PDA

View Full Version : Push in the back of the ball carrier



buff
02-05-15, 02:05
I was with my u-16's this afternoon. An opposition ball carrier broke outside my winger. The b/c slowed down as my 15 came across to cover. My 12 caught him from behind and pushed him in the back, so that the b/c went to ground. It was a solid push, but he did not push him into anyone, and there was no question of a shoulder charge. Is this not covered by 7.1, or am I missing something?

thanks

didds
02-05-15, 07:05
Law 7.1 - World Rugby Laws
( www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=7.1&language=EN‎ )
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

didds

Taff
02-05-15, 09:05
An opponent is allowed to push a player holding the ball, but the only doubt I have in mind is whether a hard push in the back could be considered "dangerous". I'm thinking there's a good chance of whiplash.

I appreciate it will happen quick (possibly too quick to do anything about it) but if there was a stationary BC and an opponent approaching fast from behind, personally I reckon I would blow up on safety grounds, and restart with a scrum to the BCs side.

RobLev
02-05-15, 10:05
Law 7.1 - World Rugby Laws
( www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=7.1&language=EN‎ )
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

didds

I'll see your 7.1 and raise you 10.4(g):

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

Can a player push the ball-carrier over without knocking him down? It seems to me that there's a fine line to be drawn there, and I'm not sure that a shoulder is necessarily involved - but don't know.

A push which results in the BC going down is of course not the same thing as a push which knocks him down.

OB..
02-05-15, 11:05
Push = charge? Not normally IMHO.

ChrisR
02-05-15, 11:05
An opponent is allowed to push a player holding the ball, but the only doubt I have in mind is whether a hard push in the back could be considered "dangerous". I'm thinking there's a good chance of whiplash.

I appreciate it will happen quick (possibly too quick to do anything about it) but if there was a stationary BC and an opponent approaching fast from behind, personally I reckon I would blow up on safety grounds, and restart with a scrum to the BCs side.

Taff, if he had tackled him from behind with a shoulder in the small of the back and arms wrapping the thighs would you have blown that up?

Pinky
02-05-15, 13:05
I think there is a difference between pushing and charging. For me it is a bit about relative speeds on contact so it would be a push if it was like forming a maul, but there were no other attacking players in, also a push if running side by side, the defender steered the bc into touch. However if running at each other head on or close to it I would expect to see an attempt to grab the BC, otherwise fir me that is a charge. What's the tipping point? Truthfully not sure. But would probably allow the OP situation to be PO, esp if the defender could only lunge and push the BC in the back.

Browner
02-05-15, 15:05
An opponent is allowed to push a player holding the ball, but the only doubt I have in mind is whether a hard push in the back could be considered "dangerous". I'm thinking there's a good chance of whiplash.

I appreciate it will happen quick (possibly too quick to do anything about it) but if there was a stationary BC and an opponent approaching fast from behind, personally I reckon I would blow up on safety grounds, and restart with a scrum to the BCs side.

Taff, equal "whiplash" can occur if it were a 'tackle' when a player isn't braced/expecting it.

Ultimately its a debate over the line being crossed for a push (legal) becomes a charge (illegal) & that interpretation divide remains the opinion of individual referees, as it always does for a fend .v. a strike.

FWIW I'm not sure I can hypothesise over the deciding line per age grade etc.....

I guess the best answer is " whatever the referee decides is his "Fact" is then Law in that match , & consistent application in that match thereafter.

buff
02-05-15, 17:05
I should have mentioned that the ref penalised my player. I thought he was wrong, but I didn't make anything of it.

didds
02-05-15, 17:05
Hmmm..

C&O to me that a push uses the hands.

A charge uses a shoulder.

clearly other's mileage varies.

it doesn't seem to have been a problem for the 40 years I've been involved with rugby union until this week.

didds

Browner
02-05-15, 18:05
Hmmm..

C&O to me that a push uses the hands.

A charge uses a shoulder.

clearly other's mileage varies.

it doesn't seem to have been a problem for the 40 years I've been involved with rugby union until this week.

didds

Maybe the subtely of the " knock " element of Law isn't widely known.

Similar to those who don't know that obstruction of a kicker is covered under charging the kicker.

As a guiding ideology , foul play 10.1(a) permits shoulder to shoulder pushing when ball chasing, I can only assume that its thus for safety reasons. ???, just a thought.

Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.

ChrisR
02-05-15, 19:05
Maybe the subtely of the " knock " element of Law isn't widely known.

Similar to those who don't know that obstruction of a kicker is covered under charging the kicker.

As a guiding ideology , foul play 10.1(a) permits shoulder to shoulder pushing when ball chasing, I can only assume that its thus for safety reasons. ???, just a thought.

Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.


Except your post has nothing to do with the OP as in the OP one of the players is carrying the ball.

The OP sounds like a knee jerk reaction to something that "didn't look right".

Taff
02-05-15, 23:05
Taff, if he had tackled him from behind with a shoulder in the small of the back and arms wrapping the thighs would you have blown that up?

Honestly? Probably yes, but on safety grounds not of an offence. Ie it would be a scrum restart not a PK restart.

I'd like to think I would have prevented it happening, but until it actually happens in a real game, I won't know if my reactions would be fast enough, but when you think someone is seriously hurt, it's bloody surprising how quick you can move.

I have blown up for legal tackles where the BC was tackled and landed awkwardly and surprisingly I don't remember anyone complaining; in fact far from it, both sides usually appreciate it - as long as you explain why you've done it.


Taff, equal "whiplash" can occur if it were a 'tackle' when a player isn't braced/expecting it.
That's my point Browner. If it's a head on tackle, the BC knows what's coming and can brace for it. It's different for a tackle from behind.


... The OP sounds like a knee jerk reaction to something that "didn't look right".
Perhaps the Ref thought it was dangerous.

ChrisR
03-05-15, 00:05
I guess my point is the laws of the game prohibit the clearly dangerous actions, ie. tip tackle, but I wouldn't stop play for a legal action because it "looked" dangerous.

I would stop play for a clear injury such as two players colliding heads and unconscious with a restart scrum.

So, in the OP if the pushed player collapsed in a writhing heap I could stop play. Otherwise, no, not because it "looked dangerous".

Taff
03-05-15, 08:05
It is very very rare it will happen.

Eg I don't think I've had one all season, but as they say ... "prevention is better than cure".

Browner
03-05-15, 08:05
Except your post has nothing to do with the OP as in the OP one of the players is carrying the ball.


Yes but thats why I referred to it as a "guiding ideology".... the idea that pushing is permitted IF its part of an equitable chase contest, whereas a hard shove of an opponent "to ground" is currently unlawful

Ricardowensleydale
04-05-15, 00:05
Just out of interest. Have you said to the player "If you were close enough to push him why didn't you tackle the f*****"

buff
04-05-15, 00:05
Just out of interest. Have you said to the player "If you were close enough to push him why didn't you tackle the f*****"
That is exactly what I asked, minus the f-bomb.
At the time I assumed the ref penalised my player because it did not look right.

chrismtl
04-05-15, 04:05
I always have coaches complain about it when it happens. I find that it is usually with HS coaches and I tend to warn players (in a coaching manner for safety concerns) when they do it as most of the time I assume that they really had no clue what they were doing. Almost all of the kids here have very little rugby knowledge apart from the 2 month seasons they play from grade 7 to grade 11 (if they play every year), and even in that time, most don't know the laws, have much knowledge of the sport or even have watched a rugby game.

crossref
04-05-15, 09:05
Except your post has nothing to do with the OP as in the OP one of the players is carrying the ball.


Yes but thats why I referred to it as a "guiding ideology".... the idea that pushing is permitted IF its part of an equitable chase contest, whereas a hard shove of an opponent "to ground" is currently unlawful

Shoving is the same as pushing. It's legal

Blackberry
04-05-15, 14:05
As I'm seeing it, there is no law against pushing, but it could be penalised if the push is dangerous. Is that about right?

crossref
04-05-15, 15:05
As I'm seeing it, there is no law against pushing, but it could be penalised if the push is dangerous. Is that about right?

I reckon - -and to be considered dangerous, it would have to be more dangerous than a perfectly legal tackle.
A ball carrier can be tackled from behind (which is not pleasant when it happens to you - but perfectly legal) so no reason why he can't be pushed from behind .

Pegleg
04-05-15, 17:05
An opponent is allowed to push a player holding the ball, but the only doubt I have in mind is whether a hard push in the back could be considered "dangerous". I'm thinking there's a good chance of whiplash.

I appreciate it will happen quick (possibly too quick to do anything about it) but if there was a stationary BC and an opponent approaching fast from behind, personally I reckon I would blow up on safety grounds, and restart with a scrum to the BCs side.




Taff, if he had tackled him from behind with a shoulder in the small of the back and arms wrapping the thighs would you have blown that up?




Honestly? Probably yes, but on safety grounds not of an offence. Ie it would be a scrum restart not a PK restart.

I'd like to think I would have prevented it happening, but until it actually happens in a real game, I won't know if my reactions would be fast enough, but when you think someone is seriously hurt, it's bloody surprising how quick you can move.

I have blown up for legal tackles where the BC was tackled and landed awkwardly and surprisingly I don't remember anyone complaining; in fact far from it, both sides usually appreciate it - as long as you explain why you've done it.


Sorry but you would be for ever with the whistle in your mouth. You can't blow for perfectly legal tackles. Tackles from behind have been make for over 100 years. If a player is injured and you need toblow fair enough but not just because the player's not expecting it.

A tackle and a push are legal. True both can be done dangerously and therfore illegally but I see not justification for your stance here. Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

Browner
04-05-15, 17:05
g)
Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

But surely Crossref, until this Law is removed, 'without trying to grasp & ball carrier' are the key elements ????

Its fairly clear that a two handed forceful shove isn't a bonafide "trying to grasp"

Pegleg
04-05-15, 17:05
g)
Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

But surely Crossref, until this Law is removed, 'without trying to grasp & ball carrier' are the key elements ????

Its fairly clear that a two handed forceful shove isn't a bonafide "trying to grasp"


A push is specifically allowed. A push does not require "trying to grasp".

crossref
04-05-15, 17:05
g)
Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

But surely Crossref, until this Law is removed, 'without trying to grasp & ball carrier' are the key elements ????

Its fairly clear that a two handed forceful shove isn't a bonafide "trying to grasp"

I think you are trying to create a controversy that doesn't exist.

- the Laws specifically allow a player to push the ball carrier
- the Laws specifically prohibit charging or knocking down the ball carrier

We all know the difference.

Blackberry
05-05-15, 06:05
I interpret a push as with the hands only, otherwise its a charge.

Taff
05-05-15, 07:05
Sorry but you would be for ever with the whistle in your mouth. You can't blow for perfectly legal tackles. Tackles from behind have been make for over 100 years. If a player is injured and you need toblow fair enough but not just because the player's not expecting it.
Not quite true Pegleg. Far from "for ever with the whistle in your mouth" I don't remember blowing for it once in the last 3 years.

Head on tackles or tackles from the side are no problem. The problem (as I see it anyway) only comes when there is a big difference in speed between the BC or ball catcher and the tackler. Eg where the BC (or catcher) is stationary and targeted by a fast tackler from behind - ie there could be a massive difference in speed. Where the 2 are running in the same direction (ie the speed difference is negligible) I can't see a problem.


I interpret a push as with the hands only, otherwise its a charge.
Same here.

didds
05-05-15, 09:05
I am struggling to understand how the BC and tackler are not running in the same direction for a tackle from behind?

didds

crossref
05-05-15, 09:05
I am struggling to understand how the BC and tackler are not running in the same direction for a tackle from behind?

didds

the scenario I am thinking of is : you could have a situation after a tackle, where it is a 'tackle only' - ie no ruck or maul formed, and no offside lines.

At the tackle a team mate of the ball carrier in the scrum-half position picks up the ball and, mistakenly believing a ruck had formed, pauses with the ball in his hands .. and is unexpectedly tackled from behind by a retiring opponent (who is not offside because no ruck had formed).

that's a hard tackle to receive, from behind, unexpected.

It's partly to prevent this that a referee calls 'tackle-only' making sure everyone is aware.

Browner
05-05-15, 09:05
- the Laws specifically allow a player to push the ball carrier
- the Laws specifically prohibit charging or knocking down the ball carrier


But reading this thread its not appearing clear Crossref, so .... a forceful two handed push in the back that knocks the ball carrier off his feet/down to the ground ( and is devoid of any grasp attempt ) is what ...
a) lawful push ..or
b) an offence

??:confused:

Coz IIUC that is the OP query.

from behind and pushed him in the back, so that the b/c went to ground. It was a solid push

crossref
05-05-15, 10:05
obviosuly we didn't see the particular incident, so can't give a judgement.
but i would say if he pushed the ball carrier it was legal, if he charged/knocked him down it was illegal.

Pegleg
05-05-15, 10:05
As I'm seeing it, there is no law against pushing, but it could be penalised if the push is dangerous. Is that about right?

Spot on. Just like (almost) any other legal act on the field. Judge on it own merit don't prejudge.

Pegleg
05-05-15, 11:05
Not quite true Pegleg. Far from "for ever with the whistle in your mouth" I don't remember blowing for it once in the last 3 years.

Head on tackles or tackles from the side are no problem. The problem (as I see it anyway) only comes when there is a big difference in speed between the BC or ball catcher and the tackler. Eg where the BC (or catcher) is stationary and targeted by a fast tackler from behind - ie there could be a massive difference in speed. Where the 2 are running in the same direction (ie the speed difference is negligible) I can't see a problem.


Same here.

But your opening comments do not refer to a dangerous push does it. Nor does your reference to a tackle from behind.

If it is dangerous it deserves a whistle.

If a player is injured such that play needs to stop then again you whistle.

otherwise leave well alone. You talked about prevention. Well you can't blow your whistle in case some one might do sometihng dangerous in such a situation.

As I say I may not have read your post clearly or it may not have been a clearly made point.

didds
05-05-15, 12:05
Got the thing about the scrumhalf etc . It doesn;t seem to have been a problem up till now though?

WADR to a bunch to top blokes and blokesses here, i do sometimes wonder if some people just go looking for reasons to blow the whistle.

I'll get me coat.

didds

Dixie
06-05-15, 11:05
This thread is in danger of taking a perfectly normal situation and making it utterly confusing to the OP. The fact is that it is legal in rugby to push a player - and even to push him so that he falls over (why else would you do it?). In both law and common sense, the specific trumps the general. So I suspect RobLev knew that he was just stirring the pot with his rather cheeky suggestion that knocking down with a failure to grasp might trump 7.1.


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

But surely Crossref, until this Law is removed, 'without trying to grasp & ball carrier' are the key elements ????

Its fairly clear that a two handed forceful shove isn't a bonafide "trying to grasp" See above. This is the general provision that is trumped by the specific one allowing pushing.


But your opening comments do not refer to a dangerous push does it. Nor does your reference to a tackle from behind.

If it is dangerous it deserves a whistle. I don't believe that a push can ever be dangerous, unless directed above the shoulders.

Phil E
06-05-15, 11:05
I don't believe that a push can ever be dangerous, unless directed above the shoulders.

Deliberately pushing someone into a pitchside object would be dangerous.

Rich_NL
06-05-15, 14:05
I think it depends on the push. If you see someone tearing down the wing and the defence's last gasp is a shove in the back at top speed, that's dangerous - you are forcing someone to go faster than their legs will carry them, and you'll get shoulder and collarbone injuries. Responsibility for a safe tackle is the tackler's, and if you're shoving someone at full pelt, that's often dangerous. Especially at junior level.

I have seen more dangerous pushes than safe ones in this sort of situation. Also, an aggressive push can blur the line between shove and strike, and this can certainly be dangerous below the shoulders. But I think it's an area that referee judgement is everything; there are safe pushes and dangerous ones.

Dixie
07-05-15, 10:05
Deliberately pushing someone into a pitchside object would be dangerous. Which is why Law 1.6b requires the referee not to start the game if such an object exists.

Dixie
07-05-15, 10:05
If you see someone tearing down the wing and the defence's last gasp is a shove in the back at top speed, that's dangerous - you are forcing someone to go faster than their legs will carry them, and you'll get shoulder and collarbone injuries. Presumably these shoulder and collarbone injuries are incurred when the ball carrier falls over? If so, what makes you feel that these same injuries might not occur if the defender takes a different approach and grabs the ball carrier's ankles - again causing him to fall over? It seems to me that your argument is that it is dangerous to cause a ball carrier to fall over by executing a textbook tackle, because the ball carrier might get hurt. Rugby must a be a challenge for you - have you considered umpiring tennis or chess instead?

Sorry Rich NL - I had not checked your status as a newbie before swinging in with the sarcastic comment! My bad. But I retain the view that causing someone to fall over is one of the principle aims of rugby. The falling over is not, of itself, considered dangerous. It is only dangerous when the act of causing someone to fall over could itself cause injury before they fell - so a swinging arm to the head, a punch to the face or head, etc.

Phil E
07-05-15, 10:05
Which is why Law 1.6b requires the referee not to start the game if such an object exists.

TV cameras, advertising hoardings, floodlight poles, spectators, fences................you can't not start because of these, and under normal circumstances they are safe, but if a player pushes a ball carrier who is on the edge of the pitch it could be dangerous.

I am just disputing your statement that "I don't believe that a push can ever be dangerous".

Never say never.....or ever!

Browner
07-05-15, 13:05
This thread is in danger of taking a perfectly normal situation and making it utterly confusing to the OP. The fact is that it is legal in rugby to push a player - and even to push him so that he falls over (why else would you do it?). In both law and common sense, the specific trumps the general. So I suspect RobLev knew that he was just stirring the pot with his rather cheeky suggestion that knocking down with a failure to grasp might trump 7.1.

See above. This is the general provision that is trumped by the specific one allowing pushing.

I don't believe that a push can ever be dangerous, unless directed above the shoulders.

On the contrary ....
Law 7.1 acts as the general permission
Law 10.4(g) excepts the general permission.

Thats how Law is constructed, as a further example.....
Law 7.1 generally permits "
any player to throw the ball.
Law 10.2(c) specifically ecepts/outlaws
intentionally throwing it into touch

Pushing an on-feet Ball carrier forwards/ backwards/sideways or into touch isnt barred , nor does Law prescribe the amount of force used in those acts provided they include a grasp attempt , furthermore if a grasp is attempted then a player is permitted to also force/push/shove player to the ground.

Law doesn't permit an ungrasped 'knocking' of the BC to the ground, this is misleadingly referred to as a "no arms tackle" when it might aid viewer/player understanding/compliance if it were described as "no grasp attempted"

Its the grasp (or lack of) that is crucial in determining a 10.4(g) offence, id cite- Liam Williams v SA as evidence.

Its fairly clear to me that any player who delivers a forceful two handed ' jabbing type' shove (without any evidence of a grasp being attempted) on an opponent ball carrier , commits an offence under 10.4(g).

I accept its ignored by many referees , and I accept that the upper level/adult game routinely ignores this Law, but that psuedo 'acceptability convention' in itself does not make it redundant.

The referee in the OP seemed law correct , as it was described.

crossref
07-05-15, 14:05
Its fairly clear to me that any player who delivers a forceful two handed ' jabbing type' shove (without any evidence of a grasp being attempted) on an opponent ball carrier , commits an offence under 10.4(g).


this is the nub of it : I think you are plain wrong: The Law expressly says a player may push the ball carrier

(and pushes are normally two handed, a one handed push isn't likely to be effective)

OB..
07-05-15, 14:05
Pushing an on-feet Ball carrier forwards/ backwards/sideways or into touch isnt barred , nor does Law prescribe the amount of force used in those acts provided they include a grasp attempt , furthermore if a grasp is attempted then a player is permitted to also force/push/shove player to the ground.

Law doesn't permit an ungrasped 'knocking' of the BC to the ground, this is misleadingly referred to as a "no arms tackle" when it might aid viewer/player understanding/compliance if it were described as "no grasp attempted"

Its the grasp (or lack of) that is crucial in determining a 10.4(g) offence, id cite- Liam Williams v SA as evidence.

Its fairly clear to me that any player who delivers a forceful two handed ' jabbing type' shove (without any evidence of a grasp being attempted) on an opponent ball carrier , commits an offence under 10.4(g).

I accept its ignored by many referees , and I accept that the upper level/adult game routinely ignores this Law, but that psuedo 'acceptability convention' in itself does not make it redundant.

The referee in the OP seemed law correct , as it was described.You are entitled to your view, but I do not accept it. A "no arms tackle"refers to one where the shoulder is used with no attempt to grasp. A simple push with the hands is permitted and IMHO it is for the referee to judge if it is done dangerously. The fact that a player goes to ground is not in itself sufficient to label it dangerous. we don't want to encourage soccer-style diving! :(

Browner
07-05-15, 17:05
You are entitled to your view, but I do not accept itA "no arms tackle"refers to one where the shoulder is used with no attempt to grasp. A simple push with the hands is permitted and IMHO it is for the referee to judge if it is done dangerously. The fact that a player goes to ground is not in itself sufficient to label it dangerous. we don't want to encourage soccer-style diving! :(


:offtopic: im not debating subjectivity of 'dangerously'.

Was he the BC - yes
Was he 'knocked' to ground - yes
Did the opponent attempt to grasp him - no
PK then

Did he use his delt/pec/trap or biceps???, law doesn't specify which of those or any combination ...

Now if your saying thats rarely PK coz most either don't know, or don't care, or choose to ignore well thats a different thread where we could include many other law ignorings

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/push
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knock

crossref
07-05-15, 17:05
browner you're not listening. We are saying you have made a mistake about the law.

You are allowed to push the ball carrier.

You are claiming that is illegal to push the ball carrier with two hands and/or that is illegal to push the ball carrier if he falls over.

I am saying you are wrong on both counts: pushing a ball carrier is legal

Browner
07-05-15, 17:05
this is the nub of it : I think you are plain wrong: The Law expressly says a player may push the ball carrier

(and pushes are normally two handed, a one handed push isn't likely to be effective)

Crossref, you're not listening !

You can't hang your hat on 7.1 being absolute , otherwise there are plenty of PKs that couldnt ever happen
7.1_is a start point, the detail is in each individual law.

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.
Any player may fall on the ball.
Any player may take part in a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout.
Any player may ground the ball in in-goal.
A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.

How many of those have contrary exceptions within specific ( and overriding) law, you can continue the list if you wish , I started one with 10.2(c) ...TBC ?????

You might not agree with its application , and I've never actually said that I think its relevant in pro rugby , but its in there 10.4(g) , in black & white.

What I do think is, the more 'opponent grasping within tackling' is encouraged :clap: an 'not grasping' is penalised :clap:, then we will have a less 'hit/smash/bang/crash/concussion increasing code

As an aside, 10.4(g) Appears deliberately worded to me, do you think its a drafting error?

crossref
07-05-15, 17:05
OK I'll give up..... after just one more attempt! :) ...

It's legal to push a ball carrier -
Law 7.1 - World Rugby Laws
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

it's illegal to charge/knock down a ball carrier

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

your argument is based on the mistaken idea that push and knock down are the same thing.
But they are not the same :
- in ordinary language (as your dictionary defintions show) - 'push' is not the same as 'knock'.
- in the Laws, 'push' and 'knock' obviously are not meant to be the same thing, indeed they are carefully distinguished, one being legal and the other being illegal.

Browner
07-05-15, 17:05
To evidence that 7.1 isn't absolute.

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. Unless he knocks on
Any player may throw it or kick it.But not deliberately throw forward or into touch
Any player may give the ball to another player.Unless he's handing it to a teammate in front
Any player may tackle, if he's on the ground he cant hold or push an opponent holding the ball.Provided he doesn't breach 10.4(g)
Any player may fall on the ball except in a scrum, or as it leaves a scrum/ruck
Any player may take part in a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout. provided STE is observed
Any player may ground the ball in in-goal. ??
A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.
Whatever a player does must be in accordance with the Laws of the Game.

Individual Laws often amend this broad game play description.

Browner
07-05-15, 18:05
OK I'll give up..... after just one more attempt! :) ...
.

Making an attempt is sufficient to avoid offending ! :love:

OB..
07-05-15, 19:05
Was he the BC - yes
Was he 'knocked' to ground - yes
Did the opponent attempt to grasp him - no
PK thenYou choose to say "knocked" rather than "pushed". If it was a push then I would mark that as a law error.

RobLev
08-05-15, 02:05
OK I'll give up..... after just one more attempt! :) ...

It's legal to push a ball carrier -
Law 7.1 - World Rugby Laws
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

it's illegal to charge/knock down a ball carrier

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

your argument is based on the mistaken idea that push and knock down are the same thing.
But they are not the same :
- in ordinary language (as your dictionary defintions show) - 'push' is not the same as 'knock'.
- in the Laws, 'push' and 'knock' obviously are not meant to be the same thing, indeed they are carefully distinguished, one being legal and the other being illegal.

You seem to assume that "knock down" excludes use of the hands, because pushing is allowed. If that is right, knocking a non-BC down with what part of my body is illegal? It's not the shoulder referrred to here, because a [shoulder] charge is rendered illegal per se in the self-same law.

OB..
08-05-15, 11:05
The claim seems to be that while it is legal to push a ball carrier, if he goes to ground as a consequence, it is a penalty offence.

Sorry, but you are never going to convince me that makes sense.

crossref
08-05-15, 12:05
You seem to assume that "knock down" excludes use of the hands, because pushing is allowed. If that is right, .

no - I am saying that pushing a player is different from charging/knocking down a player.

The dictionary defintions that browner himself posted above do a fine job of explaining the difference -



PUSH -
Exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself:
Hold and exert force on (something) so as to cause it to move in front of one:

KNOCK
Collide with (someone or something), giving them a hard blow


Meanwhile you seem to be saying that pushng and knocking are pretty much the same thing
- depsite the common meaning of the words being different
- despite the Laws clearly distingusihing, making one legal and one illegal

Browner
08-05-15, 12:05
The claim seems to be that while it is legal to push a ball carrier, if he goes to ground as a consequence, it is a penalty offence.

Sorry, but you are never going to convince me that makes sense.

Rather that the game creators didn't want to see players running at a BCs and knocking /shoving/barging/pushing them to the ground, they wanted tackling via grasping, so provided you attempt to do that then you are fine, but conversely if you dont try to grasp then they created a PK sanction to dissude you from repeating the practice.

least that's my best guess .

The modern day crash/hit wasn't to be encouraged, not sure why it is ...... Maybe spectators love seeing it, and coaches demand it ?!!!! , the actual possession gaining value is fairly low.

IMHO penalising all non grasps would have a 'impact' ( excuse the pun) on reducing injuries & concussions, and any reduction - even if a small % saving (likely) would be welcomed. The media that glorify hits and smashes indicates there is a bloodthirstyesk baying spectator appetite, the general increase of the same which might correlate to the rise of impact injuries.

If i havent convinced you, then sobeit, its said "you can only lead a horse to water" :hap:

Browner
08-05-15, 13:05
no - I am saying that pushing a player is different from charging/knocking down a player.

The dictionary defintions that browner himself posted above do a fine job of explaining the difference -




Meanwhile you seem to be saying that pushng and knocking are pretty much the same thing
- depsite the common meaning of the words being different
- despite the Laws clearly distingusihing, making one legal and one illegal

You are starting to get there Crossref


PUSH -
Exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself:
Hold and exert force on (something) so as to cause it to move in front of one:

KNOCK
Collide with (someone or something), giving them a hard blow

hold and shove/nudge/force etc = push
No hold = a blow/knock/collision

The absence of a grasp attempt, makes to two acts fairly easily to identify and then sanction as law expects.

damo
08-05-15, 13:05
I guess this means that you would also penalise an ankle tap Browner? After all, there is no attempt to wrap the arms in that type of tackle either?

RobLev
08-05-15, 13:05
no - I am saying that pushing a player is different from charging/knocking down a player.

...

Meanwhile you seem to be saying that pushng and knocking are pretty much the same thing
- depsite the common meaning of the words being different
- despite the Laws clearly distingusihing, making one legal and one illegal

So how do I knock someone down (illegally) without using my hands or my shoulder?

And no, I do not say that pushing and knocking are pretty much the same thing.

Browner
08-05-15, 14:05
I guess this means that you would also penalise an ankle tap Browner? After all, there is no attempt to wrap the arms in that type of tackle either?

Hi damo,

I wondered when this would pop up - thanks,

Start by removing the word TAP, its a misdescription.

The "ankle tap thingy" is much more akin to a Trip (or more accurately 'normally a hand swipe that connects with one of the BC legs/feet , causing them to collide & then because he is moving at speed causes him to unbalance or stumble or fall or collapse' )

If the game wants to keep it ( im actually non plussed either way ) then it would be better to define and specifically permit it in TLoTG IMO.

However, the current position seems to be that the tripping of an opponent with your hand aka "the ankle tap" seems to be expressely permitted merely because the trip law 10.4(d) doesn't include the use of a hand, which I assume was a deliberate attempt by the lawwriters to permit the hand swipe/trip/tappy thing , although it does seem to fly against the "try to grasp" ethos of the game, of that I agree.

I suspect it exists because a desperately flailing tackle attempt often results in these inadvertant hand ( finger/arm) Trippings, so it was thought better to allow it rather than bar it.

So, to answer your question, 10.4(d) appears to have a exemption permission that makes it more applicable than 10.4(g) in dealing with the act you describe.

:shrug:

Browner
09-05-15, 19:05
Compare these collisions by freezing the vid at the point of impact.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtYc-PPCCE
http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/05/japanese-defender-teaches-argentine.html

Neither grasp the BC, both lead with shoulder , Both BC are knocked into touch, but one stays on feet the other gets knocked to the ground.

So is it the fact that the BC doesn't get knocked to ground that determines the charging offence, or is it the BCs approach height/dive to the try line that is responsible for the japananese player escaping the same offence as LW?

Rich_NL
20-05-15, 15:05
Presumably these shoulder and collarbone injuries are incurred when the ball carrier falls over? If so, what makes you feel that these same injuries might not occur if the defender takes a different approach and grabs the ball carrier's ankles - again causing him to fall over? It seems to me that your argument is that it is dangerous to cause a ball carrier to fall over by executing a textbook tackle, because the ball carrier might get hurt. Rugby must a be a challenge for you - have you considered umpiring tennis or chess instead?

[EDIT] Sorry Rich NL - I had not checked your status as a newbie before swinging in with the sarcastic comment! My bad. But I retain the view that causing someone to fall over is one of the principle aims of rugby.

No worries on the sarcasm front, I've seen worse ;)

I'm saying that a shove in the back at full speed is more dangerous than a tackle at full speed, because you speed them up (and they hit the ground faster) whereas with a tackle you slow them down. It's why we put brakes on cars - removing energy. In addition, you have no control over the tackle, and the tackled player has nothing to react against - if you're being held you can curl and twist to land safely a lot more easily than if you're freefalling. I've done a fair bit of wrestling and judo, it's much easier to fall safely if you're held on the way down rather than flung across the room.

In my reading, pushing is meant to cover rucks, mauls, bundling players into touch... physically driving someone over the field. A sharp shove designed to knock someone over is an attempt to "knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player." (10.4(g))

Tap tackles are more dangerous (and banned for junior leagues here) but still not accelerating someone past their ability to stand.


The falling over is not, of itself, considered dangerous. It is only dangerous when the act of causing someone to fall over could itself cause injury before they fell - so a swinging arm to the head, a punch to the face or head, etc.

I disagree here - a tip tackle is a penalty if the player goes over 90 degrees in the air. There's nothing dangerous about being past 90 degrees in the air, it's the danger of injury when they land. Same goes for tackling a player in the air.

OB..
20-05-15, 16:05
In my reading, pushing is meant to cover rucks, mauls, bundling players into touch... physically driving someone over the field. A sharp shove designed to knock someone over is an attempt to "knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player." (10.4(g))You have quoted part of the paragraph, which is actually defining dangerous charging. You are choosing to equate that with a push, following your rationale about the latter being more dangerous. Is a push really more dangerous than some of the shoulder charges we have seen creeping into the game? In practise it is rare to see a push, so I am not aware of there being a general problem.


I disagree here - a tip tackle is a penalty if the player goes over 90 degrees in the air. There's nothing dangerous about being past 90 degrees in the air, it's the danger of injury when they land. Same goes for tackling a player in the air.10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.This is how the law refers to what is known as a tip tackle. It requires a deliberate lift and a failure to let the player down safely. Nobody penalises going past 90 by itself, though in most case that will indeed end up badly.

damo
21-05-15, 07:05
Hi damo,

I wondered when this would pop up - thanks,

Start by removing the word TAP, its a misdescription.

The "ankle tap thingy" is much more akin to a Trip (or more accurately 'normally a hand swipe that connects with one of the BC legs/feet , causing them to collide & then because he is moving at speed causes him to unbalance or stumble or fall or collapse' )

If the game wants to keep it ( im actually non plussed either way ) then it would be better to define and specifically permit it in TLoTG IMO.

However, the current position seems to be that the tripping of an opponent with your hand aka "the ankle tap" seems to be expressely permitted merely because the trip law 10.4(d) doesn't include the use of a hand, which I assume was a deliberate attempt by the lawwriters to permit the hand swipe/trip/tappy thing , although it does seem to fly against the "try to grasp" ethos of the game, of that I agree.

I suspect it exists because a desperately flailing tackle attempt often results in these inadvertant hand ( finger/arm) Trippings, so it was thought better to allow it rather than bar it.

So, to answer your question, 10.4(d) appears to have a exemption permission that makes it more applicable than 10.4(g) in dealing with the act you describe.

:shrug:
I think you are massively overcomplicating things. An ankle tap isn't illegal because it isn't specified as being illegal anywhere in the laws. Exactly the same as a push.

Ian_Cook
21-05-15, 08:05
I think you are massively overcomplicating things. An ankle tap isn't illegal because it isn't specified as being illegal anywhere in the laws. Exactly the same as a push.


Besides which ankle tapping an opponent not the same as tripping an opponent.

The reason that a trip is dangerous play is NOT because it takes a player's feet out from under him, its dangerous play because it is kicking the opponent in the leg.

Anyone who thinks this is a difference that doesn't matter, please lie down on the ground while I first Gibbs-slap you on the back of the head, and then kick you in the back of the head. You can then be the judge of which is more dangerous.

Rich_NL
21-05-15, 21:05
You have quoted part of the paragraph, which is actually defining dangerous charging. You are choosing to equate that with a push, following your rationale about the latter being more dangerous.

True, and you are choosing to see a shove from behind as not charging. It seems a matter of interpretation.


10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.This is how the law refers to what is known as a tip tackle. It requires a deliberate lift and a failure to let the player down safely. Nobody penalises going past 90 by itself, though in most case that will indeed end up badly.

True, that example was not relevant to "It is only dangerous when the act of causing someone to fall over could itself cause injury before they fell" - apologies. Tackling the jumper in the air remains a counterexample, though.

Browner
22-05-15, 10:05
"Attempting to Grasp" is an easy line in the sand to judge. And Law expects similar ( ie a bind) within Maul/Ruck joining also.

IMO grasping should be the benchmark in the quest to curb (reverse the trend from) the smash/crash/injure/break/impact/concuss style of Maul/Ruck/Tackling, and the value to the code ( and participation longevity) is mistakenly overlooked/ignored IMHO.

Granted it won't satisfy those that get 'personally excited' by, or need a diet of chiropractor adverse bone jarring/crunchings in return for their spectator participation, but if they remain unquenched then there are other sports to watch.

OB..
23-05-15, 14:05
True, and you are choosing to see a shove from behind as not charging. It seems a matter of interpretation.I claim my interpretation is the standard one, and you are wanting to extend it to solve a particular situation you have a problem with.

I don't see that there is a problem that needs resolving. If a player is ever pushed dangerously, you do not need anything special anyway - just use 10.4 (m)

RobLev
23-05-15, 16:05
I claim my interpretation is the standard one, and you are wanting to extend it to solve a particular situation you have a problem with.

I don't see that there is a problem that needs resolving. If a player is ever pushed dangerously, you do not need anything special anyway - just use 10.4 (m)

Do you see any meaning in the second limb of Law 10.4(g) that I emphasise below:

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

If I use the shoulder to knock another player down, I'm in breach of the "must not charge" limb whether or not he goes down. If I use my hands to knock him over, you say that that's always legitimate. If I use my head it's a breach of Law 10.4(a); ditto my elbow; if I use my legs, that's a breach of Law 10.4(a), (c) or (d); in each case whether he goes down or not. So what is left?

OB..
23-05-15, 17:05
Do you see any meaning in the second limb of Law 10.4(g) that I emphasise below:

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

If I use the shoulder to knock another player down, I'm in breach of the "must not charge" limb whether or not he goes down. If I use my hands to knock him over, you say that that's always legitimate. If I use my head it's a breach of Law 10.4(a); ditto my elbow; if I use my legs, that's a breach of Law 10.4(a), (c) or (d); in each case whether he goes down or not. So what is left?We are talking about pushing the ball carrier. 10.4 (a), (c), and (d) do not.

If you take 10.4 (g) to cover pushing, then we have the situation that if the player goes to ground it is a PK, but if he doesn't it is legal. That makes no sense (and it would encourage diving :mad:).

Pushing is rare because there is virtually always something better to do if you are that close. I think it is a non-problem, and we have already spent more than enough time on it. At worst this is a minor anomaly.

RobLev
23-05-15, 17:05
We are talking about pushing the ball carrier. 10.4 (a), (c), and (d) do not.

If you take 10.4 (g) to cover pushing, then we have the situation that if the player goes to ground it is a PK, but if he doesn't it is legal. That makes no sense (and it would encourage diving :mad:).

Pushing is rare because there is virtually always something better to do if you are that close. I think it is a non-problem, and we have already spent more than enough time on it. At worst this is a minor anomaly.

Do I take it that your view is that you can remove "or knock down" from Law 10.4(g) with no change of meaning?

Dixie
26-05-15, 13:05
Do I take it that your view is that you can remove "or knock down" from Law 10.4(g) with no change of meaning? OB will respond for himself, but it is possible to knock down a player without charging him, but while committing the same basic offence. If I run at a guy and shoulder-charge him without wrapping, I am guilty of dangerous charging. If I stand still and let him run into my shoulder without wrapping, I am guilty of knocking him down - but not of dangerous charging. I would prefer the offence to be attempting a no-arms tackle, and ensuring that the definition of a tackle excludes a push.

RobLev
26-05-15, 15:05
OB will respond for himself, but it is possible to knock down a player without charging him, but while committing the same basic offence. If I run at a guy and shoulder-charge him without wrapping, I am guilty of dangerous charging. If I stand still and let him run into my shoulder without wrapping, I am guilty of knocking him down - but not of dangerous charging. I would prefer the offence to be attempting a no-arms tackle, and ensuring that the definition of a tackle excludes a push.

With no movement into the opponent? I can see the "down", but am having trouble with the "knocking", which implies some movement on my part - taking us neatly into Law 10.4(a) territory.

Again, if the ball-carrier runs into me while I am stationary and unbraced, and he falls over and I don't, it's more likely that the laws of physics have been broken than the Laws of Rugby Union, surely?