PDA

View Full Version : Can a ball carrier jump over or dive over a tackler?



nobackchat
29-05-07, 20:05
Penalty to attacking Gold at 10m from Blues goal-line. Quick tap by Gold #9 passed to Gold #7. Blue players retreat to their goal-line, turn and see the oncoming Gold #7, then Blue crouch low to make the tackle. Gold #7 is now close to the goal-line and jumps / dives over the Blue players, lands in-goal and touches down for the try.

The law book is silent on diving or leaping over a player in general play (not ruck or maul), but some thought that this dive is not allowed.

Davet
29-05-07, 21:05
If it was dangerous play - say literally jumping over and threatening studs to players below then maybe not allowed.

But as described - a diving jump for the line - I see no problem with it.

Other than dangerous play there is nothing in Law to stop it.

SimonSmith
29-05-07, 22:05
I think we have discussed this elsewhere relatively recently.

If I crouch low, and a player jumps over me, it's very difficult to effect a safe tackle. That scenario is very different to tackling from almost side-on a player who is diving...

Robert Burns
30-05-07, 10:05
Agree with above.

Jumping into/through a tackle is very dangerous and should be penalised, diving for the line isn't and I have no problem with it.

Dixie
30-05-07, 14:05
This is quite common when players are scattered on the ground at what passes for a ruck these days, and the half-back dives over them to score. I agree with others above that the only bar to this is the possibility of dangerous play, which would arise if it were a jump (especailly with leading foot/knee) rather than a dive.

jboulet4648
03-06-07, 15:06
In last years law book there was a statement regarding a player who is diving for in goal may be tackled in the air to prevent a try. Not in this years....

Gareth-Lee Smith
03-06-07, 16:06
I once scored a try in this fashion myself. Well, a similar fashion. I actually dived over a ruck after winning the ball legally. Opinions on this?

jboulet4648
03-06-07, 18:06
Diving over a ruck is dangerous play. It is also OBSTRUCTION.

Gareth-Lee Smith
03-06-07, 18:06
Obstruction... I assume in as much as my own team have effectively formed a wall to protect me in order to score a try.

On the dangerous play point - is it truly a ruck any more once I've picked up the ball?

OB..
03-06-07, 19:06
In last years law book there was a statement regarding a player who is diving for in goal may be tackled in the air to prevent a try. Not in this years....
Where? I cant find it.

Since 2003 (previous years had something similar) Law 10.4 (e) has included:
A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

This is in addition to 10.6 (h) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a line-out or in open play.

All Law 22 says is
22.4 (f) In this situation [tackled near the goal-line], defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled players hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

(That bit of 104 (e) is, of course, rubbish if taken literally. A running player has both feet off the ground much of the time. A useful point against those who argue that we MUST apply the laws literally.)

Emmet Murphy
03-06-07, 21:06
GLS: Based on the IRB's ruling 8 in 2006 I don't think your action was legal:

"...2. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on the
ball as soon as it emerges from the ruck, by diving over the players on the
ground in front of him?

4. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the
opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by staying on his feet but
being in contact with players on the ground in front of him?

2. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and16.3(d).
4. Yes. If the player was on his feet and came from an onside position..."

The crux of their answer would appear to be that even if a ruck is technically over a player cannot dive over the players who were, immediately prior to that, part of a ruck. Even though the scenarios described a defending player I see no reason why that principle should not apply to an attacking player as well.

Gareth-Lee Smith
03-06-07, 22:06
Excellent - the referee's ignorance was my gain then.

I do enjoy these discussions, much better than just reading the Laws over and over.

OB..
03-06-07, 23:06
The rationale for saying No to Q2 was 16.2 (d) and 16.3 (d). The latter I can understand:
16.3 (d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck.


However you were diving clear over it, weren't you Gareth?


16.2 (d) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet.
That does not apply in this case. If you have the ball (legally), there is no ruck.


I still think it comes back to an assessment of the danger.

Gareth-Lee Smith
03-06-07, 23:06
I was indeed diving clear over it

jboulet4648
04-06-07, 04:06
Where? I cant find it.


(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponents neck or head is dangerous play.

A stiff-arm tackle is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff arm to strike an opponent.

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

Exception: A player is permitted to attempt to tackle a player who is in possession of the ball and is in the act of diving in an attempt to score a try.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Davet
04-06-07, 11:06
Emmett - IRB ruling 8, para 2 refers specifically to a defender. It does not prohibit an attacker diving over.The ruling is all about stopping player diving over an ex-ruck to attack to 9.(I would be REALLY interested to see this applied properly - ie ruck on Blue 10m line, Blue going forward, win ruck, Red 7 dives over....Ref "defender can't do that!" Red 7 "we're in their half, I'm an attacker!" Ref "Oh, OK - Play on")Gareth - did you land on bodies - which might mean you had jumped on the ruck, not dived over it?

OB..
04-06-07, 11:06
jboulet4648 - how interesting - that exception you list does not appear in my law books.

Is yours an edition produced by the IRB?

Emmet Murphy
04-06-07, 13:06
Davet - I fully agree that the scenario in that particular ruling is fairly specific which makes its application here less certain. However, I think the distinction we are looking at is not so much attacking player / defending player diving over a group of players; it is ball-carrier / non ball-carrier and whether there should be a distinction based on whether or not the player is in possession of the ball. Personally, I don't see how there can be if you look at it from a safety perspective.

However, as OB pointed out, the reasons given by the IRB for prohibiting the non ball-carrying defender from diving over the players on the ground in front of him are related to law 16 (the law on rucks) and do not mention law 10 (which covers dangerous play). I'm not saying that it shouldn't be regarded as dangerous play only that the IRB didn't cite that as a reason in their original answer which would suggest that in the mind of the IRB there are some scenarios where that action could be deemed safe.

Davet
04-06-07, 14:06
in the mind of the IRB there are some scenarios where that action could be deemed safe.

I would agree with them.

jboulet4648
04-06-07, 16:06
jboulet4648 - how interesting - that exception you list does not appear in my law books.

Is yours an edition produced by the IRB?

Its the law book on rugbyrugby.com which uses IRB law book I thought.

jboulet4648
04-06-07, 16:06
How can there be any scenario where diving over a ruck is safe? Then the game would be digressing into American football, and lets just have blocking allowed. Diving over a ruck in the least is obstruction, since a ruck, players are supposed to be on their feet. IN the mess of today's game, where we referee pile ups, the players are diving over the remnants of a ruck, which is unsafe. Also, if a player leaves his feet, and players are not allowed to tackle players off there feet, the player is giving the defense only one option, which is to commit foul play.

Player leaves his feet to dive over a ruck, penalty. Player picks and dives on the side of a ruck, only in the attempt to score a try, play on, with the knowing the defender can tackle that player in the air to prevent a try.

Dixie
04-06-07, 17:06
Judah - I am not sure your stance holds water. This is not diving over a ruck, but rather diving over offside players who are off their feet (and thus out of the game), and who are between you and the goal-line. The ruck has ended.

I don't see your absolute prohibition on tackling in the air as valid. Jonny Wilkinson dives for the try while adjacent to the touchline. He does so because if he runs in, he'll certainly be tackled and bundled into touch. Are you saying that the moment Jonny leaves the ground 3m out, the fullback cannot tackle him and is compelled to let him score?

You say that you don't want to see blocking allowed - I couldn't agree more. But surely if we don't allow the attacker to dive over the piled-up playersbetween him and the goal-line, the latter are effectively blockers? Would you give an automatic PT for offside obstruction where the SH picks up 1m out, and, finding his way blocked by the forwards on the ground, passes instead?

Incidentally - attacking 11 and defending 15 chasing the ball into the in-goal. 15 just makes it, falling on the ball, and 11 jumps over him to avoid treading on him. Penalty against 11 for dangerous play?

Davet
04-06-07, 18:06
Diving over a ruck in the least is obstruction,

The ball carrier can NEVER be guilty of obstruction.

jboulet4648
04-06-07, 20:06
no but his teammates can

jboulet4648
04-06-07, 20:06
I said you can dive for a try and be subject to being tackled, but diving over a pile, or diving over a ruck is dangerous, and should not be allowed. DIving over a pile is really undefendable if you think about it unless you want major mid air collisions like the type in american football. Yeah those are safe!

OB..
05-06-07, 00:06
Its the law book on rugbyrugby.com which uses IRB law book I thought.
How odd. I shall try to find out where it comes from.

OB..
05-06-07, 00:06
The only way in which diving over an ex-ruck can be considered more dangerous than diving over nothing, is if it is judged likely to cause injury to someone in the ex-ruck.

The question of a mid-air collision can arise whether there is an ex-ruck present or not.

mkottke
05-06-07, 04:06
I was glancing over the ruck law and 16.4.a caught my attention regarding returning the ball to the ruck (free kick). There are many instances pertaining to the RMT that we use 'within a meter'. Can we apply this to leaping over the ruck to score a possible try? What is the intention of this law. Obviously, a player isn't going to run the ball staight back into a pile of bodies. Although, I think this law closely resembles a player must not fake the ball is out of the ruck (16.4.f). From the letter of the law, the ruck is successfully over once the ball leaves; although, I believe the remaining players that created the ruck are still in a rucking position.
So would a player jumping over the ruck, unless he is a darn good high jumper, is not going to clear a meter. Can we consider this act as returning the ball into the ruck?

Although, I do not think we should reference law 10 unless we can specifically apply this to the ball carrier. I think there is an invalid arguement that holds the ball carrier to constraints that are to scenario specific and will only bring confusion to the game (ie: a player can do a specific action at one moment, but can be penalized at another time).
I believe the should keep the argument to law 16. Although, if we want to apply law 10, then it should specifically mention that a ball carrier can not jump over a previously formed ruck in effort to protect players in the ruck, which closely resembles law 16.3.d

Emmet Murphy
05-06-07, 10:06
I'm not sure entering the ball back into a ruck would hold too much water because those players wouldn't be on their feet and they would be under the ball and not over it ... I agree with you about law 10: if it is going to be used then it should be on a case-by-case basis.

Dixie
05-06-07, 11:06
Obviously, a player isn't going to run the ball staight back into a pile of bodies.

My playing experience as a centre screaming to the Forwards that we had a 4-man overlap, while they tried time after time to blugeon their way over the line through the massed ranks of opposition forwards, would suggest otherwise. I suspect that a five-minute passage of play selected at random from pretty much any GP game would show the same thing. Rugby League thinking, sadly. The ball is considered too precious (and skill levels in the English game too low) to risk passing, and the defence at the breakdown won't permit a run.

mkottke
05-06-07, 23:06
I'm not sure entering the ball back into a ruck would hold too much water because those players wouldn't be on their feet and they would be under the ball and not over it ... I agree with you about law 10: if it is going to be used then it should be on a case-by-case basis.

Good point. I failed to realize the rucking players would be positioned underneath with respect to the ball and diving ballcarrier. So I guess using returning the ball into the ruck doesn't apply.

As for crashing back into the pile of bodies. I was imagining a scrummie running forward crashing into his own players that were in the ruck beacuse he was too scared to contend with the awaiting defensive forwards to eitherside of the ruck; hence, he leaps over the bodies like a greedy back and tries to score.

Dixie
06-06-07, 10:06
... hence, he leaps over the bodies like a greedy back and tries to score.
Touche (Robert, where are the accents?)!;)

OB..
06-06-07, 12:06
where are the accents?

Have some of mine:-
āăćĉċčēĕė..ǻǽǿ

tim White
06-06-07, 19:06
àáâãäåçèéêëìíîïñòóôõöøùúûüýÿāăćĉċčēĕė……..ǻǽǿ

This is the lyric from some of my Daughter's 'Thrash Metal' ?