PDA

View Full Version : [Tackle] Should the tackler have released?



davsas
14-11-16, 14:11
Im reading through the laws, and can only find details of tackler and ball carrier go to ground. Ill explain the situation and see what you think please:

ball carrier runs into a player, who attempts to hold him up. the ball carrier (with no other of his players involved, thus no maul) drops to his knees, while the tackler who is still upright has a grip on the ball. Now i know the ball carrier should be releasing as he has a knee on the ground, but the upright tackler, should he also have to release his grip on the ball, or is he entitled to get it once as he is on his feet?

I allowed play to continue, and the standing player ripped the ball from the grip and turned over.

right or wrong?

Guyseep
14-11-16, 14:11
Technically you were wrong.

Once the ball carrier put his knee on the ground it is a tackle and both parties must release. The non-ball carrier can then go for the ball.
You'll see this situation happen quite often so it is best to manage it. When I see the ball carrier put his knee on the ground I call "it's now a tackle, release".

Rich_NL
14-11-16, 14:11
Absolutely right. The tackler on his feet is under no obligation to release the ball.

Guyseep
14-11-16, 14:11
Absolutely right. The tackler on his feet is under no obligation to release the ball.

That's incorrect. No maul has formed, so when the ball carrier puts his knee down, it is not a collapsed maul.

The act of putting his knee down makes it a tackle and the player on his feet, aka the tackler, must release.

Balones
14-11-16, 15:11
Not as perhaps as clear as it seems if I have read the original post correctly. The original ball carrier is stopped by a player who grabs hold of the ball in the action of stopping the ball carrier. It is the original ball carrier that wants to go to ground and not the 'stopper' who now also has the ball in his possession. Who is now the ball carrier? Has the original ball carrier now become a tackler?

Guyseep
14-11-16, 15:11
Not as perhaps as clear as it seems if I have read the original post correctly. The original ball carrier is stopped by a player who grabs hold of the ball in the action of stopping the ball carrier. It is the original ball carrier that wants to go to ground and not the 'stopper' who now also has the ball in his possession. Who is now the ball carrier? Has the original ball carrier now become a tackler?

From what I read there is no change in possession. The tackler simply grabs the BC and holds him up while also having hands on the ball. In this instance where there is a debate as to who the ball carrier is most people count the person who brought the ball into contact as the ball carrier until it is clear and obvious that possession has changed.

Rich_NL
14-11-16, 15:11
That's incorrect. No maul has formed, so when the ball carrier puts his knee down, it is not a collapsed maul.

The act of putting his knee down makes it a tackle and the player on his feet, aka the tackler, must release.

That's incorrect. From the tackle law definition, "opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers". I admit I should have said "player on his feet" instead of "tackler on his feet" though :)

The tackled player has the obligation to release the ball.

Phil E
14-11-16, 15:11
if the ball was ripped at around the same time as the ball carrier went to ground I would call play on.

davsas
14-11-16, 15:11
It is as explained above, the attacking player never lost position, just held for a second before dropping but the standing tackler was still trying to rip the ball. I'm not convinced of my decision, as does it not come under the tackler not allowing the tackled player to play the ball?

Decorily
14-11-16, 15:11
In the OP there is in fact no tackle. A player choosing to go to ground himself does not make it a tackle!

DocY
14-11-16, 15:11
If the 'tackler' is going for the ball and a rip, rather than to actually tackle the BC, I'd play on - or penalise the BC for not releasing.

If, on the other hand, it's a tackle bit the 'tackler' just hasn't gone to ground i.e. he's wrapped his arms around the BC, taken him to ground and (without releasing) ripped the ball I think there's a case for not releasing under 15.6 (c)

Dixie
14-11-16, 15:11
In the OP there is in fact no tackle. A player choosing to go to ground himself does not make it a tackle!

And this is the nub of the matter. Once we know whether or not a tackle has taken place, we can then start to think about whether the standing player has to release.

Law 15 Definitions:

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

so what is meant by "brought to ground"? WR has thoughtfully addressed that point with a specific law:

Law 15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.
(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.


It is clear from a) above that the definition of "brought to ground" does not require input from the opposing player. If the ball carrier has his knee on the ground, the definition is met in full - regardless of how it happened.

Given that there is then definitely a tackle in this situation, does the standing player need to release? As Rich-NL points out, the standing player is not a tackler - we refer to his type as a "tackle assist" - or one of the "Other Players" mentioned in law.. 15.4 deals with the situation when the tackler also goes to ground, requiring release. But it doesn't cover the "tackle assist". 15.6 deals with them, and in particular paragraph c):

Law 15.6(c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

Sanction:Penalty kick


So we see that in this scenario, the standing player must immediately release the ball and the ball carrier. By convention, we require him (and other tackle participants) to perform their release first to enable the ball carrier to exercise his options.

Guyseep
14-11-16, 16:11
As Dixie mentioned there is a tackle but only a tackle assist. The tackle assist still needs to release the ball carrier.

I admit laziness on my part in distinguishing between a tackler and tackle assist in this situation, but nonetheless both would need to release in the situation described.

beckett50
14-11-16, 16:11
Im reading through the laws, and can only find details of tackler and ball carrier go to ground. Ill explain the situation and see what you think please:

ball carrier runs into a player, who attempts to hold him up. the ball carrier (with no other of his players involved, thus no maul) drops to his knees, while the tackler who is still upright has a grip on the ball. Now i know the ball carrier should be releasing as he has a knee on the ground, but the upright tackler, should he also have to release his grip on the ball, or is he entitled to get it once as he is on his feet?

I allowed play to continue, and the standing player ripped the ball from the grip and turned over.

right or wrong?

Interesting scenario and one that often occurs where the "wrap tackle" is preferred.

If you look at the definition of tackle in Law 15 this is covered as the definitions state:


Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers

There was a clarification as set out below that sought to clarify the responsibility of the opposition players:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=15&clarification=3

In short you have a tackle without a tackler - since the ball carrier is brought to ground (tackled player) and there is no tackler but Law 15.6 (c) states


Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

So, in short, you were correct in that even though the opposition doesn't go to ground he is still (the Clarification intimates) defined as a tackler and so must fulfil all the requirements of a 'normal' tackler.

davsas
14-11-16, 16:11
if the ball was ripped at around the same time as the ball carrier went to ground I would call play on.

sorry didn't explain myself correctly. It was a bit of a wrestle, with defender on feet, and kneeling ball carrier for about three or four seconds

Phil E
14-11-16, 16:11
sorry didn't explain myself correctly. It was a bit of a wrestle, with defender on feet, and kneeling ball carrier for about three or four seconds

In that case too long then.

Shout "Tackle; Release" some preventative refereeing should get the would be tackler to release allowing the game to continue....we don't want to blow if we don't have to.

Guyseep
14-11-16, 16:11
sorry didn't explain myself correctly. It was a bit of a wrestle, with defender on feet, and kneeling ball carrier for about three or four seconds

Agree with Phil E - its best to manage the situation. When you see something like this form call "now a tackle, release"

davsas
14-11-16, 18:11
Thanks all for your advise. Will use this Sunday

Balones
16-11-16, 22:11
sorry didn't explain myself correctly. It was a bit of a wrestle, with defender on feet, and kneeling ball carrier for about three or four seconds
I'd be very surprised if by this time we didn't have a maul formed. Most of the games that I observe would have a maul formed within a second of a ball carrier being stopped by a standing opposition. (I am deliberately keeping away from the word 'tackler' because he isn't in law.) If we have a maul then other laws come into play.

Taff
16-11-16, 23:11
I know exactly what you're thinking Davsas; it confused me for ages and I queryed it here and at monthly meetings. My logic was that "going to ground" wasn't the same as being "brought to ground" so why should the "tackler" release.

What it boils down to though is that there IS a tackle despite the "tackler" doing his best to keep the BC up.

At first I thought it was unfair, but just went with the flow. But there is a silver lining. As the player on his feet has technically tackled the BC, that's all he needs to do is release the BC and the ball (as required by law) stay on his feet and go back for the ball. Almost invariably the player going to ground will hang onto the ball (PK to the man on his feet) or if man on the ground did release the ball, the player on his feet gets the ball. Either way, as long as he plays it right, the man on his feet gets rewarded.

chbg
17-11-16, 00:11
I know exactly what you're thinking Davsas; it confused me for ages and I queryed it here and at monthly meetings. My logic was that "going to ground" wasn't the same as being "brought to ground" so why should the "tackler" release.

What it boils down to though is that there IS a tackle despite the "tackler" doing his best to keep the BC up.

At first I thought it was unfair, but just went with the flow. But there is a silver lining. As the player on his feet has technically tackled the BC, that's all he needs to do is release the BC and the ball (as required by law) stay on his feet and go back for the ball. Almost invariably the player going to ground will hang onto the ball (PK to the man on his feet) or if man on the ground did release the ball, the player on his feet gets the ball. Either way, as long as he plays it right, the man on his feet gets rewarded.

Not quite - read 15.6(c). You've significantly omitted the "and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players' goal-line".

Dickie E
17-11-16, 00:11
In that case too long then.

Shout "Tackle; Release" some preventative refereeing should get the would be tackler to release allowing the game to continue....we don't want to blow if we don't have to.

Agree. Be careful that, when the tackler complies and releases, the ball carrier doesn't get back up off his knee with the ball and play on. He can't do that.

didds
17-11-16, 01:11
Not quite - read 15.6(c). You've significantly omitted the "and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players' goal-line".

yep. B ut this is where the canny non-tackler-still-on-his-feet needs to dip one knee to the floor as he releases. Now he is a tackler and can play the ball from any direction.

Innit?

didds

Dickie E
17-11-16, 01:11
yep. B ut this is where the canny non-tackler-still-on-his-feet needs to dip one knee to the floor as he releases. Now he is a tackler and can play the ball from any direction.

Innit?

didds

yes, but I've never seen it happen

didds
17-11-16, 02:11
True!

Pinky
17-11-16, 18:11
yes, but I've never seen it happen

My son used to do this regularly (and probably still does), and occasionally got annoyed when refs didn't understand that it was OK!

ChrisR
18-11-16, 13:11
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet.

How many times has this snippet, taken from Law 14 definitions, been thrown into the discussion to support someones point of view.
Surely, a player dropping a knee to the ground has deliberately 'gone off their feet' and should be punished!

No, I'm not advocating this. I'm just pointing out that taking bits of the book out of context can make nonsense of the law.

DocY
18-11-16, 13:11
My son used to do this regularly (and probably still does), and occasionally got annoyed when refs didn't understand that it was OK!

Who does he play for? I had a player do that a couple of years ago. I didn't expect it and penalised him the first couple of times. Stopping to have a chat with him the second time, he explained what he was trying to do.

I didn't like it - it got me a lot of flak from the opposition and their supporters. To be fair it did look wrong, but after announcing loudly why it was okay I had "but you penalised him in the first half!".

tim White
18-11-16, 14:11
yep. B ut this is where the canny non-tackler-still-on-his-feet needs to dip one knee to the floor as he releases. Now he is a tackler and can play the ball from any direction.

Innit?

didds

I thought this was resolved earlier so that Tacklers must go to ground as part of the tackling action; NOT voluntarily with hindsight. Can't find ruling though.:shrug:

Guyseep
18-11-16, 14:11
I thought this was resolved earlier so that Tacklers must go to ground as part of the tackling action; NOT voluntarily with hindsight. Can't find ruling though.:shrug:


if the ball carrier can voluntarily go to ground by taking a knee and turning the situation into a tackle, there should be no reason that the opposing player can't take a knee as well and become the tackler.

They both obviously know the laws and are playing to them.

beckett50
18-11-16, 18:11
I thought this was resolved earlier so that Tacklers must go to ground as part of the tackling action; NOT voluntarily with hindsight. Can't find ruling though.:shrug:

Tim, see my earlier post :o)

Pinky
18-11-16, 20:11
Tim, see my earlier post :o)

Beckett, your previous post pointed out that the tackler that stays on his feet has to let go, and then can play the ball from behind the ball. In this regard he is an arriving player in a tackle situation. If he goes to ground he is a tackler and although he has to releas, once he regains his feet he can play the ball from any direction.