PDA

View Full Version : [Tackle] tackled without ball?



Dickie E
14-05-17, 03:05
In my game yesterday. Red vs. Blue.

Red running with ball and ball carrier sells the best dummy ever which had everyone (inc. me) fooled.

Blue defender (quite understandably, IMO) tackles the Red player that we all thought now had the ball, but, of course, didn't.

Legal or no?

Phil E
14-05-17, 09:05
Play on.
If everyone thought he had the ball you can't really blame the defence for tackling him.
Also was it material, bearing in kind that the ball carrier achieved his aim...to fool the defence into thinking he had passed.
I am guessing no one expected a penalty....so did it pass the clear, obvious and expected criteria?

Balones
14-05-17, 10:05
Always an interesting question this.
Should the opposition be able to assess the situation and take appropriate action in the likelihood of something happening? The jump/catch situation is one of them. What the player did in law was illegal but could he have stopped himself or should he have read the situation and waited until it was clear that the player had or did not have the ball. Outcome plays a part in your decision making. Did the attacking side (side in possession) gain an advantage by the action of the defending side? I.e. tackled the wrong player so allowed a gain in ground. However, by tackling the non-ball carrier did the defender prevent support for a return pass and even more ground gain or even a scoring opportunity? So, as Phil as intimated in his response there is no right or wrong answer. It will depend on context and expectation. The one thing that is definite is that it is illegal in law. - Tackling a player without the ball. But then so are many other things that are allowed to go because of context.

leaguerefaus
14-05-17, 11:05
Penalty every time.

You could say that's the attacker's reward for the best dummy you've ever seen!

ChrisR
14-05-17, 12:05
Play advantage.

If the BC gets the break then advantage over.

If, in the next few steps, he gets nailed and his support has just been tackled then back to the PK.

(Technically that is the correct response. Emotionally: "Play on!")

Pegleg
14-05-17, 17:05
THe Ball carrier is trying (in a sense) to "con" the defender into tackling the wrong man. If it works and the dummy is bought why shouldhe get a second bite at the cherry? As Balones suggests context is king here and timing is important.

crossref
14-05-17, 19:05
it's not impossible for a defender to buy a dummy, realise he's be caught in time to avoid the tackle, but proceeds to make the tackle anyway.

yes, you have to be there, see it, and make a call

Balones
15-05-17, 08:05
I don't automatically take a hard line on penalising the defender because it is the ball carrier that has caused his team mate to be tackled and not the defender himself through deliberate foul play or intent. If the defender has some time to pull out then that is different. Also if there is some definite intent to tackle the supporting player regardless then that is a different matter also.
I also like to consider the scenario where the ball carrier suddenly changes direction and goes behind a team mate (crossing/obstruction) but the defender carries on his line and clatters the player in front instead of the ball carrier. The first offence is obstruction but we don't reverse the penalty for the next and probably more serious offence of tackling a player without the ball. (Probably quite heavily as well.)

DocY
15-05-17, 09:05
I don't automatically take a hard line on penalising the defender because it is the ball carrier that has caused his team mate to be tackled and not the defender himself through deliberate foul play or intent. If the defender has some time to pull out then that is different. Also if there is some definite intent to tackle the supporting player regardless then that is a different matter also.

I think it's different only insofar as in the situations you describe we're probably talking a YC for intentional infringement, which wouldn't be the case if he'd tackled the wrong man in good faith.



I also like to consider the scenario where the ball carrier suddenly changes direction and goes behind a team mate (crossing/obstruction) but the defender carries on his line and clatters the player in front instead of the ball carrier. The first offence is obstruction but we don't reverse the penalty for the next and probably more serious offence of tackling a player without the ball. (Probably quite heavily as well.)

If he didn't clatter (or at least make some contact with) the obstructing player, it probably wouldn't be obstruction at all. It's a bit of a different situation - in the dummy situation the BC hasn't committed any sort of infringement.

It's more like trying to take a player man and ball and getting it slightly early - not an intentional infringement, but still an infringement (but probably without much scope for advantage).

didds
15-05-17, 09:05
Frankly if you are going to ping a defender for tackling a non ball carrying opponent because of a well executed dummy, then maybe you should also be considering that newish law preventing players from creating a situation whereby the oppo give away a PK / tricking the ref into giving them a PK.



didds

DocY
15-05-17, 09:05
Frankly if you are going to ping a defender gor tackling a non ball carrying opponent because of a well executed dummy, then maybe you should also eb considering that newish law preventing players from creating a situation whereby the oppo give away a PK / tricking the ref into giving them a PK

didds

I take it you're joking?

Imagine the following situation:
10 dummies to 12, 12 is taken out by his opposite number, 10 goes through and (before advantage is over, assuming you deemed you'd play advantage) is in a 1-1 with the fullback and looking for his supporting 12 to pass to.

I struggle to see how you'd justify not giving a penalty there.

didds
15-05-17, 09:05
So basically you hand 3 points to the attackers because they chose to use a dummy in the full knowledge of its potential outcomes?

I take it you are joking? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

didds

ChuckieB
15-05-17, 09:05
Play advantage.

If the BC gets the break then advantage over.

If, in the next few steps, he gets nailed and his support has just been tackled then back to the PK.

(Technically that is the correct response. Emotionally: "Play on!")

....."in the next few steps"?

Setting aside the technical infringement for a moment.

At grass roots, and the real world, I am just wondering if I might reasonably see less opportunity to see advantage accruing and hence likely end up foreshortening the period compared to what we are tending to see in the elite game?

Is that people's experience?

DocY
15-05-17, 10:05
So basically you hand 3 points to the attackers because they chose to use a dummy in the full knowledge of its potential outcomes?

I take it you are joking? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

didds

I'd hand a penalty to the attackers because the defenders tackled their man without the ball. I'd only consider the circumstances under which the tackle off the ball happened when deciding if I need to produce a card.

If you're going to go down the route of saying "play on, he dummied", at what point do you decide it was a legitimate dummy and not looking round for options, or wanting to pass but deciding not to because the opposition came up so fast? Both of which I've seen have the same effect as a dummy, even if they weren't intentional.

DocY
15-05-17, 10:05
At grass roots, and the real world, I am just wondering if I might reasonably see less opportunity to see advantage accruing and hence likely end up foreshortening the period compared to what we are tending to see in the elite game?

Is that people's experience?

Not IME - if a player has made a break at grass routes levels the defence often don't make as much effort to track back as they do at higher levels, so breaks often go a lot further.

But if there isn't a break the lack of skill means the chances of a knock on scuppering any advantage are higher.

didds
15-05-17, 10:05
I'd hand a penalty to the attackers because the defenders tackled their man without the ball. I'd only consider the circumstances under which the tackle off the ball happened when deciding if I need to produce a card.


Well I know what we'll be concentrating on in pre season... attacking up the central area of the pitch making dummy passes on the tackle line and win PK after PK as the dummied receiver gets tackled time after time and the ref will be duty bound to award a PK

That's an easy win - unless of course the oppo do the same thing and we'll end up with scorelines of 42-39.

didds

DocY
15-05-17, 10:05
If you can make opponents buy dummies regularly enough to form a game plan around it, you'll have easy wins anyway!

didds
15-05-17, 10:05
only if the break is made of course. E.G. If D12 tackles A12 (BC and dummier) and D13 tackles A13 (dummy receiver) every time then no break is made but a PK is won. Its easier than collapsing scrums to win a PK even.

didds

ChuckieB
15-05-17, 11:05
I think you are presupposing somewhat that D13 is not capable of learning from his mistake.

DocY
15-05-17, 11:05
only if the break is made of course. E.G. If D12 tackles A12 (BC and dummier) and D13 tackles A13 (dummy receiver) every time then no break is made but a PK is won. Its easier than collapsing scrums to win a PK even.

didds

I'd humbly suggest they have a problem with their defensive system if they're tackling two players at once. But if the BC has already been tackled it'd be difficult to see how the defence benefited so play on (assuming they're not adopting this tactic frequently).

And if they feel forced to tackle a man without the ball every time someone throws a dummy then they're beyond help.

ChrisR
15-05-17, 11:05
This is getting more complicated than it has to. The BC dummies to elude a would be tackler, not to cause a teammate to be tackled.. I've seen tacklers buy a dummy even when there is no player in support.

So remove the dummy from the equation for a moment. Did the defender tackler a support player without the ball? Yes, and they are liable for penalty. Play advantage.

With a well executed dummy advantage is likely to occur.

didds
15-05-17, 11:05
I think you are presupposing somewhat that D13 is not capable of learning from his mistake.

so next time D13 deliberately doesn't tackle A13 ... who this time does get the ball on the tackle line instead and runs through and scores you mean? And D13 will take that risk? really?

didds

didds
15-05-17, 11:05
This is getting more complicated than it has to. The BC dummies to elude a would be tackler, not to cause a teammate to be tackled.. I've seen tacklers buy a dummy even when there is no player in support.

So remove the dummy from the equation for a moment. Did the defender tackler a support player without the ball? Yes, and they are liable for penalty. Play advantage.

With a well executed dummy advantage is likely to occur.

Is this a new directive? Ive not seen a well executed dummy tackled dummy receiver ever win a PK. In 40 years.

didds

didds
15-05-17, 11:05
I'd humbly suggest they have a problem with their defensive system if they're tackling two players at once. But if the BC has already been tackled it'd be difficult to see how the defence benefited so play on (assuming they're not adopting this tactic frequently).

And if they feel forced to tackle a man without the ball every time someone throws a dummy then they're beyond help.

the teams you support/played for and against never ever played on the tackle line then obviously.

Nuff sed and that explains why you think the above. I understand now.

didds

ChuckieB
15-05-17, 12:05
so next time D13 deliberately doesn't tackle A13 ... who this time does get the ball on the tackle line instead and runs through and scores you mean? And D13 will take that risk? really?

didds

I'm perhaps advocating, if he isn't consistently reading those situations very well, as a coach you might be encouraging him into a position that suits his skillsets better.

We have a lad in my sons' side who's tackling technique is as robust and secure as you would hope for but he is better suited to tacking in predictable situations because his reading of the game isn't quite there.

ChrisR
15-05-17, 12:05
Is this a new directive? Ive not seen a well executed dummy tackled dummy receiver ever win a PK. In 40 years.

didds

didds, I'm not sure that I understand your post and the reference to a 'directive'.

The scenario in the OP is rare enough and if the dummy is that effective it would be even more likely for the BC to get the line break so the chances of going back for the PK are pretty slim. It's been 60 years for me and no recollection of a PK.

But that doesn't change how the law should be applied.

DocY
15-05-17, 12:05
the teams you support/played for and against never ever played on the tackle line then obviously.

Nuff sed and that explains why you think the above. I understand now.

didds

I'm not saying collisions between defenders and attackers without the ball should be penalised - I'm saying defenders who mis read a play, hold a non ball carrier and bring him to ground are liable to be penalised. I don't think there's anything controversial in that position.

Yes, I've played for a team who regularly defended on the tackle line - we had to time our tackles so opponents got the ball before (or as) they were being made.

didds
15-05-17, 12:05
didds, I'm not sure that I understand your post and the reference to a 'directive'.

The scenario in the OP is rare enough and if the dummy is that effective it would be even more likely for the BC to get the line break so the chances of going back for the PK are pretty slim. It's been 60 years for me and no recollection of a PK.

But that doesn't change how the law should be applied.


But even so its never been applied that way for 60 years?

whatever...

didds