PDA

View Full Version : sealing off?



mcwill+joe
03-03-15, 11:03
A quick question that is bothering me at the moment: Red tackled player goes to ground. Blue tackler releases, red supporting player arrives. No ruck formed yet. Red suppporting player gets hold of the player on the ground, and offers some protection to the ball as Blue players arrive. Ruck now formed, and red supporting player's shoulders are below their hips. The red supporting player is supporting their own weight. While it is still a tackle, i understand red supporting players can have their shoulders below their hips, but can they protect the ball?

OB..
03-03-15, 12:03
A quick question that is bothering me at the moment: Red tackled player goes to ground. Blue tackler releases, red supporting player arrives. No ruck formed yet. Red suppporting player gets hold of the player on the ground, and offers some protection to the ball as Blue players arrive. Ruck now formed, and red supporting player's shoulders are below their hips. The red supporting player is supporting their own weight. While it is still a tackle, i understand red supporting players can have their shoulders below their hips, but can they protect the ball?If "protect" = "obstruct", then No.

Dixie
03-03-15, 16:03
[Tackle] No ruck formed yet. Red supporting player gets hold of the player on the ground, and offers some protection to the ball as Blue players arrive. Many on the pedantic wing of the referee community would argue that grasping the tackled player or the tackler is illegal, in that it prevents those players rolling away as they are required to do.

15.7(b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.
Sanction: Penalty kick

However, to ping that offence would be contrary to common practice. In practice, support players are permitted to anchor themselves to the grounded players in this way, to make it harder to clear them out.


While it is still a tackle, i understand red supporting players can have their shoulders below their hips You are correct that law 15 does not mention hips at all, and so we might conclude that shoulders below hips is permitted. However, it is prohibited in ruck, maul and scrum for safety reasons. As the support player ("jackler") is not in control of the formation of the ruck, and is likely to experience greater forces in the clear-out than in most rucks, I would suggest that you treat the silence of Law 15 regarding hips as an oversight on the part of the lawmakers, and ping every instance when a player has shoulders lower than hips. Far better to have (and possible to lose) a technical discussion with a coach after the game than to have a flanker taken off the field with a broken back.


but can they protect the ball? They may not stand in a position designed to prevent the opposition from getting to the ball - usually ahead of the ball itself - which is perhaps what you mean by "protect the ball". OB makes that point:


If "protect" = "obstruct", then No.

However, what we generally see is the support player taking a strong wide stance over the ball, thus making it difficult (but not impossible) for an opponent to get to it. In my view, that is perfectly legitimate (so long as shoulders remain above hips). From the title of this thread, I imagine you are envisaging a player almost curled up above the ball, showing his arched back to the opposition, with very low shoulders and a wide stance, gripping the grounded player to prevent himself being moved. I would ping that as a full penalty, confident that I could justify it on multiple grounds if necessary.

Browner
09-04-15, 16:04
OK, sealing off is now analysed by BoD & Lol

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/bod-explains-why-refs-are-pinging-hard.html

BoD "You must analyse the referees and what they're hot on"

These clips seem to fall under a general heading of ' supporting the referees call' , which is welcome PR

Treadmore
09-04-15, 20:04
Many on the pedantic wing of the referee community would argue that grasping the tackled player or the tackler is illegal, in that it prevents those players rolling away as they are required to do.

15.7(b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.
Sanction: Penalty kick

However, to ping that offence would be contrary to common practice. In practice, support players are permitted to anchor themselves to the grounded players in this way, to make it harder to clear them out.


And there is also:

15.7(e)
Danger may arise if a tackled player fails to release the ball or move away from it immediately, or if that player is prevented from so doing. If either of these happens the referee awards a penalty kick immediately.


Dixie (or anyone else), why is it common practice to ignore these laws and permit "anchoring"?

Dixie
10-04-15, 09:04
Dixie (or anyone else), why is it common practice to ignore these laws and permit "anchoring"? I refer M'Learned Friend to the appalling examples set by the pro game, leeching inexorably down to the weeds. Other examples:

Grab this anchorman and judo-throw him to the side. AKA the Saddle Roll, it violates law 16.3c:

(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

SH feeds the scrum into the 2nd row's feet. Law 20.6d

Despite the squint feed, the FR's collapse. As the ball has been "won" by virtue of never having had a passing acquaintance with the tunnel, ref allows the collapse to persist until the ball emerges. Law 8.3d:

(d) Collapsed scrum. Advantage must not be applied when a scrum collapses. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.

didds
10-04-15, 09:04
and...

running a support line AHEAD of the ball carrier preventing defensive access to the BC. Seen increasingly at elite levels. The support runner is not in a position to receive a legal pass throughout. Some here however seem to consider this acceptable practice. The NFL call this running interference.

didds

ChrisR
10-04-15, 17:04
Before you PK the BC support player for latching on to the BC consider PKing the BC for not 'rolling away'. Fact is we don't do either. If the BC gets a good set on the ball and his support gets there quick enough and over (but not in front of) the ball and latches onto the BC such that any defender has to drive them off to get to the ball then I'd say "Well played".

OB..
10-04-15, 18:04
Before you PK the BC support player for latching on to the BC consider PKing the BC for not 'rolling away'. Fact is we don't do either. If the BC gets a good set on the ball and his support gets there quick enough and over (but not in front of) the ball and latches onto the BC such that any defender has to drive them off to get to the ball then I'd say "Well played".Is latching legal?

Treadmore
10-04-15, 20:04
Is latching legal?

I think not but I'd be a pedant for calling it apparently!

In Marauder's "well played" case any opponent driving back the latcher will be driving back the tackled player who will be smothering or pushing the ball backwards as well. Would the non-pedants penalise that?

ChrisR
11-04-15, 01:04
Is latching legal?

15.6(a) only prohibits a player supporting his weight on a player on the ground.

ChrisR
11-04-15, 01:04
I think not but I'd be a pedant for calling it apparently!

In Marauder's "well played" case any opponent driving back the latcher will be driving back the tackled player who will be smothering or pushing the ball backwards as well. Would the non-pedants penalise that?

Yes. If the counter-ruck drives the BC support back and the BC interferes with access to the ball I'd PK that. But I wouldn't PK the BC support for using the BC as an anchor.

Ian_Cook
11-04-15, 01:04
and...

running a support line AHEAD of the ball carrier preventing defensive access to the BC. Seen increasingly at elite levels. The support runner is not in a position to receive a legal pass throughout. Some here however seem to consider this acceptable practice. The NFL call this running interference.

didds


I don't have a problem with front running so long as the front runner does not get between the ball carrier and an opponent who has a realistic chance of tackling him. The complaints of players who claim they were obstructed by a player 2m in front of their ball carrier when they were themselves no closer that 6m ought to fall upon deaf ears.

buff
11-04-15, 02:04
Yes. If the counter-ruck drives the BC support back and the BC interferes with access to the ball I'd PK that. But I wouldn't PK the BC support for using the BC as an anchor.
I have penalised this in the past.

Not Kurt Weaver
11-04-15, 02:04
15.6(a) only prohibits a player supporting his weight on a player on the ground.

Nothing in there about downward body weight support, support can also be lateral as in the latching (bridging lite).

(a)
After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.

Treadmore
11-04-15, 11:04
Yes. If the counter-ruck drives the BC support back and the BC interferes with access to the ball I'd PK that. But I wouldn't PK the BC support for using the BC as an anchor.

And yet it seems that what you would penalise is a direct result of prior law infringements:

15.5(b) ("...move away from it at once")
or 15.7(b) ("No player may prevent the tackled player from...getting up or moving away from it.")

Treadmore
11-04-15, 11:04
Is latching Legal?
15.6(a) only prohibits a player supporting his weight on a player on the ground.
15.7(b) seems to cover latching better

Even with 15.6(a) the latching player would be inviting the referee to decide whether some of the latcher's body weight was being supported by a player on the ground.

RobLev
11-04-15, 11:04
15.7(b) seems to cover latching better

Even with 15.6(a) the latching player would be inviting the referee to decide whether some of the latcher's body weight was being supported by a player on the ground.

The latched player is clearly infringing 15.5(a):

A tackled player must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents from gaining possession of it

and 15.6(h):

After a tackle, any player lying on the ground must not prevent an opponent from getting possession of the ball.

and of course 15.5(b):

A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once

Any argument that he can't move away because he's being held onto by the latching player can be met by penalising that player under 15.7(b):

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

However you argue it, latching on involves one or more infringements by the ball-carrying side.

didds
11-04-15, 12:04
... a situation that has been C&O since the day latching began, which must be getting on for a decade now. the genie is out of the bottle and long gone.

didds

ChrisR
11-04-15, 12:04
When was the last time a tackled player 'rolled away'? When was the last time he was penalized for not doing so? Not in this millennium.

We have accepted the practice of the tackled player setting the ball back towards his team and keeping his hands on it to prevent his arriving support from kicking it back into him. We don't expect him to roll away because the rapidly arriving players from both teams won't let him. This has become an accepted part of the game.

If the tackled players support arrives first and latches on he isn't preventing the tackled player from rolling away coz the tackled player has no intention of rolling away.

When the tackled players ops arrive they'll usually find the tackled player between them and the ball. If they forklift the tackled player over the ball then they would be violating 15.7(b) but who would enforce that? If they instead try for the ball then they'll be kneeling on the tackled player. Another violation of 15.7(b)? Not in my book.

Browner
11-04-15, 13:04
However you look at it "anchoring" (p's. ..... I've always known 'latching' to describe attaching oneself to a ball carrier as he's taking contact) whilst it maybe illegal as per roblevs post is widespread allowed ( created by elite again) so much so that if we pinged it we'd be standing in the downstream of convention.

Would anyone ping this rather than allow a ruck to form when the opponent attempts to shove him off & insodoing forms a ruck?

Treadmore
11-04-15, 14:04
I get the "genie out of the bottle" and the game evolves but it's an interesting discussion to get views on it.

And it's interesting to note the knock on effects these tweaks to play and refereeing have, such as teams now not forming/contesting a ruck (pointless because the anchoring side have too much advantage now) and then making use of no off-side lines...which itself causes some angst amongst the community :)

RobLev
11-04-15, 17:04
When was the last time a tackled player 'rolled away'? When was the last time he was penalized for not doing so? Not in this millennium.

We have accepted the practice of the tackled player setting the ball back towards his team and keeping his hands on it to prevent his arriving support from kicking it back into him. We don't expect him to roll away because the rapidly arriving players from both teams won't let him. This has become an accepted part of the game.

If the tackled players support arrives first and latches on he isn't preventing the tackled player from rolling away coz the tackled player has no intention of rolling away.

When the tackled players ops arrive they'll usually find the tackled player between them and the ball. If they forklift the tackled player over the ball then they would be violating 15.7(b) but who would enforce that? If they instead try for the ball then they'll be kneeling on the tackled player. Another violation of 15.7(b)? Not in my book.

Perhaps, now that teams are taking advantage of lax enforcement of 15.5(a), (b) and 15.6(h) to justify a further illegal tactic to prevent contest for possession at rucks, now is the time to consider starting to enforce those laws properly.

Otherwise the tackling team will stop "contesting" rucks and take advantage of the lack of offside lines by putting players between #9 and #10 - oh, wait...

didds
11-04-15, 17:04
exactly RobLev, and well said...

cause and effect. something that seems beyond WR's laws committees at times

didds

liversedge
11-04-15, 22:04
I've always known 'latching' to describe attaching oneself to a ball carrier as he's taking contact) whilst it maybe illegal as per roblevs post is widespread allowed ( created by elite again) so much so that if we pinged it we'd be standing in the downstream of convention.


Illegal because it is a flying wedge ?

Na Madrai
12-04-15, 09:04
In a tackle situation, I look for four basic but distinct phases - tackler release and get away, ball carrier to play the ball, ball carrier to release the ball and then everyone on the floor near the ball to roll away. If you prevent someone on the ground in the tackle area from rolling away, you are going to get penalised.


NM

ChrisR
12-04-15, 13:04
In a tackle situation, I look for four basic but distinct phases - tackler release and get away, ball carrier to play the ball, ball carrier to release the ball and then everyone on the floor near the ball to roll away. If you prevent someone on the ground in the tackle area from rolling away, you are going to get penalised.

That sounds like a very orderly sequence of events with time to see and analyse each. However, that isn't how it really happens.

The BC hits the deck and, as he places the ball back, his support and opponents arrive and they engage over the BC and the ball. At this point the chance of the BC (now the tackled player) of 'rolling away' is about zero.

Did the BC try to roll away? Probably not. Did any of the arriving players prevent him from rolling away? If the BC didn't attempt then they didn't prevent. Does it matter? That depends on the following scenarios:

1. If the BC gets a good set and the BC support get over the ball and secure it then they have won the contest and the BC body position isn't material.

2. If the ops then mount an effective counter-ruck and drive off the support then the BC becomes material. He must not prevent the ops access to the ball. This can mean that he needs to get out of the way and/or not interfere.

3. If, as the ops counter-ruck, the BC support anchors (thanx Browner, better term than "latching") themselves to the BC and drags the BC back into the ball then .....? Happens, but not often.

4. If, as the ops counter-ruck, the BC support anchors on the BC and fights off the counter-ruck then ....? OK,by me but open to law citing.

5. If the opposition (tackle assist) arrives first and gets their hands on the ball before the BC can set it then the BC must release it to them. In this scenario the BC's body can be a barrier. Now 15.5(a) & (b) take effect.

6. If the BC gets a good set then the ops attempt for the ball will have to navigate the BC's body. Kneeling on the BC, head below hips, supporting weight on hands on the ball are all OK with me so long as he's trying to win the ball. Going to ground over the ball to prevent access to it is not OK.

7. If the ops, in scenario 6, get the ball in hand but can't/don't/won't get the ball past the inert body of the BC then the BC is liable for penalty.

For me the contest is really about support getting to the tackle first and securing or turning over the ball. What we are seeing now at the top level is possession being conceded by the defenders until/unless the BC gets isolated. This is a product of conservative play in possession by risk averse teams.

Browner
13-04-15, 04:04
When was the last time a tackled player 'rolled away'? When was the last time he was penalized for not doing so? Not in this millennium.

We have accepted the practice of the tackled player setting the ball back towards his team and keeping his hands on it to prevent his arriving support from kicking it back into him. We don't expect him to roll away because the rapidly arriving players from both teams won't let him. This has become an accepted part of the game.

If the tackled players support arrives first and latches on he isn't preventing the tackled player from rolling away coz the tackled player has no intention of rolling away.

When the tackled players ops arrive they'll usually find the tackled player between them and the ball. If they forklift the tackled player over the ball then they would be violating 15.7(b) but who would enforce that? If they instead try for the ball then they'll be kneeling on the tackled player. Another violation of 15.7(b)? Not in my book.

On the slippery slide toward the 'contestless' tackle game that those lot play.

Crucifix box is opened!

Browner
13-04-15, 04:04
Illegal because it is a flying wedge ?

The flying wedge is something completely different.

Browner
13-04-15, 04:04
That sounds like a very orderly sequence of events with time to see and analyse each. However, that isn't how it really happens.

The BC hits the deck and, as he places the ball back, his support and opponents arrive and they engage over the BC and the ball. At this point the chance of the BC (now the tackled player) of 'rolling away' is about zero.

Did the BC try to roll away? Probably not. Did any of the arriving players prevent him from rolling away? If the BC didn't attempt then they didn't prevent. Does it matter? That depends on the following scenarios:

1. If the BC gets a good set and the BC support get over the ball and secure it then they have won the contest and the BC body position isn't material.

2. If the ops then mount an effective counter-ruck and drive off the support then the BC becomes material. He must not prevent the ops access to the ball. This can mean that he needs to get out of the way and/or not interfere.

3. If, as the ops counter-ruck, the BC support anchors (thanx Browner, better term than "latching") themselves to the BC and drags the BC back into the ball then .....? Happens, but not often.

4. If, as the ops counter-ruck, the BC support anchors on the BC and fights off the counter-ruck then ....? OK,by me but open to law citing.

5. If the opposition (tackle assist) arrives first and gets their hands on the ball before the BC can set it then the BC must release it to them. In this scenario the BC's body can be a barrier. Now 15.5(a) & (b) take effect.

6. If the BC gets a good set then the ops attempt for the ball will have to navigate the BC's body. Kneeling on the BC, head below hips, supporting weight on hands on the ball are all OK with me so long as he's trying to win the ball. Going to ground over the ball to prevent access to it is not OK.

7. If the ops, in scenario 6, get the ball in hand but can't/don't/won't get the ball past the inert body of the BC then the BC is liable for penalty.

For me the contest is really about support getting to the tackle first and securing or turning over the ball. What we are seeing now at the top level is possession being conceded by the defenders until/unless the BC gets isolated. This is a product of conservative play in possession by risk averse teams.

Watch some bright spark send the laws towards......

BC getting held/stopped or brought to ground, defenders being allowed to forearm him in the face, and lie on him for about 1.28s, whilst defence runs back 9meters and attackers reposition flat for the next of their 6 permitted surges til the other mob get to have a go.

The crowd can all bay for blood and shout off off off , as the guy in the middle crosses his arms evertime he sees thuggary committed.

Aaaargggghhhhhhhhhh I'm having a nightmare !!!!

Dickie E
13-04-15, 06:04
til the other mob get to have a go.



following the obligatory bomb into opposition in-goal.

I've heard that basketball should be started with scores 99 - all with 1 minute to go.

Maybe league should just be 10 bombs each :)

ChrisR
13-04-15, 11:04
Watch some bright spark send the laws towards......

BC getting held/stopped or brought to ground, defenders being allowed to forearm him in the face, and lie on him for about 1.28s, whilst defence runs back 9meters and attackers reposition flat for the next of their 6 permitted surges til the other mob get to have a go.

The crowd can all bay for blood and shout off off off , as the guy in the middle crosses his arms evertime he sees thuggary committed.

Aaaargggghhhhhhhhhh I'm having a nightmare !!!!

Browner, did you actually read the post before you went postal?

ChrisR
13-04-15, 12:04
Illegal because it is a flying wedge ?

The action (players bound on the BC pre-contact) meets the criteria of the flying wedge but the laws place the FW in the context of a tap penalty. Go figure.

OB..
13-04-15, 12:04
The action (players bound on the BC pre-contact) meets the criteria of the flying wedge but the laws place the FW in the context of a tap penalty. Go figure.The Flying Wedge was banned because AIUI the 10m gap at a penalty meant it could build up considerable speed before any contact. Note that the FW is illegal even if the ball carrier is at the front.

crossref
13-04-15, 12:04
The Flying Wedge was banned because AIUI the 10m gap at a penalty meant it could build up considerable speed before any contact. .

that plus the fact that, at PK you have all the time in the world to prepare so it could be a perfectly executed, rock-solid, tightly bound half-ton wall of bone and muscle at speed.

anything similar executed in open play is much trickier to organise and wouldn't be anywhere near as formidable.

ChrisR
13-04-15, 12:04
that plus the fact that, at PK you have all the time in the world to prepare so it could be a perfectly executed, rock-solid, tightly bound half-ton wall of bone and muscle at speed.

anything similar executed in open play is much trickier to organise and wouldn't be anywhere near as formidable.

I understand the original thinking. They probably had in mind the entire forward pack tightly bound onto the BC and your description applies.

However, today's player can get to speed in just a few strides and the second player bound on creates a real problem for the tackler. Placing the tacklers head behind the BC can place it directly in front of the BC's latcher and he has twice the mass to contend with.

Take away the reference to the PK tap and ban pre-binding. If it becomes a feature of the game someone is gonna need a wheelchair.

Not Kurt Weaver
13-04-15, 14:04
that plus the fact that, at PK you have all the time in the world to prepare so it could be a perfectly executed, rock-solid, tightly bound half-ton wall of bone and muscle at speed.

anything similar executed in open play is much trickier to organise and wouldn't be anywhere near as formidable.

Hard to execute in general play, but off a L/O or scrum pretty easy to set up and quickly, off a ruck or old school maul not to hard either




Take away the reference to the PK tap and ban pre-binding. If it becomes a feature of the game someone is gonna need a wheelchair.

I agree

Although vague "usually" does take it away in necessary circumstances.

Also note description requires teammates. So one teammate bound to B/C does not make a flying wedge according to law

‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.
The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.

OB..
13-04-15, 14:04
The Flying Wedge and Cavalry Charge are unusual bits of law. The do not lay down definitions, but simply give details of typical examples. You cannot infer that anything not covered in the description is therefore not dangerous. Variations on the basic themes can still be penalised if judged to be dangerous.

Browner
13-04-15, 15:04
I understand the original thinking. They probably had in mind the entire forward pack tightly bound onto the BC and your description applies.

However, today's player can get to speed in just a few strides and the second player bound on creates a real problem for the tackler. Placing the tacklers head behind the BC can place it directly in front of the BC's latcher and he has twice the mass to contend with.

Take away the reference to the PK tap and ban pre-binding. If it becomes a feature of the game someone is gonna need a wheelchair.

Pods & latched on support runners, are already a feature of the game , as are increased concussions. IMO the game didn't anticipate x3 teammates all charging at pace bound together as a development, it expected one BC and one/ two tacklers (ish)

I'd outlaw 'latching' onto the BC before he's contacted a defender ( ie widen the scope of the charge/wedge law) for the safety reasons you highlight. But maybe I'm a neanderthal !