices. If you can only tackle near to the line then The attacker has earned the right to have the tiny advantage the laws (through convention) gives him. It's the same for the other side when they get up to the other end so it all balanced out.

Why should a player not be able to kick out on the full with gain of ground Just because he is a foot outside his 22 why punish him jush because where he is? Daft argument? I agree. The laws (and rulings / clarifications / conventions) are what they are. Argue for change but don't cherry pick.

RobLev
28-09-14, 17:09
[/MSF/]

RobLev
28-09-14, 17:09
As far as I am concerned that is completely wrong. It is very definitely a convention, not a legal requirement, since there is no sequence specified in the laws. The convention is fine except in this problem situation, where it breaks down because it is immensely unfair to the defence.

You are again putting consistency above fairness and you have no chance whatever of convincinig me that is the best approach.

How is it possible for the Laws to work if you interpret them to mean that the tackled player is forced to place/pass the ball while still wrapped up by the tackler?

As an attacking player, I would consider it immensely unfair if I were denied a try because a player did something that anywhere else on the field would be a PK to me. If for example he'd failed to release 5m out when I had a supporting player to pop the ball to, he'd have given away a PK at minimum, and a PT if I had my rights. Why should he be advantaged by the fact that he failed to tackle me until I was able to reach the tryline by placing it?

EDIT: And how do you factor in 15.7(b); which says that the tackler mustn't prevent the tackled player from immediately placing the ball in any direction.

No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.

Sanction: Penalty kicK

Surely that is precisely what you say the tackler must be allowed to do (given that "place" = "release" - 15.5(c)).

Treadmore
28-09-14, 19:09
I know we won't convince you OB but...

Your view is that having pulled off a successful last-ditch tackle, the defender should see it as fair to be forced by you to allow the attacker to reach out and score?
No, not forced by me; the defender has to find a legal way to prevent a score; no one is asking the defender to allow a score by not doing something legal.



To me, the attacking 5m scrum is fair because the attacker initially failed to score due to an effective, legal takle by the defender. That is fairness in action.
Why a 5m attacking scrum? 15.8? But that is about doubt who failed to comply, you have no doubt just don't think it is fair. So on what basis a 5m attacking scrum?



The flaw in your argument is the claim that the tackler acted illegally and implication the tackled player did not.
In the example I gave the tackled player was prevented from acting legally!



Since the law actually requires both the players to act "immediately" then that is what you as a referee should require. Both should release and get to their feet before playing on. The tackled player's right to stretch out to score has been lost since he cannot do it immediately, being prevented by a legal tackle. He therefore has to release and get to his feet.
I get that and it is a good point but are you saying that if following a legal wrap tackle, the tackler then did release and then the tackled player reached out to score that you would not allow the score? Because it wasn't immediate? If so then it seems there is nothing the tackled player can legally do already.

OB..
28-09-14, 21:09
Pegleg - you are still arguing that consistency in applying a CONVENTION is more important than fair play, equity, jutice. Your various examples are irrelevant.

In this case a defender has legally prevented an attacker from scoring. Now you, as referee, step in and effectively order him to allow the attacker to score. I see that as an intolerable injustice. It puzzles me that you think it is fair. Equity trumps law. Even more reason for fairness to trump consistency.

Consistency in applying the Laws is a different matter, but there is still a need to exercise judgement as to matraiality and contextuality. referees should know the Laws and apply them sensibly.

OB..
28-09-14, 21:09
How is it possible for the Laws to work if you interpret them to mean that the tackled player is forced to place/pass the ball while still wrapped up by the tackler?I expect referees to use their judgement in applying the Laws. I therefore expect exactly the same when applying a convention (which is weaker than the laws).


As an attacking player, I would consider it immensely unfair if I were denied a try because a player did something that anywhere else on the field would be a PK to me. If for example he'd failed to release 5m out when I had a supporting player to pop the ball to, he'd have given away a PK at minimum, and a PT if I had my rights. Why should he be advantaged by the fact that he failed to tackle me until I was able to reach the tryline by placing it?Nowhere else on the field can you score without getting up again first. The context is vital.


EDIT: And how do you factor in 15.7(b); which says that the tackler mustn't prevent the tackled player from immediately placing the ball in any direction.

No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.

Sanction: Penalty kicK

Surely that is precisely what you say the tackler must be allowed to do (given that "place" = "release" - 15.5(c)).The fact that you need to equate "place" and "release" gives the game away. It is blindingly obvious that in this case placing the ball is crucial and is different from simply releasing it.

OB..
28-09-14, 21:09
I know we won't convince you OB but...Well spotted!


No, not forced by meYou are the one choosing to apply the convention. I think that is inappropriate judgement which tips the balance much too far in favour of the attacker.



Why a 5m attacking scrum? 15.8? 20.4(d)


In the example I gave the tackled player was prevented from acting legally!We all agree that although it is legal for a player to get up with the ball if he has fallen on it, there is no obligation on an opponent to wait for him to do so. The fact that an act is legal does not mean it is illegal to prevent it. You need to argue that the prevention is illegal, and you are doing that by relying on a convention which for me is being used in the wrong context.



I get that and it is a good point but are you saying that if following a legal wrap tackle, the tackler then did release and then the tackled player reached out to score that you would not allow the score?It could be a tough decision, which is why I advocate a quick whistle to prevent struggling on the ground.
If so then it seems there is nothing the tackled player can legally do already.The attacker's attempt to score has been foiled. I see it as a Mexican stand-off which is best resolved with an attacking 5m scrum.

RobLev
28-09-14, 21:09
I expect referees to use their judgement in applying the Laws. I therefore expect exactly the same when applying a convention (which is weaker than the laws).

Nowhere else on the field can you score without getting up again first. The context is vital.

The fact that you need to equate "place" and "release" gives the game away. It is blindingly obvious that in this case placing the ball is crucial and is different from simply releasing it.

The Law - not I - equates place and release. I gave you the Law reference.

I have now asked the direct question more than once; how can you interpret the Laws so that they work if you do not require the tackler to release first - irrespective of where they are on the pitch? In particular given that the tackler is obliged not to prevent immediate release/placing of the ball by the tackled player.

OB..
28-09-14, 22:09
The Law - not I - equates place and release. I gave you the Law reference.Law 15.7 (b) does not use the word "place". It is not a synonym of "release".

If you are relying on 15.5 (d), then your problem is that it does not say it is illegal to prevent the player placing the ball. it is, for exmaple, perfectly legal for a defender on his feet to pull it from his grasp.


I have now asked the direct question more than once; how can you interpret the Laws so that they work if you do not require the tackler to release first - irrespective of where they are on the pitch? In particular given that the tackler is obliged not to prevent immediate release/placing of the ball by the tackled player.And I keep pointing out that both Laws and conventions must be applied with due regard to both materiality and context. In this case the context is a critical one and I object strongly to an approach that tips the balance 100% in favour of the attacker. I am unable to see it as in any way equitable. What happens elsewhere on the field is not relevant because the context is dramatically different.

RobLev
28-09-14, 22:09
Law 15.7 (b) does not use the word "place". It is not a synonym of "release".

If you are relying on 15.5 (d), then your problem is that it does not say it is illegal to prevent the player placing the ball. it is, for exmaple, perfectly legal for a defender on his feet to pull it from his grasp.

15.5(c) reads:

A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.

which equates "place" with release" (unless you are going to argue that "putting it on the ground" is different from "place").

15.7(b) prevents a tackler from preventing the tackled player from releasing/placing the ball. If he has got to his feet, he can positively try to take it from the tackled player's grasp; but he cannot, while not on his feet, negatively hold the tackled player such that he cannot place/release the ball.


And I keep pointing out that both Laws and conventions must be applied with due regard to both materiality and context. In this case the context is a critical one and I object strongly to an approach that tips the balance 100% in favour of the attacker. I am unable to see it as in any way equitable. What happens elsewhere on the field is not relevant because the context is dramatically different.

I would object strongly to an approach that tips the balance 100% to the defender by allowing him to breach 15.7(b) with impunity just because in doing so he is preventing a try. Just as I would object to a defender being allowed to breach 15.6(j) with impunity. Equity requires the attacker to be allowed to do near the tryline exactly what he would be allowed to do anywhere else on the field. Happily, equity and the Law coincide.

Treadmore
28-09-14, 22:09
You are the one choosing to apply the convention. I think that is inappropriate judgement which tips the balance much too far in favour of the attacker.

Why a 5m attacking scrum? 15.8?

20.4(d)



(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.
I'm stunned :)
You're the one not relying upon law, not us ;)



We all agree that although it is legal for a player to get up with the ball if he has fallen on it, there is no obligation on an opponent to wait for him to do so. The fact that an act is legal does not mean it is illegal to prevent it. You need to argue that the prevention is illegal, and you are doing that by relying on a convention which for me is being used in the wrong context.
In the example I gave the prevention is caused by to failure to comply with 15.4. I don't need to argue it is illegal.

The convention is all yours, namely your convention that you don't want to see "rugby suicide" and will stop the game for no reason in law (given you would restarting under 20.4(d) - I think your case is stronger under 15.8).

The Fat
28-09-14, 23:09
Everyone arguing against OB are also arguing against what happens in most games at all levels week in week out. What you are all effectively saying is that as soon as the attacking side get to within an arms reach of the goal line, there will be a try scored. Sorry guys, that is not how it happens in the real world. I'm with OB on this one. It's a bit like the guys who want to call maul the milli-second that a BC's team mate makes contact during a tackle. We would have 100 collapsed mauls per game.
I'm surprised that those arguing against OB haven't raised their concerns every week re every tackle that occurs near the goal line.

RobLev
28-09-14, 23:09
Sorry - missed this in your response to Treadmore:


...

We all agree that although it is legal for a player to get up with the ball if he has fallen on it, there is no obligation on an opponent to wait for him to do so. The fact that an act is legal does not mean it is illegal to prevent it. You need to argue that the prevention is illegal, ...

Law 15.7(b) makes it illegal for the tackler (or indeed any player) to maintain his grip on the tackled player so as to prevent him releasing (including placing - Law 15.5(c)) the ball.

RobLev
28-09-14, 23:09
Everyone arguing against OB are also arguing against what happens in most games at all levels week in week out. What you are all effectively saying is that as soon as the attacking side get to within an arms reach of the goal line, there will be a try scored. Sorry guys, that is not how it happens in the real world. I'm with OB on this one. It's a bit like the guys who want to call maul the milli-second that a BC's team mate makes contact during a tackle. We would have 100 collapsed mauls per game.
I'm surprised that those arguing against OB haven't raised their concerns every week re every tackle that occurs near the goal line.

How often does it happen one-on-one with the tackler still on the ground wrapping the tacklee up as the only player preventing the try being scored?

Or, to put it another way - I think you're overstating the claim.

And OB is (if I recall correctly) with those who consider that an attempt by a tackler to tackle above the hips a BC who already has a team-mate bound on thereby creates a maul - immediately. I'm happy to be corrected if my recollection is wrong.

Pegleg
28-09-14, 23:09
Sorry OB you'll not convince me that a defender has carte blanche to ignore the laws request for him to act immediately. The Law book find it right to spell out that the tackled player may reach out and score near to the line and the same law makers who introduced that "try line "caveat" chose NOT to give the tackler similar license to act in defence. Why not? Your argument that the laws are "incomplete" does not wash here as the lawmakers envisaged the "try line issue". Do you really think they only considered half of the scenario?

Pegleg
28-09-14, 23:09
Everyone arguing against OB are also arguing against what happens in most games at all levels week in week out. What you are all effectively saying is that as soon as the attacking side get to within an arms reach of the goal line, there will be a try scored. Sorry guys, that is not how it happens in the real world. I'm with OB on this one. It's a bit like the guys who want to call maul the milli-second that a BC's team mate makes contact during a tackle. We would have 100 collapsed mauls per game.
I'm surprised that those arguing against OB haven't raised their concerns every week re every tackle that occurs near the goal line.

And I've seen plenty of Pro games where the tackler had been presented with a card for not rolling away in such situations. I gave one last year (not at that level!!) and both the "offending" coach and captain said the call was spot on and "You had no choice!".

RobLev
29-09-14, 02:09
...

Law 15.7(b) makes it illegal for the tackler (or indeed any player) to maintain his grip on the tackled player so as to prevent him releasing (including placing - Law 15.5(c)) the ball.

...and that is precisely the interpretation that the IRB place on the relevant Laws in the June 2012 "Five key areas of refereeing" document. In the video accompanying number 1 "All areas of the tackle law to be strictly applied", the offence by the tackler of not releasing the tackled player immediately is described by the caption as "Not allowing release". The preamble to the document reads:

In 2009 the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches agreed that the laws of the game of Rugby did not need to be changed but that five key areas of the game needed to be refereed more strictly. It was the belief that if these five key areas were refereed in strict accordance with Law then teams who wished to use the ball quickly and in space would be entitled to do so

So, for what it's worth, the IRB's considered view is that the Laws strictly applied require the tackler to release first. We are not talking about convention here, but about what is the correct interpretation of the Law.

OB..
29-09-14, 12:09
And I've seen plenty of Pro games where the tackler had been presented with a card for not rolling away in such situations. I gave one last year (not at that level!!) and both the "offending" coach and captain said the call was spot on and "You had no choice!".I would be intrested to see the actual circumstances. I have never come across the sitaution myself.

OB..
29-09-14, 12:09
15.5(c) reads:

A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.

which equates "place" with release" (unless you are going to argue that "putting it on the ground" is different from "place").It actually says placing can be one way of releasing. It does not equate the twio, neither does it make preventing placement in itself illegal, as I pointed out earlier.


15.7(b) prevents a tackler from preventing the tackled player from releasing/placing the ball. If he has got to his feet, he can positively try to take it from the tackled player's grasp; but he cannot, while not on his feet, negatively hold the tackled player such that he cannot place/release the ball.And yet again I have to point out that the laws require BOTH plyers to act immediately, not just the tackler.




I would object strongly to an approach that tips the balance 100% to the defender by allowing him to breach 15.7(b) with impunity just because in doing so he is preventing a try.
Impunity? My view is that the attackers should get a 5m scrum. The defence is still under pressure.
Equity requires the attacker to be allowed to do near the tryline exactly what he would be allowed to do anywhere else on the field. Happily, equity and the Law coincide.You view of equity says that if an attacker is prevented by a perfectly legal tackle from reaching the goalline, the referee should step in and insist that either he be allowed to reach out and score, or a PT will be awarded. That is several parsecs away from my view that equity is about maintaining a fair balance.

OB..
29-09-14, 13:09
This thread is going round in circles. It is boring to take time constucting a reply only to find when I come to submit it that I have been timed out, so I have to start again from scratch. It is also boring to have to keep making points that are not being disputed, but just get overlooked.

I remain astonished that people are so keen to use refereeing powers to effectively award a try when an attacker has been legally stopped within reach of the goal line.

menace
29-09-14, 13:09
In this whole argument I think both sides make very valid points about law vs equity/fairness and 'convention'.
While I agree with OBs interpretation that the Tackler needs some leeway to prevent the try, but the problem with that is that it needs the referee to either be told it or experience it before refereeing it because they simply can't garnish it purely from the laws as they are written. That's where RobLev has a reasonable argument to claim that what a referee applies at the 10m line they should apply at the try line.

It all gets rubbery when we have this word in the laws that say "immediately" but it applies to a number of laws that applies to different players involved but yet it happens concurrently. As refs we've all but prioritised those supposedly 'immediate' actions with an order (although they're not written as such in the laws!), because if we didn't then we'd have more of a sh!t fight at what call would be made at the breakdown than what we have now!.
Ie in brief summary
1) tackler release
2) tackler roll
3) tackled player release the ball (and roll - that never happens!)
4) arriving players join correctly
5) ruck laws..etc

At each of those stage, which happen potentially within a few seconds, we might manage each of those stage with a quick verbal or at least a 'second or 2' to allow compliance.

Therefore the difference I see in all of this argument, and the way I view the BC reaching out at the try line vs the tacklers obligations are thus. Normally we would not expect the BC to reach out and place the ball in front of them when they are tackled anywhere else on the field except near the try line. Therefore when this happens I'm adding in a stage 0).
Ie 0) BC reaches out to ground the ball.

At stage 0) I will give him a half-second to do so, and if he grounds it in goal, then bingo he gets the try. He's not getting multiple seconds to do this. (Also if he reaches out then I'm expecting him to place it even if short, such that if it touches the ground then he's letting it go.)
If not an absolute immediate place then I take that quick pause and THEN apply from point 1) onwards.

For eg, if the BC can't reach and make it then I'll call him short and tackled. Tackler is now safe to release etc.
That way I feel I apply equity and fairness, and also apply the tackle laws.

Of course there will be others screaming that it all happens in a flash and I won't have time to say anything and so players won't know who does what. I would answer that by saying that is f it happened all that quickly then it was probably obvious what the result should be. I guess in that case I apply as above and let the player know why I PKd them afterwards (BC is he tried for too long to ground it, or for tackler for hanging on too long).

Am I way off the mark by applying this process?

ianh5979
29-09-14, 13:09
At stage 0) I will give him a half-second to do so, and if he grounds it in goal, then bingo he gets the try. He's not getting multiple seconds to do this. (Also if he reaches out then I'm expecting him to place it even if short, such that if it touches the ground then he's letting it go.)
If not an absolute immediate place then I take that quick pause and THEN apply from point 1) onwards.

For eg, if the BC can't reach and make it then I'll call him short and tackled. Tackler is now safe to release etc.


Menace, I would add if he grounds it short he then cannot bring it back and place it behind him for his forwards to get at.

SimonSmith
29-09-14, 13:09
I agree with OB and Jamo; I'd also add that anyone who makes a blanket "it must be thus" statement without acknowledging the complexities inherent in the issue is grossly oversimplifying.

The tackle law places obligations and rights on all participating players. It does not, as written, give the tackled player extra flex in the definition of "immediately" over the tackler.

However: a convention has been adopted that the referee prioritize his decision making, or what he looks at. Tackler first. Only after being satisfied that the tackler is compliant does the referee look at the tackled player. Why? It isn't enshrined in law. But the convention came down that that was the way to look at the tackle because it was easier for decision making, and lent itself to greater continuity and less spoiling from the defence.

I'm not personally convinced that the priority for continuity exists in proximity to the goal line. I would, as others have, argue that equity places an equal burden on both the tackler and tackled player to comply with the law. Is this a different standard than we apply in midfield. Yes it is; and I don't think that's uncommon.

ChrisR
29-09-14, 13:09
It is not by law but convention that has the referee requiring the tackler to release before the tackled player. We do this in general play to improve continuity and the flow of the game.

In a smother tackle near goal the BC's options may be limited to releasing the ball as he is released by the tackler. I don't see a requirement for the tackler to release first and give the BC all his options. If the BC releases and the tackler continues to hold on then you have a case for penalty.

When both release immediately then scoring or preventing a try will depend on players ability to get to their feet to play the ball or supporting players arriving at the tackle.

Awarding the attacking 5m scrum seems equitable when neither players complies with the law.

crossref
29-09-14, 13:09
When both release immediately then scoring or preventing a try will depend on players ability to get to their feet to play the ball or supporting players arriving at the tackle.

.

but no - because the nub of this issue is that the tackled player doesn't have to get to his feet, he's allowed to pass, or place the ball while still on the ground.

menace
29-09-14, 13:09
Menace, I would add if he grounds it short he then cannot bring it back and place it behind him for his forwards to get at.

Agree Ianh, that's what I meant by "Also if he reaches out then I'm expecting him to place it even if short, such that if it touches the ground then he's letting it go." But my poor wording is perhaps not obvious.

ChrisR
29-09-14, 13:09
Menace, my point is that the smother tackle has limited the BC's options to releasing. If it didn't, and the BC could place the ball forward and score, then we wouldn't be having the debate.

RobLev
29-09-14, 14:09
As with OB, I too am finding it frustrating thinking through and preparing posts whose points are ignored. One more time only. (Sorry to pick on your response, Simon, but it encapsulated what I am being frustrated by).


...

The tackle law places obligations and rights on all participating players. It does not, as written, give the tackled player extra flex in the definition of "immediately" over the tackler.

However: a convention has been adopted that the referee prioritize his decision making, or what he looks at. Tackler first. Only after being satisfied that the tackler is compliant does the referee look at the tackled player. Why? It isn't enshrined in law. But the convention came down that that was the way to look at the tackle because it was easier for decision making, and lent itself to greater continuity and less spoiling from the defence.

...

NO, IT IS NOT A CONVENTION. I am sorry for shouting, but this keeps on being repeated, and my response is being ignored.

Firstly, it is an interpretation of the Law, and it is the only way to make sense of the Law - unless someone wants to take up my challenge of providing an alternative interpretation that works. It is Law, not convention. As for, say, materiality, how much more material an offence can you get than preventing a try being scored.

The tackler is prohibited from preventing the tackled player from releasing (which includes placing - which is what matters). Allowing the tackler to prevent the tackled player from placing the ball over the goal-line (or anywhere else) is allowing him directly to breach the plain unvarnished words of Law 15.7(b). That is why the tackler must release first - not only must he release immediately (15.4(a) and (b)), he can't hold on so as to prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball (15.7(b)).

Secondly, in 2009, the great and the good of the IRB (the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches) decided that this is what the Law actually meant. They said that the Law did not need to be rewritten; the Laws as they stood needed to be strictly applied. The document issued in June 2012 is very clear - tackler releases first. That is what a strict application of the Laws looks like, they say.

I also put a scenario in an earlier post which I'll flesh out now. Red make a break, they have two backs on one. No-one else close enough to interfere. Blue's FB tackles the Red BC 10 metres out, but holds on so Red BC can't pop a pass to his team-mate. Letting go would be rugby suicide. It is however a clear breach of 15.7(a):

(a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.

so you pretty much must award a penalty try. Why would you not do so for a breach of 15.7(b) (which is in fact an identical action from the tackler's point of view - holding the BC's arms) closer to the line?

RobLev
29-09-14, 14:09
It actually says placing can be one way of releasing. It does not equate the twio, neither does it make preventing placement in itself illegal, as I pointed out earlier.

...

It means that placing is a subspecies of releasing; so preventing placement is preventing release. That is the relevant context.

OB..
29-09-14, 16:09
It means that placing is a subspecies of releasing; so preventing placement is preventing release. That is the relevant context.Of course it isn't. There are other ways of releasing and he is liberty to adopt those.

OB..
29-09-14, 17:09
NO, IT IS NOT A CONVENTION. I have responded that the law does not specify a sequence. Because it doesn't.

Firstly, it is an interpretation of the LawThat is surely what a convention is? An agreement among referees on how to deal to deal with a particular situation not covered well enough in any law
it is the only way to make sense of the Law - unless someone wants to take up my challenge of providing an alternative interpretation that works.I have challenged your view several times by pointing out that the convention breaks down in the situation we are discussing.

In midfield the disadvantabe to the defence in applying the conventional sequence is relatively small. It improves the attack's chances of retaining the ball, but the defenders are expecting that.

With a wrap tackle in reaching distance of the goal-line the situation is radically different. Your view completely removes any semablance of balance betweeen attack and defence. You as referee effectively say to the tacker "Well done. Now let the tackled player reach out to score or I will award a PT". The convention produces a result that is monstrously unfair in my estimation.


It is Law, not convention. Then where in the Law is the conventional sequence laid down? I am aware of general guidelines, but those are not Law.
As for, say, materiality, how much more material an offence can you get than preventing a try being scored.As long as there is nothing illegal, preventing tries is in fact a major aim of the defence.


The tackler is prohibited from preventing the tackled player from releasing (which includes placing - which is what matters).I have dealt with this before. Placing being one way of releasing does not mean that particular action MUST be allowed. The attacker could simply take his hands off the ball and get up.
Allowing the tackler to prevent the tackled player from placing the ball over the goal-line (or anywhere else) is allowing him directly to breach the plain unvarnished words of Law 15.7(b).No it isn't. It depends on your interpetation which equates placing unequivocally with releasing. A view I reject.


Secondly, in 2009, the great and the good of the IRB (the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches) decided that this is what the Law actually meant. They said that the Law did not need to be rewritten; the Laws as they stood needed to be strictly applied. The document issued in June 2012 is very clear - tackler releases first. That is what a strict application of the Laws looks like, they say.Laws, yes (when unambiguous, where is unfortunately too rare). Conventions are different. What is the wording of this pronouncement you are relying on?


I also put a scenario in an earlier post which I'll flesh out now. Red make a break, they have two backs on one. No-one else close enough to interfere. Blue's FB tackles the Red BC 10 metres out, but holds on so Red BC can't pop a pass to his team-mate. Letting go would be rugby suicide. It is however a clear breach of 15.7(a):

(a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.That is not the situation we are dealing with, but I will respond. There is a known conflict between15.7 (a) and 15.5(e) which says the tackled player may not refuse to release the ball to another player who is on his feet. My resolution to this is to interpret the law as saying the opponent playing the ball may prevent passing in the execrcise of his own right, but may not hold the tackled player's arms to prevent a pass.

Your two-on-one situation also allows the supporting player to simply bend down and take the ball. I don't think it helps at all.

OB..
29-09-14, 17:09
That last post took so long that I timed out 4 times. I took the precaution of copying my repy before attempting to review it so that I could simply paste it back again, but frankly it is no longer worth the bother unless something genuinely new turns up.

RobLev
29-09-14, 22:09
...

That is surely what a convention is? An agreement among referees on how to deal to deal with a particular situation not covered well enough in any law I have challenged your view several times by pointing out that the convention breaks down in the situation we are discussing.

The view of the IRB is that the situation is covered well enough in the Laws as they stand. Convention takes over where interpretation breaks down. That's the difference between convention and interpretation. It carries the corollary that you can't simply discard an interpretation; you have to have some reason in law to do so.


...

Then where in the Law is the conventional sequence laid down? I am aware of general guidelines, but those are not Law. As long as there is nothing illegal, preventing tries is in fact a major aim of the defence.

Laws 15.7(a) & (b) can only sensibly be interpreted as requiring release by the tackler first. Preventing tries by illegal actions has never been permitted by the Laws; and the existence of the penalty try provisions shows what the correct attitude is to permittign illegal actions to prevent tries. I don't accept that what is illegal on the 22 is legal 1 metre out.


...

Laws, yes (when unambiguous, where is unfortunately too rare). Conventions are different. What is the wording of this pronouncement you are relying on?

In 2009 the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches agreed that the laws of the game of Rugby did not need to be changed but that five key areas of the game needed to be refereed more strictly. It was the belief that if these five key areas were refereed in strict accordance with Law then teams who wished to use the ball quickly and in space would be entitled to do so.

At: http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=9&guideline=4

June 2012 - "Five key areas of refereeing"

As to the tackle:

All areas of the tackle law to be strictly applied

Tackler to release tackled player immediately
Tackled player to release or pass ball immediately
Assist tacklers to release tackled player immediately
Arriving players from both sides to enter through the gate

Ball winning team should not prevent a contest by “sealing off”
Arriving players should not be obstructed

Reason: Quick ball at breakdown for teams wishing to play the game at pace and to allow a contest.

The video accompanying and forming part of the document shows clearly that tackler release has to happen first.


That is not the situation we are dealing with, but I will respond. There is a known conflict between15.7 (a) and 15.5(e) which says the tackled player may not refuse to release the ball to another player who is on his feet. My resolution to this is to interpret the law as saying the opponent playing the ball may prevent passing in the execrcise of his own right, but may not hold the tackled player's arms to prevent a pass.

We are agreed on yoru last sentence.


Your two-on-one situation also allows the supporting player to simply bend down and take the ball. I don't think it helps at all.

How can the supporting player simply bend down and take the ball when the tackler has still got his arms wrapped around the BC's arms that are perforce still wrapped around the ball, and the defence is scrambling back?

And you haven't answered the question; it's penalty try there, even though the defender commits rugby suicide by releasing the BC's arms. Why is it not PT closer to the line?

Whether it is just and equitable to advantage the defender who makes his tackle closer to the line (and I disagree that it is) is in one sense neither here nor there; the tackler's action is identical, and it is identically illegal.

menace
30-09-14, 00:09
RobLev....I can sympathise your view, I truly can, but you're applying a very strict lawyers interpretation of the written word and forgetting about the intent of the laws and the intent of the game, and what you suggest just isn't going to wash with players.

The way to fix it it to apply the RL standard, and that is once you are tackled you cannot promote the ball at all, but if you applied that to rugby then there will be no pop passes and you lose the continuity of the game and the fabric of rugby. Therefore you need to accept that the laws need to bend a bit to have a convention to allow equity.

Ian_Cook
30-09-14, 01:09
RobLev....I can sympathise your view, I truly can, but you're applying a very strict lawyers interpretation of the written word and forgetting about the intent of the laws and the intent of the game, and what you suggest just isn't going to wash with players.

The way to fix it it to apply the RL standard, and that is once you are tackled you cannot promote the ball at all, but if you applied that to rugby then there will be no pop passes and you lose the continuity of the game and the fabric of rugby. Therefore you need to accept that the laws need to bend a bit to have a convention to allow equity.


I agree with OB on this one.

Some years ago, the iRB introduced offside lines at the tackle (an ELV). I agreed with it, and OB didn't. As it turns out, he was right, because while it seemed a good idea in the open field, it was a disaster near the goal-line, and in that respect, it is not unlike the scenario we are discussing here. Defenders found it impossible to prevent a try being scored if a player made a line break and was tackled near the goal-line; if he popped a pass to a following receiver, all the retiring opponents were offside and a PT would result if they tackled the receiver. It was dropped the following year.

There is another way to fix it; a very small change to the Law. Just apply the same conditions to 15.5 (c) that we do to 15.5 (d), so (changes in red)

LAW 15.5
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction except forward provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick


and remove 15.5 (g) from the Law book

(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.

There is no good reason for a tackled player to place the ball forward anywhere else in the FoP, so why do we allow them to do it near the goal line? If we remove the tackler's right to place the ball in a forward direction, the problem will disappear.

I can't see any possible "unintended consequences".

OB..
30-09-14, 12:09
Some years ago, the iRB introduced offside lines at the tackle (an ELV). I agreed with it, and OB didn't. As it turns out, he was right, because while it seemed a good idea in the open field, it was a disaster near the goal-line, and in that respect, it is not unlike the scenario we are discussing here. Defenders found it impossible to prevent a try being scored if a player made a line break and was tackled near the goal-line; if he popped a pass to a following receiver, all the retiring opponents were offside and a PT would result if they tackled the receiver. It was dropped the following year.

My recollection is that after three examples of the disastrous consequence they immediately rescinded it.

OB..
30-09-14, 12:09
Thanks to menace and Ian, I am not going to attempt the monumental task of replying in detail to RobLev's #52.

Clearly the root problem is that I see the goal line situation as being totally different from that elsewhere on the field. Nowhere else would the tacle dplayer dream of placing the ball forward; nowhere else can he score a try. RobLev either does not think this difference matters, or is not bothered by the consequences of his leglalistic approach. Given that fundamental difference in the starting poinrt, I think we have exhausted the subject.

RobLev
30-09-14, 14:09
I agree with OB on this one.

Some years ago, the iRB introduced offside lines at the tackle (an ELV). I agreed with it, and OB didn't. As it turns out, he was right, because while it seemed a good idea in the open field, it was a disaster near the goal-line, and in that respect, it is not unlike the scenario we are discussing here. Defenders found it impossible to prevent a try being scored if a player made a line break and was tackled near the goal-line; if he popped a pass to a following receiver, all the retiring opponents were offside and a PT would result if they tackled the receiver. It was dropped the following year.

There is another way to fix it; a very small change to the Law. Just apply the same conditions to 15.5 (c) that we do to 15.5 (d), so (changes in red)

LAW 15.5
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction except forward provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick


and remove 15.5 (g) from the Law book

(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.

There is no good reason for a tackled player to place the ball forward anywhere else in the FoP, so why do we allow them to do it near the goal line? If we remove the tackler's right to place the ball in a forward direction, the problem will disappear.

I can't see any possible "unintended consequences".

This might surprise OB, but that seems sensible to me.

But as a final comment on the position as it now stands; I'm not comfortable that a Law of a game with a specific meaning according to its governing body can be ignored precisely when strict application is at its most important. That is not my legalism, which I admit to (but not in this instance); it's my sense of fairness.

Phil E
30-09-14, 14:09
I'm not comfortable that a Law of a game with a specific meaning according to its governing body can be ignored precisely when strict application is at its most important. That is not my legalism, which I admit to (but not in this instance); it's my sense of fairness.

If we all refereed strictly by the letter of the law we would never move from the half way line and rugby would die a slow lingering death!
Materiality and contextuality are taught on all referees courses.

RobLev
30-09-14, 15:09
If we all refereed strictly by the letter of the law we would never move from the half way line and rugby would die a slow lingering death!
Materiality and contextuality are taught on all referees courses.

Somewhat overstated, but it doesn't affect the thrust of my comment. Indeed, it reinforces my comment. How much more material can an offence be than preventing a try being scored?

RobLev
30-09-14, 15:09
I agree with OB on this one.

Some years ago, the iRB introduced offside lines at the tackle (an ELV). I agreed with it, and OB didn't. As it turns out, he was right, because while it seemed a good idea in the open field, it was a disaster near the goal-line, and in that respect, it is not unlike the scenario we are discussing here. Defenders found it impossible to prevent a try being scored if a player made a line break and was tackled near the goal-line; if he popped a pass to a following receiver, all the retiring opponents were offside and a PT would result if they tackled the receiver. It was dropped the following year.

There is another way to fix it; a very small change to the Law. Just apply the same conditions to 15.5 (c) that we do to 15.5 (d), so (changes in red)

LAW 15.5
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction except forward provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick


and remove 15.5 (g) from the Law book

(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.

There is no good reason for a tackled player to place the ball forward anywhere else in the FoP, so why do we allow them to do it near the goal line? If we remove the tackler's right to place the ball in a forward direction, the problem will disappear.

I can't see any possible "unintended consequences".

One thought though - how do you referee the BC who is tackled and lands East-West facing the opposition's goal line with no way of rolling back the other way; he has to let go of the ball (since he can't place it), but it will inevitably roll forward...

Browner
30-09-14, 15:09
One thought though - how do you referee the BC who is tackled and lands East-West facing the opposition's goal line with no way of rolling back the other way; he has to let go of the ball (since he can't place it), but it will inevitably roll forward...

Some place it behind their back (!) Some place it in front of them S-->N, those that lift their torso and try to smuggle underneath their trunk risk sanction.
Simple really.

OB..
30-09-14, 16:09
Somewhat overstated, but it doesn't affect the thrust of my comment. Indeed, it reinforces my comment. How much more material can an offence be than preventing a try being scored?As I said previously, it is the primary aim of defence to prevent a try being scored. The argument is over the best way to interpret the laws/conventions concerned. You want the tackler to be forced to concede a try. I don't.

RobLev
30-09-14, 17:09
As I said previously, it is the primary aim of defence to prevent a try being scored. The argument is over the best way to interpret the laws/conventions concerned. You want the tackler to be forced to concede a try. I don't.

Not quite correct. I want the tackler, if he has exhausted his legal means of preventing a try, to be prevented from resorting to illegal means. I see allowing him to do so as unfair; from my point of view, you appear to see reinterpreting the law (within a short distance from the line) so that his actions are not illegal as fair.

Sometimes there is no legal means of preventing a try; that does not make it fair to allow a defender to employ illegal means.

Browner
30-09-14, 17:09
Sometimes there is no legal means of preventing a try.

RL has a case.

Ps...Switch off the floodlights as the opposition break free ?

RobLev
30-09-14, 18:09
RL has a case.

Ps...Switch off the floodlights as the opposition break free ?

A machine-gun post at the corner flag to cover any breakaway tries did cross my mind, I have to say.

OB..
30-09-14, 18:09
Not quite correct. I want the tackler, if he has exhausted his legal means of preventing a try, to be prevented from resorting to illegal means.The argument is over what is illegal, of course.
I see allowing him to do so as unfair; I see forcing him to allow it as grossly unfair.
from my point of view, you appear to see reinterpreting the law (within a short distance from the line) so that his actions are not illegal as fair.I insist that context is a vital element of judgement in applying the laws.


Sometimes there is no legal means of preventing a try; that does not make it fair to allow a defender to employ illegal means.The argument is still about what is legal in a specific context. We are at opposite poles on that.

RobLev
30-09-14, 18:09
Some place it behind their back (!) Some place it in front of them S-->N, those that lift their torso and try to smuggle underneath their trunk risk sanction.
Simple really.

Placing behind the back sounds impractical; since the BC is doing this one-handed (the other shoulder/arm's underneath him) it is essentially presenting the ball on a plate to any opposition players in the vicinity.

Placing it forward isn't an option - that's the point of the proposed law change.

Treadmore
30-09-14, 19:09
I agree with OB on this one.

Some years ago, the iRB introduced offside lines at the tackle (an ELV). I agreed with it, and OB didn't. As it turns out, he was right, because while it seemed a good idea in the open field, it was a disaster near the goal-line, and in that respect, it is not unlike the scenario we are discussing here. Defenders found it impossible to prevent a try being scored if a player made a line break and was tackled near the goal-line; if he popped a pass to a following receiver, all the retiring opponents were offside and a PT would result if they tackled the receiver. It was dropped the following year.

There is another way to fix it; a very small change to the Law. Just apply the same conditions to 15.5 (c) that we do to 15.5 (d), so (changes in red)

LAW 15.5
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction except forward provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick


and remove 15.5 (g) from the Law book

(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.

There is no good reason for a tackled player to place the ball forward anywhere else in the FoP, so why do we allow them to do it near the goal line? If we remove the tackler's right to place the ball in a forward direction, the problem will disappear.

I can't see any possible "unintended consequences".

How about a momentum try - as a tackled player slides towards the line they often reach-out to score as soon as possible; would that not be allowed under your law change?

Also, in-goal - at what point is the tackled player in-goal? Head on the line? Shoulders on the line? Or the held ball is over the line (c.f. maul)? Once in-goal your tackle law change won't apply so the player can reach forward to score (and that might be the only direction available to score). I think your suggested law change will require a definition of what-looks-like-a-tackle is in-goal.

Treadmore
30-09-14, 19:09
The argument is over what is illegal, of course. I see forcing him to allow it as grossly unfair. I insist that context is a vital element of judgement in applying the laws.

The argument is still about what is legal in a specific context. We are at opposite poles on that.

But OB, even in the example posed of a wrap-tackler staying wrapped, so that the tackled player can't exercise any one of her obligatory options i.e. only the tackler is illegal, you would restart with an attacking 5m scrum? I don't understand that stance at all.

RobLev
30-09-14, 20:09
The argument is over what is illegal, of course.

If so then, unless you reject the IRB's position, your position is the weaker.


I see forcing him to allow it as grossly unfair. I insist that context is a vital element of judgement in applying the laws.

The argument is still about what is legal in a specific context. We are at opposite poles on that.

Nope; the argument is about whether the rules change within a metre of the goal-line.

OB..
30-09-14, 20:09
But OB, even in the example posed of a wrap-tackler staying wrapped, so that the tackled player can't exercise any one of her obligatory options i.e. only the tackler is illegal, Why is the tackler unable to remove his arms from the ball ie release? The tackler cannot play the ball while still on the ground. The tackled player can get up (and so can the tackler). Play on.
you would restart with an attacking 5m scrum? I don't understand that stance at all.I quoted 20.4 (d) earlier.

I have also said that if the situation arises, I recommend a quick whistle to prevent any struggling on the ground. Keeps everything simple.

The Fat
30-09-14, 20:09
One thought though - how do you referee the BC who is tackled and lands East-West facing the opposition's goal line with no way of rolling back the other way; he has to let go of the ball (since he can't place it), but it will inevitably roll forward...

I'll answer this one fellas.

You have described Kurtley Beale and therefore, based on years of evidence, the answer is clear, the referee does nothing as the ball is guaranteed to be turned over and the opposition will win the ball. Play on.

OB..
30-09-14, 21:09
If so then, unless you reject the IRB's position, your position is the weaker.As far as I am aware, the IRB has not addressed this particular issue. It differs from the general point precisely because of the highly significant difference in context.


Nope; the argument is about whether the rules change within a metre of the goal-line.I believe I have mentioned the importance of context a number of times. It is something you obviously reject.

I am not sure if you are interpreting the laws/conventions to suit your preference, or feel constrained by some other consideration, but your view remains an interpretation. I see little point in us continuing to go round in circles.

You favour ordering the tackler to allow the score. I don't. Let's leave it there.

RobLev
30-09-14, 21:09
As far as I am aware, the IRB has not addressed this particular issue. It differs from the general point precisely because of the highly significant difference in context.

I believe I have mentioned the importance of context a number of times. It is something you obviously reject.

...

You favour ordering the tackler to allow the score. I don't. Let's leave it there.

OB, your view is one I respect more than most on this forum; but I will not let you continue to misrepresent my position.

The IRB was clear in the June 2012 document, and accompanying video, that I have repeatedly referred to, that strict application of the Law requires that the tackler release first (as 15.7(a) makes clear).

I favour ordering the tackler to obey the Law. If that means that the tackled player scores, then so be it. I accept the relevance of context - but reject the idea that it allows the law to change, and an offence be ignored, as the ball gets closer to the goal-line.

Let's leave it there.

RobLev
30-09-14, 21:09
I'll answer this one fellas.

You have described Kurtley Beale and therefore, based on years of evidence, the answer is clear, the referee does nothing as the ball is guaranteed to be turned over and the opposition will win the ball. Play on.

Is that a Bledisloe rule, or more general :biggrin:

Treadmore
30-09-14, 21:09
Why is the tackler unable to remove his arms from the ball ie release? did you mean the tackled player? If so, because she is wrapped/smothered is the scenario.



I quoted 20.4 (d) earlier.

I know, that's what I don't understand; it means that you are not using 15.8, a part of tackle law that gives a scrum restart...but only if there is doubt about failure to comply. Which implies to me that you are not in doubt about who failed to comply, you just don't like the answer.

Ian_Cook
01-10-14, 00:10
How about a momentum try - as a tackled player slides towards the line they often reach-out to score as soon as possible; would that not be allowed under your law change?

Also, in-goal - at what point is the tackled player in-goal? Head on the line? Shoulders on the line? Or the held ball is over the line (c.f. maul)? Once in-goal your tackle law change won't apply so the player can reach forward to score (and that might be the only direction available to score). I think your suggested law change will require a definition of what-looks-like-a-tackle is in-goal.

The ball! If the ball is in-goal there is no longer a tackle so the prone player can do what he likes. In the case of the momentum try, if his momentum carries him in-goal then he is fine. If he stops short, I don't think he should be allowed to reahc out and place the ball over the line.


For claification, forward means towards the opponent's DBL. If the player ends up east/west short of the goal-line, IMO he should not be allowed to promote the ball over the goal-line.

ChrisR
01-10-14, 00:10
The ball! If the ball is in-goal there is no longer a tackle so the prone player can do what he likes. In the case of the momentum try, if his momentum carries him in-goal then he is fine. If he stops short, I don't think he should be allowed to reahc out and place the ball over the line.


For claification, forward means towards the opponent's DBL. If the player ends up east/west short of the goal-line, IMO he should not be allowed to promote the ball over the goal-line.

Ian, that's a rather radical idea and has the merit of resolving this marathon debate. However, I like the drama of the last gasp reach and score and it would introduce the endless debate of "Did he reach forward?" and the physics of player in motion. No thanks. Let's just stick to hashing this one. A rare phenomena, anyway.

Chris_j
01-10-14, 00:10
I'm in the uncomfortable position of disagreeing with both OB and Ian_Cook. First time for that. The law is clear, the tackled player can promote the ball forward. There are no restrictions or clarifications on that. It is also clear that the tackler cannot prevent that until he releases and gets back on his feet. Others can if they arrive legally but that is not at issue here.

If if we then introduce an artificial measure of 'is it too close to the goal line?' then we need also to consider 'was it Jacques Theroux or Martin Bayfield'. At a metre out one would be stretching every sinew, the other would have the ball tucked into the elbow and just falling on to the line. That is a recipie for disaster.

To stop the try the tackler needs to bring the player to ground short of their reach to the goal line.

Treadmore
01-10-14, 08:10
The ball! If the ball is in-goal there is no longer a tackle so the prone player can do what he likes.
I would agree but now in the context of your proposed law change we will have situations to decide whether the ball was over the line as a consequence of the tackle or was promoted there after the tackle. Difficult in a dynamic situation.



In the case of the momentum try, if his momentum carries him in-goal then he is fine. If he stops short, I don't think he should be allowed to reahc out and place the ball over the line. And whilst he is still sliding but not yet in-goal? I think your law change would unnecessarily lead to changing accepted practice in a momentum try (and also be difficult to decide).

OB..
01-10-14, 20:10
I'm in the uncomfortable position of disagreeing with both OB and Ian_Cook. First time for that. The law is clear, the tackled player can promote the ball forward.There are no restrictions or clarifications on that. The fact that it is legal for him to do so is very different from saying that nobody is allowed to stop him.

We all kow that when a player falls on the ball it is legal for him to get up with it, but the oposition do NOT have to wait for him to do so. In this case 22.4 (f) specifically provides one way of stopping him, so it is not an absolute right.

It is also clear that the tackler cannot prevent that until he releases and gets back on his feet.The point at issue is that BOTH players are required to act immediately. Given that, the tackled player is not in a position to reach out immediately - he can only do so if the tackler releases first, but there is no requirement in law for the tackler to do so. The remiaining option is simply to take his hands off the ball and get up.


If if we then introduce an artificial measure of 'is it too close to the goal line?' then we need also to consider 'was it Jacques Theroux or Martin Bayfield'. At a metre out one would be stretching every sinew, the other would have the ball tucked into the elbow and just falling on to the line. That is a recipie for disaster.You exaggerate. The referee must use his judgement, as he must on many other occasions.

Blackberry
01-10-14, 21:10
I have followed this thread with mounting concern at a few of the postings.
First off proximity to the try line has no effect on the speed and the sequence of the tackle events. To alter how you ref here will cause confusion, friction and may cause safety issues. To say that a tackler near the try line can be given extra powers simply because he really really wants them bears no scrutiny at all.

menace
02-10-14, 01:10
I'm more concerned that WE are over-analysing the laws in an area of the game that is not in trouble. IMO, some are looking for a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist. AFAIK there is no player, coach or spectator backlash in this area of the game, either at the elite level or grassroots. Ok..occasionally there will be a 50/50 call on such an event that causes consternation but in the main everyone seems to accept it as one of those judgment calls without raising the law meaning to the nth degree. :shrug:

Ps. I think all we've managed to do is confuse the hell out of the OP, Thepercy! Poor bugger must be having cold sweats figuring out what he needs to award when it happens in his game!

Pegleg
04-10-14, 10:10
Agreed. Call it as you see it justify your call to your assessor and, if needed, agree to disagree. I intend to raise it at our next Society meeting to see if we can agree a consistent approach across our area so that clubs will understand what our refs will and will not accept.

OB..
04-10-14, 11:10
Agreed. Call it as you see it justify your call to your assessor and, if needed, agree to disagree. I intend to raise it at our next Society meeting to see if we can agree a consistent approach across our area so that clubs will understand what our refs will and will not accept.I will not be following suit. I already have one point of law on the agenda (when is the ball out of a ruck?), and this one is far too academic.

Phil E
04-10-14, 12:10
Agreed. Call it as you see it justify your call to your assessor and, if needed, agree to disagree. I intend to raise it at our next Society meeting to see if we can agree a consistent approach across our area so that clubs will understand what our refs will and will not accept.

But your profile on the left says you aren't in a Society?
Which one are you with?

Pegleg
05-10-14, 17:10
Llanelli

Pegleg
05-10-14, 17:10
I will not be following suit. I already have one point of law on the agenda (when is the ball out of a ruck?), and this one is far too academic.



There's just been clarification of that one. This is "far too academic"? How rare are tackles near the line where this situation could occur? Hardly academic. Then again I'm there making the call not judging the call.

OB..
05-10-14, 20:10
There's just been clarification of that one.An unhelpful one, that has been discussed on here.
This is "far too academic"? How rare are tackles near the line where this situation could occur? Hardly academic. Then again I'm there making the call not judging the call.The essence of the problem is that it is a ball-and-all tackle. Most tackles near the line do not restrict the ball carrier's arms. When a wrap tackle is achieved the likelihood is that the pair will either end up well short (no problem) or both crash into in-goal (no problem because the tackle law does not apply). There is a very narrow windown when this can cause a problem, and as I have said before, I have nevef actually seen it arise.

Pegleg
05-10-14, 23:10
I thought it clear enough.

Regarding the second I yellowed a player last season for not releasing in such a situation. His coach had no problem with the call. He felt the players action were cynical and would have expected a card if his side had been the ones attacking. I would like to know whether my society supports my view. It may be a narrow window but any such incident is likely to be critical.

OB..
06-10-14, 13:10
I thought it clear enough.

Regarding the second I yellowed a player last season for not releasing in such a situation. His coach had no problem with the call. He felt the players action were cynical and would have expected a card if his side had been the ones attacking. I would like to know whether my society supports my view. It may be a narrow window but any such incident is likely to be critical.I will be interested in the rationale.

Browner
06-10-14, 13:10
I thought it clear enough.

Regarding the second I yellowed a player last season for not releasing in such a situation. His coach had no problem with the call. He felt the players action were cynical and would have expected a card if his side had been the ones attacking. I would like to know whether my society supports my view. It may be a narrow window but any such incident is likely to be critical.

Is it possible to be adjudged as 'cynical' for not releasing 25cm from your own goal line, when to do so leaves the opposition free to reach out & score.....I'm not sure it is?

RobLev
06-10-14, 13:10
I thought it clear enough.

Regarding the second I yellowed a player last season for not releasing in such a situation. His coach had no problem with the call. He felt the players action were cynical and would have expected a card if his side had been the ones attacking. I would like to know whether my society supports my view. It may be a narrow window but any such incident is likely to be critical.

No Penalty Try?