PDA

View Full Version : No TMO, no try.



Browner
19-07-15, 14:07
I think it's fair to say, that if we didn't have TMO reviews then the Aussies wouldn't have been awarded this match winner.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TofAHu6i5pk

Is there any time limit on how long a try scoring attemptee can wriggle/twist/ 'repositio etc, or does the modern elite game give him a prolonged 'immediately' exception?

Blackberry
19-07-15, 14:07
A very defendable decision would be penalty against SA tackler for not releasing the tackled player, consequently a penalty try.

Taff
19-07-15, 17:07
A very defendable decision would be penalty against SA tackler for not releasing the tackled player, consequently a penalty try.
First time I've seen it, but for what it's worth I agree with Blackberry.

Green 6 (the tackler) was required to release first ... but didn't.


I think it's fair to say, that if we didn't have TMO reviews then the Aussies wouldn't have been awarded this match winner.
I'm sure you're right; St Nigel was unsighted and .... "If you didn't see it, you can't give it" as my mate says. This is why TMOs were brought in surely.

chbg
19-07-15, 18:07
A very defendable decision would be penalty against SA tackler for not releasing the tackled player, consequently a penalty try.

Cue OB ...

Pegleg
19-07-15, 18:07
Green 6 (the tackler) was required to release first ... but didn't.



Can you give the law supporting that one?

Baylion
19-07-15, 19:07
Can you give the law supporting that one?

Law 15.4

15.4 The tackler
(a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.
Sanction: Penalty kick


​Francois Louw didn't do any of these things

OB..
19-07-15, 20:07
Cue OB ...I wasn't going to bother, but ...


Law 15.4

15.4 The tackler
(a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.
Sanction: Penalty kick


​Francois Louw didn't do any of these thingsThe tackled player is also required to act immediately. The law does not specify any particular order - it is just a convention that referees usually require the tackler to act first.


This is fine in mid-field, since it speeds up the game with no undue advantage to the ball carrier's team.

However if he is able to reach out and score a try, that is a major advantage and the refereeing convention very obviously does not make sense here.

I was pleased to see that Owens apparently took that view.

Ian_Cook
19-07-15, 21:07
A very defendable decision would be penalty against SA tackler for not releasing the tackled player, consequently a penalty try.


First time I've seen it, but for what it's worth I agree with Blackberry.

Green 6 (the tackler) was required to release first ... but didn't.

Well there is also the valid argument that the ball was off the ground over the goal-line, and therefore in goal, and therefore, since a tackle cannot take place in goal...

15.1 WHERE CAN A TACKLE TAKE PLACE
A tackle can only take place in the field of play.

.....Green 6 did not have to release him.

chbg
19-07-15, 21:07
Thank you - I had only looked in Law 22, which mentions ruck, maul, scrum as only taking place in the field of play but not a tackle.

I agree - ball was over the goal-line and therefore the result was going to be held up or grounded. The struggle did not go on long enough to decide on a 'held up'.

I suppose that the ball could have been pushed back into the field of play, in which case players on both sides were playing it whilst on the ground. Scrum down, game over, without having to determine whether that was therefore Green moving forward immediately before the stoppage!

Ian_Cook
20-07-15, 01:07
Thank you - I had only looked in Law 22, which mentions ruck, maul, scrum as only taking place in the field of play but not a tackle.

I agree - ball was over the goal-line and therefore the result was going to be held up or grounded. The struggle did not go on long enough to decide on a 'held up'.

I suppose that the ball could have been pushed back into the field of play, in which case players on both sides were playing it whilst on the ground. Scrum down, game over, without having to determine whether that was therefore Green moving forward immediately before the stoppage!


Personally, I would like to to see some sort of clarity in the Law when the ball carrier has been tackled and is within reach of grounding the ball over the goal-line, as it seems manifestly unfair for a tackler to have to release if the result is going to be that the tackled player can then score a try.

The simplest way would be to change 22.4

22.4 (e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try, then tacklers are not required to release the tackled player or the ball.

(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the player from grounding the ball by holding the player or the ball up, but must not kick the ball.

Add the parts in blue, remove the part in red.

I cannot see any unintended consequences of such a change as this is already done in common practice.

Baylion
20-07-15, 09:07
Jonathan Kaplan on twitter
It is a very tight call either way and the tip of the ball may be touching the line .. If not a penalty try was on for Aus as Burger illegal

Blackberry
20-07-15, 12:07
I wasn't going to bother, but ...

The tackled player is also required to act immediately. The law does not specify any particular order - it is just a convention that referees usually require the tackler to act first.


This is fine in mid-field, since it speeds up the game with no undue advantage to the ball carrier's team.

However if he is able to reach out and score a try, that is a major advantage and the refereeing convention very obviously does not make sense here.

I was pleased to see that Owens apparently took that view.


I am struggling to understand your interpretation in this instance OB. I certainly don't think its a convention that refs interpret the law in this way, I think its sequential. The idea is that play should be allowed to carry on swiftly and without illegal slowing. Consequently the tackler must let go of the tackled player so the tackled player can immediately release. The only alternative interpretation of the laws is that they have been re-written to deliberately do a 180 and go against the pervasive wish that in rugby play should be allowed to continue swiftly.

The law writers have not (as in so many cases) explicitly written this in the laws simply because it is explicit in the sequence; we want the tackled player to play the ball quickly so the tackler must release him. Now if any of the laws allowed a tackler to slow up the release while holding a player on the ground, then I would listen to your interpretation, but that goes against the tackle laws.

If you want a simple definition, I say a tackler on the ground must not do anything to slow up the release of the ball.

Browner
20-07-15, 13:07
Is there any time limit on how long a try scoring attemptee can wriggle/twist/ 'repositio etc, or does the modern xxxxx game give him a prolonged 'immediately' exception?

Any tips for deciding, I guess we all have some varying benchmark.

OB..
20-07-15, 16:07
I am struggling to understand your interpretation in this instance OB. I certainly don't think its a convention that refs interpret the law in this way, I think its sequential. That is where our views diverge. I see nothing in the laws that says or necessarily implies that the tackler must act first.
The idea is that play should be allowed to carry on swiftly and without illegal slowing. Consequently the tackler must let go of the tackled player so the tackled player can immediately release. That is why the convention has arisen.


The law writers have not (as in so many cases) explicitly written this in the laws simply because it is explicit in the sequenceWhat sequence?
we want the tackled player to play the ball quickly so the tackler must release him. Now if any of the laws allowed a tackler to slow up the release while holding a player on the ground, then I would listen to your interpretation, but that goes against the tackle laws.The tackle laws require the tackled player to release immediately,so both should release at the same time. That would mean the tackled player could not reach out to score if his arms were held in the tackle.


If you want a simple definition, I say a tackler on the ground must not do anything to slow up the release of the ball.Tackler wraps ball and all in a tackle close to the goal line. You then want him to release so that the tackled player can reach out and score.

I think that is such an unfair requirement that I claim the convention should not be applied in such a situation.

Dickie E
20-07-15, 22:07
That is where our views diverge. I see nothing in the laws that says or necessarily implies that the tackler must act first. That is why the convention has arisen.



I don't disagree with this but wonder what the restart should be if the ball becomes wrapped up and unplayable 1 metre from the goal line.

Ian_Cook
20-07-15, 23:07
I don't disagree with this but wonder what the restart should be if the ball becomes wrapped up and unplayable 1 metre from the goal line.



Scrum as per Law 15.8

15.8 DOUBT ABOUT FAILURE TO COMPLY
If the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle and there is doubt about which player did not conform to Law, the referee orders a scrum immediately with the throw-in by the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.


Mark would be 5m out from goal-line, in line with where the tackle was.

ETA:

If it was a ruck, not a tackle

16.7 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
(a) A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered. The team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable in the ruck throws in the ball.

If neither team was moving forward, or if the referee cannot decide which team was moving forward before the ball became unplayable in the ruck, the team that was moving forward before the ruck began throws in the ball.

If neither team was moving forward, then the attacking team throws in the ball.

Dickie E
21-07-15, 00:07
Agree Ian.

So 9 times out of 10 the attacking team will get the feed which is consistent with ball held up in goal.

Dickie E
21-07-15, 00:07
A question though:

Red ball carrier is tackled just short of Blue goal line and ball is wrapped. With a view to continuity to the next phase of play, ref calls "release Blue". Blue release and everyone expects ball to go to SH for next phase. However, initial Red ball carrier reaches out with ball to ground in-goal.

Decision?

In my view, Red have lost the opportunity to reach out so must recycle the ball. Reaching out at that point would be illegal.

Ian_Cook
21-07-15, 00:07
A question though:

Red ball carrier is tackled just short of Blue goal line and ball is wrapped. With a view to continuity to the next phase of play, ref calls "release Blue". Blue release and everyone expects ball to go to SH for next phase. However, initial Red ball carrier reaches out with ball to ground in-goal.

Decision?

In my view, Red have lost the opportunity to reach out so must recycle the ball. Reaching out at that point would be illegal.


I agree.

What the tackled player is doing by reaching out over the goal line to score a try is placing the ball i.a.w. Law 15.5...

15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick


IMO, if the referee has had enough time to tell the tackler to release, then "immediately" has expired, and his opportunity to place over the goal-line is lost.

ETA: Just to clarify, the tackled player has options to place, pass, push or release the ball, any of which he may do so long as he does so immediately, but once the referee says "release", the first three options are gone, and release is all he is allowed to do.

Blackberry
21-07-15, 08:07
Quote from OB
Tackler wraps ball and all in a tackle close to the goal line. You then want him to release so that the tackled player can reach out and score.

I think that is such an unfair requirement that I claim the convention should not be applied in such a situation.

Wow! I think the question you might ask is should an attacking team be denied the benefit of their good work by changing the interpretation you have used for the rest of the game?????????

In any event, I am not comfortable that you have explored the point that rugby laws encourage swift recycling of the ball.

Ian_Cook
21-07-15, 09:07
Quote from OB
Tackler wraps ball and all in a tackle close to the goal line. You then want him to release so that the tackled player can reach out and score.

I think that is such an unfair requirement that I claim the convention should not be applied in such a situation.

Wow! I think the question you might ask is should an attacking team be denied the benefit of their good work by changing the interpretation you have used for the rest of the game?????????

In any event, I am not comfortable that you have explored the point that rugby laws encourage swift recycling of the ball.


The it becomes no longer a requirement to get to the line with the ball, just so long as you can get within arms length, the Law makes the tackler let go and you can score your try with impunity? Sorry, I don't buy that.

There is nothing untoward or unusual about Laws being applied differently in different parts of the field. All referees I know will treat cynical play by defenders much more severely the closer they get to their own goal-line. You even get referees vocalising this...

"Captain, your team is giving away too many penalties at this end of the field!!"

I'll bet if you were to analyse YC's given for cynical play at the tackle and ruck, you would find a significant majority of them being against defenders in their own 22m.

SimonSmith
21-07-15, 13:07
I'm not sure that in all circumstances we look at the tackler first do we?

I like the idea of differentiating depending on circumstances. Isolated runner, tackled with tackle assist standing ready to strip immediately - the onus is squarely on the tackled player to comply first.
Tackled with loads of support and no tackle assist present? Tackler to comply.

To insist, therefore, that at the goal line we are bound by some kind of unspoken covenant that doesn't truly exist seems iniquitous to me.

OB..
21-07-15, 14:07
Wow! I think the question you might ask is should an attacking team be denied the benefit of their good work by changing the interpretation you have used for the rest of the game?????????Do you think that consistency in a particular interpretation is more important than fairness? As has been pointed out referees consistently take field position into account in many judgements.

Blackberry
21-07-15, 15:07
OB, fairness to who????????? Your definition of fairness to one player becomes unfairness to the other.

Here's the idea of the laws; swift recycling of the ball. So the sequence is (you say by convention in some places but not in others???) the tackler lets go of the tackled player so he can act quickly. I really don't see how the sequence can change depending on where you are. The speed can change (as mentioned when TP is isolated) but the sequence never does.

I urgently ask you to consider the idea of breaking the sequence because of different field positions, its akin to allowing crooked feeds need your own line. I also ask you to consider the two sides to a fairness debate.

Ian_Cook
21-07-15, 21:07
A ball carrier is tackled into in-goal, where the tackler has the ball and carrier wrapped up. Because it is in goal, the tackle Laws don't apply (there is an clear example of a Law that changes due to field position).

If you think that its unfair for a tackler not to release the tackled player when he's been good enough to get within arms length of the goal-line, then how unfair is it if the ball carrier was even more skilful in getting all the way into in-goal in the tackle. Your sense of fairness must be even more offended now that the tackler has black letter law allowing him not to release.


Here are other example of Law changing in differing field positions

Scrums and line-out marks are moved to 5m out
Scrums, Mauls and Rucks cease to exist in-goal
Mark for fair catch inside 22m but no inside 22m
Gain in ground laws w.r.t. 22m area

Taff
22-07-15, 01:07
That is where our views diverge. I see nothing in the laws that says or necessarily implies that the tackler must act first. That is why the convention has arisen.
I can see why tacklers would object, but if everyone agrees that the convention is good in the middle of the field, I don't understand why it suddenly becomes a bad idea half a meter out. The pitch is a maximum of 100m long; expecting normal convention to be turned on its head half a meter out seems to smack of desperation.

Dickie E
22-07-15, 01:07
I can see why tacklers would object, but if everyone agrees that the convention is good in the middle of the field, I don't understand why it suddenly becomes a bad idea half a meter out. The pitch is a maximum of 100m long; expecting normal convention to be turned on its head half a meter out seems to smack of desperation.

It makes sense to me.

More than 1/2 metre out: ball carrier can't reach out and score
In goal: defenders can wrap and hold ball carrier to prevent grounding

Why should there be a special zone between goal line and 1/2 metre line where ball carrier is guaranteed a try?

RobLev
22-07-15, 08:07
That is where our views diverge. I see nothing in the laws that says or necessarily implies that the tackler must act first. That is why the convention has arisen.

What sequence?The tackle laws require the tackled player to release immediately,so both should release at the same time. That would mean the tackled player could not reach out to score if his arms were held in the tackle.

Tackler wraps ball and all in a tackle close to the goal line. You then want him to release so that the tackled player can reach out and score.

I think that is such an unfair requirement that I claim the convention should not be applied in such a situation.

I don't agree it's a mere convention; nor does WR/IRB:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=4

The sequence is clear from the video attached to item 1; tackler releases, then tackled player releases/places etc.

We've gone through this before ad nauseam, and I don't want to do so again - but I don't think it's appropriate continually to refer to this as "a convention" when IRB/WR has treated it as the correct "interpretation" of the Law - ie, Law itself.

RobLev
22-07-15, 08:07
It makes sense to me.

More than 1/2 metre out: ball carrier can't reach out and score
In goal: defenders can wrap and hold ball carrier to prevent grounding

Why should there be a special zone between goal line and 1/2 metre line where ball carrier is guaranteed a try?

BC tackled ˝m short of the tryline. He doesn't release, nor does the tackler. Who gets the PK?

Dickie E
22-07-15, 09:07
BC tackled ˝m short of the tryline. He doesn't release, nor does the tackler. Who gets the PK?

No-one. Unplayable mess. Scrum to team going forward

Blackberry
22-07-15, 09:07
If you think that its unfair for a tackler not to release the tackled player when he's been good enough to get within arms length of the goal-line, then how unfair is it if the ball carrier was even more skilful in getting all the way into in-goal in the tackle. Your sense of fairness must be even more offended now that the tackler has black letter law allowing him not to release.


Here are other example of Law changing in differing field positions

Hi Ian
This is in fact the point we are making....... in the instances you give, it is written in the law. Can I say that again.... written in the law. These are no brainers. We don't have to make anything up, we go with the laws.

On this thread the bone of contention is that we should follow an IRB clarification...unless it really matters (ie close to the try line). Huh?

Here's the counter argument. While the speed of release may very depending on isolation the sequence cannot be tampered with depending on field position. If the player can reach out to score a try, a tackler on the ground who interferes is liable to be penalised.

Hope this makes sense, and I would urge any new ref to read this excellent thread to get an understanding of the reasoning behind laws and clarifications.

Ian_Cook
22-07-15, 10:07
BC tackled ˝m short of the tryline. He doesn't release, nor does the tackler. Who gets the PK?

Law 15.8

Browner
22-07-15, 13:07
BC tackled ˝m short of the tryline. He doesn't release, nor does the tackler. Who gets the PK?

Standard interpretation says BC team.

If you are too late to prevent a try, then you are too late - do it earlier or tough.

But this has set me thinking, if T doesn't release [ and if he did then BC would probably score ] then surely it should be a PT [YC]? any other offence that prevents a certain try gets this result - doesn't it????

SimonSmith
22-07-15, 13:07
I'm going to ask (again).

Ball carrier makes a break.
Is tackled, well away from.
Tackle assist - legally - approaches to strip the ball.
Ball carrier refuses to surrender the ball.
However, tackler has failed to release the ball carrier's ankles as the strip is attempted.

I can't see that in those circumstances the tackler is getting pinged. In which case, reliance on the 'tackler first, tackled player second' idea is kinda shot. Because it is circumstance driven

Browner
22-07-15, 13:07
The reason why tacklers are required to release and vacate the ball area, is so that they don't materially prevent the ball being available to opponents.

If the Tacklers "ankle holding" isn't interfering in this way then let the game continue, however IF his continued 'holding' or 'body position' prevents any opponent from accessing the ball [including delay/block] then he is IMO a material offender.

Is a smart early GM marker to PK [irrespective of materiality] sending a message to all players of expectations for the next 79 mins.

RobLev
22-07-15, 13:07
Law 15.8

What is the doubt about which player did not conform to law?

Pegleg
22-07-15, 14:07
Law 15.4

15.4 The tackler
(a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.
Sanction: Penalty kick


​Francois Louw didn't do any of these things


You've not read the post you're replying to properly. We know the tackler must act immediately. However, the tackled player has to act immediatly as well.

Taff's claim is / was:



Green 6 (the tackler) was required to release first ... but didn't.

The law book does not support his argument.

Phil E
22-07-15, 15:07
The law book does not support his argument.

As someone once said (who was it now :chin: )......you cannot referee by rote!

OB..
22-07-15, 15:07
I urgently ask you to consider the idea of breaking the sequence because of different field positions, its akin to allowing crooked feeds need your own line. I also ask you to consider the two sides to a fairness debate.
No it isn't.
(1) The situation we are talking about involves scoring a try. Nothing can be more important than that.
(2) The law actually specifies the throw-in must be straight. It does NOT specify the sequence at a tackle.

The fairness angle arises because the tackler has pulled off a try-saving tackle. It is IMHO manifestly unfair if the referee can then (following a convention NOT specified in the laws) order him to allow opponent to score. The referee would IMHO be acting unfairly.

I have been round this argument many times, and have yet to find a counter-argument that make sense to me.

Pegleg
22-07-15, 15:07
As someone once said (who was it now :chin: )......you cannot referee by rote!

I agree but that does not allow you to make up the laws. The tackler should not be forced to allow a try because of a made up law. You referee with empathy. Both tacked player and tackler deserve empathy.

But I'm sure you knew that.

Browner
22-07-15, 16:07
I have been round this argument many times, and have yet to find a counter-argument that make sense to me.

what about .....

IF your tackle occurs so last ditch that it occurs within a 'extended arm reach' distance of the Goal Line & therefore you fail to deny a long armed BC [who is permitted to reach & place the ball in any direction after he's been tackled ] from reaching and scoring , then you have simply left your defensive effort too late Mr Tackler, unlucky,.

Attackers can 'REACH' into Law for support for their actions, but you - as a defender can't Lawfully prevent it, unlucky - better luck next time.
:shrug:

Browner
22-07-15, 16:07
I agree but that does not allow you to make up the laws. The tackler should not be forced to allow a try because of a made up law.

Its not because of a made up Law - he's permitted to place the ball under 15.5.[c]

Ian_Cook
22-07-15, 21:07
What is the doubt about which player did not conform to law?

In your scenario, neither player conforms to Law. The doubt is, which one to penalise. Which one infringed first? Since the Law does not specify an order in which Law 15 must be executed, i.e. tackler release first or tackled player release first, then applying Law 15.8 is the only fair and reasonable thing to do.


ETA: If you don't like 15.8 because of a trifling technicality, apply 20.4 (d) instead. The result will be the same.

Ian_Cook
22-07-15, 21:07
If you are going to make the tackled player release close to (within placing distance of) the goal line, then you are ruling it is still a tackle. In that case,

1. Are you going to allow defenders to enter the tackle from the side in order to get their hands under the ball, or are you are going to PK them for side entry?

2. Are you going to allow defenders to dive onto the ground to in order to get their hands under the ball, or are you are going to PK them for leaving their feet at the tackle?

You would need a pair of big steel ones if you expect to sell either of these to the defending team, and even bigger ones if you followed through with the only possible next step, that coming in from the side was an intentional infringement, and therefore foul play, which prevents a probable try, so awarding a PT.

Do we really want it to be more advantageous for the ball carrier to be stopped short of the goal line than to be tackled into in-goal?

Dickie E
22-07-15, 21:07
Do we really want it to be more advantageous for the ball carrier to be stopped short of the goal line than to be tackled into in-goal?

This is a critical point for me.

OB..
22-07-15, 21:07
Its not because of a made up Law - he's permitted to place the ball under 15.5.[c]Pegleg was referring to the convention that the tackler releases first.

Pegleg
22-07-15, 21:07
Its not because of a made up Law - he's permitted to place the ball under 15.5.[c]

Again you need to read properly. I have already made the point that BOTH players have to act immediately. The Tackler does not have to act "MORE" immediately than the tackler.

RobLev
22-07-15, 21:07
In your scenario, neither player conforms to Law. The doubt is, which one to penalise. Which one infringed first? Since the Law does not specify an order in which Law 15 must be executed, i.e. tackler release first or tackled player release first, then applying Law 15.8 is the only fair and reasonable thing to do.


ETA: If you don't like 15.8 because of a trifling technicality, apply 20.4 (d) instead. The result will be the same.

The IRB/WR say that the Law is that tackler releases first. Why is there any doubt in this case?

chbg
22-07-15, 22:07
The IRB/WR say that the Law is that tackler releases first. Why is there any doubt in this case?

But almost all the images in the Good Book to explain Law 15 show the Tackler firmly grasping the Tackled Ball Carrier on the ground - admittedly always by the legs (perhaps the Laws should only allow a tackle below the waist ... now that would become a higher scoring game).

Most of the time, a below-the-waist tackle will not impede the Tackled Player from exercising his privileges. In a wrap tackle, there will be occasions when the Tackled Player can reach out in the direction he is facing/lying and should have every right to score. On other occasions he will be brought down facing/lying away from the direct direction of the goal-line. It is those occasions when it is morally wrong for the Tackler Release to produce a Try; the Tackled Players movement will not be 'immediate'. What he must not be prevented from doing is placing it towards, or releasing it to (a player on their feet), his own team to enable continuity of play - which must be the reason for the Tackler Release First convention. Immediate scoring isn't continuity of play!

Pegleg
22-07-15, 22:07
The IRB/WR say that the Law is that tackler releases first. Why is there any doubt in this case?

Can you or WR point to that law?

Taff
22-07-15, 22:07
.... Why should there be a special zone between goal line and 1/2 metre line where ball carrier is guaranteed a try?If the BC is just 1/2 a metre out and the tackler is hanging on for grim death, the BC has earnt the right to have priority surely - even if the convention didn't exist. The tacklers had another 99.5 metres to do their thing .... but failed.


... The law book does not support [Taffs] argument
In fairness I never said it did. Perhaps what I should have said was

By convention Green 6 (the tackler) was required to release first ... but didn't.


.... I have already made the point that BOTH players have to act immediately. The Tackler does not have to act "MORE" immediately than the tackler.
So if a BC was tackled in the middle of the FoP and continually held so that the BC could not pass, push, place or release the ball you wouldn't penalise the tackler.


BC tackled ˝m short of the tryline. He doesn't release, nor does the tackler. Who gets the PK?
I would say the BCs team.

If it's pretty clear and obvious that one of the players has offended - penalise the offender. If a tackle becomes unplayable, there's usually a pretty good reason why - either the tackler hasn't released (penalise him) or the BC hasn't released (penalise him) or if you can't see who offended - treat it like a ruck - ie scrum to the side moving forward.

Ian_Cook
23-07-15, 01:07
The IRB/WR say that the Law is that tackler releases first. Why is there any doubt in this case?

Really?

Can you show me documentation for that?

Pegleg
23-07-15, 07:07
If the BC is just 1/2 a metre out and the tackler is hanging on for grim death, the BC has earnt the right to have priority surely - even if the convention didn't exist. The tacklers had another 99.5 metres to do their thing .... but failed.
Why? he's in the FOP and cgoverned by the laws of the game. By the same context the TACKLER has made a tackle (possibly a great try saving tackle). Why should "convention say he should not have bothered?


In fairness I never said it did. Perhaps what I should have said was

By convention Green 6 (the tackler) was required to release first ... but didn't.

WEll sorry but by your words you clear implied it so yes a better wording may have conveyed your opinion better.



So if a BC was tackled in the middle of the FoP and continually held so that the BC could not pass, push, place or release the ball you wouldn't penalise the tackler.

The tackle player MUST IMMEDIATELY do one of his options. there is nothing to say he can do all. If release is the only one open to him so be it. The one player must not be allowed to flout the law but the other be given dispensation.

[QUOTR=RobLev]

BC tackled ˝m short of the tryline. He doesn't release, nor does the tackler. Who gets the PK?[/QUOTE]



I would say the BCs team. 2 offenders so you ping the defender. Why. Let's look at another offence oft debated here.

A punch u following a 5 mtr scrum. It is not clear who caused it. How do we restart? Most on here would be of the opinion you pealise the side less likey to score from a PK. In your case the attacker has offended and you wish to reward him with a good chance of points. Why?


If it's pretty clear and obvious that one of the players has offended - penalise the offender. If a tackle becomes unplayable, there's usually a pretty good reason why - either the tackler hasn't released (penalise him) or the BC hasn't released (penalise him) or if you can't see who offended - treat it like a ruck - ie scrum to the side moving forward.

If it is clear one player has offended ping him. Great TOTAL agreement! Sadly you, here, contradict your comment in reply to RobLev in your same post where you say the PK goes to the BC's team. YOu can't have it both ways!

But if both offend A scrum as covered in the laws of the game I'd personally treat it under the tackle law but hey ho.

RobLev
23-07-15, 08:07
Can you or WR point to that law?

Yet again:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=4

Watch the video.

RobLev
23-07-15, 08:07
Really?

Can you show me documentation for that?

It's the documentation I referred to earlier in the thread, and have been referring to whenever this comes up:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=4

See the video.

Phil E
23-07-15, 09:07
Extract from the above link on WR.
It's the order in which every active referee I know referees the tackle.
You don't move on with the checklist until each point is completed.

I can't believe we are even debating it. This is just another example of how threads deteriorate on this site to the detriment and confusion of any new referees reading it.

Five key areas of refereeing
June 2012
In 2009 the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches agreed that the laws of the game of Rugby did not need to be changed but that five key areas of the game needed to be refereed more strictly. It was the belief that if these five key areas were refereed in strict accordance with Law then teams who wished to use the ball quickly and in space would be entitled to do so.

The 5 key areas and the reasons are as below.

1
All areas of the tackle law to be strictly applied


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

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




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

Dickie E
23-07-15, 11:07
I can't believe we are even debating it.

Well, you're not, are you? You've just decided it was time to stick your nose in.

Phil E
23-07-15, 11:07
Well, you're not, are you? You've just decided it was time to stick your nose in.

You're still angry about Cardiff aren't you?

Dickie E
23-07-15, 12:07
You're still angry about Cardiff aren't you?

Yeah, stuffed up a 5-zip. Bummer.

Browner
23-07-15, 14:07
Pegleg was referring to the convention that the tackler releases first.

& I'm saying that even in those micro-second co-events, If Tackler releases and the TP places simultaneously, then its still a TRY by virtue of the long arm placement 'rights' of the BC.

OB..
23-07-15, 16:07
& I'm saying that even in those micro-second co-events, If Tackler releases and the TP places simultaneously, then its still a TRY by virtue of the long arm placement 'rights' of the BC.The item and video by WR do not anywhere specify that the tackler must ALWAYS release first. The whole point of the disagreement is that context can be so important that it overides the CONVENTIONAL approach.

As on previous occasions, this discussion is just getting repetitive. Maybe someday the situation will occur in a critical situation where WR has to address that particular situation and we will get a proper directive. (With their track record I am not too hopeful :sad: ).

crossref
23-07-15, 17:07
OB.. so if there is a tackle 30cm short of the line, and neither player releases, then what would you give .. an attacking 5m scrum?

Browner
23-07-15, 17:07
The item and video by WR do not anywhere specify that the tackler must ALWAYS release first. The whole point of the disagreement is that context can be so important that it overides the CONVENTIONAL approach.

As on previous occasions, this discussion is just getting repetitive. Maybe someday the situation will occur in a critical situation where WR has to address that particular situation and we will get a proper directive. (With their track record I am not too hopeful :sad: ).


If Tackler releases and the TP 'places' simultaneously

I deliberately said "simultaneously" but you [and Pegleg via "MORE" immediately] still persist with 'First'.

Simultaneously & First remain separated by time OB.

OB..
23-07-15, 20:07
OB.. so if there is a tackle 30cm short of the line, and neither player releases, then what would you give .. an attacking 5m scrum?
If it is a clear-cut case I would indeed award an attacking 5m scrum.

Borderline situations are always a potential problem. That does not mean the basic concept is wrong. Salami slicing by specifying different distances is not a helpful approach. You could do the same with an offside decision and both are always going to come down to the referee's judgement.

The basic problem is that some people insist the "tackler first" convention is absolute regardless of the context, whereas others of us disagree. The laws are not specific in this respect. I don't see that either case can be formally proven.

Rushforth
23-07-15, 20:07
The laws are not specific in this respect. I don't see that either case can be formally proven.

Note that the same applies to the interpretation of forward pass, if you want it to.

OB..
23-07-15, 22:07
Note that the same applies to the interpretation of forward pass, if you want it to.There is, of course, a judgement to be made on whether or not the pass is forward. I think it is now well established that the momentum interpretation of how the referee should apply that judgement is the standard one.