PDA

View Full Version : No Wrap - into Touch



Patrick
04-11-14, 02:11
Got in trouble for lecturing a collage player last weekend at a tournament for shoving a ball carrier into touch.

I do a TON of youth and was informed that men's and collage don't have to abide by no wrap into touch.

At the youth level, this is mandatory over here.

And by no wrap into touch, I mean just full on shoving a ball carrier off the playing field.

I keep thinking safety - probably because of how much I deal with youth.

Thoughts?

buff
04-11-14, 02:11
7.1 Playing a match

A match is started by a kick-off.
After the kick-off, any player who is onside may take the ball and run with it.
Any player may throw it or kick it.
Any player may give the ball to another player.
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.
etc.

My bold

menace
04-11-14, 08:11
The 'must wrap into touch' in youths seems a silly rule to me. It is probably more dangerous to be heavily tackled with a screaming side on tackle as pace than it is to be shoved into touch? Why is one legal and the other not?

I have seen a few newer referees PK what you describe as they confuse it with law 10.
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Which is to cover the 'shoulder charge'.

crossref
04-11-14, 09:11
The 'must wrap into touch' in youths seems a silly rule to me. It is probably more dangerous to be heavily tackled with a screaming side on tackle as pace than it is to be shoved into touch? Why is one legal and the other not?

I have seen a few newer referees PK what you describe as they confuse it with law 10.
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Which is to cover the 'shoulder charge'.

There is no IRB u19 variation that makes youth games different from adult ones in this respect , and England no RFU regulation either.

So a player of any age can push a ball carrier into touch, but can't dangerously charge at him.
(other countries of course might have specific youth regs)

ChrisR
04-11-14, 12:11
In concept, grasping a player slows him down whereas pushing a player can accelerate them into the man and his dog pitchside.

crossref
04-11-14, 13:11
a push is explictly allowed, and isn't necessarily dangerous.
If it WAS dangerous ping him explicitly for dangerous play, clearly an offence in the Law, not for 'pushing' which is explicitly allowed in Law.

(judgement of what is dangerous may well be different at u14 from a L5 mens game)

Simon Thomas
04-11-14, 13:11
In concept, grasping a player slows him down whereas pushing a player can accelerate them into the man and his dog pitchside.

Which is why the man and his dog needs to be well away away from the touchline behind a barrier or rope.

Browner
04-11-14, 13:11
My fading 'midi' ( ie..@u9-u12) memory says that "shoving into touch" was outlawed in the RFU regs (continuum?) ....... if USA kids regs are similar, maybe that's where his influence was incorrectly coming from.

menace
04-11-14, 13:11
In concept, grasping a player slows him down whereas pushing a player can accelerate them into the man and his dog pitchside.
True. But isn't that why the ropes should be some distance from the sideline? (Supposedly, but rarely, 5metres back here in Oz!)

I don't know about you, but I see plenty of grasping legal tackles from side on at pace with both players end up in the floor well beyond the sideline and potentially still well into 'the man and his dog pitch side'.

crossref
04-11-14, 13:11
browner you may be well be right. when I said 'of any age' I should have said that I meant from U13 upwards.

u6-u12 is all different and I am not up to speed with the new style of play laws anyway. Obviously you can't push anyone at U6. I have no idea whats allowed at u11 now :)

crossref
04-11-14, 13:11
True. But isn't that why the ropes should be some distance from the sideline? (Supposedly, but rarely, 5metres back here in Oz!)

I don't know about you, but I see plenty of grasping legal tackles from side on at pace with both players end up in the floor well beyond the sideline and potentially still well into 'the man and his dog pitch side'.

when I was about eight, and too close to the touchline at a school 1st XV game I was completely clattered by two heavy U18s one of them tackling the other, at great speed, and the two of them landing on me.

I remember it clearly. I realise now I was lucky and could have been seriously hurt.

No rope in those days. :-(

menace
04-11-14, 13:11
I bet you wished that one was just pushed into you rather that 2 fat oafs squashing you. :biggrin:

Patrick
04-11-14, 18:11
Crazy interesting stuff guys!

I also do a lot of women's reffing and I see Charging so much more because, I'm guessing, it's a natural instinct to protect your breasts - I get that.

Charging is what I'm going to go with to justify my call at the adult level (as it relates to Touch). (10.4 (g)).

What I've been telling my kids is 'just grab their jersey as you escort them into Touch and I won't call anything'.

(Not that I want to confuse this thread but we also don't allow swinging players around either.)

On our youth discipline system, not a week goes by that several Yellows are given for repeated 'No Wrap Tackle'.

Again, thanks for helping define and talk about this!!!

- Patrick

Browner
04-11-14, 18:11
Crazy interesting stuff guys!

I also do a lot of women's reffing and I see Charging so much more because, I'm guessing, it's a natural instinct to protect your breasts - I get that.

Dangerous Charging is what I'm going to go with to justify my call at the adult level (as it relates to Touch). (10.4 (g)).

What I've been telling my kids is 'just grab their jersey as you escort them into Touch and I won't call anything'.

(Not that I want to confuse this thread but we also don't allow swinging players around either.)

On our youth discipline system, not a week goes by that several Yellows are given for repeated 'No Wrap Tackle'.

Again, thanks for helping define and talk about this!!!

- Patrick

Yep...."into touch" and "Pushing" are the Red herrings here ..........Not attempting to grasp is the unlawful action IF a player is charged at or knocked down

I've got ' knocking down' and being 'shoved/pushed' as two different actions in my mind.

. 10.4(g) .

Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

Patrick
04-11-14, 19:11
'Red herrings' - god, I love herrings - stop it you, now I'm salivating!

10.4 (g) it is - specifically 'without trying to grasp that player'.

Ding, ding, ding - winner, winner, chicken dinner.

I'm goinn' with that.

Thanks guys!

- Patrick

PS
How are you guys doing that cool thing with the law in that cool color and outline and such - come on, you can tell me, I promise not to tell anybody else.....?

RobLev
04-11-14, 21:11
...

PS
How are you guys doing that cool thing with the law in that cool color and outline and such - come on, you can tell me, I promise not to tell anybody else.....?

Like this:

crossref
04-11-14, 22:11
it's the penultimate button on on the little tool bar -- select the text and hit the button

menace
04-11-14, 22:11
A lawyers response....

Like this:




A referees response...

it's the penultimate button on on the little tool bar -- select the text and hit the button

menace
04-11-14, 23:11
Crazy interesting stuff guys!

I also do a lot of women's reffing and I see Charging so much more because, I'm guessing, it's a natural instinct to protect your breasts - I get that.

Charging is what I'm going to go with to justify my call at the adult level (as it relates to Touch). (10.4 (g)).

What I've been telling my kids is 'just grab their jersey as you escort them into Touch and I won't call anything'.

(Not that I want to confuse this thread but we also don't allow swinging players around either.)

On our youth discipline system, not a week goes by that several Yellows are given for repeated 'No Wrap Tackle'.

Again, thanks for helping define and talk about this!!!

- Patrick

Ultimately you get to decide what dangerous play is, but if you continue to interchange the word 'push' with 'charge' at senior levels just because it's near the sideline, then I'm guessing you'll be having a lot more 'animated discussions' with the coaches (and players).

What rules unions apply at junior levels such as the swinging/slinging tackles (and your US 'must wrap' rule) is to further reduce risk of injury mainly to appease the mums and dads that don't like to see their cherubs get hurt. But rugby is a collision/contact sport and adults play it knowing that risk. You need to apply the senior laws as to what the seniors expect to be applied. They're not kids anymore.

RobLev
04-11-14, 23:11
A lawyers response....


A referees response...

Largely because I've always done it by hand ('cos I'd not seen the penultimate button on the little toolbar :(), and it should have been obvious when Patrick looked at the message he was replying to.

Dickie E
05-11-14, 01:11
it's the penultimate button on on the little tool bar -- select the text and hit the button

once you find the antepenultimate button - its the one to the right of that

Patrick
05-11-14, 02:11
A lawyers response....


A referees response...

Fantastic - I don't belong to that many sites and that little ball icon is most certainly not on the other ones I subscribe to.

Thank you!

- Patrick

- - - Updated - - -


once you find the antepenultimate button - its the one to the right of that

Yep, yep - thanks - found it!

- Patrick

OB..
05-11-14, 13:11
once you find the antepenultimate button - its the one to the right of thatAnoter Flanders and Swann trigger:
Then there flashed though her mind what her mother had said
With her antepenultimate breath:

RobLev
05-11-14, 14:11
Anoter Flanders and Swann trigger:
Then there flashed though her mind what her mother had said
With her antepenultimate breath:

...but I like red wine! (and Madeira, as it happens).

Patrick
23-04-18, 20:04
Reviving this thread.

Okay Guys and Gals,

Please define:
- Shove
- Knock down
- Push
- Grasp

This relates JUST to ball-carrier being (pick a word from above) shoved into Touch

As of right now, on World Rugby, there is no longer a Law 7 - Mode of Play. That one stated it was OK to push or shove.

Specifically, I'm addressing:
Law 9 - Foul Play - .16 - Dangerous Play
A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player.

This is now more relevant to the Touch Line since the Laws have been sufficiently 'adjusted' to reflect that a tackler must keep in contact with a ball-carrier all the way to the ground (one knee, butt on ground, etc.). Shoving a ball-carrier in open play doesn't stop the player from rolling, getting up and continuing to run.

Can't wait to hear your replys to the definitions.

Patrick

crossref
23-04-18, 20:04
Hi Patrick
It's a great question.. its one of many possibly accidental differences in the new Law Book

However forensic reading of 9.15 will probably lead you to the conclusion that players do still have the right to push a ball carrier.

Patrick
23-04-18, 21:04
Hi Patrick
It's a great question.. its one of many possibly accidental differences in the new Law Book

However forensic reading of 9.15 will probably lead you to the conclusion that players do still have the right to push a ball carrier.

I know - right! Zero consistency - huge problem.

Anyway, Law 9.15 Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.

Yes, if you say 'well, Law 9.15 is this, therefore, the opposite must be true'.

Unfortunately, that would a false interpretation.

And, don't forget, because I LOVE forensic interpretations of the Laws, the Tackle was originally and for decades, stopping the ball-carrier - including if the ball-carrier never 'went down'.

The overriding principal is Fair Access to the ball and if you are not moving the ball forward, then you must give your opponent fair access to the ball.

That's right, a tackle of a standing player was allowed.

So, let's define those words first then move to the next logical part of the question.

Can't wait to see what comes!

Patrick

crossref
23-04-18, 22:04
It's a tricky one

The 2018 Law Book removed the text
2017/7 Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

What should we make of that ?

Seems to me there are several possibilities

1 - they saw it as a contradiction to 2018/9.16 and they say in the press release that one of the purposes of the 2018 Laws was to resolve contradictions, so they resolved this one by deciding that pushing amounts a no-arms tackle and shouldn't be allowed. So they deleted the phrase and banned pushing. (They didn't notice pesky 9.15 which seems to still allow pushing. d'Oh! )

2 - they thought it was so completely obvious that pushing is allowed they deleted the text as it's just not needed. Part of the aim of shortening the book

3 - they thought that 9.15 said the same thing, but more clearly, so deleted Law 7

4 - they deleted the whole of Law 7 because, let's face it, that Law as a whole didn't add much, without stopping to think carefully about that one paeticualr phrase which was, in fact, rather important.


My bet is on (1), they intended to ban pushing as its unseemly and possibly dangerous - but (4) is also plausible.

VM75
23-04-18, 22:04
lots of readers would have seen these steel pegs holding barrier rope, would you want your sibling running along the wing & being shoved so hard that he/she accelerates into this piece of unyielding metal?

https://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTEwMFgxMTAw/z/9ckAAOSwDFBZ804k/$_35.JPG?set_id=880000500F



so i'd favour a Law change that outlawed the shoving into touch from which the aforementioned acceleration occurs, most will have seen what i'm describing.

Tackling [provided the grasp attempt commences within the field of play] a player into touch would remain allowable of course.

didds
23-04-18, 23:04
Shoving a ball-carrier in open play doesn't stop the player from rolling, getting up and continuing to run.[/COLOR]


That was always the case (at least for three for decades anyway). A tackle has "always" been "held and brought to ground."


didds

didds
23-04-18, 23:04
That's right, a tackle of a standing player was allowed.




I'm not following this.

If a ball carrier was standing still he could be tackled? Of course - and still can.
If a ball carrier was not on the ground ie vaguely upright he could be tackled? Of course - and he still can.

??

And merely stopping the ball carrier, but not putting him on the ground was/is not a tackle [maybe it was 100 years ago ? ] and hasn't been for a very long time - which is why a ball carrier stopped but not brought to ground can maintain hold of the ball.

didds

chbg
23-04-18, 23:04
because I LOVE forensic interpretations of the Laws,

The overriding principal is Fair Access to the ball and if you are not moving the ball forward, then you must give your opponent fair access to the ball.


How do you reconcile those two statements?

SimonSmith
23-04-18, 23:04
Another question that has been posted on the Fiefdom of Idiots on facebook...

Patrick
24-04-18, 03:04
That was always the case (at least for three for decades anyway). A tackle has "always" been "held and brought to ground."


didds

I beg to differ on this point - even though it's off topic - held and brought to ground was in the 'green' definition bit - the only part of a Law that most people read. Thank god they got rid of the greed definition crap.

No, held, in the full Law refers to how a ball-carrier was eventually brought to ground as defined (one knee, two knees, butt or butt on a person).

Again, off topic - sorry for contributing to an interesting rabbit hole.

Patrick

Patrick
24-04-18, 03:04
I'm not following this.

If a ball carrier was standing still he could be tackled? Of course - and still can.
If a ball carrier was not on the ground ie vaguely upright he could be tackled? Of course - and he still can.

??

And merely stopping the ball carrier, but not putting him on the ground was/is not a tackle [maybe it was 100 years ago ? ] and hasn't been for a very long time - which is why a ball carrier stopped but not brought to ground can maintain hold of the ball.

didds


Didds, old Fella, you missed it. The Law used to reflect the an advancing ball-carrier could be considered tackled if the ball-carrier was stopped, not necessarily by bringing them to ground.

The overall concept goes all the way back to the idea that the advancing team had to continue to advance or give fair access to the ball - hence, if you're still standing but not advancing, you have to release the ball - standing or otherwise.

No, not a hundred years a go.

I don't have the time to find the Law year but I'll check my library and get back to you.

Regardless, off topic.

Patrick

Patrick
24-04-18, 03:04
How do you reconcile those two statements?


I think I did that in the reply to Didds.

Let me know if I'm not being clear enough - I can try again.

Patrick

crossref
24-04-18, 08:04
Getting back to Patricks original question ...

Is it ok to push the ball carrier into touch ?

Pinky
24-04-18, 11:04
Getting back to Patricks original question ...

Is it ok to push the ball carrier into touch ?

Yes, I think it is, as it is also OK for a maul to be pushed into touch. But I draw a distinction between a push, which I think is like in a scrum or ruck/maul where there is some persiting contact and applied pressure, and a shove which I think of as primarily the arms and letting go once the momentum has been imparted. I don't like the concept of a shove (as I see it) and I think it is potentially dangerous in speeding a player up so they will fall over or will leave the pitch with the possibility of collision with spectators.

OB..
24-04-18, 12:04
That was always the case (at least for three for decades anyway). A tackle has "always" been "held and brought to ground."


didds187118. In the event of any player holding or running with the ball being tackled and the ball being fairly held he must at once cry down and there put it down. The law has evolved somewhat since then.

[...] I LOVE forensic interpretations of the Laws,If you are at all familiar with Statute Law, you will know that the laws of rugby are not written in such terms. The aim is for the average person to be able to understand them, and they need to be read so as to make sense in terms of the game.

crossref
24-04-18, 12:04
Yes, I think it is, as it is also OK for a maul to be pushed into touch. But I draw a distinction between a push, which I think is like in a scrum or ruck/maul where there is some persiting contact and applied pressure, and a shove which I think of as primarily the arms and letting go once the momentum has been imparted. I don't like the concept of a shove (as I see it) and I think it is potentially dangerous in speeding a player up so they will fall over or will leave the pitch with the possibility of collision with spectators.

I don't really understand your distinction between a push and a shove ..

The two Laws that I think deal with question are

9.15 Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.

9.16 A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player.

So my answer is that
- you can push the ball carrier
- but you can't charge or knock him down

What's the difference? A push is where contact is made with the hands (only) and the arm is initially bent. The force comes not from the initial contact but from subsequently, um, pushing

Of course when you push a running ball carrier you are very likely to push him over . Does that amount to knocking him down (illegal) ? It's a grey area.

Balones
24-04-18, 16:04
As far as I’m concerned if you can hand off (push) someone when you are attacking (ball carrying), it only seems fair to allow it when defending.

Ian_Cook
25-04-18, 01:04
lots of readers would have seen these steel pegs holding barrier rope, would you want your sibling running along the wing & being shoved so hard that he/she accelerates into this piece of unyielding metal?

https://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTEwMFgxMTAw/z/9ckAAOSwDFBZ804k/$_35.JPG?set_id=880000500F



so i'd favour a Law change that outlawed the shoving into touch from which the aforementioned acceleration occurs, most will have seen what i'm describing.

Tackling [provided the grasp attempt commences within the field of play] a player into touch would remain allowable of course.


1. Lots of readers would have seen these steel pegs holding barrier rope, would you want want to tackle an opponent into touch and end up landing on this piece of unyielding metal?

https://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTEwMFgxMTAw/z/9ckAAOSwDFBZ804k/$_35.JPG?set_id=880000500F



2. Lots of readers would have seen these steel pegs holding barrier rope, would you want to to fended off by a ball carrier running along the wing & being shoved so hard that you accelerate into this piece of unyielding metal?

https://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTEwMFgxMTAw/z/9ckAAOSwDFBZ804k/$_35.JPG?set_id=880000500F


If you are going use this as a basis to outlaw pushing a ball carrier into touch, then in order to remain consistent with such a safety approach, you will also have to outlaw players tacking a ball carrier into touch, and outlaw a ball carrier fending an opponent into touch.

For mine, I would favour the simpler approach.... a Regulation outlawing the use of these pieces of unyielding metal to hold barrier ropes along touchlines.

Ian_Cook
25-04-18, 01:04
Patrick

You need to realise that the word "tackle" has two meanings in Rugby Union and is used in two ways;

1. Verb: The act of grasping an opponent. e.g. "he tackled the player around the waist"; "that was a copybook tackle"

2. Noun: a Law 14 situation where the ball carrier has been brought to ground and held by and opponent e.g. "tackle only", "the tackled player can place, pass, push or release the ball"; "players must approach the tackle area from their own side of the ball"

The idea that a standing player whose forward progress has been halted is a "tackled" player is still a part of Rugby League Laws...

SECTION 11: THE TACKLE AND PLAY-THE-BALL
1. A player in possession may be tackled by an opposing player or players. It is illegal to tackle or
obstruct a player who is not in possession.

2. A player in possession is tackled:

(a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball
comes into contact with the ground.

(b) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further
progress and cannot part with the ball.

(c) when, being held by an opponent, the tackled player makes it evident that he has succumbed to
the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play the ball.

(d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent already grounded places a hand on him.

...but it has not been a part of Rugby Union Laws for well over 100 years.

crossref
25-04-18, 06:04
As far as I’m concerned if you can hand off (push) someone when you are attacking (ball carrying), it only seems fair to allow it when defending.

Of course a hand off is only legal provided excessive force is not used.

There is no equivalent restriction on the pusher . Probably there should be ? Perhaps that's the difference between a push and what Pinky calls a shove

9.24 A ball-carrier is permitted to hand off an opponent provided excessive force is not used

Marc Wakeham
25-04-18, 08:04
Patrick does the law forbid you to push a ball carrier?

Consider WR's position that the re-write is clarification and not change.


Think about those two points and they, surely, lead you to the conclusion that it is stll ok. There is, as always, a caveat: If any action is considered by you, as the referee, to be "dangerous" then it becomes illegal, even allowed in principle.

Balones
25-04-18, 08:04
Of course a hand off is only legal provided excessive force is not used.

There is no equivalent restriction on the pusher . Probably there should be ? Perhaps that's the difference between a push and what Pinky calls a shove

9.24 A ball-carrier is permitted to hand off an opponent provided excessive force is not used

I think there is a range of restrictions on the defender/pusher to prevent illegal activity. ‘Push’ above the shoulder line and it is high tackle. Also, to ‘push’ you do have to use your (open) hands/arms which in itself prevents a degree of dangerous play. To ‘push’ you have to be in contact with the ball carrier for a period of time as well which could equate to a ‘grip’. A ‘push’ cannot be an instant or immediate action in practice; or theory for that matter.

crossref
25-04-18, 09:04
Push a ball carrier in the face and it's a high tackle PK

Hand off (push) a defender in the face , play on

It doesn't really make sense



The Law Makers should establish symettry here , so the same Laws apply to both.

ChrisR
25-04-18, 11:04
The Law Makers should establish symettry here , so the same Laws apply to both.


. . . except the body postures are not symmetrical. If a defender is coming in to tackle at the waist or lower then the fender's target is the top of the shoulder. Fair as a fend but not for a tackler.

Locally we have prohibited fends to the face (or head? Not sure.) for youth.

crossref
25-04-18, 11:04
I am not sure there is a difference , ball carriers also sometime dive low, especially close to the try line , and tacklers still get penalised for a high tackle.

I think it's the same problem both ways

We need to end up in a place where contact above the neck is banned, but with reasonable allowance made when a person dives at last minute

ChrisR
25-04-18, 11:04
When ball carriers dive in low they are not fending.

Trying to address tackler and ball carrier as two parts of a symmetrical object doesn't work. They are very different in form and intent.

crossref
25-04-18, 11:04
But the risk (contact with eyes being the risk here, right) is the same .

It's probably not a coincidence that we have had a recent high profile court case surrounding loss of eye in a hand off to the face (legal) but we haven't had any similar case surrounding a push to the ball carrier in the face (illegal)

ChrisR
25-04-18, 11:04
No, it's not.

OB..
25-04-18, 14:04
The idea that a standing player whose forward progress has been halted is a "tackled" player[...] has not been a part of Rugby Union Laws for well over 100 years.
Surprisingly it was more recent than that. Before 1977 a player was tackled if so held that he could not play the ball - what we now call a "choke tackle". Perhaps we should change the law back again!

didds
25-04-18, 14:04
Surprisingly it was more recent than that. Before 1977 a player was tackled if so held that he could not play the ball - what we now call a "choke tackle". Perhaps we should change the law back again!

how did it "work" OB? Did the ref just call "tackled" and the player had to release/pass the ball immediately?

didds

Balones
25-04-18, 15:04
Push a ball carrier in the face and it's a high tackle PK

Hand off (push) a defender in the face , play on

It doesn't really make sense



The Law Makers should establish symettry here , so the same Laws apply to both.

Except that the law does allow a hand off as long as excessive force is not used. It does not specify any area not allowed. A very forceful hand off to the shoulder will be let go but a similar hand off to the head/face will/could be penalised. ‘Excessive force’ is down to the ref to interpret and while doing so take into account the location.

crossref
25-04-18, 15:04
Then perhaps we should have an excessive force offence for tackling ?

thepercy
25-04-18, 15:04
Then perhaps we should have an excessive force offence for tackling ?

We do, in a way. Generic Dangerous Tackling

crossref
25-04-18, 15:04
I don't think excessive force is the same thing as dangerously, otherwise they would have said dangerously. Or not said anything at all, because , as you say, we already have generic laws against dangerous play

This would be a good Law to ask for a Clarification, in fact : please give some examples of excessive force, is it different from dangerously ?

Zebra1922
25-04-18, 20:04
Except that the law does allow a hand off as long as excessive force is not used. It does not specify any area not allowed. A very forceful hand off to the shoulder will be let go but a similar hand off to the head/face will/could be penalised. ‘Excessive force’ is down to the ref to interpret and while doing so take into account the location.

I had a situation like this at the weekend where a hand off contacted with the neck. I did not penalise as in my view it was not dangerous (I know there is a view any head/neck contact is inherently dangerous) the hand off was not stiff arm, it just contacted chest and rode up to neck area but was not particularly forceful.

Would you all normally penalise this?

crossref
25-04-18, 20:04
No,
I don't think I have ever penalised a hand off.
but generally speaking I would be more likely to going forward , with the new offence in the Law Book

Patrick
25-04-18, 21:04
Everyone,

So sorry I haven't paid enough attention to my own post - the 'real job' is beginning to really crimp my rugby 'job'.

Anyway - so I guess I was trying to lead people into a logical path to show how shorter Laws isn't always a matter of just cutting stuff out and smaller fonts (I made that last part up).

Many of you have somewhat figured it out but I'll spell it out:

Charge and push are two very different things and, unfortunately, should have been treated differently and are specific to location of ball-carrier on the pitch.

First - the Charge tackle
- The charge is a direct and disgusting way of leading with a shoulder or head with little or no attempt to wrap (or use hands). This is American Football at it's most dangerous for ball-carrier AND tackler.

I STILL have young men that join my team that insist their American Football coach continue to instruct them in the 'proper' way to use your head and shoulders in a charge tackle - some part of me dies every time I hear that.

Second - the Push tackle
- This is pretty straight forward - in open play a defensive players pushes the ball-carrier in an attempt tackle - rarely works.
- BUT, when a ball-carrier is near or close to the Touch-line, the push tackle is very effective but carries the potential risks listed in detail above. An accelerated player loosing his ability to stop or slow or dodge and obstacle from a spectator (behind the ropes or not) or a rope holding device - PVC, wire, etc., tree, goal post, water cooler, etc., etc., etc., - is very real and dangerous.

Here's the deal - the two are NOT the same.

Mental experiment - imagine a charge tackle at the point of right before contact and at contact. No arms.

Now, imagine the same thing but at the point of contact, the defensive player brings his arms around and attempts to grasp the ball-carrier.

In the last example - it becomes clear - attempting to wrap physically stops a charge tackle.

So, bringing it back - a better set of laws to cover this would be to require all tacklers to attempt to grasp the ball-carrier. This would stop all dangerous charges and all into-Touch shoves, pushes, etc.

I don't think a push, being as it requires the defensive player to use his arms, would be an open field PK. That, and it's not all the effective at stopping a ball-carrier.

Charging then - would be any attempt to come in contact with a ball-carrier without the use of hands / arms first. PK or Yellow

Pushing then - would be any defensive player intentionally not attempting to grasp in some manner the ball-carrier into-Touch. PK or Red

Those would cover everything - I think. But, can't wait to hear all your opinions.

Again, sorry for not stepping back in sooner.

Patrick

crossref
25-04-18, 21:04
I think you are fighting a straw man - because charging and pushing ARE indeed treated differently the Laws

- pushing the ball carrier is legal
- charging the ball carrier is illegal

chbg
25-04-18, 23:04
require all tacklers to attempt to grasp the ball-carrier

No tap tackles then?

Patrick
26-04-18, 04:04
I think you are fighting a straw man - because charging and pushing ARE indeed treated differently the Laws

- pushing the ball carrier is legal
- charging the ball carrier is illegal

9.15 - Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.

Ummmm, wrong.

And, wrong. They're stuck together like a bad marriage.

Patrick
26-04-18, 04:04
No tap tackles then?

Off topic but if you're pointing out the Law contradictions about the Tap Tackle - I totally agree.

Dickie E
26-04-18, 05:04
Again, sorry for not stepping back in sooner.



that's a first. Someone apologising for not posting often enough! :biggrin:

crossref
26-04-18, 06:04
9.15 - Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.

Ummmm, wrong.

And, wrong. They're stuck together like a bad marriage.

I warned you earlier you need to read that one forensically ! 9.15 covers two players, neither of them with the ball. So not relevant in tackles

9.16 prohibits you from charging a ball carrier
Nothing prohibits you from pushing a ball carrier




So

Rich_NL
26-04-18, 08:04
So, bringing it back - a better set of laws to cover this would be to require all tacklers to attempt to grasp the ball-carrier. This would stop all dangerous charges and all into-Touch shoves, pushes, etc.

Shoves and pushes are not tackles; tackles already require the BC to be held. Do you also want to bring in a law that the ball carrier may *only* be tackled?


Charging then - would be any attempt to come in contact with a ball-carrier without the use of hands / arms first. PK or Yellow

Pushing then - would be any defensive player intentionally not attempting to grasp in some manner the ball-carrier into-Touch. PK or Red

You want pushing an opponent to be a more serious offence than a charge? Tactfully, I'd say that I think WR would want to see some empirical evidence of injuries from pushes being a problem that needs solving.

didds
26-04-18, 09:04
No tap tackles then?

I agree with CBG's point, but it highlights an example of a historical abnormality.

Trip with a foot = illegal
Trip with a hand = legal

Because of course under current laws (and for a very long time) a "tap tackle" is not a tackle by any definition of the laws. unless I suppose the hand actually manages to grasp and hold the ankle 9which is not what is ever attempted)


didds.

OB..
26-04-18, 10:04
No tap tackles then?Technically that is not a tackle. The term is a misnomer.

OB..
26-04-18, 10:04
unless I suppose the hand actually manages to grasp and hold the ankle 9which is not what is ever attempted)


didds.I did it once. On the wing, chasing a kick from the fly-half. The opposing full back got there first and attempted to run away from me. I grabbed hold of his ankle and as he fell over he tried to pull his leg free. That force with his weight behind it dislocated my shoulder. As we hit the ground he had technically been tackled, and my shoulder was knocked back into place.

crossref
26-04-18, 10:04
Tripping is banned because a clash of shins can break a leg

Tapping the ankle with the hand isn't dangerous , is it ? So no need to ban it .
(although it's very annoying when it happens to you!)

didds
26-04-18, 10:04
I did it once. .


YOU DA MAN OB :-)

didds

didds
26-04-18, 10:04
Tripping is banned because a clash of shins can break a leg

Tapping the ankle with the hand isn't dangerous , is it ? So no need to ban it .
(although it's very annoying when it happens to you!)

That's fair enough - the momentum of a hard shin in a kicking motion etc

Can you tap tackle with your head? ;-)

didds

crossref
26-04-18, 10:04
Didn't we see that in an international game not that long ago ? It didn't end well !

OB..
26-04-18, 10:04
I agree with CBG's point, but it highlights an example of a historical abnormality.

Trip with a foot = illegal
Trip with a hand = legal
Historically "hacking" as tripping with the foot was known, was one of the reasons why soccer and rugby split when the FA was set up in 1863. The first draft of the rules contained the following:IX. A player shall be entitled to run with the ball towards his adversaries'
goal if he makes a fair catch, or catches the ball on the first bound; but in the
case of a fair catch, if he makes his mark he shall not run.
X. If any player shall run with the ball towards his adversaries' goal, any
player on the opposite side shall be at liberty to charge, hold, trip or hack
him, or to wrest the ball from him, but no player shall be held and hacked at
the same time.

Shortly after this was dropped, Blackheath resigned from the FA.

Balones
26-04-18, 11:04
I believe a tap tackle could be regarded as a failed tackle just like any other failed tackle. There are quite often subsequent outcomes after what is regarded as an 'ordinary' tackle attempt that lead to a change of direction, falling over etc, At a tap tackle the ball carrier falls over just as they might with a failed wrap tackle around the legs.

thepercy
26-04-18, 14:04
Can you tap tackle with your head? ;-)


I did this once. It was long enough ago that everyone was wearing long metal studs, but probably not as long ago OB's example though. Chasing from behind, I dove out the tackle a ball carrier (didn't know about "tap tackles" at the time) and the back 2 metal studs caught me on either side of one of my eyes. Lots of blood, no real medical coverage, went to the hospital and got 8 stiches just under my eye brow and another 15 in the lower eyelid. First match my parents watched, mom was worried, dad said "ehh, its just a flesh wound".

Phil E
26-04-18, 16:04
I believe a tap tackle could be regarded as a failed tackle just like any other failed tackle.

"Not held, play on"

Patrick
26-04-18, 18:04
Shoves and pushes are not tackles; tackles already require the BC to be held. Do you also want to bring in a law that the ball carrier may *only* be tackled?



You want pushing an opponent to be a more serious offence than a charge? Tactfully, I'd say that I think WR would want to see some empirical evidence of injuries from pushes being a problem that needs solving.

Rugby ref & tact - I've seen Big Foot more often....

Rich - I should have made it more clear - that part was a suggestion - love to hear what you think would be appropriate and, there is always the possibility they are equal.

Thanks - Patrick

Patrick
26-04-18, 18:04
I agree with CBG's point, but it highlights an example of a historical abnormality.

Trip with a foot = illegal
Trip with a hand = legal

Because of course under current laws (and for a very long time) a "tap tackle" is not a tackle by any definition of the laws. unless I suppose the hand actually manages to grasp and hold the ankle 9which is not what is ever attempted)


didds.

Agreed - forensic examination will only get you so far down the rabbit hole. So much has to do with external factors - medical knowledge, athlete conditioning, external sport's influences, equipment changes and innovations, change of social awareness as to safety and the long term effects of head trauma just to name a few.

These kinds of discussions are inevitable with any sport as old and written down as ours. (Are there sports as old and written down as ours - don't think so, not that have survived.).

In my more then humble opinion, I don't really think a 'tap tackle' is a tackle. We all know, it's a 'trip'. The defensive player is making one move that will cause the BC to tangle his own feet and fall. But, again, for now, off topic.

Patrick
26-04-18, 18:04
I did it once. On the wing, chasing a kick from the fly-half. The opposing full back got there first and attempted to run away from me. I grabbed hold of his ankle and as he fell over he tried to pull his leg free. That force with his weight behind it dislocated my shoulder. As we hit the ground he had technically been tackled, and my shoulder was knocked back into place.

How much of you can actually still walk OB?

Christ that sounds painful.

Rich_NL
26-04-18, 19:04
Rugby ref & tact - I've seen Big Foot more often....

Rich - I should have made it more clear - that part was a suggestion - love to hear what you think would be appropriate and, there is always the possibility they are equal.

Thanks - Patrick

I'll have you know I'm the model of debonair elegance in my communications ;)

I'm not sure why we should want to penalise pushing at all. If it's done dangerously, there's a general law covering it already. But per se, there's never been a law against a push with the hands, as opposed to a shoulder/head charge.

VM75
26-04-18, 20:04
I believe a tap tackle could be regarded as a failed tackle just like any other failed tackle. There are quite often subsequent outcomes after what is regarded as an 'ordinary' tackle attempt that lead to a change of direction, falling over etc, At a tap tackle the ball carrier falls over just as they might with a failed wrap tackle around the legs.

Agree,

If anyone considers that a hand-trip (or tap tackle) isn't a desirable action, then it could be deemed under 9.16 , my orange inclusion would remove doubt over whether the single-hand-swipe-style-tap remained legal

http://laws.worldrugby.org/images/elements/playicon.png9.16. A player must not charge or knock down [or ankle tap/trip ] an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player.


assuming that knock down is taken to mean ankle swiped.

Patrick
26-04-18, 21:04
I'll have you know I'm the model of debonair elegance in my communications ;)

I'm not sure why we should want to penalise pushing at all. If it's done dangerously, there's a general law covering it already. But per se, there's never been a law against a push with the hands, as opposed to a shoulder/head charge.

Look, this is a common refrain - why add yet another Law when we have a general Law to give the ref plenty of discretion.

I get it.

But, and I don't really want to hi-jack my own thread, specifics with less ref interpretation is one of the top three or five things wrong with modern rugby.

We need to look no farther then the clarification / addition to the contact Laws for players leaping for balls (kicked, passed, etc.).

So much so that 'intent' is now part of the infraction calculus.

We ALL do it with High Tackles.

This is part of the tightening and clean and safe and consistent calls we all need to have.

Not one match I've worked, played or coached escaped the rebellious statement '...that's not how do the do it on TV' or '...his arm slipped up' or '...that's not fair, that player is too short (tall, fat, thin, etc.).

The reason for me bringing this up is simple - a shove is not a push, a push is not a charge, a charge is not a tackle, etc..

Clarity and consistency is what we should strive for.

One man's Dangerous Play is another man's Play On. Not good.

Patrick

crossref
26-04-18, 22:04
Patrick you have completely lost me ! I can't work out what exactly you are arguing for.

Rich_NL
26-04-18, 23:04
Shoves and pushes involve the hands and arms, are legal and always have been. Charges involve shoulders/bodychecking, illegal. Tackling is holding someone and bringing them to the ground.

I don't think pushing should be illegal, it's consistently not reffed that way for adults. Do you think a law is necessary to specifically permit it, or forbid it?

crossref
27-04-18, 06:04
Yes, I think it was a lot clearer in the old Law Book where there was a specific law that permitted you to push the ball carrier